UK: Not All on the Same Page

Word comes today from the UK that at least one party leader has gone off the reservation (sorry for the Americanism here), and has disparaged the notion that a pandemic constitutes a real threat.

Ed Vaizey, MP for Wantage and a leader in the Tory party's inner circle, said alarmist headlines were "ridiculous".

This view was immediately countered by Conservative headquarters, saying it would not endorse Vaizey's comments.

Speaking on Sky's Sunday Live with Adam Boulton, Mr Vaizey said: "I don't know whether I am going off-message or not and I will say it from a personal basis.

"I have no worries at all about bird flu...I have no worries about it at all. Headlines about 100,000 people dying are completely ridiculous."

Vaizey went on to say the Government's plans to deal with a pandemic were "a joke".

One hopes MP Vaizey really believes what he is saying. Ignorance can be forgiven. And he's probably got it partially correct; the government's plans to deal with a `worst-case' pandemic will probably fall far short.

Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't seen more of this contrarian viewpoint. While it may not prudent from a public health standpoint, it could be politically, a very astute move.

A pandemic is not inevitable. In fact, worst case; it's probably only a 50/50 chance of happening.

If a pandemic happens, governments worldwide will be forced to make draconian and very unpopular decisions, and probably impose martial law. Quarantines will be put in place, the world economies will likely crumble, and those that survive will be madder than hell that their governments let them down. No preparation taken today is likely to visibly mitigate the effects of a pandemic.

If it happens, all politicians will be pilloried. And they know it.

An no one will care much if a renegade politician blew off the prospects of a pandemic, when there will be so many other, more recent affronts to the public's sensibilities. Mass graves, closed hospitals, food shortages, and perhaps even lawlessness in the streets. Every sitting democratic government will take a terrible hit if a pandemic occurs.

But, if it doesn't happen, naysayers can point to the foolish overreaction, and enormous spending on a threat that was over-hyped, and make political hay with it.

There is nothing to be gained politically by getting on the bandwagon. It's a lose-lose situation. By taking a stand against the possibility of a pandemic, cynical politicians can carve a possible fallback position if the worst doesn't happen.

And if the worst does happen, they will be no worse off than if they had gone along with the crowd.

So politically, it makes sense. Whether Ed Vaizey falls into this category, I cannot say. But undoubtedly others will come forth, and gamble with people’s lives, for little more than a potential political advantage down the road.

This is a terrible gamble, for while governments will undoubtedly botch much of what they do during a pandemic, they will, by preparing now, most certainly save some lives. They may even protect some infrastructure.

But undoubtedly some politicians will weigh the possible saving of lives against their own ambitions, and find the former wanting.

Sadly, it wouldn't be the first time.