# 3133
I once read (and I’m paraphrasing from a very faulty memory) that an editorialist is:
Someone who watches an epic battle take place from the safety of a faraway mountain top, and when the fighting is over, rides down to the valley and shoots the survivors.
If anyone remembers the originator of this quote, I’d appreciate hearing from you. Right now, I’m guessing the wonderfully acerbic Fred Allen.
In any event, it’s a pretty good assessment.
While it may be months, or even years, before we know the full extent of how this newly emerging A/H1N1 virus affects humanity, I’m already seeing a lot of second guessing and criticism of the CDC and the WHO on their early aggressive moves to contain the situation.
Yes, the A/H1N1 virus is thankfully less virulent than first thought. Early reports out of Mexico painted a somewhat different picture.
Hindsight is, of course, 20/20.
We know a lot more now than we did even a few days ago about the severity of this virus, making it pretty easy to come out now and complain about their proactive stance.
There are some, I’m sure, who opined early on that this virus wasn’t going to be a huge threat. Among them being professional naysayers, skeptics, and those who have their own pet priorities which a pandemic might have displaced.
If you called this one right, congratulations.
Of course, anyone who flipped a coin had a 50/50 chance of siding with you.
But there is a big difference between blithely offering contrarian opinions, and having to make crucial decisions - often with less than complete information - that could affect millions of lives.
I’m sure there will be after-action analysis on every decision point and every communication- made by every person or committee at the CDC and the WHO - over the past couple of weeks.
If they erred somewhere along the line, they will hopefully figure out how to do things better next time.
And have no doubts, there will be a `next time’.
But imagine for a moment if the CDC had taken a more passive `wait and see’ approach while awaiting more solid information, and had allowed a dangerous novel virus to spread unhindered throughout the land in the opening hours and days?
We’d all be trying to get front row seats at the Senate hearings.
“Mr. Director, the purpose of this hearing is to find out exactly what the CDC knew . . . and when they knew it!”
Well . . . you get the picture.
None of this is to say the CDC and the WHO are above criticism, or that I’ve agreed with every step they’ve taken.
They aren’t, and (not that it matters) I haven’t.
But in the opening hours and days of an epidemic, there are precious few opportunities to slow down the spread of a disease.
Acting aggressively under those circumstances is both understandable and forgivable, even if the threat should ultimately prove less serious.
Waiting until it is too late, is not.
* * * * * * *
A commenter who I know and respect has pointed out that I appear to be apologizing (needlessly) for the CDC’s actions.
That is certainly not my intent.
My point (which admittedly, I may have made badly) is that no matter how this virus evolves, in the face of the unknown, the only proper response was to be aggressive.
As always, I appreciate the wise counsel of my friends. Thanks, Snick.
