Will the Swine Flu infect more than one-tenth of one percent of the worlds population in 2009?

oink

Good question - This is the most overblown crises since global warming.
Based on reported cases, we currently have 1 case for every 1 million people.

So, then, 6,790,062 cases? That's a lot of swine flu...but then again, that's only 1/333rd, or 3/10ths of one percent, of the number of cases the WHO believes will eventually contract the virus through 2010. Given that normal seasonal flu afflicts 3 million to 5 million people each year, it's not difficult at all to imagine a scenario in which the new virus--for which not a single person has a natural immunity--somewhat more than doubles that relatively meager number...especially once the northern hemisphere gets into the winter flu season a few months from now.

And this: the big SARS outbreak of several years past--a near pandemic--took 9 months to infect 8,273 people. A/H1N1, on the other hand, will have done that in somewhere around 3 weeks. Not nearly as deadly, to be sure, but certainly more easily transmittable...and transmitted.

As with global warming, I get my facts from known, credible, mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific sources...and those sources are all pointing toward a global pandemic of A/H1N1. My money here is on 'Yes'...

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's not use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Interestingly, only 20 cases reported by China and 1 by India, the two most populous countries in the world. And still none in Africa. We may be treated to some gross under-reporting, which may affect final numbers. I am sure there are lots of cases there, but for a variety of reasons, we may never learn of them.

There are an estimated 100,000+ cases in the U.S., 30,000+ in the UK, and today Australia's top doc said 2 million of that country's people could be affected. With the way it's taken off in the Southern Hemisphere in the past few days, this seems totally possible.

with respect in australia there is only just 54, dont believe what some person thinks what is only a may be.

67 confirmed in Oz, with two million possible. Mild or not, that's a lot...

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/asiapac/stories/200905/s2582637.htm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25545547-29277,00.html

Good point sql,\\r
\\nand what I know you know, but didn\'t say, is that this portends an increase in NH flu cases in our winter.\\r
\\nken

06/03: Up to over 20,000 confirmed. That's just 1/340th, or 0.003% of what it needs to be to settle as 'Yes'. Sounds like a long way to go...but remember that five weeks ago, the global tally was around two dozen, an increase of about 85,000% in just over a month. But the big money here is still on 'No'? Hmmm.....

Well, above is occurring (SH increase), so the consequences seem to be in order. Whether it will be acknowledged or not, settled here, etc., I do not know...

06/11: More than 10,000 cases were added this past week...and that's without the several thousand that will be added with tomorrow's now weekly U.S. CDC report. That means we're already at a bit over one-half of one-percent of the way to settling. At the current rate of spread--that is, doubling roughly every 1.5 to 2 weeks--this should be able to settle in early- to mid-Fall. A little slower spread takes us right to the end of the year, while a faster spread takes us over the top toward the end of summer.

As always: we'll see, won't we? :-)

Just seen a news report on the BBC that it's now so wide spread in Melbourne, that they have stopped testing for it. They are just handing out Tamiflu and sending people home....

Brazil Finds New Strain of H1N1 Virus: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.594b3919f568748326be82a3a65d7646.241&show_article=1

Note that previous link quotes WHO as saying that 36,000 people in 76 countries are now infected.

That's correct. WHO runs behind the numbers from most nations' own CDCs/MOHs, and hasn't even been keeping up with the its own six regions (the suborganizations that gather numbers for the parent body); as of now, that number is 39,610 in 84 separate nations. By Friday when the US numbers are added, that should top 50,000 or so.

This one is a lock; I can feel my winnings burning a hole in my pocket already. :-)

Is this question taking into account the growing population of the world as well, or is it fixed based on population numbers at time market was written?

@destry - It's based on the fixed estimate of the population - 6,790,062,216 (July 2009 est.)

6,790,062 cases or more settles as YES.

Per splman's 50,000 estimate, only 6.79 million more to go!

OK - there's the WHO's numbers, and there's national health agency's numbers (both of which rely on actual reports from medical providers), plus there's official, semi-official and unofficial estimates of people who got the H1N1 flu, but had mild symptoms, did not seek medical attention, and therefore are not part of any "official" WHO or national health agency numbers.

The difference can be substantial - perhaps only 10% - 20% of people with the H1N1 virus have been seek medical attention (or fewer!). A country that is officially reporting 1000 cases could easily really have 5000 to 10,000 people who are actually infected with the virus. For example, the US CDC is currently showing about 17,000 cases in the entire US. However, the New York City medical agency recently issued an estimate that there are 500,000 people who have been infected in New York City alone! http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/nyregion/17swine.html?ref=nyregion

Plus, some official agencies have stopped gathering or reporting this "official" information because the virus has become so wide-spread.

So ... the question and "settlement details" suggest that what is being sought is the actual, real number of people who are infected (that is, an estimate), as reported by the mainstream media - and not the smaller number of people who are "officially" reported by the WHO or the national health agencies.

Clarification please!

Still need clarification on a pretty important distinction ....

As the primary gatherer and disseminator of A/H1N1 data--they are, after all, the sole group with the authority to declare the start and end of a global pandemic--the World Health Organization (WHO) will be the basis of numbers used here for settlement.

It's very true that nations will have to eventually stop counting and reporting individual case counts to WHO and/or its regional sub-organizations; testing is expensive and time-consuming, and limited health resources--especially in some areas--will be shifted more and more away from simply counting to determine the spread of the virus toward immunizations and such. Now, as jeopardy noted, there are already varying estimates on how many people in such-and-such an area have been infected. The UK number may be in five figures, for instance, as for a while only people who'd travelled abroad were being tested and reported. Ditto the U.S. Ditto Canada. Ditto Australia, and Chile, and Argentina, and Japan, and so on. But we can't use those unofficial estimates, obviously, as we'd never be able to settle.

For other widespread diseases, WHO monitors group or regional activity, rather than tracking individual patients. For instance, they won't say "There were 426,924 cases of malaria reported in Kenya in 2008."; instead, they'll say, "WHO estimates > 1.12% of Kenya's population was infected with malaria in 2008." It's widely speculated they'll say much the same of A/H1N1 at the end of 2009, especially if the disease really takes off as they believe will be the case. (It's important to note that WHO estimates aren't wild-eyed guesses based on anecdotal evidence; they're more akin to a rounding of numbers gathered from various governmental health organizations within a nation or region. In other words, the numbers are based on science, not speculation.)

Having said that, then, we should be able to settle this with the numbers WHO publishes on their website's "Data and statistics" page (http://www.who.int/research/en/), or those same numbers as announced by one or more mainstream media news sources. The final tally may not be in on January 1st, but it shouldn't be long after that. Of course, it's entirely possible (likely, even) that WHO will announce before January 1, 2010, that they estimate 1% of the world's population has already been infected with A/H1N1; I believe we would be able to fairly settle on such an announcement.

Well, as a caveat to that - if there are official estimates by the US CDC or equivalent other national agencies conveying the official estimates of those agencies, that would seem to be equally (if not more) reliable. Limiting ourselves to the WHO alone wouldn't especially seem to be within the scope of the question as phrased!

What strain does this question cover, if it mutates and spreads and it a different stain does it count?

So long as the flu is still considered part of the current pandemic, any shifted cases will still be counted towards settlement.

The CDC announced yesterday that mathematical modeling shows them at least one million Americans have contracted the A/H1N1 flu.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090626/ARTICLE/906261033/-1/NEWSSITEMAP
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/TOP%20STORY/2391826/

since MJ died, no one cares about swine flu... . we all have a one track mind.

Speak for yourself; there are nearly 79,000 people with confirmed cases of the disease--and the families of over 400 dead--who'd beg to differ with you. :-)

07/03: We're moving into a new area now. Confirmed cases in the UK have more than tripled in the past week, so as of today they're no longer releasing daily case updates. (Some sources claim there are 100,000+ cases there already.) Beginning sometime next week, they plan to start releasing estimated case rates in terms of cases per 100,000 population.

Argentina has also stopped laboratory testing of individual cases, and will begin shortly using the estimate case rate per 100K numbers.

Some US states have stopped laboratory testing on all but the most sever cases, and those taken at random to be sure folks aren't mis-diagnosing.

WHO also plans to begin releasing the case rate numbers from those member nations which choose to do so.

All this means, of course, we'll have to do a bit of both research and math before settling. For instance, when the UK announces a case rate of, say, 812, we'll have to A) get the UK's population, which is estimated at 61,612,000; B) divide that number by 100,000, which gives us 616.12; C) multiply that number times the case rate of 812, giving us a UK estimated total case count of just over 500,000 (and that's not a far-fetched number; the Health Protection Agency predicted that by the start of August there'll be about 100,000 new cases each day in the UK alone, along with about 400 deaths).

@sqlman - With all due respect, you seem hell-bent to settle this as yes. What you are saying makes sense, but why wasn't this settlement formula brought up earlier? If we're just going to settle this based on what the the media hype winner says, I want to cash in. But your substantial bets on this market have driven "No" into the ground.

@gotmick: "Hell-bent to settle as 'Yes'?" Uh, no. I'd like to, to be sure, but I've managed to lose many hundreds of thousands of H$ on other markets, too, so I'm used to things going either way. ;-)

Look. allow me to simplify this those for those who seem worried about settlement, or those who've wagered heavily on 'No' and are having regrets, or those concerned about even the appearance of a conflict of interest. The market's author asked one question, and stated two facts:

A) Question: Will the swine flu infect more than one-tenth of one percent of the worlds population in 2009?

B) Fact: The world's estimated population as of this month is 6,790,062,216. (That's the number we'll be using to determine whether one-tenth of one percent, or 6,790,063 people, have been infected by midnight December 31st.)

C) Fact: This market's settlement to be based on reports "...by a major mainstream news source."

So then my job as editor here is to determine whether mainstream news sources report that just over 6.79 million people have come down with swine flu by the end of the year. Period. If mainstream news sources state actual numbers--that is, if they compile WHO's regional case rates and convert them into rough case counts--that'll make my job easier. If, however, those same mainstream news sources merely echo WHO's regional case rates, it's going to be up to someone to convert into case counts. That's not magic; it's simply taking WHO's and combining them with publicly and widely available population numbers to produce case counts. Any such process would be, as usual, public, transparent, open to discussion...and definitely not by me alone.

(By the way: while it may seem that my 'substantial bets on this market have driven "No" into the ground,' it's also very true that the bets of many continually drove my "Yes" positions into the ground for the first two months this market was open. I chose to hold onto them--and, in fact, kept buying more--as I studied this and other pandemics extensively and could see where this one was headed. It seems a bit unfair that those same folks who wagered on 'No', now seeing things heading the other way, are perhaps suggesting things aren't on the up and up. They are, as everyone will see when the time for settlement arrives.)

sqlman - if you have time to make comments why no time to settle questions?? is that not your job?

@dieseldog: Good question. Since you asked, yes, settling questions is my job. Or, more precisely, part of my job. So is reading comments...responding with comments of my own...reviewing new questions for proper odds, formatting, wording, and so on...checking and researching settlement requests...suspending questions...unsuspending questions...marketing Hubdub through various social media...responding to a large number of player emails...participating in numerous discussions with other category editors and Hubdub principles...holding down a full-time job in the real world...raising three kids on my own with their own attendant problems...attempting to have a non-internet life...and being subjected to cryptic and snarky comments such as yours. ;-)

So--pretty please with sugar on top--can you perhaps be a little more pointed and tell me which market(s) in particular you're talking about?

sqlman - 2nd, 3rd, 4th (4th also had an email go unanswered) links settlement requested july 3rd, settled july 7th. 5th link in your defense has no settlement requests. the first link is self explanatory, and even has a question created asking when it will be settled. i never had any snarky comments until i saw you commenting. figured if you had time to comment, surely you had time to settle questions that were 4 days past do. was i wrong in thinking that? anything else i can help you with? :O)


http://www.hubdub.com/m19274/Will_the_US_leave_Iraqi_cities_before_July_2009

http://www.hubdub.com/m36258/Will_Sudanese_president_Omar_Hassan_alBashir_be_arrested_by_the_end_of_June_

http://www.hubdub.com/m38596/Will_Fiji_be_kicked_from_the_Commonwealth_by_July

http://www.hubdub.com/m45372/Will_Obama_make_a_public_statement_about_the_new_illegal_settlements_being_built_in_Israel

http://www.hubdub.com/m38968/When_will_the_US_Navy_next_intervene_in_a_Somali_pirate_hijack

07/16: The World Health Organisation (WHO) said on Thursday that the H1N1 flu pandemic was the fastest-moving pandemic ever and that it was now pointless to count every case...The 2009 influenza pandemic has spread internationally with unprecedented speed. In past pandemics, influenza viruses have needed more than six months to spread as widely as the new H1N1 virus has spread in less than six weeks," it said in a statement on the new strain, commonly known as swine flu."

"The WHO will no longer issue global tables showing the numbers of confirmed cases for all countries."

(http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LG309223.htm)

In just the past week alone, UK's Health Protection Agency is reporting an estimated 55,000 new cases, a figure bringing it well on its way to an earlier estimate that there'd likely be tens of thousands of new cases daily in the UK by the end of July.

(http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1247728933406?p=1231252394302)

What's all this mean? Those worried about any possible hocus-pocus/hanky-panky by the Hubdub admins and editors (read: me) needn't worry at all; the global press is going to make this easy to settle, I think, and probably sooner rather than later. ;-)

$100,000 on one question SQLMAN? You must be shooting for a new tax bracket on this one. :-)

FWIW, I want to add that the UK alone s still calling for 10,000 new cases a day by the end of July...and 100,000 new cases a day by the end of August.

I note that 6.7 million is more than 3 times as many as the 20 lakh figure. If vaccinations do start soon, it is possible that - unless we see significant spread in asia or africa - this pandemic may yet be halted or slowed. Worth a punt on no...

