Wolf – Warning Weariness, Part II

This morning Michael Fumento offers a debunking of the coming Avian Flu crises. His excellent story reminded me of my earlier posting on how the public tires of and then ignores continuous alarms of coming crises. Eventually, just like the village elders in the fable, the public gets tired of the little boy who always cries: The wolf is coming!”. Some times the wolf, like Katrina, does come and then we are sorry that we did not heed the warning. Other times the warning comes from a “little boy” just trying to attract attention, just as in Aesop’s fable. In some cases the warning may be genuine, but we are sure that politicians, pundits, and fund-raisers are just trying to attract attention. This is true for the coming wolves known as:
• Global warming
• Social Security
• Medicate funding
• Energy shortages
And now the Avian flu crises.

Before we yield to panic, lets look at some of Fumento’s skepticism about the danger:

'THE indication is that we will see a return of the 1918 flu virus," warned the nation's top health official. "The projections are that this virus will kill one million Americans . . . " But the topic wasn't an impending "bird flu"pandemic — it was 1976, and the prediction for the "swine flu" fell 9,999,999 deaths short.

That's something to remember as we endure the current hysteria. Another is that we've been here before with the same virus everybody is now squawking about: Avian influenza type H5N1 hit Hong Kong in 1997. Typical headline: "Race to Prevent World Epidemic of Lethal 'Bird Flu.' " (I published an anti-hysteria piece then, too — and got condemned as "irresponsible.")

The world death toll from that "wave?" Six.

But this time it's for real, right? Predictions of worldwide deaths range from a U.N. official's "5 million to 150 million" (Translation: We're clueless) to one U.S. health official's estimate of 180 million to 360 million, while ABC News sent feathers flying saying there'd be a billion dead.
…
Ersatz expert and former Newsday reporter Laurie Garrett, now with the Council on Foreign Relations, claims that unlike our annual flus, which usually kill indirectly by exposing the body to secondary (and treatable) bacterial infections, Spanish flu "was a direct killer" and therefore, "Had antibiotics existed, they may not have been much help."

Wrong.

"Even in 1918 there was a window of opportunity so that if they had drugs they could have made a major difference," one of the nation's top virologists, Dr. Frederick G. Hayden of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville told me. "It would have been susceptible to both antibiotics and antivirals."

Register with the NY Post and give Fumento a reading. We need to be prepared – but should not be pushed into a panic, spending our tax dollars needlessly, and then be surprised by a different wolf.

Comments

[Herb Ely]

Thanks, Lane. The link was ok, but my prose was confusing. I hope it is more clear now.

[ELC]

"the impact on the public of continuous alarms of coming crises". Wrong link, there, Herb.