Calling it the “Mexican influenza virus” would disrupt relations with Mexico. Calling it “swine influenza virus” would harm the pork industry. As the Bush administration did for the avian flu virus, the Obama administration chose the scientific name for the viral strain. U.S. government officials now refer to the so-called swine influenza virus as “H1N1.” Scientific naming, however, does not work without a corresponding public education initiative. Consumption of properly cooked meat, pork or poultry, does not transmit viruses, but knowledge of this fact appears to be largely absent. Calling the swine influenza virus “H1N1” has not protected the pork industry from trade bans. More than 11 countries banned pork from the United States and Mexico after swine flu outbreaks in both countries.

Moreover, “H1N1” is not specific enough to describe the swine flu viral strain. This particular viral strain is unique in that little to no human immunity to it exists, and it is capable of human to-human transmission.  To avoid confusion, the U.S. should adopt a new system for naming viruses. Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson suggests naming viruses with alphabetical nicknames, as the National Hurricane Center does for hurricanes.

During the outbreak of avian flu in 2005, George W. Bush and Congress focused on coordinating a federal government action plan for an influenza pandemic. The Bush administration indicated that it would not micromanage preparation for an influenza pandemic through top-down mandates. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security tried to build coherency across all levels of government, businesses, and community groups. This approach spurred American businesses, and local and state governments began formulating their own response plans.

The selection of the Department of Homeland Security over the Department of Health and Human Services as the key decision-maker raises the question of whether an influenza pandemic is more of a national security crisis or a health emergency.

With the outbreak of the avian flu, Bush expected all options, including military quarantine, to be possible. On October 5, 2005, Bush said, “The president ought to have all . . . assets on the table to be able to deal with something this significant.”

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Barack Obama worked on U.S. policy to combat the avian influenza. In a June 6, 2005 op-ed in The New York Times, Obama and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar wrote:

“We recommend that this administration work with Congress, public health officials, the pharmaceutical industry, foreign governments and international organizations to create a permanent framework for curtailing the spread of future infectious diseases.”

They recommended the U.S. increase international disease surveillance, stockpile vaccinations, protect the work force, accelerate research for new vaccines, and provide incentives for nations to report flu outbreaks.

Bush’s gut reaction implied military strength while Obama’s measured reaction implied resilience. With the emergence of the swine flu in late April, President Obama spoke of caution in the face of the unknown. “This is obviously a cause for concern and requires a heightened state of alert. But it is not a cause for alarm.”  Governments should stockpile vaccinations for emergency needs. The Obama Administration inherited a stockpile of 50 million anti-viral vaccines designed to work against the avian flu, distributed a quarter of those vaccines to states, and ordered additional vaccines to replenish the stockpile. The decision to stockpile more vaccines than necessary could cause panic.

“Out of an abundance of caution, I have also asked Congress for $1.5 billion if it is needed to purchase additional antivirals, emergency equipment, and the development of a vaccine that can prevent this virus as we prepare for the next flu season in the fall,” Obama said.

It remains unclear if existing vaccines will even work against the swine flu. However, the Department of Defense maintains a stockpile of vaccines for the military. American families could imitate the government’s impulsively self-protective decision-making style and seek to obtain personal stockpiles.

Decision-making needs to be consensus-driven and less confusing. Obama, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius offer conflicting policies on school closures as preventive measures against swine flu outbreaks. The administration first recommended that schools close for up to two weeks and then recommended that schools close for at least two weeks.  Napolitano supports school closures as an anti-flu plan.  Sebelius recommends that schools do not close automatically when there is discovery of swine flu. Before any additional school closures take place, there needs to be consensus on whether social distancing prevents spread of the highly infectious swine flu.

The unpredictable nature of a constantly evolving virus requires a flexible policy. However, overly cautious, impulse policy decisions unnecessarily disrupt society. The lack of consensus suggests the absence of a long-term plan to respond to localized flu outbreaks. A lot more cooperation is needed to clear up confusion about the swine flu virus.

Popularity: 1% [?]