The 2009 H1N1 virus started as a disease and developed into much more, an anxiety among the UNC campus. Flyers and directions were posted throughout campus giving students advice to avoid contracting the disease. The scare of the virus was not only campuses wide but began to grow to worldwide. In opposition to the article from the August issue of Nature, the World Health Organization, or the WHO, could have made better choices when solving the H1N1 crisis. Although the WHO successfully handled that flu outbreak, better choices, like not hiding information from the public, could have helped prevent the media from over exaggerating the information they did have to release about the swine flu that caused an unnecessary amount of panic among the student population.
The article, “After the pandemic,” from the August issue of Nature, states that the WHO did make some mistakes but overall did a good job dealing with the flu crisis. The author of the Nature article claims that even though some errors were made, the WHO deserves to receive credit for completing its job. However, the Nature article leaves out many vital concepts that should be taken into consideration when judging its success of handling the H1N1 virus. How can the public praise the WHO for causing so much confusion and such a huge scare? Governments, industry and academics worked well together when faced with a potentially disastrous threat — and will hopefully do so when called upon again” (“After the pandemic”).
The Nature article attempts to lessen the severity of the accusations made against the WHO by expressing the need to praise the WHO for all of their hard work to end the flu crisis. While the WHO did successfully end the flu pandemic in the US, the crisis is still circulating through other countries (“WHO Says Swine-Flu Pandemic Is Over”). The article from the editorial section of Nature fails to mention the continuing spread of the H1N1. The H1N1 flu is now considered a “seasonal flu virus” and will continue to spread now and in the future therefore it should have never been looked at as a pandemic (“WHO Says Swine-Flu Pandemic is Over”). According to the Pandemic-flu Guide, a seasonal flu virus “comes to an area every year, during the flu season of that country. Different countries have different flu seasons.” A pandemic on the other hand does not include viruses such as the seasonal flu virus or influenza because it is an infectious disease or condition that kills people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic).
According to “WHO Says Swine-Flu Pandemic Is Over,” Dr. Chan states, the WHO might need to reconsider what diseases it defines to be pandemics because there are more deadly diseases the world should be aware of like the H5N1 avian flu. Many scientists are concerned with the H5N1 disease, which has a nature of not usually affecting humans, easily becoming a pandemic because of there not being any type of immune protection (Key Facts About Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) and Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Virus). Also in another article, “Report: WHO created ‘distortion of priorities’ over swine flu,” the WHO released one definition of the term “influenza pandemic” but then preceded to release a different definition which was probably caused more confusion and unease among the public. Because the World Health Organization, or the WHO, exaggerated its choice of words by describing it to be a pandemic, the media for the H1N1 virus caused an unnecessary amount of panic among the student population.
Because the WHO had conflicting interests and were more concerned with their own benefits, the way the crisis was handled was not the best for the society as a whole. For example, the WHO just recently released the names of the emergency committee to the public. The Nature article states that the WHO chose not to release the names of the members on the emergency committee to help the members avert from outside influence. However, one advisor to the committee said that if her name had been released she would not have been bothered in the least. (“H1N1 ‘emergency committee’ members named”). Because this committee member would have accepted the world knowing she was on the committee, suspicion has raised that maybe the WHO had alternative motives as to not releasing the committee members’ names. One highly possible alternative motive mentioned was the need to raise pharmaceutical sales, in 2009 sales of the vaccine went up as high as 7 to 10 million dollars. Along with the increase in pharmaceutical sales rates there are a number of other possible motives that should be investigated, including, “the distortion of priorities, the waste of huge sums of public money, provocation of unjustified fear, and creation of health risks through non-tested vaccines and medications” (“Report: WHO created ‘distortion of priorities’ over swine flu”). The Nature article fails to mention anything about the loss of money, health risks, or anything of the like.
There are many ways the WHO could have chosen to deal with the flu outbreak but they could have made wiser choices. A lot of the panic present in the public could have been avoided if the WHO would have circumvented around calling the disease a pandemic. The process the WHO went through to solve the H1N1 crisis should be examined for changes that would have brought about a quicker end to solving the crisis. In order for the WHO to increase its likelihood of having a better success of handling similar diseases in the future, it will need to reevaluate its methods and note advances that could have helped to resolve the problem faster.
No comments:
Post a Comment