Caplan: No Hype In Flu Response
Art Caplan writes today in his MSNBC column: "overall, the resources, attention and response to the H1N1 swine flu outbreak have been absolutely appropriate." Do you agree? Go to pandemic.bioethics.net to post your own reactions to Caplan's column.
To read the entire column read more after the break or click here.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Opinion: World's flu response was hardly hype
Despite a few missteps, reaction to potential pandemic was on target
Just when you thought the swine flu epidemic was going to be the story of the decade, the saga appears to be coming to an end.
Sure, there are still new cases being reported around the world. And the focus of monitoring for any nasty mutations in the swine flu virus is shifting to the southern hemisphere, where winter -- flu's favorite season -- is about to begin.
Still, it seems fairly certain that the spread of the H1N1 virus is not nearly as fast, pervasive or lethal as had been feared. The time for Monday-morning quarterbacking has arrived: Was the swine flu pandemic just a lot of hype or did the world mount a credible response to a very real threat and tamp it down?
There certainly were elements of hype in the media tsunami that accompanied the first reports of deaths in Mexico from a mysterious new flu. Few in the media clearly stated that the World Health Organization's six-stage pandemic flu scale alerts have much more to do with the spread than the intensity of the epidemic.
And, sadly, the outbreak was used as excuse for racism, including calls to arrest all Mexicans living illegally in the United States and China's detention and quarantine of persons with Mexican passports -- many of whom had not been anywhere near Mexico in years.
But overall, the resources, attention and response to the H1N1 swine flu outbreak have been absolutely appropriate.
Mexico was slow in responding to the new virus. Once it got its act going, the Mexican government did an impressive job of communicating to the public, encouraging flu-killing behavior like hand-washing and banning large public gatherings. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Mexico for slowing the epidemic down enough to let the rest of the world respond.
The U.S. government, Canada, New Zealand, the European Union, WHO and many other governments and institutions did a good, hype-free job on a number of fronts.
They got the word out about hand-washing and coughing into your sleeve, staying home if sick and keeping an eye on people who might be ill at school or on a plane.
Stored supplies of antiviral drugs were moved quickly and showed some impact against the virus. Gene hunters nailed down the makeup of the new virus rapidly. Cases from around the world were reported to CDC and WHO, permitting reasonable tracking of the disease location, those affected and the impact of treatment on those who did catch the virus.
The media -- print, Internet, television, radio -- all pounded home the proper messages: Wash your hands, stay away from sick people, don't panic. They never did figure out what to say about masks but, that flub aside, they really did a credible job educating the public about a fairly complex story.
What are the take-home lessons from the great swine flu scare of 2009?
First, there will be other viruses. This strain has not shown the lethal power that public health officials feared. Another strain might. And more are coming. Viruses don't lollygag.
Second, we need better worldwide surveillance of deaths and outbreaks. The virus got started in Mexico because few expected an outbreak there, the local authorities were distracted by a ferocious drug war and it's likely unsanitary practices were allowed to flourish at large pig farms.
There are still places in the world where viruses can get a foothold without anyone knowing until it is too late. That number must be reduced to zero.
Third, we don't have enough capacity to make flu vaccine. This is in part because we don't take plain old, seasonal flu seriously despite the fact that it kills a half million people worldwide every year.
Most of those deaths are preventable with flu shots. Too many people -- including doctors, nurses and nursing home aides -- don't get them. If everyone were vaccinated, we would have to make more ordinary flu vaccine. Then, when a really nasty new virus showed up, we would have enough capacity to make a lot more swine or avian flu vaccine because the same factories produce both seasonal and targeted vaccines.
Finally, we need to be ready to coordinate our pandemic plans. A few plans were trotted out by various companies, counties, provinces, states, governments, agencies, institutions, hospitals, professional associations and schools. The problem? They're not all on the same page. In the event of a widespread, deadly outbreak, they must be in sync.
It is easy to yell "hype" when this pandemic seems to be a bit of a fizzle. Think again. A fairly good worldwide response in terms of action and communication should make us all feel a bit less worried when the next viral mutant appears. And important lessons were learned -- we can do even better next time.
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.











comments
I think the media was hyperventilating about swine flu. This leads to exaggerated concerns and hysteria. http://travelvaccineforum.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/can-you-catch-swine-flu-from-a-doorknob/
The press was way ahead of the science and our goverment on swine flu. It may have transfixed the nation, but I didn't find their coverage to be balanced. During the early days of the outbreak, there was only 1 swine flu fatality in an infant who had other medical issues. Meanwhile, 36,000 Americans will die in the coming year from the seasonal (winter) flu.
- by Michael Kirsch, M.D. on May 15, 2009 at 10:42 AM | link
How soon will you update your blog? I'm interested in reading some more information on this issue.
- by GarykPatton on Jun 16, 2009 at 6:41 AM | link
I think an issue of concern now is that we are not dealing with real numbers when it comes to the actual rates of infection with H1N1. The doctors who see patients in clinics cannot test or treat cases of flu. So, someone who is presumptively infected with swine flu, but is not over 65, under 4 or sick enough to hospitalize is sent home. Even though that person most probably has the flu, they are not counted. It's not just flu deaths (which are reported), but the spread which needs to be tracked by the health department. But they don't wish to collect that data for some reason. Not collecting data is just bad science, and it is causing them to base decisions on very spotty information. The cost of testing could not be so high as to keep us from gathering and mapping the evidence.
- by Kathy Kahn on Jun 22, 2009 at 11:56 PM | link
Thats a good point you made about the way they are keeping track of the data and infected people. I never thought of it that way.
- by n95 masks on Aug 7, 2009 at 2:04 PM | link