The human capacity for self-distraction is astonishing.
In terms of impacts on human lives, the current outbreak of Swine Flu in North America is minimal compared to hundreds of other issues. This morning we had the remarkable sight of the US Homeland Security Secretary dolefully intoning that Americans would inevitably die from Swine Flu.
Except, Americans will inevitably die from flu any time. Whether it is one specific strain of flu or another would, particularly to the victims, seem to be moot. Particularly elderly victims, many in nursing homes, whose deaths are frequently attributed to flu in the same way that police tend to blame motor vehicle accidents on speed i.e. because it’s a convenient thing to write on the form.
The US Homeland Security Department in fact would save far more lives if it directed some of the resources now being allocated to fighting Swine Flu to gun control. Firearms will account for thousands of deaths in US in the course of this year. Motor vehicle accidents will take plenty of Americans as well. One could go on. Breast cancer. Falls in the elderly. SIDS.
All real priorities but Swine Flu — the pig link is so compelling isn’t it — gets the attention, despite accounting for fewer deaths than a week’s road toll.
Predictably, politicians here have seized on the opportunity to look simultaneously caring but stern, and assure voters that they’ll be protected. Here there has been talk of detention powers – seemingly the inevitable Australia response – to make sure we remain Swine Flu free. God help any boat people landing on Christmas Island while running a fever. And we can’t control that nationalistic instinct, can we — we have the biggest Tamiflu stockpiles in the world, according to Nicola Roxon. Once again, we’re ahead of the curve and leading the world. To paraphrase Wayne Swan, every Health Minister in the world would gladly swap places with us.
Egging the politicians on has been the mainstream media, which has led every bulletin with the latest trivial update on the death toll (or, as it was rendered in the SMH yesterday as the first doubts were cast on the hype, “probably deaths”). Plagues sell papers, of course, and what better way to get those eyeballs locked back in than to spread panic and suggest I Am Legend is just around the corner.
The World Health Organisation put paid to some of the more hysterical coverage today by saying there had only been seven confirmed deaths. Let’s see if that takes the panic-stricken edge off the some of the coverage, which seems aimed solely at stoking public concern rather than accurately informing the public.
It’s interesting; why DO the governments seem so eager to be SEEN to be doing something? As this article above points out, there are far more constant death-bringers than these diseases, yet comparatively little is done about them.
I seriously wonder whether it’s a result of the companies that make up the pharmaceuticals industries applying pressure to the governments. My thoughts are that they are accomplishing this by using the our community, through clever use of media stories like these (swine ‘flu, SARS, cancer research, etc.)
In this way, by appealing to peoples fears (and in the case of cancer research and many other genuinely good causes), the pharmaceutical companies are able to sell an inordinate amount of a given drug, whilst also asking for an influx of finances so they can continue ‘fighting the good fight’.
And this is where it gets really unfortunate from my perspective.
In order to find a ‘wonder’ drug, the pharmaceutical companies begin a series of experiments on various species of animals. They continue to experiment until they find a molecular compound that doesn’t kill a particular species of animal in unacceptable numbers, but alternatively seems to do the job of clearing up the symptoms (in this case, as the ‘flu is a virus.) or the disease itself.
And the really disappointing part is that after they have administered some often intense cruelty to these animals, there is only a small chance (about 10%) that the drug will pass human trials.
What does that say about the efficacy of the argument that animal’s genetic make-up make them well suited as models for testing drugs?
The worse question is, how many safe drugs have gone undiscovered due to the unscientific logic (not method) of testing drugs and other substances on animals?
That is the wider issue here that needs a lot further questioning by all of us.
Summing up my arguments:
– the swine flu is a bit of a beat up, though still a serious illness
– we have ways of reducing the spread of the disease without resorting to stockpiles of drugs (good hygiene, etc.)
…and the wider issues underlying this are:
– drug companies continue unscientific and cruel experimentation for legal safety reasons, allowing them to claim an inordinate amount of research money for an indeterminate period of time to release a drug that has a high probability of being of questionable holistic human health value.
Please see http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr for more information.