The New York Times has published an editorial entitled “The Swine Flu, as of Now” which presents their views of the current influenza pandemic. The piece covers the number of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths; the distribution of vaccines, and lists those most at risk for severe disease. It begins with a positive view:
So far, the news about swine flu is better than expected. The pandemic may have reached its peak and is heading downward in all regions of the country; weekly deaths from the swine flu have started to decline; the virus remains relatively mild; there seem to be few claims of serious side effects from the vaccine; and despite widespread complaints about shortages, vaccine supplies are steadily building up.
The wording suggests that the pandemic is over, but I would not agree. Based on the patterns of previous pandemics, it’s likely that a third wave of infections will occur later this winter. To their credit they acknowledge this possibility several paragraphs later:
This is no time for Americans to let down their guard…if the swine flu follows the pattern of some previous pandemic strains, it could return in a new wave early next year.
When the editorial delves into viral genetics it moves to unsteady ground:
There have also been scattered reports of mutations in the swine flu virus that cause harm deep in the lungs of some patients or make the virus resistant to one of the standard drug treatments. However, neither mutation seems to be spreading widely.
As I’ve written before, there is no evidence that the G225D amino acid change in the viral HA protein is causing more severe disease in the lower respiratory tract. The fact that this change has been identified in viral isolates from a number of fatal cases does not prove a causative role. To do so it will be necessary to identify the change in a significant number of cases with severe lower tract disease, and not in individuals with less serious infections. But I do agree that neither the G225D change nor the mutation conferring resistance to Tamiflu is yet spreading widely.
But why does the Times still use the name ‘swine flu’? The virus is of swine-origin but is now clearly a human strain of influenza virus. The virus can infect pigs (and other animals) but has not caused outbreaks in these animals. If it does it will have changed sufficiently and will no longer be a human influenza virus. Perhaps like the ‘Hong Kong flu’ of 1968, or the ‘Russian flu’ of 1977, ‘swine flu’ is simply a moniker, not a biologically correct appellation. ‘Swine flu’ is clearly more catchy than ‘swine-origin influenza virus’.