Why has the American media stopped reporting on swine flu?

Open a British newspaper and you are bound to see swine flu everywhere. The front page of nearly every tabloid and respectable national alike has been awash over the past several weeks in stories ranging from "epidemic" to "tens of thousands of deaths expected". For example, today's lead in the Independent warns of "up to 750,000" deaths related to swine flu expected. BBC, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Sun, and nearly every other national publication of all media streams for that matter, are competing to be the first to report the latest and the highest number of swine flu deaths (29 in the UK at last count). Warnings about the flu are also omnipresent; work colleagues are passing the disinfectant bottle between sneezes; kids are being sternly instructed to wash their hands at every chance..

So where are our American counterparts? The over-compensating and exaggerated stench we so often associate with our neighbours across the pond seems to have looked past this one. It is absolutely nowhere in today's (July 16) New York Times, for instance. USA Today.. try again. Boston Globe, though owned by the Times.. still no. Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle.. no, no no, (though in the Chron it is reported Giants owner Sue Burns is deathly ill - but with cancer) I've been through them all! I mean, where is the panic people?

Not that I am endorsing panic in any sense. And don't get me wrong, I'm sure give it a few days and it'll be all over the American news again..

..only I think people should be allowed to monitor and stay aware of a situation as dire and unpredictable as this one. Could it be because the American media has realised just how big of a panic this could cause, thus adopting a cautious, toned-down approach as not to overwhelm an already disoriented healthcare system. But could this also mean it is a lot worse than most Americans realise?

Ah-choo!