I doubt it; WHO had been previously stating that up to one-third of the world's population would be infected by the disease by the end of 2010, when things should have run their course. That's, of course, around 23,000 lakh. But given the disease's rapid (though generally mild) spread, they're now saying the one-third number could be reached far sooner, perhaps as early as late winter or early spring. They used the word 'unstoppable' in yesterday's conference, if that means anything. So far as Asia and Africa are concerned, the disease is spreading rapidly. In Asia, Thailand, China, the Philippines, and Japan are all watching cases skyrocket (and this is summer, remember). In Africa, experts are conlcuding that the relative mildness of the disease, combined with the large number of other rampant diseases and a poor health care infrastructure, is causing the cases to be wildly under-reported.

Look at Figure 2 on this page: http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1247728933406?p=1231252394302

The light blue line is the weekly case rate per 100,000 for A/H1N1 in the UK, while the dashed gray line is the average for ILI. Note weeks 26-28 if you would...

I heard on the news, that WHO are no longer going to be keeping count of swine flu, beg pardon, A/H1N1...

That's true. Sort of. Yesterday the WHO announced changes in their reportign requirements. Here are a few excerpts from the press briefing (http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_surveillance_20090710/en/index.html):

"The increasing number of cases in many countries with sustained community transmission is making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for countries to try and confirm them through laboratory testing. Moreover, the counting of individual cases is now no longer essential in such countries for monitoring either the level or nature of the risk posed by the pandemic virus or to guide implementation of the most appropriate response measures."

"A strategy that concentrates on the detection, laboratory confirmation and investigation of all cases, including those with mild illness, is extremely resource-intensive. In some countries, this strategy is absorbing most national laboratory and response capacity, leaving little capacity for the monitoring and investigation of severe cases and other exceptional events."

"...WHO will no longer issue the global tables showing the numbers of confirmed cases for all countries. However, as part of continued efforts to document the global spread of the H1N1 pandemic, regular updates will be provided describing the situation in the newly affected countries. WHO will continue to request that these countries report the first confirmed cases and, as far as feasible, provide weekly aggregated case numbers and descriptive epidemiology of the early cases."

"For countries already experiencing community-wide transmission, the focus of surveillance activities will shift to reporting against the established indicators for the monitoring of seasonal influenza activity. Those countries are no longer required to submit regular reports of individual laboratory-confirmed cases to WHO."

All of that is to say that--as expected, and as we talked about before--WHO will shortly begin announcing case rates per some standard number (probably 100,000) for countries with widespread transmission, while continuing to provide actual case counts for newly affected countries.

Despite the panic in England, it now seems that the growth in infection rates in Scotland, the USA, and Mexico have slowed; easy transmission seems to be limited to school age populations; and results from the Southern Hemisphere on the effects of colder weather seem so far inconclusive. There is no great sign of infection in the world's most populous countries. The total therefore seems unlikely to go from the 100,000s to the millions this summer.

Which doesn't mean the spread won't pick up again - but vaccines may work. Numbers could jump when schools start in the fall; when the weather gets colder come November; following big holidays (Thanksgiving in the US, Xmas everywhere), or in the coldest parts of midwinter - around Groundhog Day. I believe the 1918 flu hit the peak in November - around Halloween judging from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spanish_flu_death_chart.png
but the flu season peak is generally is in mid-winter.

Sure, exponential growth is fearsome fast - but by the same token it can fall fast.

07/23 notes of interest:
--The UK's Health Protection Agency diagnosed 100,000 new cases of H1N1 over the past seven days;
--New Zealand's health authority estimates around 79% of all people in that country will contract the flu by next year;
--Several nations have already announced plans to keep all their schools closed for at the least the first few weeks of the fall semester;
--The number of confirmed deaths from the flu has surpassed 1,000;
--Authorities are still trying to get a grip on cases worldwide, but they believe the number is now 'likely' somewhere between 2,000,000 and 8,000,000...and climbing dramatically.

A full week without a single comment, than two of us crosspost. Ah, coincidence...

@bookie: I'd like to address a few of your comments.

1) I'm not sure there's a 'panic' in England. As I stated above, there have been 100,000 new cases diagnosed in just the past seven days, and 165,000 or so in the past 14. With that in mind, folks there seem to be staying fairly calm, and that's a good thing.
2) Scotland is the lone nation in the UK reporting a stabilized spread rate, and some have called their methodologies into question;
3) It's difficult to determine whether spread in the United States has slowed, as many states are no longer even reporting any but the most severe cases. The same with Mexico. But it wouldn't be surprising if they had; after all, it's the normal flu's off-season, and when conditions turn--school's in session, weather's cooler, folks are indoors more--the numbers are expected to rise drastically;
4) It's probably not factual to state that "easy transmission seems to be limited to school age populations". As nobody is naturally immune to A/H1N1 2009, there have been outbreaks among adults in places where they're placed in close quarters: on board ships, on military bases, in hospitals, on airplanes, among sports teams. Having said that, yes, children do seem to be more susceptible...and that's one of the thing that has virologists worried.
5) It's also not really factual to state "results from the Southern Hemisphere on the effects of colder weather seem so far inconclusive". Among the hardest-hit nations are many in the SH: Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Chile. Argentina has the second-highest number of deaths after the US, and an estimated one million cases. The same's likely true of Australia.
5) "There is no great sign of infection in the world's most populous countries." The United States has an estimated two- to four-million cases. Japan has tens of thousands, if not more. Ditto China. Ditto the UK. Ditto Mexico. And so on, and so forth.
6) Vaccines may work, that's true; there are billions of dollars betting that at least some of them will. But those vaccines aren't expected to be rolled out until sometime around Halloween, and even then there will not be nearly enough to go around, even with every factory at full capacity. And, too: vaccines may not work.
7) You wrote "The total therefore seems unlikely to go from the 100,000s to the millions this summer." A) With 100,000+ plus new cases a week in just the UK, how can you say that? (And don't forget: the HPA believes there may be 100,000 new cases a day in just the UK by the end of August.) B) There are already millions of cases.

But please don't take my word for it; read medical journals and epidemiological studies. Research objective news articles--that is, those put forth neither by Big Pharma (who would likely overstate the situation) nor lovers of conspiracy-theory (who tend to believe the entire thing is just a made up distraction).

B ottom line: A/H1N1 2009 is, in WHO's word, "unstoppable", and it's spreading far more quickly than any other virus in history.

@sqlman

Well, intermittent media panic, between the overloaded 'call for tamiflu' service launched yesterday, and the chief medical officer, interviewed yesterday on the BBC, whose views I'm using - and extrapolating - to make my point. Which is that although we don't know the outcome yet, it is possible that we have reached the peak point already,or a peak point already.

You may be right on your points 1-7 - but the key point is 5) - are there already millions of cases, or 'only' a few hundred thousand, worldwide? If this last week or so was a peak - maybe just the first such - and if we are still under the half million mark - then this question becomes about the timing and scale of a second peak. I don't doubt that 7 million cases (to round up) is possible - but it is also possible that the all important infection rate is less than one (i.e.each infected person infects less than one other person) except in certain circumstances - prolonged exposure, youth, etc.- which could explain the way clusters seem to develop.

Frankly, I would have thought there would be millions of mexican cases by now. Of course it is possible that the outcome is already 'yes' - but I'm now betting that the response so far has worked
to contain this peak, and that new growth will not take place till northern winter.
As for Scotland, I shall have to ask friends who work in the right places about stabilisation and methodology - and it is certainly true that preparations for vaccine distribution are well advanced - anecdotally lots of folks seemed to have exposure about 2/3 weeks ago but there is no sign of more recent infections.

Unstoppable only means that quarantine measures are insufficiently successful to prevent wider spread; and while you may be correct that it has spread 'more quickly' this doesn't mean that it won't stop spreading more quickly as well.

I pointed out elsewhere that it doesn't take many weeks for 100,000 to turn into 2 million - if it doubles each week, just over 1 month will do - but if this peak only lasts 2-3 weeks, then you don't even get to the first million. The last week or two is critical for these questions, and in populations with a high percentage of over 60's (who seem to have some immunity) and over 45s (no explanation given, but it seems lower infection rates, maybe due to social factors?) the growth in numbers may just have hit a brick wall - maybe only for now.

So - I'm waiting for your next question, maybe (when) will H1N1 swine flu infect more than the 1918 Spanish flu?

ps with a couple of big ifs - 1000 deaths seems to correlate with an estimate of 2 lakh infected at a (highish) death rate of 0.5% - going from 2 to 67 is possible, it all depends on how broad the peak - overall, it seems to me equally likely that a: we have already or are about to reach that kind of figure, b: this peak won't reach that figure, but a new peak of that level or more will be reached before the end of the year; c) same as b, but the new peak won't form till mid-winter or later; d) this has been the peak, somewhere between 2-10 lakh

With vaccination possibly starting in August - but the global availability of vaccine a real question - there is some chance of an effect... but in any case 9-1 odds strike me as favorable, embarrassing as it would be to learn that we have already reached the 6.7 million figure.

I'll answer your final question first, and the rest later: approximately 500 million people were infected during the much deadlier 1918 pandemic. Given that this one is projected to infect around five times that by next year, I'd say the 1918 number will be met in spring of 2010. Now, that half-billion in 1918 was about one third of the world's population at the time; the one-third mark is supposed to be met by the end of 2010.

As I keep saying here: we'll see...

The very fact that the UK's influenza helpline was overwhelmed with thousands of requests per minute illustrates the widespread--and still growing--nature of the pandemic, doesn't it?

FWIW, the chief medical officer interviewed on the BBC of which you wrote was the Scottish fellow. Yes, Scotland says they may have peaked, and perhaps they have. But that would be a trend not seen in any other country. The entire UK, as I said, saw 65,000 or more new cases last week, and 100,000 more this week; how can anyone looking at those exponentially-growing numbers say with any degree of certainty that a peak has been reached? That reminds me of those who commented back in early May that things had gotten as bad as they were going to get; there was simply no scientific logic at that time to back up such an assertion...and I contend there's still none now.

The number of laboratory-confirmed cases right now is around 150,000. If computer modeling and anecdotal evidence looked at by epidemilogists and virologists--that is, folks who train for this type of thing--states that there are millions of global cases already, it's disingenuous to speak of only a few hundred thousand. It's believed that there are anywhere from 10 to 100 times as many actual cases as there are confirmed, meaning that the world's already seen between 1.5 million and 15 million cases. Projections still call for 2.3 billion or so cases by the end of 2010 or so, meaning this things barely startedNow, w While it's possible those experts are wrong, it's hard to imagine them being off by several degrees of magnitude...especially when the flu's spread to-date has surpassed every earlier projection in terms of intensity.

You wrote: "Unstoppable only means that quarantine measures are insufficiently successful to prevent wider spread; and while you may be correct that it has spread 'more quickly' this doesn't mean that it won't stop spreading more quickly as well."

The man who made those remarks later qualified them: he meant what he said. 'Unstoppable' means that it's spreading quicker than they could have imagined, and no containment method used by any nation has proven useful. Quarantines, blockades, infrared scanners, questionairres...all of them thus far useless, or nearly so.

So far as a vaccine, I've not read anywhere that one would be ready by August. In fact, October seems to be the consensus; no body wants to approve a vaccine that may be worse than the disease it's intended to prevent, so lots of testing still needs to be done. Even then, as i said earlier, there'll not be nearly enough vaccine to go around until sometime in the spring.

Too, it may stop spreading just as quickly as it has grown...but there's absolutely no reason to believe or hope it will do so. Previous pandemics have never stopped dead in their tracks; they've merely circulated and echoed around and around the globe in waves until we humans have built up enough biological defenses against them that they become subsumed by the de facto seasonal flu. This flu was 'supposed' to die back in the heat of summer, and it hasn't done so. In fact, it has thrived in places and at a time that it shouldn't have thrived. That's scary...

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_situation_20090724/en/index.html
http://www.eht-forum.org/news.html?fileId=news090724111935&from=home&id=0
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8167961.stm

...and finally this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aljo5vnxK3z8

Just heard this discussed on World Service - Liam Donaldson - who is the English Chief Medical Adviser.
The BBC also reported
"Mr Fukuda, the WHO's Assistant Director General for Health Security, said the agency had been reporting only laboratory-confirmed cases, but that this was always going to be "only a subset of the total number of cases".

"Even if we have hundreds of thousands of cases or a few millions of cases, we're relatively early in the pandemic," he told the Associated Press news agency. "

This site is tracking the count of reported cases: http://flutracker.rhizalabs.com/

Latest reports suggest that cases in England are also plateauing out. The evidence suggests that without clusters forming in schools, infectivity in the wider population at this time of year is less than 1 - and that lots of flu line calls have been from people just 'stocking up' on Tamiflu.

I have no doubt that H1N1 will be back, but timing is the key for this question...

Yes, there were 'only' 110,000 new estimated cases in the UK this past week, as opposed to the 100,000 new cases the week before. From the UK HPA's 07/30 announcement (http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1248940838384?p=1231252394302):

--Weekly GP consultation rates show a plateau or small decrease over the last week in England. This coincides with the start of school holidays and the introduction of the National Pandemic Flu Service.

--There has been a decrease in the estimated number of cases in 5-14 year olds. Estimated cases have continued to increase in other age-groups and in the North.

IOW, schools were closed, so the number of school-aged children coming down with the flu decreased...which is, of course, to be expected. In the meantime, the number of infected adults--who were not on holiday--continued to grow. Meanwhile, in the United States, there have been outbreaks at hundreds of youth summer camps. Those facts would seem to suggest that once school is back in session over the next five or six weeks, and once the northern weather turns cooler, there'll be little to stop N1N1.

