Supra-national Swine Flu Alarmism and the Measured Public Response

The World Health Organisation has ramped its swine flu warning up to level five (out of six) while the British public (and even its media) seems to have scaled down its response to a one or maybe two.

The Guardian's Ben Goldacre (who writes an excellent column in the Saturday edition called Bad Science) reported yesterday that the media had been bombarding him with requests to rubbish the WHO's response and say that there's no risk of a flu pandemic (Goldacre, B., p30, The Guardian, 30/04/09). He points out that there is a risk and, because so much is unknown about pandemics and this particular strain of the virus, it's probably correct for the WHO to send out a preparatory warning and it's also probably correct for British politicians to have taken the steps that they have, even though a pandemic is unlikely.

It is very likely that, in the aftermath of the epidemic/pandemic to come, big agriculture and the Mexican and American health authorities will come under fire from many sides, the authorities here in Britain can hardly be expected to foresee the behaviour of the virus in the British population. They seem to have been prepared to be unprepared and have been fairly honest about the unknown nature of the risks that outbreaks of these new types of virus can pose.

Crying wolf about SARS and other health problems (we were all going to die of AIDS 20-odd years ago) in the past may have made the media here a little more circumspect than it usually is. The public has responded the most sensibly, so far. Even more refreshingly, there has not been a knee-jerk attack on the authorities by any organisations that represent (or claim to speak for) the public. Even if a pandemic does occur, so far there is a refreshing amount of sensible discussion about the current situation that points to our being able to deal with it. 

So the supra-national authorities are more alarmist than our beleaguered government. The normally sensationalist British media have done more or less the right things this week. In the space of just five days we the public have not panicked and kept calm, as the poster says. The media, while trying to manufacture an inappropriate doom verses cry-wolf angle, has largely fallen into step with the sensible public and has not sensationalised the fears of the (over) precautionary authorities.

I am a bit more optimistic, this week, that much can be learned from this unique set of circumstances. Measured responses to the other unknowns that face us in solving the world's many problems would be very useful. If only a sensible response to malaria and all the other easily treatable illnesses that kill thousands every day was contagious.