Swine flu: a common sense question no-one is asking?

At least, I think it's a common sense question, but I might be misunderstanding the science.

It looks at the moment as if the prediction I made last week is on course for fulfilment. I do, however, have a question about the measures now being put in place to which I don't know the answer, and am hoping someone out there does.

It seems that the current viral strain, at least as it is propagating along a human to human vector is quite mild, and yet stories like this are being reported. A child gets swine flu, and her school is closed. She is reported as being "at home and well"and all her year group are being given antiviral drugs.

However, it has always been my understanding that, in fighting off a mild viral strain, the body builds up its immunity. Given the speed with which flu viruses mutate, I would have thought that acquiring natural immunity across a wide population might be worth suffering a relatively mild pandemic. If, however, we are teaching this virus, in its mildest form, to survive our most powerful antiviral agents, are we stripping ourselves of any defences for when it mutates into a more virulent form?

We have already travelled this path in bacteriological terms, as society's addiction to antibiotics has led to the evolution of one bacterial "superbug" after another rampaging around our hospitals. Does the panicked reaction to swine flu suggest we are heading down the same path in aiding and abetting the evolution of viral "superbugs" with far stronger chances of killing swathes of the world's population?