FWIW, Argentina's health ministry also spoke of that country reaching a plateau yesterday, which would make it the only southern hemisphere nation to be doing so; cases in other heavily-infected SH nations are still rising dramatically, even in seemingly far-off places. This has, of course, added fuel to the growing controversy over the possibility that some nations are electing to downplay the number of cases within their borders for political, social, and economic reasons; now that WHO has stopped requiring/requesting case counts, doing so would be far easier. It works like this: a nation announces at an urgent press briefing that the number of infected within their borders has grown far too fast for them to keep accurate tabs on laboratory tests, so they'll no longer be reporting on the number of confirmed cases. This will be followed up--generally within a week or two--by another press release stating that, since the number of confirmed cases in their country hasn't gone up in a week or two, they feel they've reached a plateau...and since they've managed to turn the tide, their country is safe once again for tourism and commerce and, of course, the ever-so-capable politicians running the place. :-\

And on a slightly different note: http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=97216

08/04 (Reuters): "The World Health Organisation stuck on Tuesday to its statement that about two billion people could catch H1N1 influenza by the time the flu pandemic ends. But the estimate comes with a big health warning: no one knows how many people so far have caught the new strain, known as swine flu, and the final number will never be known as many cases are so mild they may go unnoticed. 'By the end of a pandemic, anywhere between 15-45 percent of a population will have been infected by the new pandemic virus,' WHO spokeswoman Aphaluck Bhatiasevi said in a statement. 'Thirty percent is a midpoint estimate and 30 percent of the world's population is 2 billion.'"

"The WHO's latest update on July 27 said a total of 816 people had died from H1N1, while the total number of laboratory-confirmed cases, including deaths, was 134,503 -- a figure well below the likely real total of infections which may already be in the millions, according to health experts."

08/05: Argentina announced today that, while it froze the count of confirmed cases at 5,710 some weeks ago, they've actually observed 762,711 cases of influenza, of which more than 700,000 are believed to be A/H1N1. More precise numbers are to be released in the near future (being in the Southern Hemisphere, cases have peaked).

http://www.msal.gov.ar/archivos/informe-influenza-pandemica-05-08-09.pdf (Spanish)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0KbNrZi8QO9sMW_-1Qg5TuDSf1g (English)

The weekly estimate for England last week seems to have dropped from 110,000 to only 30,000, while global confirmed cases are still less than 200,000. The pattern seems to be for a phase of only 2-3 weeks of exponential growth, followed by exponential decline. Germany however seems to be the next place to be hit. For now however there seems to be no place where the infection rate has _yet_ gotten to as high as 0.1% and indeed probably even the worst hit countries have so far experienced less than 0.05% (1 person in 200) infection rates.

As I said @46. there are a number of possibilities, but I think this one may prove a lot closer than sqlman would like!

For your amusement however, the following article concerns a particular UK sufferer... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/Swine_flu/article6758743.ece

Well, I wouldn't say I'd like the flu to infect everyone, but since it's happening and unstoppable, I don't mind laying down a little cash on it. At any rate, there's no chance of the flu dying out. You have to read the news carefully. For instance, already the US has seen an estimated two million cases; Argentina estimates 300K to 500K; Thailand thinks they've had 400K to 600K. And so on. IOW, the world has already had an estimated two million to twenty million cases...and the far-more-heavily-populated and densely-packed Northern Hemisphere won't be in the heart of flu season for another eight weeks or so.

Keep in mind a few things: 1) some schools are just starting up this week in the Northern Hemisphere, and there have already been outbreaks in many schools; these are expected to get much worse as all schools open everywhere; 2) computer modeling shows the peak of the pandemic will most likely occur in November, meaning that at least one-sixth of the world's population should have been infected by then (that's roughly 15%-16%, or about one billion); 3) during this past hot and humid summer--a time when the flu is historically almost non-existent--there have been tens of thousands of cases in the US, with a 'formidable' increase in deaths over just the past few weeks.

Many folks are pointing at the UK numbers released yesterday and saying, "See? Only 30,000 people were infected last week!", assuming that means the threat is over. Nothing could be further from the truth; it's widely believed that trend will reverse in the next few weeks, and besides, only is a relative term; it was just seven weeks ago that UK health authorities were bragging that the dozen or so new cases they were seeing each week meant they had a pretty good grip on the whole thing. ;-)

Yes, only about 210,000 cases have been laboratory-confirmed...but remember, this market doesn't refer to lab-confirmed cases; it only asks about infections.

Well, I don't want to rehearse old arguments again... but I think that extrapolating from death rates or from confirmed cases is a lot safer than relying on 'estimates' with no particular basis given. I don't deny that there could be 'millions' of cases already - but given past flu patterns, I think this is most unlikely (which paradoxically is sad - if there have been millions of cases and so few fatalities, this flu is mild, very mild, and many millions will have already started forming antibodies before the winter season).

I'd like to see references for the computer models you cite. The very high rate of exponential growth and quick burnout we've seen says to me that there must be some natural limiting factors - e.g. a very short period of high infectivity and/or incubation and/or relatively easy formation of antibodies from short exposure.

Remember, I'm not suggesting the threat is over, or is trivial by any means. But there is a big big difference between national estimates with ranges of 400-600k and a world wide estimate range of 2 - 20 million! If 2 million is near the low end of the scale - roughly 10x the confirmed number - that seems reasonable, but the high end would then be 3-4 million. If the high end is plausible - 100x the number of confirmed cases?! - the low end should be around 10 million.

October is pretty early to be the 'heart of the flu season' - not impossible, but unusual. Much more likely to be in midwinter - and given the peaks in the Southern Hemisphere were/are in mid-winter (and not in April/May) I suggest that's much more likely. Now, if the question was, will there by 67 million cases by next April, I'd probably go for yes - but 6.7 million before Xmas? Toss another 50kH$ in for yes, and I'll take the odds on no which then result!

PS http://www.theairdb.com/swine-flu/heatmap.html

This shows that the most affected countries (per capita) are Chile and Australia. Only Australia (Brunei, and a few odd islands apart) has reached the 'magic number' of more than 1000 cases per million; the US is at roughly 1/5 of this level, and India and China are showing virtually no cases (per capita).

When a national health authority gives an estimate, that doesn't mean 'wild guess'; they're not pulling numbers from a hat, or throwing darts at a board, or consulting a fortune teller. Rather, it's a scientific estimate, which is defined as "the calculated approximation of a result which is usable even if input data is incomplete or uncertain." IOW, when the UK says they've had an estimated 300,000 cases in the past month, that's not someone making up a number out of thin air; it's based on scientific methodologies, computer simulations, and the like. To infer such estimates have "no particular basis" does a great disservice to the many hundreds of epidemiologists, virologists, and mathematicians who have been working diligently for more than three months now to track the flu.

Of course the flu is very mild...which is a good thing. But the mortality of any particular disease doesn't have much to do with its virulence

Here's one example reference for a respected computer model: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Super+computers+becoming+crystal+ball/1855925/story.html

The US CDC has reported that the actual number of infected just in this country is likely 10 to 100 times higher than the number of confirmed cases; that puts the US number alone at somewhere between 500,000 and 5,000,000. Those numbers are being refined all the time, and the CDC has promised to release more accurate and precise numbers as time goes on. (Minor regional example: it's believed that about 6.9% of the population of NYC exhibited flu symptoms between mid-April and mid-May. Peer-reviewed papers are being written now; if even half those turn out to have been H1N1, that's a quarter-million cases just in just one location in just the first few weeks of this thing.)

In regards to the heatmap to which you linked: again, Chile and Australia are, of course, in the Southern hemisphere, where it's winter, and, hence, flu season. The U.S., India, and China, OTOH, are all in the NH, where things haven't kicked in.

Anyway, I'll keep putting money on 'Yes'. I would even go for 67 million cases globally--ten times what this market is asking for--before the end of the year, and perhaps even ten times higher than that. So, please, do bet against me. :-)

08/09: Here's another article talking about A/H1N1 peaking in October...before the vaccine is ready: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/08/swine_flu_could_erupt_within_w.html

"The virus is still around and ready to explode," said William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University School of Medicine influenza expert who advises federal health officials. "We're potentially looking at a very big mess."

"This epidemic will transmit faster than usual, because the population is more susceptible," said Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health who has been helping the CDC project the severity of the upcoming wave. "It's fair to say there will be tens of millions of illnesses and hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations, and tens of thousands of deaths. What we don't know is how many tens of thousands." [Note that this was referring to just the United States.]

Yeah, I still feel like I'm on solid ground here, wager-wise. :-)

I'll look at the model... and we''ll see...

08/11: A rough projection for India--which has had an explosion of cases in the past several days--is that the country will have 1.5 million cases by mid-November, and around 1 crore--or 10 million--cases by the middle of December.

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_swine-flu-cases-may-hit-1-crore-in-december_1281670

08/19: The UK Home Office's Mass Fatalities Section is preparing for the pandemic while avoiding a Dawn of the Dead-like scenario:

"...it may be that during a pandemic a large proportion of additional deaths occur outside of hospital care."

" In order to maintain funeral services as near to normal as possible, it may become necessary to restrict choice...realistically it may become necessary to limit the types of [funeral/burial] services available."

"...cemetery managers are likely to want to move to provision of common graves, which would allow interments to be undertaken more quickly due to the more efficient mechanical preparation of the site... Cemetery managers could adopt the use of more traditional methods. Wooden shoring or no shoring may be viable options."

" it may be helpful to ensure that the common grave is deep enough to allow for additional family burials - but not too deep or densely used to make difficult the removal and re-internment of the remains elsewhere, if this is requested at a later date."

"[Standard] containerised storage units (e.g. those used at ports and freight terminals) can be deployed [for body storage] to a range of terrains. These are likely to require body racking and power generators."

"Use of non-refrigerated vehicles and trailers [for body storage] may become [unavoidable] during a pandemic."

Sounds like fun, no?

A Framework for Planners Preparing to Manage Deaths (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/freedom-of-information/released-information/foi-archive-about-us/8068-Influenza-Pandemic?view=Binary) (PDF)
(http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:qADCKTPKG-MJ:www.iaem.com/regions/iaemeuropa/flu_managing_deaths.pdf.pdf+The+Framework+for+Planners+Preparing+to+Manage+Deaths&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) (HTML)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gXCrLDox87D4QlUw-7vIboh8A6KQ

So far since May 'only' 250,000 cases reported worldwide, with the biggest rise in late July. A long way to 6.7 million, even if (for argument's sake) the reported cases is a significant underestimate...

But remember, bookie, there's nothing in this market which stipulates confirmed cases; that's never been a basis for settlement. As has been discussed ad nauseum, the WHO weeks ago stopped requiring nations to report confirmed cases, and many nations have stopped doing so. Also, most nations are now only testing the most severe cases, as the majority of those who come down with swine flu are up and about in a week or so with no direct medical intervention. Because of this, the WHO says actual cases are likely ten to one hundred times as high as confirmed cases, with twenty times the most likely.

In NYC alone, it's estimated 800,000 people have been infected with the flu, and two months ago the CDC said the US had seen at least a million cases at that time. Such estimates--as we've said before here--are not the same thing as guesses; they're not numbers pulled from a hat, or merely wide-eyed speculation. In science, an estimate is defined as "the calculated approximation of a result which is usable even if input data may be incomplete or uncertain." IOW, the data have been compiled very carefully by scientific means. For example, nobody in Japan knows exactly how many people have been infected with the virus in that country...but when the Japanese ministry of health announces after polling medical facilities, physicians, epidemiologists, and virologists throughout the nation that there have been at least 150,000 cases in that country, that number is real.

We've been over this numerous times, but again: each nation's ministry/department of health is solely responsible for tracking the spread of influenza within its borders. WHO only tabulates what those ministries/departments have told them. So when the health minister of, say, Thailand announces there have been an estimated 2,000,000 cases of A/H1N1 in that country (as he did yesterday), that number is the official number for that nation. Only a very few lightly-hit nations still insist that the number of confirmed cases they've counted are the real number, and nations in that group are dwindling as reality sets in.

For what it's worth, many experts--believe them or not--are predicting a global rise of several million cases a day at the peak of the flu season, which should be within a week or two either side of Halloween. Of course just a very small fraction of one percent of suspected cases will undergo laboratory confirmation if such a thing happens. There will, however, be national, regional, and global estimates based on empirical medical data...and those estimates will have to be used here, as that's really all we'll have to go on. To go by only lab-confirmed cases goes against logic, as well as both the spirit and the letter of this question.

(And I'll add this, as I've said it before: I have a lot of money in this market, true [I had the majority of it there before the market became as popular as it has]. So to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, settlement will occur in a wide open, unambiguous, and unquestionable manner.)

I only have H$6000 on this question all on 'No' - so far (more soon) - and in any case expect to be happy with the settlement of this question. I do not think that - yet - there have been 6.7 million cases worldwide; and while I accept that 250,000 cases is likely to be an underestimate, I think the 'true number' based on the death toll so fafr seen - is well short of the '10-100' times' range you suggest (3-5 times as many, maybe). I do not believe that 800,000 people have been infected in NYC, or over 1 million in the USA.

If around Halloween there are a 'million cases a day' then I would certainly accept an 'adverse' 'yes' outcome on the q.; the indications so far are that it much more likely to peak in mid-winter (after this q. closes) and may not even reach the summer peak already seen. Of course, swine flu could still become a modern day 'black death' plague... and if not in 2009, then maybe via mutation in the next few years; but if it is not more prevalent than it was in July, before year end, then I think you'd have to agree that the question should be settled as a 'no'. It took just under 3 months to go from a few cases to the July peak, so there's still much uncertainty - but this is now more like a 60-40 (previously I thought about 75/25) question than a 90+:10- in my opinion.

