by DemFromCT
Let me take a moment to again highlight our friends at Effect Measure (the progressive public health blog) who this weekend have highlighted easily accessible web sources of information on avian flu.
Judging form the increased traffic on this site, interest in bird flu has ramped up considerably in the last week after WHO began to sound a more insistent and urgent alarm about the developing situation in southeast asia (and here). The last time we updated our list of sites that provide bird flu information was all the way back on January 12 of this year. Time for another look.
We'll start here (Effect Measure). This is a general public health site edited by epidemiologists, but the importance of avian influenza as a major developing story in public health has claimed a disproportionate amount of attention (see left side bar where bird flu links are listed). We try to cover much else as well (idiosyncratically, things that interest the handful of editors who call themselves Revere), but bird flu has tended to be Topic A. This is not only because of its importance per se but because it is a lens with which to look at the status of public health organization, policy and leadership more generally. We not only filter the news but provide (opinionated but informed) commentary.
To the left on their homepage, they highlight recent bird flu posts. For example, they recently spotlight a concern that 'activists' don't always take warnings seriously.
The distrust of WHO from its lack of transparency and obeisance to member states (some of dubious virtue) has borne the expected bitter fruit. Yesterday Satya Sivaraman of the People's Health Movement dismissed fears of an influenza pandemic, charging it was the product of a climate of "panic."
Thios is a theme we've seen even here in the industrialized countries (see Avian Flu: Historical or Hysterical? and Are Canadian Authorities Exaggerating About Avian Flu?). The problem is that warning about what might happen and taking the steps for preparedness will always strike some as ill-conceived, especially if the problem never occurs. However, being ill-prepared for a real problem is not a viable option.
At some level, someone has to prepare for the worst. I see the government health authorities as having that role, and it should be as little affacted by politics as possible. Of course, in the real world, since funds are required for preparedness, politics will always play a role. Keeping the Science-to-Politics Ratio as high as humanly possible is the job of our public health officials. And I am not at this time certain that they have succeeded.
Comments