I am confused about the severity of H1N1

I am now confused about the actual severity of H1N1.

The number of deaths -- about 5000 worldwide -- is not alarming. We are being encouraged to get the flu vaccine, but for no apparent reason. Why should anyone get the H1N1 vaccine if they would not normally get the flu vaccine that has become available every year for the past few years? The deaths seem to be in line with what you would normally expect from a normal flu, with the peculiar aspect that an unusually high number of casualties seem to be younger, healthy people.

A 13-year-old boy dropped dead on Monday afternoon and his father was told by a coroner that he had died as a result of H1N1. It is still not clear whether the boy had other health issues. This was not in today's newspaper. A 15-year-old boy died a couple of weeks ago from the same.

Also given a rather substandard mention is the fact that a pre-teen Cornwall girl died of H1N1 on the weekend. Even more confusing is that this issue is not on the front page of the newspaper. Instead, we have a story about the Bank of Canada governor apparently trying to dictate behaviour to world banks, a story about the environmental footprint of dogs, a story about full-day kindergarten learning going ahead despite budget concerns, and one about a mom that needs a lung transplant. There is a very small cue to flu vaccine availability on the bottom-right of the page.

Particularly interesting, though, is this segment of a story about halfway into today's paper:

People queuing in Whitby didn't need convincing. Not everyone showing up was at high risk.

"I called the department of health line," said Anne Robertson, a dental clinic nurse. "I didn't really fall into the (priority) category but they said nobody would be turned away."

The clinic felt like a natural disaster emergency centre. Workers in bright vinyl vests hurried about carrying megaphones, and weary-looking people sat in waiting areas while children's wails filled the air.

Isn't this important information? Why is it buried so deeply into the newspaper -- halfway through, at the end of a story at the bottom of the page? There are no images accompanying the above sentiment, whereas newspapers are usually fond of using images for dramatic effect. Why are sick people going for the vaccine, anyway? It doesn't do much good if you're already sick, does it?

Another aspect of H1N1 that worries me a bit is that we have created a culture where we can't have an honest discussion of priorities in a true crisis. Do we help the young first, or the old? Is that now a human rights issue? Is it first-come, first-served? What are our goals in the face of a crisis that can't be dealt with using universal treatment because of resource constraints? Who gets priority? Do you give the vaccine to people who are saddled with many other ailments and can be presumed to have a short life expectancy, anyway? Or do we prefer someone who has no health issues and offers a higher return on vaccine investment? These have always been issues in past pandemics.

At the moment, I don't worry about it. But I am definitely confused in light of the above. This is where we need journalists to inform if it is really serious and offer a big picture.

I don't intend to get the vaccine. I don't think it is unsafe and I don't distrust the system, but I generally don't take medication unless it's absolutely necessary. As a result, I haven't taken medication -- including over-the-counter -- for more than 10 years. I try to eat well and not be too lazy in the hope that this is good enough most of the time. And, at this time, based on the information before me I see no reason to get it.

[ update: the National Post provides some illumination. Maybe I should be subscribing to that one instead! ]