I don't think that this is just Pollyanna thinking on my part; after all, call centres in the UK have been closed for lack of business. I'm not criticising those who wanted to be prepared - unlike the Y2K 'bug', there was a real chance of a real problem in this case. And there still is. Not to mention even 250k-1m cases being a real health concern...

... but no way have there been 7 million cases, or even half of that...

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, of course, but your methods appear to be fairly, uh, unscientific. ;-) If the CDC says there have been at least 2,000,000 cases in just the US alone, I suppose it doesn't matter what anyone here--including myself--says; that's the number that'll be used to settle the question. The same goes for other countries: Thailand officially estimates 1,000,000+ of its citizens have been infected to-date; Argentina officially claims a number nearly as large; Japan officially claims hundreds of thousands. And so on, and so forth.

A/H1N1 has proven itself to be quite a bit more virulent than originally thought. No, it's not nearly so easily spread as 1918's Spanish Flu on a case-by-case basis, but our modern day access to intercontinental airline travel and the fact that the earth has billions more people now than it did then is sort of bringing things onto a more level field.

When you speak of the peak occurring in mid-winter--perhaps even into the new year--you could be correct, but such a prediction goes against that of nearly every credible epidemiologist/virologist. Now, while some folks point to the fact that the virus peaked in the Southern Hemisphere in July as 'proof' that it won't peak up here until mid-December, it would help to remember that the Northern Hemisphere has many more people in much tighter quarters, with much cooler temps...and the virus had a head start up here. The true peak estimates I read place it between mid-October and mid-November, and I don't see any reason to doubt that. By way of example, many school districts across the US and elsewhere are just opening this week or thereabouts, and many are already reporting dozens if not hundreds of cases...and it's not even cool out yet. Viruses have a way of bouncing around; just because you may avoid catching it the first or second time through your particular group doesn't mean you'll miss it on the third.

By my own tally--which isn't official, of course, but does give me a bit of guidance as to how I bet here--there have been at least 6,000,000 cases worldwide...and that's likely hugely conservative. So, while you say this market should be a 60/40, I'd personally call it 100/0. If there aren't hundreds of millions of the infected by the end of December, I'll be extremely surprised.

Ah SQLMAN, you may of course be right, but refuse to accept that you may also be wrong. With an apparent death rate of 1 per 1000, and some 3000 deaths, we could be nearly 1/2 way to the target. But are infections increasing or decreasing overall? Now I do not doubt that millions, possibly even 10s of millions, have been exposed to the virus, developing antibodies and thus not susceptible to infection - but to be 'infected' one must actually fall ill. I am not saying it must be a 'confirmed case' - but 'estimates' which are wildly out of line with actual experience are no guide either.

In short, I contend that - given the way flu pandemics develop to a peak, or series of peaks - that unless there is another exponential outbreak of a size at least similar to what was seen in July before the end of the year - this question should settle as no. Will this happen? It might - either in countries already affected, or in countries not yet greatly affected.

Viruses may 'bounce around' or they may go dormant - no-one really knows. July is mid-winter in the southern hemisphere; January is the better analogy. True, there is a larger population further north in the North than there is 'nearer to the pole' in the South. Is it weather, diurnal rhythms, social factors, or who knows what which gives a virus a chance to explode exponentially?

I'll be more cautious - given there is about 118 days to run - and say maybe the chance of getting to an undoubted figure of 7 million cases by year's end is as much as 2 in 3. But there is imho at least a 1/3 chance that there will be no new big swine flu outbreak before year end, and that the numbers of new cases will fall off naturally, as they are now in South America.

At least we agree that 'Yes' cannot yet claim victory, which frankly might have been expected on the projections made back in June/July.

If there's a chance I could be wrong, I'll admit it. And I've certainly lost six-figure wagers here before. (Well, once.) But I'll go to the mat on this one: I'm not wrong. Not by a long shot.

This market does not ask about laboratory-confirmed cases; it never has. From the outset, its been known that national, regional, and global estimates would have to be used for settling this market, as that's all that would be available. It's been known all along that there are neither the resources nor the reason to laboratory-test for every case of the flu. WHO has never tracked any influenza virus that way; that's not what they do, or how they do it. I'll not go into yet another explanation about the difference between scientific estimates and garden-variety wild guesses; those interested can find other comments here and elsewhere. I'll sya this, though: you do the science of epidemiology a grave injustice by referring to their estimates as being "wildly out of line with actual experience". In fact, actual experience is what has helped them refine their estimation algorithms.

Anyway, by way of simplification, I'll give just two reasons alone that allow me to confidently state that there is absolutely no chance I'm wrong:

1) According to various nation ministries of health, departments of health, and CDCs, there are already millions of cases around the globe. (Millions of cases. Not exposures, that is, but actual people who have actually been exposed to the virus and have come down with the actual flu.)

2) The Northern Hemisphere flu season hasn't even begun. Yes, 115 days or so are left in this market...but every single epidemilogist and virologist estimates at peak spread--which should happen in roughly 45-75 days--there will be tens of millions of new cases every single day. Now maybe those are ridiculously overzealous predictions. In fact, suppose they're overblown by a factor of 100 (though there isn't a reason in the world they should be); say there are "just" 200,000 new cases a day during the peak weeks: given the millions who already have it, just four weeks at 200K per day would still be more than enough to push things well over the top.

I've considered publishing a question asking whether not one-tenth of one percent of the world's population will be infected by A/H1N1 by year's end, but whether one-tenth of the world's population--ten percent--will be. I'd still lay just as much money on that market as I have here.

I hope you--and others--keep putting money on the 'No' option; every time that happens, a little more headroom opens up on 'Yes', allowing me to lay down a little more cash. For that, I thank you; unless I'm in bed with a bad case of A/H1N1 by then, I'm going to have a very happy new year! ;-)

Four weeks = 28 days, 28*200,000 = 5.6 million; 6.7 - 5.6 = 1.1 (million); I'd be willing to accept that there have been over 1 million cases so far (some 300,000 _confirmed_ cases).

But of course, SQL, flu expands - and contracts - exponentially, so the one thing which is sure is that there won't be a steady 200k cases per day. So I repeat, the questions are, will there be another exponential explosion of cases, and if so will it happen in 2009. Yes, it is pretty likely there will be a new peak of cases - second (if not third) peaks seem to be characteristic of flu epidemics (but of course, this flu could be different). How likely? Well, 95% is 'scientific certainty' and I'd say short of that, if not by much. As to timing? Yes, history suggests that a second peak will take place within a year of the first, and flus do spread in wintertime. But even January is still early in the northern winter season, and millions of people are not returning from wars abroad; whether a new peak happens in 2009 or not until 2010 is only a guess. Now, I'll still grant that there is a good chance - better than even - that you are right, and no doubt you will be pleased if this is so. But a 90+% chance of 10% of the world population being infected by year's end? I don't think it is even a 70+% chance of 0.1%... tho I doubt I'd drive up the price of No much beyond 10%...

How does this settle if there's NO NEWS of this particular fact....
Let's be realistic about this, since there are so many people looking at this....

This flu does NOT label people with a scarlet A on them.. So, how are all these people counted?
Any answers? No one is going to do the necessary distributions of people who have had it, etc.. region by region across the world, particularly in the most populated regions....

So, to me, the question is like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

Any thoughts, anyone?

Speaking personally, @bigken, I'd accept that this settles as 'Yes' if there are more than say 14000 confirmed deaths by year end, and 'No' if there are fewer than 7000 confirmed deaths, based on the observed death rates so far (some 4100 deaths so far, half in the southern hemisphere). Alternatively, I'd be willing to accept an estimate based on confirmed cases - a reasonable multiple, of 3-4 times the confirmed figure ( now above 500,000) would do for me If there is no real consensus, then I guess this would have to be voided, which is a bit hard on us Nay sayers...

On the other hand, SQL - who leads the Yea sayers (I believe) has said many times that there will be no doubt about the outcome, so you could argue that if the total is arguable is should settle as a 'no'!

Of coruse, some would suggest that this is essentially rewriting the question - we can just wait for the end of the year round-ups, if swine flu is seen as a major story then the answer will probably be yes, if it seen as a major non-story the answer will be no. The truth either way will be a casualty of the spin - swine flu is a major development in terms of illness even if it is mild, and if defeated by vaccination will be a fascinating case study in pandemic protection.

In the news recently - China is allegedly already vaccinating, while in the UK cases have supposedly doubled from week to week as the schools return - but what we are not learning is whether the peak in the southern hemisphere receded quickly (though this seems to be so). Drug resistant strains are said to be developing in Australia, presumably to Tamiflu or Relenza.

To repeat my earlier posts - yes, it is perhaps more likely than not that there will be more than 7 million cases in 2009, but whether or not this is true really depends on the timing on the probable 'second peak' - which based on what we've seen is likely to be over a 3-4 week period. I would say it is still fairly likely - better than 1/3 - that this peak will form in the early winter, which to my mind is in January, unless widespread vaccination can prevent it - which is also possible.

While confirmed cases and deaths totals are going up - by approximately 10% per week just now - the overall trend line has definitely flattened out. The evidence from the UK of a new explosion in cases is worrying - both personally and in terms of H$! - but is not matched as far as I can tell in other heavily populated northern countries. Of course there are reports that some countries are under-reporting the disease - Russia, for example. Which is why I look at deaths - I believe these are the most reliable figures.

Overall, I think we should be cheered by the strong response to this problem shown by the relevant authorities. .

There are a LOT of problems in settling this question, IMHO, consider that the flu, like the normal seasonal strain has its weak bonds alleles (sp?) change with time, so that people can come down with a second case -- So, how do we know that any reported case, is not a new person or a person counted twice? Even the world population is not known to the accuracy that this question seems to require....

So, ugh.. problems. here...UNLESS the answer is clearly NO.. so, i am going that way...

There are a LOT of problems in settling this question, IMHO, consider that the flu, like the normal seasonal strain has its weak bonds alleles (sp?) change with time, so that people can come down with a second case -- So, how do we know that any reported case, is not a new person or a person counted twice? Even the world population is not known to the accuracy that this question seems to require....

So, ugh.. problems. here...UNLESS the answer is clearly NO.. so, i am going that way...

By the way, do we need to know the world's population to >> than .1% accuracy at the end of the year, when the tally is to be done?

@bookie: with all due respect, what are you talking about? The question asks nothing about deaths. And I'm just as befuddled by your suggestion that we estimate actual cases by multiplying confirmed cases by an arbitrary and unfounded 3-4 times, when every real and credible epidemilogist and virologist in the world estimates the multiplier is closer to 20.

@bigken: you can capitalize the word LOT, but I don't see where there's any validity to your statement that there are problems in settling this market. Your bringing in alleles and re-infections is a bit of a smoke screen, I imagine, and I expect we'll see more of that from various players as time goes on; those on the wrong side of markets here (and elsewhere), being humans in nature, will often attempt to invalidate any market into which they've poured money on a probable losing outcome; a void costs them nothing but a little time. But I don't see any cause for invalidating or voiding here: this market has both clear options and clear settlement details. This will need to settle--as has always been the case--on official numbers of those infected as put forth by various national, regional, and global health experts, whether those are laboratory-confirmed cases, or scientific estimates, or both; there'll be no 'guesstimating' by non-experts, no rounding up of confirmed case numbers, no using pie-in-the-sky numbers offered by non-official news publications.

Yes, the world population is not really known to any accuracy at any one point in time. But as you can see in the details, it was decided at the time of publication that this market would use the July 2009 estimate of 6,790,062,216, meaning that the flu needs to have infected at least 6,790,063 globally by midnight on December 31st.

It might help you guys to know that Thailand's official estimate as of September 9th was 2,000,000 infected in that country alone; that number will likely count toward settlement. So will Brazil's official (and slightly more precise) September 12th tally of 1,193,000. Ditto the US's August 30th official estimate of 2,000,000. Ditto Malaysia's August 25th official estimate of 140,000. And Mexico's. And Japan's. And China's. And so on, and so forth...

Ah @SQL feeling newly confident? So, the market is already decided? True Brazil claims some 900 deaths, but with no official estimate that I could find - and it may be a somewhat different strain of the virus http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526832,00.html if we can believe Fox News... we haven't even discussed if that counts! I can't find your other official estimates either.

And as I've said earlier, I even hope you are right about the true number of cases, SQL, because if so H1N1 will be the mildest flu virus seen in our lifetimes.

I'll accept that 3/4 times the confirmed cases is somewhat arbitrary and unfounded - so would be 20/30/40, or even 200/300/400 - which is BigK's point, I believe. While 'the vast majority' of cases is an elastic termn (used by the CDC), it seems to me that any scientist would say 'virtually all' if 95% plus of cases were unconfirmed...

No, I never said it was already decided. For that matter, I'm not newly confident; I've had the same level of confidence since the beginning of this whole mess, even when many/most others didn't. I've studied this thing extensively--much more than I should have, I suppose--and I've applied a layman's knowledge to the scientific data presented thus far to arrive at my own estimates (the ones on which I've been basing my wagers on this market and others like it). I contend that anyone doing the same as I have would have arrived at similar, if not exact, conclusions as to the spread of this virus--and would have therefore likely wagered as I have. But--again--this market won't settle on my numbers, of course; it'll settle based on official numbers as released by regional, national, and global health authorities.

The reason so many cases are unconfirmed by laboratory testing has nothing to do with the virus not being found; it's simply because the vast majority of cases aren't being tested for. The WHO months ago told its member nations to discontinue testing every case, and instead to only do so for the most severe, hospitalized cases; many of those nations followed that advice, and then went even further by not testing even severe cases. Furthermore, in areas hardest hit by ILI (influenza-like illness), the 'vast majority' of cases are not the standard seasonal flu that bounces around every year, but rather the novel A/H1N1 variant. IOW, the new pandemic bug has supplanted the 'normal' flu, the one that infects tens of millions every year. Mild, yes--and thank heavens for that. But virulent, indeed. Very, very virulent.

