Skip

Pandemic Flu Awareness Week
October 5, 2005 6:34 AM   Subscribe

October 3-9 is Pandemic Flu Awareness Week. "Like hurricanes, when a pandemic occurs can not be accurately predicted. Nonetheless, that which can be done in advance should be done, because eventually something will happen. Planning can only help, even if at the local level it can’t prevent." (Avian Flu previously discussed here, here, here and here.)
posted by grabbingsand (13 comments total)

 
"A pandemic can’t be ‘organized away’ into insignificance."

Maybe if we pre-emptively strike the pandemic, we can bring democracy to it and it will choose life. Well....just being hopeful.
posted by j.p. Hung at 6:42 AM on October 5, 2005


What's the difference between a pandemic and an epidemic?
posted by DieHipsterDie at 6:47 AM on October 5, 2005


Epidemic: Affects more than the expected number of cases of disease occurring in a community or region during a given period of time.

Pandemic: An epidemic that becomes very widespread and affects a whole region, a continent, or the world.*
posted by grabbingsand at 6:50 AM on October 5, 2005


"OMG, Bush isn't doing anything serious or substantial about this inevitable outbreak!"

"One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move," he said. "So that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have."

"Bush is like a military dictator & stuff (not that I've ever lived under one, or really ever suffered much for that matter)!"

"Well, I guess I could softball the whole concept and not bother debating which system should be put in place."

"George Bush doesn't care about _______ people!"
posted by dhoyt at 6:51 AM on October 5, 2005


I found this Bill Moyers/Dr. Anthony Fauci interview transcript when looking up the difference between epidemic and pandemic.
posted by alumshubby at 6:54 AM on October 5, 2005


This reeks of the boy who cried wolf way too much. What can we do for a pandemic? Sure every year we can stock up on limited shelf-life Tamiflu and worry that even with that we have nowhere near the hospital beds we need. Or we can do our best to make sure that if a pandemic hits we can create the most of Tamiflu (or whatever exists in the future) as fast as possible. The latter is better economically considering I believe the chances of a pandemic occuring as regularly as it did Pre-WWII are exponentially slimmer due to increased sanitation, awareness and containment of possible pandemics.
posted by geoff. at 7:30 AM on October 5, 2005


Here's the text of Bush's answer to a question about a flue pandemic at his press conference yesterday. Setting aside the politically loaded military quarantine issue, this is as impressive a statement as I've ever seen the guy make:
Q Mr. President, you've been thinking a lot about pandemic flu and the risks in the United States if that should occur. I was wondering, Secretary Leavitt has said that first responders in the states and local governments are not prepared for something like that. To what extent are you concerned about that after Katrina and Rita? And is that one of the reasons you're interested in the idea of using defense assets to respond to something as broad and long-lasting as a flu might be?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you for the question. I am concerned about avian flu. I am concerned about what an avian flu outbreak could mean for the United States and the world. I am -- I have thought through the scenarios of what an avian flu outbreak could mean. I tried to get a better handle on what the decision-making process would be by reading Mr. Barry's book on the influenza outbreak in 1918. I would recommend it.

The policy decisions for a President in dealing with an avian flu outbreak are difficult. One example: If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country, and how do you then enforce a quarantine? When -- it's one thing to shut down airplanes; it's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu. And who best to be able to effect a quarantine? One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move.

And so that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have. I noticed the other day, evidently, some governors didn't like it. I understand that. I was the commander-in-chief of the National Guard, and proudly so, and, frankly, I didn't want the President telling me how to be the commander-in-chief of the Texas Guard. But Congress needs to take a look at circumstances that may need to vest the capacity of the President to move beyond that debate. And one such catastrophe, or one such challenge could be an avian flu outbreak.

Secondly -- wait a minute, this is an important subject. Secondly, during my meetings at the United Nations, not only did I speak about it publicly, I spoke about it privately to as many leaders as I could find, about the need for there to be awareness, one, of the issue; and, two, reporting, rapid reporting to WHO, so that we can deal with a potential pandemic. The reporting needs to be not only on the birds that have fallen ill, but also on tracing the capacity of the virus to go from bird to person, to person. That's when it gets dangerous, when it goes bird-person-person. And we need to know on a real-time basis as quickly as possible, the facts, so that the scientific community, the world scientific community can analyze the facts and begin to deal with it.

