I recently read yet another critique of the concern over the "Swine" Flu virus, this one by a Mr. Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, in which differences between our modern world and the world of the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic are highlighted in an attempt to show us all how silly we were for being so gullible as to buy into what they claim is nothing more than overblown hype.
As many of you will agree, there has been no shortage of people willing to take advantage of the worry caused by this newest version of the H1N1 Influenza. As is the case with any emergency situation, there will always be those who seek to turn these events to their advantage. However, I believe Mr. Stephens misrepresented some details of the 1918 pandemic and in doing so, undermined a central supporting point in many overall argument against the concern shown by governments and the medical community over this new strain of the H1N1 Influenza virus.
One example from his article is the contention that modern advances in medicine and hygiene greatly reduce, if not eliminate, the chance that a deadly pandemic could occur. Unfortunately, he neglected to include an obvious fact: these advances have not stopped the influenza virus. As he mentions in the article, over 30,000 US citizens die every year as a result of Influenza, while many millions of Americans contract the virus. The Influenza virus mutates every year, necessitating the creation of new vaccines every year to combat the emergence of new strains. Contrary to his contention here, there is nothing modern science has developed that might work to keep the Influenza virus new to any given flu season from mutating into something even more deadly than the Spanish Flu of 1918 and spreading just as quickly and easily as the more common Influenza viruses.
Another example is his use of an article written by author and anthropologist Wendy Orent for the magazine New Republic. Mr. Stephens uses this article to support his point, citing Dr. Orent's conclusions that the unique circumstances of World War I, with large masses of troops living together in squalid conditions, was some sort of “disease factory” that was perfect for the development of the Spanish Flu. He does not, however, note that this is not the prevailing view of the timeline for the appearance, mutation, and impact of the Spanish Flu.
John Barry of the Center for Bioenvironmental Research of Tulane and Xavier Universities published an article in a 2004 issue of the Journal of Translational Medicine in which he cites several well-supported studies that place the origin of the Spanish Flu in the United States, far away from the “disease factory” Dr. Orent claims as the source for the pandemic. The mutation of the virus as it made its way toward Europe from the United States into the deadlier strain that decimated populations there was the result of the nature of the virus, not living conditions in the theatre of war.
My concern at this point is the speed with which people have begun to dismiss the idea that the so-called “Swine” Flu could be dangerous. While the impact was low in March of 1918, it took only six months for the virus to mutate and explode into the virulent strain that killed half a million people in the United States and 20-30 million worldwide. The milder version of the Spanish Flu that struck the middle United States behaved in much the same way as our modern-day H1N1 Influenza virus: fast-spreading infection, with relatively few deaths. While this virus may not mutate into the kind of killer Spanish Flu was, it is premature to assume that it will not.
The troubling part of this new virus involves the circumstances of the relatively few deaths observed to date. The Spanish Flu of 1918 was marked by deaths that resulted from cytokine storms, or fatal immune system responses to the virus, a reaction that occurs primarily in those with strong, healthy immune systems. This has also occurred at this time in Mexico, where most victims do not fit the common flu victim profile (elderly/immune compromised/very young). Mortality resulting from these circumstances do not occur with the common influenza viruses.
The hype that is a side-effect of our modern 24-hour news cycle may be inescapable, but this does not automatically define the subject of the hype as unworthy of concern. Heap scorn and contempt on those who would engage in unwarranted fear-mongering, but please consider the reasoning behind the precautions recommended by scientist and other experts who have staked their careers and reputations on making sure we all do what is necessary to avoid a repeat of the horror the world experienced in 1918.
No comments:
Post a Comment