(So far as any new strain goes: so long as it's the pandemic 2009 A/H1N1 virus--as the Brazilian one spoken of in the June report to which you linked--I don't see why it wouldn't count. Do you?)

I don't know if just any variant of H1N1 would count as 'Swine Flu' - the fear seems to be of a cross with 'Bird Flu' which is more lethal - it appears.

But while I accept that 'actual' cases are not the same thing as either 'estimated' or 'confirmed' cases, the question is actually about 'Will 0.1% or one in one thousand people catch swine flu in 2009' - a rate reached - so far - only in Chile and Australia, and even there not even nearly 1% of the population. The popular conception of a pandemic is when rates get to say 20% of the population in a concentrated period of time. The peaks for Swine Flu seem to be short, while people are affected for a fairly long period of time (but not infectious for long); so the number of cases is lower overall than for a more fast moving vector.

Why track deaths? Well, this is likely to be the most reliable figure, though of course choosing a relevant multiplier is perhaps trickier than for comparing 'estimated' to 'confirmed' cases.

Now, the early evidence for this fall from the - oddly - southern US, and from the UK, is that there seems to be a new peak forming - which is of course worrying, though it is only weeks until the vaccine is deployed here in the UK. So I can see you have some reason for confidence - tho again I note, the Southern Hemisphere evidence is of peaks of well less than 1% (still safely high enough to trigger a yes if sufficiently widespread...) _and_ not until well into winter. And China is already dispensing the vaccine. And - if the flu is mild - you might not ever get to 7 million who actually get ill with the flu (and no, I don't think it counts to have simply been 'exposed' to the virus; 'infected by' implies being made ill, not simply having the antibodies).

But even with all that good news, I still think lots of folks will get ill with this disease - but probably later rather than sooner. I think you plot your trend lines too aggressively! Indeed, the numbers of increased cases in the US and UK don't affect the trend line as much as the exponential decline in the Southern Hemisphere.

Does anyone know anyone who has or has had officially diagnosed H1N1? Because where I live, they are just saying well, if it's flu, it must be swine flu and they aren't doing any testing at all.

A few weeks ago one of the superusers did. Four members of my ex-in-law's family in town did (lab confirmed). Two people at the office of one of my clients had it last week (again, confirmed). And so on. It's everywhere, and--as you suggested, and as I wrote--it's supplanted the standard seasonal flu. In fact, A/H1N1 now is the de facto seasonal flu...

@bookie: the term "swine flu" is applied to any strain of the influenza virus that's found in large numbers in pigs, so it can refer to not just A/H1N1, but A/H1N2, A/H3N1, and others. However, when the world's media speak of the "swine flu" in regards to the 2009 epidemic, they are referring to only A/H1N1. (In fact, many sources use the terms interchangeably.) This question was clearly referring to A/H1N1 when it was created, as that's the only strain/subtype of swine flu that is pandemic this year. Most regional, national, and global health organizations keep track when possible of each of the different strains in circulation; it's from their reports of these numbers (either lab-confirmed or estimated) that we'll be able to base this market's settlement.

You may think I've "plotted my trend lines too aggressively"--and you may be right--but I contend again that easily one percent of the world's population will have been infected by this market's settlement date...not just one-tenth of one percent. And it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the number were higher than that.

In Northern Ireland, the flu has now spread - to the swine.

While I have seen one report of 5 million cases in Thailand, the Bangkok Post reports http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/155459/h1n1-is-still-speading-ministry that 38 per 100,000 people have been infected - which seems low, given a death toll of 160. India has reported 300 deaths and some 10,000 confirmed cases - but there is no estimate on how many people were infected despite screening some 6 million air passengers.

Globally, the rate is still very low - http://www.investmentinternational.com/news/healthcare/swine-flu-still-a-threat-but-not-critical-2972.html

And while the majority of cases may have been missed, certainly not the 'vast majority' as suggested - http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE58N4UU20090924, especially in the USA.

China is already vaccinating, and some reports suggest that the UK will 'beat' the flu.

Yes, it is true that CDC data can be found suggesting that regional infections in the USA to date range from 1200 to 8600 per million - such rates worldwide would give you a 'Yes'. So far such figures have not been reported by mainstream media.

While 'sick days' in the UK went up in July and August, so far I have not seen any extrapolations from such figures to estimated cases.

However, if 2 million people were actually infected in the USA this summer, which I think is most unlikely, then the number of days lost to illness should have been high enough to really affect the economy - tho it is true that 1/2 of US workers get no paid sick leave.

Remember, A/H1N1 has pretty much supplanted the regular flu...so one wouldn't necessarily have seen a huge statistical spike in the number of cases over the summer.

I have seen estimated cases for the UK from the Health Protection Agency. It's under half a million at this point, though we've still got 3.5 months left, all in the heart of flu season...

I have to say, I'm not sure sure why/how you say that you "think it is most unlikely" that 2,000,000 Americans have already been infected; New York City's own health department conjecture that 800,000 in that city alone had already been infected by mid-summer. It doesn't seem a huge stretch to imagine and extrapolate...

Authorities here are now optimistic that the second peak will prove less damaging than expected...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/08/lucky-break-slows-swine-flu

It may be picking up in the USA, but really, there is no sign yet of the sort of half a million cases per week needed to get this to Yes...

Keep dreamin', Brudda Bookie: the U.S. alone likely already has more than enough cases to settle this. (Again, please read the rules: nowhere are laboratory-confirmed cases mentioned.)

;-)

There will be no way to know. I read an article yesterday on msnbc.com saying that they aren't even counting the cases in the US since July.

"On Monday, the CDC reported that the number of swine flu cases worldwide had jumped by at least 24,000 in two weeks to exceed 343,000, while deaths from the H1N1 virus had topped 4,100."

Mainstream media, at http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2D9dSWGneHUjr_LkhaL53MHuriA

@emmag: it's true that the CDC has stopped counting individual cases of A/H1N1, as it's been firmly established that the flu is, literally, everywhere, and still spreading like crazy. However, it's not at all true that "we'll never know" how many cases there are. No, we won't and can't know the exact number of cases, anymore than we know the exact number of cases of the normal seasonal flu. The CDC doesn't track that; it doesn't even need to. However, they do have a fairly good idea of the number of those infected on a per 100,000 basis; it's a small matter to do some math and arrive at an estimate of the true number of infected...which is exactly what many local, regional, and national health authorities have done. (FWIW, I've been maintaining my own private table of links to mainstream media stories wherein official A/H1N1 estimates have been published. The global number is well above ten million at this point.)

As of today, the number of laboratory-confirmed cases worldwide is somewhere around 480,000. And remember, that's with an increasingly large number of nations no longer reporting at all, some not for weeks. If the number of people actually infected is even close to what the officials say--that is, somewhere between ten and thirty times the confirmed number--we're already near, at, or beyond the 6.7 million number.

Whatever happens, the numbers released by the CDC last week are a little disheartening:

"We're now up to 76 children having died from the 2009 H1N1 virus," said Anne Schuchat, a senior official at the CDC. "To put that in context, in the past three years, the total pediatric influenza deaths ranged from 46 - 88. We've already had 76 children dying from the H1N1 virus and it's only the beginning of October," Schuchat said.

That, to me, is more than a little scary...

@90

Aw cmon SQL, if you have the evidence then flag the market for settlement. I thought you were certain it would be obvious with no chance of dispute. Yes, there are some estimates which are high multiples of confirmed cases - but not all the estimates are that high. There may be 10 million people 'exposed' to the virus, but no evidence that so many have been 'infected' - or actually ill! Mild 'cases' may well not be cases - 'infections' cause symptoms!

If we are just going to argue about the estimates without any real evidence till the cows come home, this should be voided. At the moment, it seems to me that 'No' is the current answer, and increasingly likely to be the final answer!

I'll take a reasonable estimate based on deaths, or hospitalisations, but 7 million actually sick people would be pretty noticeable!

I hope the plan isn't to call for a 'void' to protect anyone's wrong wagers; that's a sloppy way to play, in my opinion. Yes, I am certain. Yes, *every* legitimate estimate--that is, those made by local, regional, national, or global health authorities, and not by some news organization--is that high. No, this market is not counting those "exposed", and I've never said as much, so I'm not sure why you threw that in; it's always referred to those infected. And I don't plan to argue about estimates; this market's settlement details are about as clear-cut as they come. If at or before the end of the year it's reported that those health authorities say that 6.8 million or more humans have been infected with A/H1N1, and whether that figure comes from laboratory confirmation or scientific estimate, this will settle as 'Yes'. If not, it will settle as 'No'. Period. I haven't requested settlement yet because I want to have estimates of at least double the required 6.8 million before doing so just to avoid argument. We're getting there, and besdies, I'm in no rush. ;-)

Yes, 7,000,000 sick people would be noticeable...and it has been. Remember: A/H1N1 has supplanted the normal seasonal flu in almost all areas...and that normal seasonal flu infects tens of millions of people each year. So it's noticeable--though, perhaps, it may not make the everyday headlines.

@92 Brave talk, SQL, but there is so far no prospect of the sort of exponential growth seen in the summer - which peaked well below 1/4 of the level needed to get to 'Yes' in the UK at least, and is currently running at levels much below that. Yes, the US and Mexico remain 'hot spots' and there is some increased activity in countries like Cuba and Columbia, and continued localised activity in a (small) range of countries. Everywhere else activity is declining.

Now, I could enrage you by arguing that the question is not about the cumulative total of cases but the peak reached in this year - after all, past cases are no longer infected, even if dead :-) - but that would be a change of position.

However, I do expect some consistency from you too. You state H1N1 has 'supplanted' seasonal flu - perhaps technically true, but the estimates range from 65%-73% of respiratory flu like illnesses are H1N1. And most people get ill (in the Northern Hemisphere) in Jan/Feb - which is when those tens of millions are infected. For calendar year 2009, the overall percentage of H1N1 vs. ordinary flu will be much much smaller.

A few links to what passes for facts... http://www.hpa.org.uk/HPA/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/1251473469008/

and it's so serious that the professionals here don't want protection... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1219866/Just-10-NHS-staff-swine-flu-vaccine-despite-bosses-please.html

C'mon SQL, admit the honest truth, this pandemic is not developing the way you expected, and my comments back @46 were spot on - the 7 million figure did not get reached in the first Northern Hemisphere peak, nor has it likely been reached with the Southern Hemsphere peak, now dying away; the second Northern Hemisphere peak will either be later than 2009, or lower than expected, or will be much less widespread than 'worldwide'; and the effects of vaccinations now and soon may well be to effectively end the pandemic with luck. It boils down to - we got lucky, this virus strain is not nearly as bad as it could have been.

You once commented that the drug companies have an interest in higher estimates; so do doctors and health care systems. The talk of a hidden epidemic of 30-100 times as many unreported cases did get some play, but even that is dying away in professional circles. The fact is that people who get sick go to see a doctor, by and large (ok, I have a nephew who probably got it whose mother refused to do so, but then his father is a physician's assistant! and that is in the USA where doctors cost money...). Yes, there are estimates I've seen are on the order of 1-1.5 million actual infections in the USA (but these are indeed based on the 30 times the actual number of cases, and I've seen much lower estimates, e.g. at http://www.flucount.org/ while worldwide - apart from the UK - most estimates are on the order of 3-4 times the official count of less than 1/2 million )and a similar number everywhere else combined (Mexico remains a real puzzle, tho I gather the current belief is that the strain originated in California and not in Mexico). 2 million cumulative cases seems much more consistent with the evidence to date - and yes, there are still nearly 80 days to go.

The very highest figures per million people are by and large in small countries/regions (Cook Islands, Hong Kong) and are up to 4000 per million - yes, comfortably in Yes territory if this was worldwide. In a few larger countries (Australia, Portugal) you get rates just over the 'Yes' threshhold. But in China and India, which have 1/3 of the world's population, rates are 10 per million, or 1% of the 1/10 of 1% needed for a Yes. And in the USA and UK we've got rates of 250-300 per million - even now, or about 1/3 of the level needed for a 'Yes'.

Going back to death rates, which I know you hate, they too have not been increasing at the kind of pace which would compel me to abandon my stake on No. That could be because of better treatment or a change (not so far reported!) in the nature of the virus; or because it is simply a widespread, yes 'global' pandemic which nonetheless is quite localised outside of the Americas (except perhaps, tis true, for Australia - but then New Zealand seems much less affected - and even in Australia it is not yet clear if the effect is regionalised). Scottish figures - which have a far stronger scientific basis than the English figures - suggest that up to 90% of the reported infections (supposedly 18000 cases per week just now) in England are not in fact actual cases of H1N1.

Play fair! Clearly there is a 'media effect' - the more Swine Flu is in the news, more people will think they have it. At the same time, the current relative lack of media interest shows that the very real trouble that one might have expected at the time I started betting on this market as rates rose exponentially just hasn't (yet) happened. Indeed, the BBC flu blogger is reporting that Swine Flu activity even in the USA is now declining.

Now, if the rates of infection do start to pick up substantially outside the USA - or even if there is a real prospect of 7 million USA cases by year's end - I will of course start to panic! and will be happy to admit it. But your coy 'we've reached the figure but I want to be sure' kind of argument ('shooting fish in a barrel') is just rubbish. We may be getting there - but we'd need to see the kind of peak reached in the summer (and then some!) before I'd agree.

