Skip to comments.

Posted on 04/25/2003 1:44:08 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

I know that a few reading this title will think to themselves that this is no "drill." But although it is becoming associated with an increasing death toll, it is hardly a biological weapon of choice. Its lethality is relatively small (so far), while its communicability is moderate and all mechanisms of transmission not fully understood.

For the purposes of this discussion, we will consider that the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) virus is a biological weapon, disregarding the possible sources of this freshly mutating, cross-species pathogen. Some may recall that the 1918-1919 pandemic virus that killed tens of millions was also a cross-species virus that mutated as it slowly passed back and forth across continental populations via travel and World War I troop movements with a lethality, that even initially, was very much higher than SARS.

This new viral infection will have some profound economic impact upon the international community, primarily due to the modern addition of GNP (Gross National Product)-significant travel-related and enhanced business sectors. The ripples from that immediate loss can be projected to have some longer-term adverse effects on the manufacturing and distribution sectors as well.

With this in mind, the mayor of Toronto, Canada, has gone public with a vow to fight the decision of the World Health Organization to distribute a travel advisory for his city. It may be helpful at this point to recall that Canada is the North American home of the SARS "patient zero." That is the person that the start of the epidemic can be traced to. Also of note is that the North American AIDS "patient zero" was also a Canadian and, in that case as well, Canadian government health professionals took no appropriate actions. Thanks, Canada ...

Not wishing to get into pure Canada bashing, it is safe to say that there are a great many municipal politicians across the world who will consider a temporary dip in tourist income as the primary factor in deciding public health policy. This current situation will surely continue to point out these individuals and groups for replacement, if light can be publicly focused on their decisions and their true costs.

The economic aspects are not lost upon entrepreneurs across the globe either. A veritable cottage industry has sprung up overnight to hawk surgical masks to a frightened international public. One can see why this would be a popular business to enter into when you consider that a surgical mask, that can be had in bulk for about 20 cents, can be sold on the street for $3 to $5 with virtually no fixed overhead, a profit-margin-to-die-for from solely a business perspective. But that really is the catch.

These masks and those who hawk them are the modern version of the "snake-oil" salesmen, for their product affords almost no protection but does instill a false sense of security. These masks very poorly control only some of the spray of infected droplet-nuclei from persons already infected and do nothing to protect one from infection. The mask's weave does not stop small enough particles and, even if they did, it seals against the face so poorly that any real benefit from the weave is negated. Rather like having a handsome cup with almost no bottom.

So, globally, what urban politicians and their health-care advisers are really doing is tacitly approving a highly visible placebo in place of thoughtful and cogent public policy.

Our health-care professionals and epidemiologists who momentarily are allowed to appear in the broadcast media are given a few sound bites and then the host talking head prattles on with their ill-informed, preconceived notions of what must be done. The physician allowed on the recent "O'Reilly Factor" SARS-containment segment could hardly contain her on-air reactions to the self-assured idiocy that followed, and I must admit that I would not have been so kind.

This not to say that we should allow doctors to directly control public policy, for they are ill-suited for far too many aspects that must be dealt with. But, at present, they have too little appropriate input into what goes out via the mass media.

The real long-term benefit from the SARS epidemic is an opportunity to learn from our mistakes – scientific, communications, political, procedural and, especially, personnel. We simply cannot afford to continually hire public servants who are incapable of dealing appropriately with the realities of the world today.

With the pandemic dissemination of truly lethal biological agents among groups who would employ them without a qualm, we run the risk of having to "invent the wheel" at what could easily become truly staggering costs to our population and economy.

From this perspective, examining how we handle SARS is our first full-dress rehearsal of what will follow in this brave new world.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.