# 586
One of the more frustrating aspects of blogging on the avian flu front is the decided lack of straight talk coming from official channels. We hear that `transparency' and the `timely release of information' are important, but the sad reality is, we get bits and pieces, often polished or painted up to make things seem less dire than they are.
No, I won't go as far as to call them lies. But we do get a great deal of `spin', and to the casual observer, spin works just about as well.
No one is without an agenda. And that includes the humble author of this blog. I view the threat of a pandemic in the next few years as likely, and so my writing reflects that opinion. So while I try to be fair, there is admittedly a built in bias to what I write.
Caveat Lector.
My agenda, however, is to raise awareness over what I perceive to be a genuine threat. I make no money off of this blog, have nothing to sell, and accept no advertising. I do this because, right or wrong, I believe we face a real threat.
And it is important when reading anyone's take on avian flu, to take their agenda into account. Words are wonderful and powerful devices. They can convey information (or disinformation), and, depending on how they are used, change or form public opinion.
Governments, of course, want their citizens to believe they are doing all that is necessary, or reasonable, to protect them. So we get semi-reassuring press releases telling us that they are stockpiling drugs and working on vaccines and holding pandemic drills.
Here in the United States, and in many other developed countries, those preparations are ongoing. So it isn't a falsehood. And usually somewhere in every statement is the admission that `we have a long way to go'. That our stockpiles are not yet sufficient to handle a pandemic.
But the positives are stressed, and the negatives are usually glossed over. Even when officials are unusually blunt, as is often the case with HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt or Dr. Nabarro from the UN, the press, or some other agency, generally finds a way to downplay their words.
Balanced reporting, I believe they call it.
Balanced, perhaps, but in the end it just leaves the public confused and ultimately unprepared.
Depending on which newspaper articles you may have read over the past two years, you probably anticipate that a pandemic could kill anywhere between 2 million and 1.5 Billion people. Yep. That's the range we've seen printed.
The operative word in all of this reportage is `could'. It's a great word, really, because with it, you can say almost anything and get away with it.
The problem is, no one really knows, and nearly every month a new `number' is promulgated by one group or another (always with caveats), and the press runs with it.
When Dr. Nabarro warned that 150 million people could die in the next pandemic, his employer, the United Nations, quickly stated that it was more likely that `2 to 7 million could die'.
Who's right?
Well, if the 1918 pandemic is any guide, when the world had but 2 billion total inhabitants and lost 50 million or so from the Spanish Flu, Dr. Nabarro's numbers seem far more plausible.
And Dr. Nabarro's projection is far from the worst case. Dmitry Lvov, a virologist in the Soviet Union, has spoken of more than 1 billion deaths from the virus.
Yet, somehow, the `2 to 7 million deaths' number continues to find it's way into newspaper articles.
There is obviously a conscious choice by some reporters to select the most conservative estimate. It is so difficult to simply say that a pandemic could kill anywhere between `2 million and 1 billion people'' ?
We've also seen, almost to the point of inducing nausea, that a pandemic vaccine won't be available until six months after a pandemic strain is identified. And yes, barring some new development in pandemic research, this appears to be true.
But it's only part of the story.
Rarely mentioned is how little vaccine would be available after six months. Yes, sometimes reports mention that supplies will be limited at first, but the reporting gives the illusion that if we can hang on for six, or eight, or ten months, inoculations will be available to the general public.
With today's technology, we could have worldwide, perhaps 400 to 600 million doses of vaccine 18 months into a pandemic. Enough for 6% to 8% of the planet.
Yet I've even seen reports in foreign papers, from countries highly unlikely to ever see a vaccine, that `progress is being made' in streamlining the manufacturing process.
While these stories may appease people today, and keep them from asking inconvenient questions of their leaders, at some point someone will have to pay the piper.
The stated goal of most officials is to avoid panic. And for a variety of reasons, mostly economic, that's their agenda.
And on the surface, that sounds reasonable. But it seems more likely that the real goal is to avoid accountability. If people knew the real state of our preparedness, they'd ask questions that would be difficult to answer.
Like, why haven't we done a better job preparing?
It isn't a surprise to scientists, or to government leaders, that the world will face another pandemic someday. We've known that since the last one, and were reminded of that fact 30 years ago with the swine flu scare. We simply decided to ignore that possibility, and spend our resources in other areas.
As a species, we find it reasonable to spend trillions over the years to find ways to kill people more efficiently, but are unable to spend a few tens of billions to save people's lives.
And that says a lot about our priorities.
And so the spin continues, the public is left wondering if the threat is real, and little gets done on the local level.
But on the plus side, no one is panicking.
Not Yet, anyway.