With some 80 days left, the rates of infection would need to peak well above 50,000 cases per day, it seems to me. Oh wait, this is happening in Japan now... says Wikipedia... "On 28 August 2009, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare announced that it estimated approximately 760,000 people would be infected and 46,400 hospitalized per day during the expected peak time of October 2009. Overall they predict 20% of rural Japanese to become infected and 30% in city areas.[230]"

Well, October isn't over. And you *may* still be proved to be wise to bet on Yes. But as the weeks go by I would say that it now seems to me more likely than not that the answer will prove to be No. I'm still cautious - exponential growth is after all exponential, and it would take less than a month for a real explosion in cases to become apparent. Drug-resistant strains are beginning to appear, and mutation is possible. And in the end, I do agree with your basic point, that H1N1 is still a real threat to millions of people, and I plan to get a flu shot for it if available to me.

But I am going to take many many thousands of your H$ on this question!

Okay, this is getting silly. You state that only a few hundred thousand will have been infected by the end of the year; I counter that the US number is already in the millions, or that New York City alone had over a million cases of the infected by Spring. You then state that the numbers aren't rising rapidly; I counter that they are, and I provide links to substantiate that claim. You respond by saying that "Yes, some may think so, but I don't think they're right." I state that I'd prefer to trust epidemilogists and virologists over your guesses; you counter that, okay, maybe a lot of people are infected, but it's not serious. I respond by stating that seriousness has nothing to do with the settlement of this question; you counter that I'm trying to change the rules midstream and should therefore void the question. I state that there's no call for a void, as the market's settlement details are and have been straightforward. You respond that, okay, perhaps they are, but only a few hundred thousand will have been infected by the end of the year...and we're right back where we started.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of the circularity of this. er, dialog. :-)

Look, the bottom line is that the proof will be in the pudding. I see you continue to drop lots on the 'No' option, and I continue to drop tons on 'Yes'. One of us will be right, and richer; one of us will be wrong, and poorer. I would imagine that you're wagering so much as you think you're correct--at least, I certainly hope so. I, however, can assure you that I'm wagering so much myself because I believe wholeheartedly that I'm correct, and that the numbers support me...and will continue to do so.

(FWIW, the 10 per million number given for China is incorrect. First, the number of confirmed cases in mainland China is actually closer to 17 per million. Second--and far more importantly--the actual number of infected is far, far higher than that. Not 3 or 4 times, but dozens of times higher. As I say, though: keep throwing money on 'No'; I'm happy to feast in the headroom that provides on the 'Yes' option.)

Brave SQL, another 20k tossed in... but you keep saying you are providing lnks to good estimates by virolgists and epidemiologists. Thus far I haven't even seen one scientific study cited by you, let alone links showing a million cases in NYC. However, I'll give you one - http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/10/08/in-some-cities-spring-swine-flu-may-be-easing.html where the health commissioner claims 750,000 to 1 million 'sick people' - but notes that this has left widespread immunity. (Not every health expert agrees! Probably as much as 1/3 of however many 'NYC cases' weren't even H1NI)

I cite links from official agencies saying that - with the exceptions I noted - the numbers are not rising rapidly, that mainstream media estimates run from 1 to 1.5 million in the USA, and showing that in most hot spot areas the number of cases is slowing.

It all amounts to a vague assertion that the 'actual number of infected is far, far higher' - dozens?! Perhaps where there has been a general exposure to the flu and people have stopped counting, but not overall. Again, if you really believed that was correct, 24x c.500,000 is c. 12 million cases or more, you'd have flagged for settlement. I challenge you to show me any country outside the USA which has had a strongly based and/or official estimate of more than 1 million cases,

You don't seem to understand how flu epidemics spread - there are some population segments which appear to be particularly susceptible (teens, indigenous populations), and then within populations there are local hot spots. Yes, this is a pandemic, but not yet an 'epidemic' as there are many places which appear to have so far had little exposure; the numbers can bubble along for quite a while, breakout, and then retreat, sometimes to breakout again. Yes, it could fairly be said to have reached 'epidemic' proportions in the Southern Hemisphere and the USA, but not really anywhere else (with a possible argument over the anglophone countries).

I'd wager more if I had as many H$ as you, as it is it is currently some 15% of my wealth, which is about 10% of your wealth. I'm not tired of dialog, and would happily give more citations if I could find any. @83 you claimed it would be 1% or 70 million cases by year end (still not impossible, though very much more unlikely now) or even more - as you can see though, you have plotted your trend lines far too aggressively.

And no, I don't expect to convince you - I'm hoping others will come in to the discussion, and also to the betting. We're both committed to our points of view, though of course I believe I am open to evidence - I backed off for a while when it seemed like the new peak was coming early, and have returned now that it seems obvious that it was not like the spring. Now the vaccines are coming out.

What I would hope we would both agree is that having the market suspended for many months after January while we wait for proper scientific studies to be done and published would be rather unfortunate. My strong contention is that the numbers are at most in the low millions right now, and that the rate of spread is presently not enough to reach the c. 7 million number by year end. If there is a huge outbreak - as was predicted at the end of August for this month in Japan - before year end, bigger than the spring peak, well, I'd be inclined to accept defeat. I would hope that if there is not such a huge outbreak, you'll accept that the events we have seen so far are not enough to conclude the question as a Yes. Halfway to Yes, perhaps. But only 80 days or so are left...

one single question: what's the current number and source on which this market will be settled?

@Kruijs: there's no single source, but it was never expected there would be. The World Health Organization months ago urged its member states to discontinue laboratory testing of every case, as it's expensive, it's wasteful, and it's unnecessary, as it's well established the the virus is everywhere and still spreading logarithmically. Once the pandemic was established, individual cases meant nothing at all; it became far more important to have estimated numbers of how many people in a given area have been infected, as that's by far and away the most efficient means of tracking the disease's spread--and, eventually, it's decline. Now, as I've written in some of my comments to bookie, there have been dozens (if not hundreds) of articles in the mainstream media already reporting on case estimates as gathered by local, regional, national, and global health authorities. These are, and have always been, the best we'll have. Such articles are available to everyone, and not just me; I haven't released them here, as I'm waiting for the reported numbers to be at least double what's required to settle this as 'Yes' to avoid any cries of foul play. Bury the skeptics in data, I say. ;-)

And I must once again explain that a scientific estimate, as used here, is defined as "the calculated approximation of a result which is usable even if input data may be incomplete or uncertain." For example, astronomers do not know exactly how old the universe is. The current scientific estimates state 13.5 to 14 billion years old. Now, it would be nice to be able to say that the universe is 13,765,567,623 years, 4 months, 17 days, 11 hours, 36 minutes, and 14 seconds old. Nice, but ultimately not important; we know the universe is older than 13.5 billion years, but less than 14 billion. Likewise, there are no exact counts of those infected with the most recent influenza pandemics; there were, quite simply, too many to count. However, it's been estimated that the Asiatic Flu pandemic of 1889-1890 killed a million people. It's estimated that the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1919 infected 500 million people worlwide, and killed 50 million or so. It's estimated that the Hong Kong Flu outbreak (a disease slightly less lethal or virulent than A/H1N1) of 1968-1969 killed one millon people worldwide. With other diseases affecting fewer individuals, this isn't the case. But with a pandemic, the only thing anyone has to go on are scientific estimates. Once those estimates are published (and compiled), it will be a simple matter of saying, "More than 6.8 million have been infected; settle as 'Yes'" or "Fewer than 6.8 million have been infected; settle as 'No'."

@bookie: you wrote of me, "You don't seem to understand how flu epidemics spread." I contend precisely the opposite. I suggest you look up the term "logarithmic progression". ;-)

I understand that this will be settled depending on an estimate. I just like to know exactly which estimate, how it is determined and which number it would have if applied right now to make a prediction of the result at the end of the year. you and bookie already seem to disagree in these numbers and I expect that, if not defined in advance, this market could end where the US troop retract from Iraqi cities ended.

the examples you used, are related to incidents many years ago, which have had time to gather the data. personally, I do not expect to have such a number released by any reliable source for this particular year that soon. maybe in 10 years the estimate will be: "6 Mio infected and 100,000 people killed in the A/h1n1 flue during 2009-2011", covering the complete time-range of the pandemia.

so I doubt that "estimates are published (and compiled)" soon, and that they will relate to 2009 only.

It could be an easy settlement if you link number of infected to number of deaths confirmed (which is accurately monitored). Case fatality rate for the last major flues was <0.1%.
So far number of confirmed deaths was 4,699.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_outbreak
At a rate of 0.1% this means 4,699,000 infected.
The only thing you have to agree is on the case fatality rate, the sooner the better, and there is 2.5 month left for anything to happen.
Maybe this was proposed before I have not read all the comments but I agree with kruijs that probably no reliable report on number of infected will be provided anytime soon after January 1st 2010.

And I had/have no money in this market.

@99 bg, I agree, and have stated before that I would accept a yes based on 0.05% mortality (14000+ deaths) but I suspect SQL will disagree, based on his previous statements. @98 Kru thank you amplifying my concern about the difficulty of waiting for proper scientific and rigorous analysis of the pandemic. @97, SQL, if you've got the data or links thereto, lets see them. In the meantime, along with other statistical techniques, why don['t you revisit the chapter on estimation? 13.5 - 14 billion years is a fairly well defined period (though I note that in my lifetime this estimate has changed significantly, from 3-4 billion, to 6-7 billion, to c.10 billion, and so on) for the age of the universe; but estimates with a large variance (as the one you cited back @60 of 500,000 to 5 million US cases) are pretty much useless. (For the pedants - yes, the wide variance estimate may be more 'accurate' in the sense that you may be able to achieve 95%+ certainty that the true answer is within the estimate - but where the range is a multiple of the lower value you are rarely working with a bell curve which is what allows statistical validation in the first place).

BG, please do read back the comments; I think any fair observer would agree that SQL has been claiming a certain victory (and projecting hundreds of millions of cases) even as the evidence went against him; while I have always conceded that that this was no sure thing, just attractive at the odds on offer. I offer evidence both ways, unlike SQL; So make your bets - is this really a 9:1 sure thing as SQL and Cheese are betting, or are we at the point where this is 50/50 (or better) proposition depending on how the next 2 months go?

The only reason not to bet - depending on who you believe of course - is the real risk that this will become one of those forever suspended never settled markets. I'm not sure who is category editor....

Again--and for the umpteenth time here--I'm not sure why CFR (case fatality rate) keeps being dragged back into this discussion. The main question doesn't mention the CFR, and the background details don't mention it. It's not part of the settlement details, and it never has been. Such an obfuscating argument seems a little like insisting that comparative fuel mileage be used to determine who won a particular automobile race, rather than who actually crossed the finish line first. There's some correlation, to be sure, but it would not the least bit valid for settlement purposes. ;-)

@bookie: yes, I have projected--and continue to project--hundreds of millions of cases by roughly this time next year. (2 billion plus, actually.) More importantly, so does nearly every credible epidemiologist and virologist. Yes, it's possible they are all wrong, but there's no data yet to think that's the case, and--in fact--the disease has continued to surpass nearly every spread rate estimate they've come up with. Now, this market, of course, doesn't deal with this time next year; it deals with the remaining 11 weeks or so in this year. So, I contend--and there are reams of data to back me up--that the global estimated case count by this year's end will reflect a number multiples higher than needed to settle this as 'Yes'.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091015/NEWS04/910150353/1018/NEWS01/MTSU+poll+finds+Tennesseans+suspicious+of+Obama++swine+flu+vaccine

Neither a birther nor a jabber be... I plan on getting my shot on 20 October.

As to the controversy -

In North America, flu is 'widespread' http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_10_09/en/index.html and mortality is now at the epidemic threshhold.

In the US, surveillance has been 'reset' - as of Aug 30 - and a new flu season is just starting http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/. Nearly 3000 samples were confirmed, almost all H1N1 - a hard number - which is roughly 27% of the samples tested. Now, I'm not claiming that there were only 3000 cases in the week - but then again, I doubt they'd be testing samples unless flu was suspected. All I'm saying is that most cases of suspected flu are not flu at all. This is not in any way unusual.

US figures for 2007-8 (which did not have any swine flu but was sub-type A, as is H1N1) show that figures peaked in late January-February (as is typical). http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2007-2008/07-08summary.htm

Rates of infection generally rise slowly until the big exponential explosions in mid-winter, year on year. Swine flu may be different - but so far does not appear to be so. Southern hemisphere patterns match this.

Now, it is entirely possible that there will be 7 million cases in the USA alone this year - but that hasn't happened yet. The July peak still accounts for most of the US (and UK) cases. The Southern Hemisphere peak has passed.

A few selected passages from the WHO update to which bookie linked (http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_10_09/en/index.html) (Italics and bolding are all mine.):

--"As many countries have stopped counting individual cases, particularly of milder illness, the case count is significantly lower than the actually[sic] number of cases that have occurred."

--"In the temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere, transmission of influenza virus and rates of influenza-like-illness (ILI) continue to increase marking an unusually early start to fall and winter influenza season in many countries. Geographically widespread influenza is being reported throughout North America, with the United States reporting ILI levels elevated above the seasonal baseline for the past month and Mexico reporting a high intensity of respiratory diseases for the past three weeks."

--"In Europe and Central and Western Asia, early transmission of influenza virus continues to increase in many countries..."

--"In Japan, influenza activity continues to be elevated above the seasonal epidemic threshold since week 33, most recently in the large population centers."

Yes, as predicted (and as usually happens), the rates of influenza transmission in the temperate regions of the southern hemisphere have either largely subsided, or are declining substantially. But the northern hemisphere holds the great majority of the world's population, so it'll be interesting to see what happens...

