
Section
Pepperdine Links
Online Publications
“It’s like a combination of global warming and HIV/AIDS 10 times faster than it’s running at the moment.”
“The range of deaths could be anything between 5 million and 150 million.”
And no, this is not a reference to the recent Neil Diamond concert to which many Waves found themselves holding complimentary tickets (though the fallout zone from “Sweet Caroline” alone is estimated to be costing the government $4 billion in cleanup costs).
Instead, this year’s winter of our discontent is going to be populated by the much-dreaded bird flu (and I refuse the pseudo-Hippocratic sophistication that refers to the disease as “avian bird flu” since avian and bird mean exactly the same thing).
As millions (and perhaps billions) of people the world ‘round have become convinced that the bell is beginning to toll for them, panic has become a bit more palpable and the ever-arthritic pistons of government have begun to fire in the hopes that their response, if ineffectual, will at least be timely and ineffectual. Last week, President Bush unveiled a plan to combat the emergence of bird flu, which required $7.1 billion in new spending. If only the man had owned a piggy bank just once in his life, don’t you think we could have averted all of this?
Now, I don’t mean to be flippant about the outbreak of a potentially devastating virus, but … OK, I mean to be flippant about the outbreak of a potentially devastating virus. It strikes me that maybe a modicum of deviation from America’s “Edgar Allen Poe in a graveyard with a bottle of Scotch” mindset could be helpful here. Sure, there are compelling reasons to fret about the unthinkable, but leave some room for a healthy and informed skepticism. Consider the remarks of University of Chicago medical professor Patrick Cunningham, who, in a letter to Glenn Reynolds’ well-trafficked blog instapundit.com wrote:
“As a medical researcher, I want to make a gentle but sincere plea to the blogosphere to calm down this flu hysteria just a bit. The main way that flu kills is by predisposing its victims to “superinfection” by bacterial illnesses — in 1918, we had no antibiotics for these superimposed infections, but now we have plenty. Such superinfections, and the transmittal of flu itself, were aided tremendously by the crowded conditions and poor sanitation of the early 20th century — these are now vastly improved as well. Flu hits the elderly the hardest, but the “elderly” today are healthier, stronger and better nourished than ever before. Our medical infrastructure is vastly better off, ranging from simple things like oxygen and sterile intravitreous fluids, not readily available in 1918, to complex technologies such as respirators and dialysis. Should we be concerned? Sure, better safe than sorry, and concerns about publishing the sequence are worth discussing. Should we panic? No — my apologies to the fearmongers, but we will never see another 1918.”
It’s worth noting that in early October, Bush raised the option of instituting martial law in the event of a bird flu pandemic (though he obviously didn’t phrase it that coarsely) in a speech at the Rose Garden, a disturbing bit of potential foreshadowing on the chief executive’s part. But in a similar vein, this is a claim better analyzed through a prism of deliberate reflection than one of knee-jerk reaction. Suspending for a moment the altogether reasonable conclusion that the circumstances necessary to make such a political move feasible will most likely never congeal (at least not from bird flu), an informed political discussion would do well to consider the context of the statement rather than immediately hitting the civil liberties panic button.
While I’m unable to rally much mirth for the president’s notion, it’s only a matter of time before an ACLU ad is developed in which a man who made the C average a way of life is going to be accused of some of the most Machiavellian guile in American political history. And that, my friends, is one more cheer for a noble American skepticism.
Submitted 11-10-2005