|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Saturday, December 14, 2002"We live in a new world," said Jerome M. Hauer, assistant secretary for emergency preparedness at the Department of Health and Human Services. In an interview, Mr. Hauer said Mr. Bush's decision was rooted in a calculus that looked at the smallpox threat over the long term — not just weeks or months but years and decades. The risks accumulate over a long time, Mr. Hauer said, and that drives officials to take prudent steps now to prepare for the worst. Medical experts estimate that the vaccine could give vaccinated individuals some protection against the disease for decades. By vaccinating millions of Americans, Mr. Hauer said, "you're testing your logistics, developing trained cadres, and protecting medical response teams. So in the event of an incident, you don't have to be concerned about vaccinating those groups." He added that vaccination could then begin of people who had come in contact with infected people "and, if necessary, mass vaccination." ...Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff, a physician and smallpox expert at the Sandia National Laboratories, said in an interview that the administration was engaged in no bluff or bluster, but had carefully weighed the long-term risks of a smallpox attack. "I think the administration has got it just about exactly right," he said of offering the vaccine to 10 million people. "The question is not what is the risk of attack in the next six months or year, but what is the risk over the effective lifetime of the vaccine, which is measured in decades." .."You have to understand the long-term benefits, which are enormous," Dr. Zelicoff said. "Thinkers in the administration are planning to make that argument publicly, and I believe the public will accept it once they see that the initial cadre of vaccinated people does all right." Sounds sensible. For all the news on the smallpox vaccine plans, visit The Bloviator. UPDATE: Here's what the Administration faces within the public health community as it tries to implement its plan: In a poll taken in June, 91 percent of members of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials opposed any policy that would allow the general public to get vaccinated against smallpox before an attack. Why? Partly because of fear of risks, a reasonable objection. But vaccinating first the military, then healthcare workers, then the public allows those risks to be tested and measured. The Administration has acted wisely in deciding to offer the vaccine in increments. It's also partly a fear that side effects from smallpox vaccine will smear other vaccines. Here, the Administration has also acted wisely. They're doing everything they can to publicize the very real risks of the vaccine, (See all of The Bloviator's collection from yesterday.) and they aren't requiring, not even suggesting that everyone get it, unless they're a member of the armed forces. They're only allowing it to be available. In the other immunizations, the ones that people blame for autism and other ills, people aren't given a choice. They're told explicitly that these immunizations are safe, and they're told that their children must have them if they are to attend school. There's a world of difference in the two approaches. When people are told to they have to do something, they're naturally more distrustful and more likely to cast blame than if they're given a free choice in the matter. Look at the case of "alternative medicine" versus "traditional medicine." Much of what passes as alternative medicine is expensive and not effective, yet you don't hear about people suing its practitioners or supplement manufacturers the same way you hear about people suing their doctors or pharmaceutical firms. That's because most people use the alternative medicine with the full knowledge that its untested and unproven and risky. And their decision to use them is their own, not the suggestion of someone else in a position of authority. The other reason for the public health community's reluctance to offer the vaccine to the public is more disturbing, and more difficult to change. It's their ideology: It's the only human disease to have been eradicated -- a feat that many epidemiologists feel has never been fully appreciated by the public. To reverse that achievement through the intentional release of smallpox virus would be "a crime against humanity of unimagined proportions," says Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association and former head of the Maryland health department. Bringing back vaccination makes such an event thinkable -- and that's something many people have a very, very hard time accepting. That belief, that all men are inherently good, is a distinctly liberal ideal. It's that belief that prompts many to feel passionately that war is never acceptable and that fosters moral relativism. It's also extremely unrealistic. Hate is a powerful passion, it can blind and warp even the best of us if allowed to go unchecked. (Even those of us with liberal ideals.) Unfortunately, there are people out there for whom hate is the primary motivator, and there is a large segment of them who are organized and united and more than willing to act. Make no mistake, they would have no qualms about committing "a crime against humanity of unimagined proportions." Even if it would harm their own humanity. posted by Sydney on 12/14/2002 08:41:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
