I’m sure we all remember very well last year when people started freaking out about swine flu. Most of us thought this was a severe over-reaction. Some of us knew people who died of swine flu. We all felt a certain way about it.
In this article a panel of independent experts review the World Health Organization’s handling of the swine flu epidemic. Although there was no evidence supporting their accusations that the World Health Organization played the swine flu up to make vaccine companies rich. The article makes you ask yourself: What is a healthy balance between over-reaction and under-reaction when dealing with the outbreak of an epidemic?
Millions of vaccines went unused, and people from other countries who needed them could not get them. “Later, when rich nations donated 78 million doses for use in poor ones, the health agency could not deploy them because it was bogged down in negotiations with vaccine companies over liability and costs.” Also, not everything was the fault of the World Health Organization; some of it was the vaccine companies. “Vaccine companies use slow 60-year-old technology, diagnostic tests are cumbersome, and virologists know too little about which mutations are the most dangerous.”
Did the World Health Organization handle the swine flu outbreak well? I give them credit. They did a good job at getting the virus identified and getting seed strands vaccine makers. When you are dealing with something like an epidemic I would prefer an over-reaction by the World Health Organization to an under-reaction. Is there a right way to respond to an epidemic? Probably, but the World Health Organization did their best, with our best interests in mind. I don’t think they deserve to be criticized.
This article can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/health/policy/11flu.html?_r=1&ref=health
I thought that this was a very interesting article, Maria. It is surprising to me that this accusation has been brought up. I suppose it is possible, but it seems a little far fetched. I agree with your statement that "I would prefer an over-reaction by the World Health Organization to an under-reaction". This is very true. It's better for them to do everything in their power to prevent an outbreak, than to not, and regret it later.
ReplyDeleteI agree that an overreaction to the disease would have been preferable to them not taking enough steps to prevent the spread of swine flu. Certainly a preemptive strike against disease is the most effective way to prevent it's spread even if we do not notice it. Also the accusations that the World Health Organization was seeking to make a profit off of the vaccine are incredible, considering there is more money to be made off of daily medications than off of vaccines that people may get once a year on average.
ReplyDeleteI found this article very interesting. For one, I found it particularly interesting that vaccine companies could potentially be in the business for the money. It's scary and pretty sad to think that maybe the people giving out vaccines only want people to take them so they can get their money. From what I've read of the article, and what you've said, I can't say that the "over-reaction" by the World Health Organization was a problem, but maybe it's the businesses handing out the vaccines who are at fault and cause the over-reaction to gain money.
ReplyDeleteI would love to give the WHO a lot of criticizing of myself, now that I have ready this article. There is a difference between being responsible and irresponsible -- clearly in this instance they have shown a distinct lack of the former. I have never held them in that much high regard, however, and this news only adds to me thinking that I was right to have that opinion. Hopefully, though, for the sake of everyone, they and the vaccine companies will be able to handle this a little more proffessionally instead of being little moneygrubbers like they ususally are. It would make the world an easier and better place for ALL of us.
ReplyDelete