A report released today by Eurosurveillance (http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19358) has some interesting stats. The article is filled with a lot of heavy-duty medical jargon (example: "To simulate the time evolution of the influenza H1N1 pandemic, we assumed an initial number of infective individuals and susceptibles, I0=1/N and S0=N, respectively, at an initial time t0. Given particular values of β0, β1, and t0, we numerically solved equations (1) and (2) to estimate the fraction of the population infected with pandemic H1N1 influenza each week."), but there are some normal-human-readable things, such as the following:

--"By the end of 2009, the model predicts that a total of 63% of the [U.S.] population will have been infected"

--"We predict that almost two thirds of the US population will be infected with pandemic H1N1 influenza by the end of 2009. However, the serological analysis presented in King et al. showed that up to 60% of seasonal influenza infections are asymptomatic [10]. If the same is true of the current pandemic influenza, about a quarter of the population will fall ill."

(For what it's worth, 63% of the current U.S. population is roughly 192 million. A quarter would be 'only' 76 million Americans by the end of December.)

So...even if the experts have exaggerated by a factor of 10--which would be a very large error--there will still be more than enough cases in the U.S. alone by the end of December to settle this as 'Yes'.

@104, 105

Ah at last a chance for some reasoned discussion... I cited the WHO weekly report, to allow people to read it without any extra emphasis, and note that in scientific parlance 'significantly' has a real meaning - and it is not the same thing as 'massively' or 'overwhelmingly' lower than the actual case count. Likewise, 'above baseline' and 'epidemic' have real meanings - and do not mean that the 'flu is either rampant or out of control. The fact is that this weekly report provides some apparent support for the 'yes' campaign - until you realise that the reality is nowhere near what SQL (and some medical officers) have been predicting in their doomsday way.

So let's look at the Eurosurveillance report. Figure 2 http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V14N41/US_Fig2_NEW.jpg shows the actual progess of the disease from week 21 to week 33 - everything else is projected (forward and also back between weeks 17-21). There are therefore only 12 actual data points, nor is there any data from outside the USA which is considered. Of these 12 actual bits of data, the rate of infection only just barely gets above 0.01% of the population in 5 weeks, and is below in 7 weeks. So from this chart, one might conclude that in the first peak something close to 0.1% of the population was infected (some 350,000 cases). Figure 1 is a bit more detailed - it is based on actual serum samples, and shows that the actual peak in week 24 is just 6000 cases, and that the total number of cases over the entire period (weeks 17 to 38) is (only!?) some 70,000 cases, or something like 0.02%. My conclusion is that the relevant multiplier used is close to 5 (vs. 'dozens' mentioned by SQL in previous posts).

But - if the model is right - it projects a second peak by end October with up 8% of the population infected in a week! Well, if the model is even close to being correct, that sounds bad for the 'No' team. Ah, but the key question remains unknown - when will the second peak build? The authors themselves admit huge uncertainty "Based on a model with simple harmonic seasonal forcing, the peak of the H1N1 influenza pandemic was predicted to occur between weeks 39 to 43 with 95% confidence. However, it should be noted that the actual periodic function underlying seasonal forcing of influenza has not been well studied, and the uncertainties in the model predictions arising from seasonal forcing assumptions are difficult to quantify." Remember that the data from the Southern Hemisphere - which showed a much later seasonal peak - was not considered.

I would also return to the discussion of 'what is an infection?' - in my view one is not infected unless one is actually ill (feverish, etc.). Most people 'exposed' to the virus do not seem to get ill (so far) and even now most people thought to be ill are not actually returning positive samples (slightly over 1/4 of samples taken are positive). Again, the authors themselves say "We predict that almost two thirds of the US population will be infected with pandemic H1N1 influenza by the end of 2009. However, the serological analysis presented in King et al. showed that up to 60% of seasonal influenza infections are asymptomatic [10]. If the same is true of the current pandemic influenza, about a quarter of the population will fall ill." Now, if anything most reports suggest that H1N1 is milder than seasonal flu for most... so that means that more than 60% of the people exposed do not fall ill - and while the authors would still consider them 'infected' anyway, this is not the ordinary meaning of the term. (This by the way perhaps explains neatly why there are 'only' some 70,000 people who got sick but some 350,000 are considered to have been infected...)

The experts don't need to exaggerate; for their concern was in good part to measure the effectiveness of the vaccine programme. To put the data another way, if the seasonal peak is delayed by as little as two weeks, the vaccination program would be much more effective among adults, or if by 4 weeks then many many more children would be protected as well. And if the seasonal peak is indeed in late January, the numbers affected by the end of December would be no more than an additional half a million or so... a factor of 100 and more - not even considering vaccination.

Another point worth mentioning was the estimated death rate used in the study - this was from 0.05% to 0.5%. Now I suspect and hope the true figure is at the bottom of the range (though for purposes of betting I'd prefer the top rate...) - that's 1 in 2000 infected die, up to 1 in 200. If we did use the CFR rate to determine the global outcome, that would mean when 7 million cases were reached there would be 35,000 to 350,000 deaths (worldwide). No wonder SQL doesn't like that idea!

So thanks for the frighteners, SQL, for you have now provided some strong evidence that thus far well less than 1 million people have been infected in the USA. I have never denied that it was still possible that the second US peak could come before year end, and be plenty strong enough to prove you right - but is this really (85%-90%) overwhelmingly likely? Well, we shall see - your authors have 95%+ confidence in their results - provided their seasonal forcing was correctly applied and is correctly understood - oops, there's the hole, they can't even begin to quantify how likely the model is to work a priori.

Never mind, there's still Japan... not to mention the 5 million cases (ha! not!) in Thailand...

Ah, bookie. Tsk, tsk, tsk. The question doesn't state "Will more than one-tenth of one percent of the world's population become ill with swine flu in 2009" ;-) The market definitely asks about infections, and the Eurosurveillance report definitely talks about infections. Let's agree to compare apples to apples, okay?

Now, let me restate something which was in my original comment, and which you repeated but seemed to overlook: "However, the serological analysis presented in King et al. showed that up to 60% of seasonal influenza infections are asymptomatic [10]. If the same is true of the current pandemic influenza, about a quarter of the population will fall ill." Did you catch that? It didn't even say "a quarter of the population will be infected"; it actually says "will fall ill," which, you'd have to admit, even fits your criteria for settlement. ;-)

Frankly, I'm a little amazed at your methodologies. I'm not accusing you of being a denier of global warming, but I find your "logic" analogous to that which many deniers use. A) A majority of scientists state some simple and unarguable facts, and make some predictions based on those facts. B) You state that you don't think they can be right, so you're going to disregard most or all of what they have to say. C) As time goes on, most of the scientific predictions come to pass. Some turned out to have been too optimistic, while others were too pessimistic, but that's okay; that's how science works. D) Faced with that data, you say, "Well, since they weren't 100% correct in their forecasts, I choose to disregard everything that they say." E) More time passes, and those scientists, armed now with even more data, continue to refine their predictions. While a few of their predictions are spot-on, most are--as normally happens--off by a degree or two on either side of the line. F) You stick to your guns with an almost religious zeal. "I don't believe what the scientists say; I think they're wrong."

In the case of GW deniers, I'm sure many will still rigidly cling to their beliefs even when the ice caps have shriveled to a few patches of July snow at the South Pole and warm ocean waters are lapping at the foothills of the Appalachians. ;-) In your case, I suspect you might stick to your "It's not going to happen" belief even if the WHO itself states unequivocally that a few hundred million have been infected by the end of the year.

I'll say this again: if a wide majority of epidemiologists and virologists predict the number of infected globally will be many tens of times higher than needed to settle this as 'Yes', how can you--or anyone else--shrug that off with no evidence and instead adamantly state, "No, it's not gonna happen!"? Remember: science is not religious, and it's not about faith, nor what one believes to be true; it is, rather, about observing and compiling data, then making suppositions and drawing conclusions based on those data...even when those suppositions and conclusions go against everything someone might feel in their bones to be true.

@107

An interesting argument, now, and an interesting parallel. The Euro report does use the word 'infections' but as you note does distinguish this from people falling ill. If 1/4 of the population of the USA falls ill, then no doubt. Now, if this market is settling on estimates of the incidence of 'infections' read as 'exposed to the virus; showing serological evidence by producing antibodies' then everyone who gets a vaccination is 'infected' (deliberately so!) and I shall certainly quit. However, in the clear meaning of the question 'infected' = 'is exposed to swine flu, develops an infection, falls ill, and probably is feverish or shows other significant symptoms' or some such formulation.

I note that you haven't commented on my conclusions from the report data that the numbers thus far support my contention that - so far! - the numbers affected by the swine flu haven't reached 'Yes', and that - until the second peak does form - the present rate of infection will not take us to 'Yes' by year end.

It is of course the 'by year end' which is the point mainly in contention. I do not doubt the statistical science of epidemiology, although I note that where human behavious is involved (e.g. in taking preventive steps) there is a degree of feedback rarely allowed for, so that is one form of doubt; the bigger the scare, the more likely perhaps it will be avoided. Was Y2K a real threat? No, I don't think so, for the immediate economic interest was to whip it up. Was Aids not the lethal epidemic of the 80s? Well, yes, but in large parts of the world people changed their behaviour enough to change the results.

As to Global Warming - alas, I am both believer and skeptic. I have known since the 60s (Isaac Asimov) that increased CO2 production can produce a warming atmospheric trend. (Water vapour is a far more potent greenhouse gas, as indeed are many others.). I read CIA reports in the mid-70s explaining the differential effects of mild warming across the world. At the same time... well, there have been a lot of hysterical and near hysterical reactions, and a serious misunderstanding of the time frames and feedback effects involved. Yes, the Arctic may be ice free - in summer time! - relatively soon. But no, that (in itself) is not enough water to drown the coasts (indeed, ice is less dense than ice water - so arctic sea ice melt could (by itself...) in fact lower water levels.

I suspect that - regardless of other efforts - sooner or later humans will burn all the fossil fuels (unless fusion power is successfully harnessed or there is some other technological breakthrough). Even with heavy 'carbon charges' it is unlikely that most renewable energy techniques will feasibly compete. And I am horrified by the prospect that nuclear fission power will once again by seen as something our grandchildren will thank us for... but that (imho) is what high carbon taxes are planned to bring about. (I am in favour of light carbon taxes, tho any carbon tax is inevitably a tax on the poor (i.e. is regressive in nature) - you can call me an elitist to that extent.)

It is again about timing... yes, burning fossil fuels causes global warming - and that is not entirely a bad thing in terms of geological epochs, for the likelihood is that otherwise Earth would ice up again. In terms of human lifespans it may be a Very Bad Thing - or it may not be quite so bad. We don't yet know. As the years go by we will get a better idea, and it is no bad thing to be more energy efficient. I personally suspect that the best thing to do is to apply ordinary fuel taxes to airline travel, for I believe (without much evidence, but with regard to theoretical science) that placing COs in the higher atmosphere is much much more dangerous than burning the same fuel at ground level. But while I no longer enjoy flying, travel by jet is still useful and important to me; I'd hate to pay lots more for the privilege, even if I should.

Like anyone on Hubdub I enjoy speculating about the future; but I don't mistake 'prediction' for 'science'. Science observes; extrapolation is a useful skill, but it is not 'science' in the same sense. Economics is a science; economic prediction is not. Science produces a theory; when you extrapolate, you are making a hypothesis which can then be compared with observation.

As to my 'methodologies' - I do not disregard 'that they say', I am critically examining the facts presented, evaluating the hypothesis, and then seeing how the data as it arrives compares to my judgement. I try to take into account the obvious human motivations involved while accepting that by and large the scientists are doing their best to be honest and objective. I do not accuse you of clinging to your beliefs regardless of evidence, I keep trying to point out that the data doesn't (yet) support your conclusion (in this case, that there is no doubt that the flu will infect more than 0.1% of the world before the end of the year).

Now, you keep citing wide majorities of epidemiologists and virologists - um, where is this poll? I rather suspect that while this vast majority is quite reasonably certain that - barring successful vaccination programmes - swine flu will infect - make ill - millions, possibly hundreds of millions of people, before the population as a whole acquires enough immunity to resist - but that rather few would put money, even H$, on the proposition this must happen in fall 2009. Yes, the world travels more than in say 1968 (though there is a recession), and travel spreads flu. But historically, it takes time for flu to travel, and the average time between peaks is higher than 6 months. We don't yet know enough about 'flu mechanisms to say why there even are - usually - two peaks, or what the relationship is between infectivity and severity (if there is one). We certainly don't yet know enough about H1N1 to make accurate predictions (not enough data points yet). That's science!

No, all along - well, no, my first bet was made in ignorance, but since then - I have only bet - and posted - based not on a 'gut' feeling, but rather on seeing that you (in particular) were willing to overstate the likelihood that the second peak would come early. Like those who claim that within my lifetime I will feel the adverse effects of global warming... but that is only an unnecessary scare tactic, for unless my lifetime is significantly extended this is in fact rather unlikely. Or who claimed the oil will run out by the mid-nineteen-nineties (I am not denying Peak Oil theory, just saying it did not in fact do so).


And so with Swine Flu - I don't deny that it has spread, or that there have been thousands of deaths. It is a serious problem. But do I believe that it is likely to kill me? No, but I'll get the shot anyway (selfish in a way, as it could be argued it would be better used on a child in a poor country; unselfish in another way, for by getting the shot I will be helping to save lives here, building herd immunity).

Don't forget, you were ready to project runaway spread in the first peak - which could have (but didn't) happen. I noticed that although widespread, the disease then was essentially localised where the peaks were - and saw that the early peaks had faded faster than expected (probably because older folk seem to have some immunological protection from other A type flus).

You were also - quite reasonably - convinced that the pandemic in the Southern Hemisphere would produce a 'Yes' - but in fact the rate of infections just didn't get to that point, as the spread started late and ended early. (Yet.) Well. That's 2 chances gone. Now, even if I am right, I am not claiming that the world is safe from Swine Flu by any means. But perhaps it is time to look again at the observed data... and refine your predictions accordingly.

