This article from The Age pretty much sums some of the things going through my mind as people squeal in fear from the possibility of a pandemic from the H1N1 flu outbreak that will kill us all:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/fears-distorting-reality-20090429-ancz.html
Some extracts:
I admit the need for an effective public health response, and even acknowledge that there is more to gain from stoking people's fears and insecurities, hence keeping them on the alert, as compared to calming them. It's good to take appropriate measures at disease containment, for epidimiological reasons, but probably more so for political ones (this is already turning into opportunities to score political points if you read the news).
However, despite all the fearmongering about it being the "next big pandemic" and how we are "overdue for a massive outbreak"that "threatens the existence of humanity", in all likelihood this H1N1 virus thing is going to become something of the past, just as SARS did. Does anyone remember the HK flu from the 1960s that killed over a million people worldwide-no? In addition, the world of international communications and public health is incredibly different from what it was in the century of the last pandemic. Just google something like "Developments/achievements in the last 50-100 years" and you'll see what I mean (this includes the internet btw).
And so I come back to my original point - lots of fearmongering and scares at "possibilities" that are in reality mere shadows, revealing a distinct lack of perspective on disease and illness. This is in stark contrast to our ignorance at the daily epidemics and massive numbers of deaths in poorer nations around us. I believe these events do something more than threaten the health of us all - they reveal the hypocrisy and lack of perspective in our lives, how we spend with reckless abandon at anything that immediately threatens our welfare, but live in gleeful ignorance what happens beyond our own world (I'm just as much guilty of this). I cannot help but think about God's anger - not expressed through disease as a punishment, but against us, for our indignancy, and our love for evil, not good.
PS: For those who are freaked out by the WHO near declaration of a pandemic - look up the definition first, see see how vague it is. The only thing that separates a "pandemic" from something like the normal flu, is the fact that it's new to populations.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/fears-distorting-reality-20090429-ancz.html
Some extracts:
...why do the deaths of only some people from obscure diseases cause us to panic? And how can we be so unfeeling when we have the power to save the lives of millions by relatively simple, inexpensive precautions and treatments?....In all reality, we only have 7 confirmed deaths from the Swine Flu (based on WHO analyses - Mexican databases aren't exactly stellar), in a country that is known for its gross inequities and dodgy standards of health and living. In contrast, the normal flu kills 250-500,000 people a year, of which 2000 are in Australia. Yet, all of the sudden, we have the leaders of the known world speaking up and declaring that they will spare no expense to contain this outbreak.
...it seems that only when we perceive that infectious diseases threaten "people like us" do we respond with real urgency. The millions killed by TB, AIDS, malaria and other mass killers are doomed to fit the stereotype of people who live and die like that. We can accept it as the way of the world. Aboriginal Australians are just as much victims of the indifference that flows from such stereotyping.
I admit the need for an effective public health response, and even acknowledge that there is more to gain from stoking people's fears and insecurities, hence keeping them on the alert, as compared to calming them. It's good to take appropriate measures at disease containment, for epidimiological reasons, but probably more so for political ones (this is already turning into opportunities to score political points if you read the news).
However, despite all the fearmongering about it being the "next big pandemic" and how we are "overdue for a massive outbreak"that "threatens the existence of humanity", in all likelihood this H1N1 virus thing is going to become something of the past, just as SARS did. Does anyone remember the HK flu from the 1960s that killed over a million people worldwide-no? In addition, the world of international communications and public health is incredibly different from what it was in the century of the last pandemic. Just google something like "Developments/achievements in the last 50-100 years" and you'll see what I mean (this includes the internet btw).
And so I come back to my original point - lots of fearmongering and scares at "possibilities" that are in reality mere shadows, revealing a distinct lack of perspective on disease and illness. This is in stark contrast to our ignorance at the daily epidemics and massive numbers of deaths in poorer nations around us. I believe these events do something more than threaten the health of us all - they reveal the hypocrisy and lack of perspective in our lives, how we spend with reckless abandon at anything that immediately threatens our welfare, but live in gleeful ignorance what happens beyond our own world (I'm just as much guilty of this). I cannot help but think about God's anger - not expressed through disease as a punishment, but against us, for our indignancy, and our love for evil, not good.
PS: For those who are freaked out by the WHO near declaration of a pandemic - look up the definition first, see see how vague it is. The only thing that separates a "pandemic" from something like the normal flu, is the fact that it's new to populations.
4 comments:
it just highlights the very basic of human instincts doesn't it - SURVIVAL
with an addendum - (of your own kind)
Well I suppose we then get to the question: are we dominated by our "basic instincts"? There's been much said about what it means to be human in the literature, but one oft argued point is that humans share the unique characteristic of being able to rise and function above and beyond "basic instincts". Altruistic sacrifice, and even consenting for an operation (honestly what animal would allow you to cut through the abdomen for what is a potential gain) are all features of this.
But again I emphasise - I'm not against the use of effective measures to minimise impact of disease. I am however noting that our responses are so often out of perspective with what's in a cross-sectional (what's happening elsewhere in the world) and what's happening longitudinally (what's happened in the past).
I always think it's exagerated and a golden opportunity for pharmacists to clear the medicine in the storeroom!
Same as the previous outbreak? SARS or something? Forgot...
Never really paid much attention!
That was exactly what I meant when I said that there's more benefit to strike up fear than calm it.
1. Epidimiological reasons - it's easier to contain a disease when everyone is freaked out of proportion
2. professional reasons - its the public health official's job to keep the population healthy, and the more he/she speaks up and seems to be doing, the better it looks
3. Industrial reasons - when there's fear of a flu, governments scramble to stockpile antivirals, that are BLOODY EXPENSIVE. The big pharmaceuticals are more than happy to feed this frenzy.
4. Political reasons - which politician wouldn't give in to the desire to demonstrate that they are "in control" and providing "crucial leadership in a dire hour"
Post a Comment