Obviously, the best way to deal with a pandemic is to isolate it and keep it isolated in the region in which it begins. As you know, there's been a lot of reporting of different flocks that have fallen ill with the H5N1 virus. And we've also got some cases of the virus being transmitted to person, and we're watching very carefully.

Thirdly, the development of a vaccine -- I've spent time with Tony Fauci on the subject. Obviously, it would be helpful if we had a breakthrough in the capacity to develop a vaccine that would enable us to feel comfortable here at home that not only would first responders be able to be vaccinated, but as many Americans as possible, and people around the world. But, unfortunately, there is a -- we're just not that far down the manufacturing process. And there's a spray, as you know, that can maybe help arrest the spread of the disease, which is in relatively limited supply.

So one of the issues is how do we encourage the manufacturing capacity of the country, and maybe the world, to be prepared to deal with the outbreak of a pandemic. In other words, can we surge enough production to be able to help deal with the issue?

I take this issue very seriously, and I appreciate you bringing it to our attention. The people of the country ought to rest assured that we're doing everything we can: We're watching it, we're careful, we're in communications with the world. I'm not predicting an outbreak; I'm just suggesting to you that we better be thinking about it. And we are. And we're more than thinking about it; we're trying to put plans in place, and one of the plans -- back to where your original question came -- was, if we need to take some significant action, how best to do so. And I think the President ought to have all options on the table to understand what the consequences are, but -- all assets on the table -- not options -- assets on the table to be able to deal with something this significant.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:38 AM on October 5, 2005


I believe the chances of a pandemic occuring as regularly as it did Pre-WWII are exponentially slimmer due to increased sanitation, awareness and containment of possible pandemics.

But other people think a pandemic is as likely or more likely, due to greater population and population density in the world today, far greater numbers of pigs and poultry living in close contact with humans in places like China (leading to easier swapping/recombination of genes between human flu's and swine flu's and avian flu's), and jet travel being able to spread a bug worldwide within 48 hours.
posted by Asparagirl at 7:40 AM on October 5, 2005


Fear of Flu Outbreak Rattles Washington
"Health officials have warned for years that a virulent bird flu could kill millions of people, but few in Washington have seemed alarmed. After a closed-door briefing last week, however, fear of an outbreak swept official Washington, which was still reeling from the poor response to Hurricane Katrina.

...On Wednesday, Senate Democrats plan to introduce another bill calling for the creation of a flu pandemic coordinator within the White House and a federal buy-back program for unused flu vaccines, among other measures, according to a draft of the bill. Its authors include the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada; Senator Barack Obama of Illinois; and Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Thirty-two Democratic senators sent a letter to President Bush on Tuesday expressing 'grave concern that the nation is dangerously unprepared for the serious threat of avian influenza.'

...Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, called the sudden interest in preparing for a flu epidemic the latest 'post-Katrina effect.'

'I don't think politically or perceptually the government feels that it could tolerate another tragically inadequate response to a major disaster,' Dr. Redlener said. He said a flu epidemic was the 'next big catastrophe that we can reasonably expect, and the country is phenomenally not prepared for this.' [New York Times | October 05, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:35 AM on October 5, 2005


BUSH: And who best to be able to effect a quarantine?

One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move. So that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have.


A good rejoinder for those who say we don't spend too much money on the military. Stupid stupid stupid.

I love that picture, though. It just soothes "go fuck yourself."
posted by mrgrimm at 9:57 AM on October 5, 2005


The only real and lasting solution to the spread of zoonotic diseases like this one is the abolishment of intensive animal agriculture worldwide.

I realize that seems unthinkable right now. But after the first ten thousand people here are hospitalized, it will become thinkable.
posted by soyjoy at 8:36 PM on October 5, 2005


abolishment of intensive animal agriculture worldwide

I'm with you. Where do we enlist?
posted by mrgrimm at 1:45 PM on October 6, 2005


Get on over to The Humane Society of the United States.
posted by soyjoy at 9:42 AM on October 11, 2005


« Older No more church AND state, from now on just Church.   |   noveaux Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post