The other point I feel is worth making is actually in your favour, tho it may not seem like it. One of the points in the Euro paper was about just how long swine flu has actually been around; for the purposes of their model it was assumed that it started in 2009 (something about -8 to -10 weeks as I recall). There is now evidence that Swine Flu may have been around (on a very small scale) in California in previous years (possibly as far back as 2005!). (There is also a somewhat discredited theory that the source was actually flu vaccinations for porkers... but it is 'science'). An earlier origin would invalidate their model - not epidemiological science, but their model. If this is so, then this will also throw off my own assumptions and make it somewhat more likely (not massively more likely, but somewhat) that an earlier peak outside of the US (and other highly developed countries) had developed without detection, and making it possible that there could be a reservoir of infectivity ready to erupt (in say e.g. Russia) into a much more destructive episode. (This could partially explain how the virus travelled so quickly to Australia, for example, although modern travel is probably enough to account for it.)

By the way, all my bets remain as always public - t'wasn't me who spiked this up to 33% No today. And since you've dumped another 20k on Yes, I assume you haven't yet pulled back your bets. (I admit, I was briefly tempted to take some profits...) Hey, how about a Q on whether this market gets to 50-50 by Nov.1? I would bet it does, if I had any cash to spare!

is this a "who posts the longest comment wins" discussion?

i'm still not sure how this question will be settled ... despite the verboseness of several explanations ...

Hey kru - you weren't accused of being a climate change denier - soon to be as bad as being a Holocaust denial... or a Birther...

Nounose? Moi?

bookie, no offense. I guess sql didn't mean it that way.
but beware ... "bookie the Birther"

:-P


it's just that I'm concerned about how this market will end ...

Me too. 7 million vaccinations is not! what I had in mind...

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/current-season.htm

Of course this is only in the USA...

"Timing is uncertain. In past years, seasonal flu activity typically did not reach its peak in the U.S. until January or February, but flu activity has occurred as late as May. However, the 2009 H1N1 virus caused illness, hospitalizations, and deaths in the U.S. during the summer months when influenza is very uncommon. So it is not known when flu activity will increase, when it will be most intense (peak), what viruses will circulate, or how long the season might last. "

Well, luckily for purposes of settlement, the pandemic doesn't have to hit a peak for this to settle as 'Yes'. In fact, by the time the global peak occurs, there should have been close to 1.1 billion people infected...or about 160 times that needed.

This may have been brought up already, but in case it hasn't: http://www.google.org/flutrends/us/

Hey SQL you may be pleased to know that I got my 'flu shot today - but only for the seasonal variety. It seems that H1N1 vaccine has been delayed till November and they'll call us if they think we are in a priority group...

...so at least I haven't been deliberately 'infected' yet!

Protected, not infected as Men at Work nearly sang

Swine flu jabs are supposedly starting today for high risk groups in the UK. The medico on the radio was careful to explain that pandemic does not equal panic! He did say that the rates were higher than ordinary - but that we still are far below the summer peaks...

The CDC - according to mainstream media - is unsure whether this week will be the 'second peak' for swine flu, or if it will occur after the 'first of the year' - but either way the numbers, while high, are stlll at most only just in the range of a 'yes' (in the USA - not worldwide!) and not in the 'millions and millions' of cases. (The USA is estimated to have had something like 1/3 to 1/2 of all cases worldwide with roughly 6% of world population.)

. http://www.latimes.com/news/health/la-sci-swine-flu22-2009oct22,0,3172233.story

I don't fully agree with the author of this article http://www.newstatesman.com/health/2009/10/swine-flu-pandemic-cases but his basic point (about severity) - and comments on how frequently what is diagnosed as swine flu isn't actually swine flu when checked - relate to this q.

http://www.newstatesman.com/health/2009/10/swine-flu-pandemic-cases

@bookie: it's very important in the context of that article to note that Whitaker wasn't talking about all H1N1 being misdiagnosed; he was referring specifically about the algorithm-based telephone diagnoses given by the UK's NPFS. That problem's been addressed. On top of that, Whitaker's not the first to confuse H1N1's relative mildness with its ability to spread far, wide, and fast...

According to another MSM 'news' source, the UK has had an estimated 370,000 cases, or roughly 1/2 of the level needed for a 'Yes' - and note that the UK has been (perhaps!) the most infected country in Europe...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2692801/Swine-flu-jabs-begin-across-UK.html

Mind you, I feel soiled quoting The Sun...

@3 Hey SQL, I can see why you've been betting so much on Yes. In your very first comment, you claimed that WHO predicted everyone would get the flu 3 times over thro 2010 (do the math) and claimed no-one has natural immunity to this virus (it is now believed that folks who are my age and older who were exposed to the '57 pandemic do retain some immunity).

In my view, while this q. could still go either way, it is likely that much will depend on the weather for the rest of fall 2009 - which is expected to be mild in NA and Europe. A real cold snap however, and I might get nervous...

@bookie: Huh? I said that the number of infected needed to settle this as 'Yes' was only 1/333rd of the number the WHO said would eventually be infected. 6,790,062 x 333 = 2,261,070,000...or roughly one third of the world's population, which is what WHO was projecting at the time (and still is). (I rounded the figure, of course, when I said that the number need to settle this as 'Yes' was 3/10 of one percent of the number of cases the WHO said there'd be; that means there'd be 2,263,333,000 infected worldwide...a number not much higher than or different from the first.)

Yes, indeed, bookie: do the math. ;-)

At the time that commented was posted (late April or early May) it was believed that there was no natural immunity to the virus. So sue me...

"So, then, 6,790,062 cases? That's a lot of swine flu...but then again, that's only 1/333rd, or 3/10ths of one percent, of the number of cases the WHO believes will eventually contract the virus through 2010."

Um, oh you got me, guess that's the countersuit. Let's see 1/10 of 1 percent is a yes, so 3/10 of % is 3 times as many as there are people - oops, inverse, me bad, not 3 times but 1/3. Yes, I misread that one. .

The odds have inverted too - I wouldn't say you were wrong at the time about that, but you hould have taken some profits!

PS The wife got her swine flu (and regular) jag today - she's complaining that her SF arm is sore - apparently this is common. But she's front line medical and so a priority.

Protected not infected so no reason to feel rejected?

I hope your wife's feeling better soon. I've quit counting the number of people I know who've come down with H1N1. So far, though--knock on wood--nobody I know has needed hospitalization.

A spokesman for the CDC, Joe Quimby, said today that "many millions" of Americans have had H1N1 so far. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hjdCHrP82YTFser5vD6CzTK1az6wD9BH1V280)

Here's an interesting graph. Note that the number of ILI outpatient visits in week 40 of this year is already higher than the peaks of the normal seasonal flu during and around week 10 (the historical peak) of the past three years: http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/updates/us/#iligraph

Here's another graph showing that the overwhelming number of ILIs in some nations is H1N1: http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/updates/international/map.htm

She's fine thanks, the swelling went away and she's not moaning anymore - the nurse told her almost everyone had the same complaint about the shot.

That last graphic was based on a very small set of positive samples in some of the countries... but I'm not denying that SF makes up most of the respiratory illness tested (but would add that the majority of ILI tests actually show no illness in the first place...). The CDC spokesman is quite possibly correct, of course; though the article is bit unclear as to whether he's talking 'got ill' or 'been exposed' - 'have had' (which was not part of the actual quote) is a bit weaselly. I would suggest that the word 'many' is also a bit weaselly - it could be hundreds, tens, or possibly just 3... I'm sure you'd agree that such vague assertions are not 'official estimates' by any means.

I do wonder if when FoF set this question he anticipated that such a high proportion of swine flu 'cases' might be in one country - it almost certainly won't have reached 1/10 of 1% 'worldwide' even if it can be shown that 7 million or more Americans have come down with an infection...

I'm not saying that such a "vague assertation" as yesterday's "many millions" is anywhere close to being enough to settle this. I am saying that the CDC acknowledges that, while they don't have (and, in fact, don't want) exact case counts, the U.S. has been hit hard...very hard. However, while "many" can be used to denote as few as three (as you stated), I would imagine if the number were that low, the CDC spokesperson would have said something along the lines of "a few million" or "several million". (And, yes, while yesterday's conference left it a little vague as to what is meant by "have had", numerous other reports make it clear they're talking about folks who have actually come down with the influenza, and not just been exposed to the virus.)

I think the fact that the numbers in the U.S. alone will likely be far more than enough to settle this as 'Yes' highlights the rapid spread of the virus more than almost any other fact. We may not even have to throw in the hundreds of thousands (and, yes, millions) reported by other countries. That should make settlement a nice and tidy thing when the time comes, wouldn't you agree? ;-)

Flu cure found in the elderberry...

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2007/11/12/flu-cure-found-in-the-elderberry/comment-page-1/#comment-97212

Not such a "vague assertion" today; the CDC says that between 1.8 million and 5.7 million Americans were infected with H1N1 from mid-April to July 23. (While some here have ridiculed epidemiologists for talking of estimated case rates of 10 to 20 times higher than confirmed--that is, that between ten and twenty people were infected for every lab-confirmed case--the CDC says that number is actually about 80.)

For purposes of settlement, then, there's no reason the minimal number--1.8 million infected in just the US alone, and just by late July--shouldn't be used. Add all the other nations of the world to that number, and then add in all the October/November peak flu numbers coming in, and it's pretty obvious that this one will have a very difficult time settling as 'No'.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33536458/ns/health-cold_and_flu/

...and today, Japan announced that 1,000,000 people were infected with H1N1 in just the past week, for a cumulative estimated total of 4.31 million in that country alone since early July.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20091031a1.html

I assume the same rules will apply to this as another recently contentious question. Namely, if there is no MSM report of the number of cases reaching the required level by the suspend date then it will be deemed to have not happened, even if there is a mountain of evidence suggesting it has. And please, please tell me that the person adjudicating on this is not the same person who has sunk about H$100k into the question in the past week alone.

@gonegonegone, please read my earlier posts: I've stated more than once that, if this market falls in my category at the time of settlement, I'll not be actually doing the settling, and will, indeed, pass that duty on to someone else. And, yes, I have put a lot of money on the 'Yes' option here, but there's nothing evil or wrong with that, anymore than there is with any other player wagering on any other market. I have both the cash and the motivation to wager as I see fit--we cat-eds are all players, of course--and I've believed since May that this would settle as 'Yes', so that's how I've placed my bets. Yes, a lot of players here have placed money on the 'No' option, especially early on, and I took advantage of that by buying up more 'Yes' options at a bargain price. But that's just how the game is played. There's no "insider trading" being done on my part; everything has been done fairly and in the open for all to see. That will continue on through settlement, as always.

As for your first statement, we definitely should use a "mountain of evidence" to prove that A/H1N1 has infected the required number of people...but that mountain of evidence will, of course, come directly from the MSM when/if it's available, so there's no conflict as your statement would seem to indicate. And--again--we're not planning to use wild estimates as put out by any news organization, but rather the real and precise scientific estimates as published by local and/or regional and/or national and/or global health authorities, and published in the MSM.

(But out of curiosity: what's the other "recently contentious question" of which you speak?)

11/12: The US CDC estimates that between 14 million and 34 million cases of 2009 H1N1 occurred between April and October 17, 2009. The mid-level in this range is about 22 million people infected with 2009 H1N1.

http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates_2009_h1n1.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5AB4H520091112

According to the chart on the CDC page, enough American children alone have been infected to more than meet the 1/10 of one-percent criteria for settlement. Sounds like a 'Yes' to me...

Well, I think this is premature to say the least.

The main report mentioned covers April to July and estimates a range of 1.8 - 5.7 million cases. The Emerging Infections Program report (which is not peer-reviewed) does give a range of 14 -34 million to date - which is achieved by (nearly) tripling the number of extrapolated hospitalisations to a range of 18,000 - 44,500 and then multiplying by 221. (Lab confirmed hospitalizations meanwhile are at 2240, less than the lowest estimate for actual number of deaths...).

Other reports - in Time magazine at http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1938909,00.html and in the International Herald Tribune - in articles on the revised CDC numbers - state the estimate through to Oct 17 is 2 million Americans have become infected.

Yes, there are other MSM reports which cite the 22 million figure - and nearly 100,000 hospitalizations - based on the CDC adoption of the EIP report.

I can see suspending this for a week or two while seeing if these reports are substantiated further; but settling it so quickly seems odd to me.

1) I didn't settle this; as promised, I passed it up the line for independent verification.

2) The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention yesterday announced the 14 million to 34 million number; that number is the official scientific estimate, and it's based on sound science. (I'm not sure where 'peer-reviewed' comes from; that was never part of the settlement criteria.)

3) The 2,000,000 figure in the Time article to which you linked (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1938909,00.html) is clearly a misprint of the 22 million mid-level number announced by the CDC yesterday. An update Time story has correctly reported the 22 million number: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1939266,00.html

4) Even taking just the very lowest CDC number and the Japan April-October number, one arrives at 18+ million, or nearly three times the number needed to settle this as 'Yes'.

5) In your own words, you stated that the April to July estimate had a low of 1.8 million in America alone. That was obviously well before the disease even got close to a peak in the U.S. and elsewhere. A simple bit of extrapolation shows that the new CDC numbers--which they claim are both more precise and accurate--correctly reflect the truth.

In short: I'm not sure why it seems odd to you that it settled; the settlement criteria state that the MSM have to say that 6,790,063 or more people around the world had to be infected by the end of the year, and the sole national health authority in the United States (the group that reports to the WHO) yesterday said that number has been passed by quite a margin. (I suspect that if we waited until, say, the middle of January to settle, the global number infected would easily top 100 million.)

Thanks, everyone, for a great game...and thanks fingers_of_fury for a fantastic and well-constructed question.