Bioterrorism Strikes Again!
By Rebecca Butterworth
Mother Nature is once again unleashing her most effective and deadly weapon: influenza. Yes, we can blame her and recognize her evil genius for making the perfect biological agent.
You can't see it with the naked eye, you can't smell or taste it, and you don't even know you're infected until you fall prey to it while unknowingly passing on its deadly payload.
It's the ultimate impersonator, fooling the infected into believing they have a bad cold, so they suspect nothing until it's too late. When the offensive begins, the virus storms its targets' cells and takes charge.
This viral puppet master cares not if health avails or death prevails. This unseen threat is a sinister invasion on unsuspecting populations; even the healthy and strong are vulnerable.
Is anyone else worrying as I am? It seems we've become accustomed to so many threat levels and warnings that perhaps this is just one more colored flag to ignore.
Or perhaps we've become anesthetized to the daily reminders of global terrorism, war, the global economic crisis, crime, etc., rendering us numb and unable to fully grasp the severity of a global pandemic and what it could actually do.
I don't think we should be so cavalier but instead take every precaution to safeguard our own personal health and well-being.
There's good and bad news. The good news is we're somewhat immune to the H1N1 swine flu virus since a mild and distant relative of the H1N1 virus still circulates, giving us partial protection.
The bad news is the influenza virus is still very difficult to treat. Its very nature makes it highly unstable and it can rapidly morph into other strains (lethal and non-lethal), not to mention that it's extremely contagious.
Influenza pandemics are undulating; each successive wave brings either mild or lethal forms. There were three influenza pandemics in the 20th century. The first and most deadly was in 1918. The second, the ``Asian" flu from 1957 to 1958, had a mild first wave.
Its second wave, however, was lethal, with the death toll exceeding 1 million. The third was called the ``Hong Kong" flu. Its pandemic of 1968-69 killed more than 1.3 million people and was considered mild.
What can be done? Well, vaccinations, the proverbial shot-in-the-arm, may seem like a panacea, a mere placebo since their impact is a drop in the bucket to a flood of quickly moving and mutating influenza viruses.
Be warned, even if vaccinations are the answer, there simply aren't enough to go around, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
Even more bad news is the presence of an influenza virus that stills lurks around Asia, the H5N1. This strain has a 50-percent mortality rate, which very few pathogens reach, but it lacks power, so it has failed to access dense Asian populations.
The H1N1, not considered very deadly for the time being, is highly contagious. What if these two strains finally have the chance to meet and mate?
Another downside to an influenza pandemic, in addition to the massive mortality and morbidity rates, is how it affects the global economy.
According to the Lowy Institute, an Australian think tank, the 1968-69 Hong Kong flu caused a $330-billion loss in economic output and the 1918 pandemic caused a $4.4-trillion loss in global economic output. What would the disruption be today if even a mild pandemic occurred?
We might not have to wait long. We' re an even more globetrotting population than before and with the incubation period between 24 to 72 hours, anyone flying internationally can go to any destination and spread the flu before showing any symptoms.
Therefore, even a mild pandemic would be far more disruptive economically than in 1968-69.
The U.S. Labor Department's Web site on Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for an Influenza Pandemic gives information on how a pandemic would affect the workforce. A pandemic could affect as much as 40 percent of the working population. This absenteeism would be due to illness or caring for sick family members.
There'd be a change in patterns of commerce, as consumer demand for items related to infection control would likely increase while interest in other goods might decline. Also, consumers would change the ways in which they shop to avoid peak hours to reduce person-to-person contact. They might use home delivery or drive-thru services more. Moreover, shipments of items from the areas hardest hit by a pandemic might be delayed or cancelled.
Trade, tourism, food supply, consumption and, eventually, investment and financial markets, would all be affected. Another hit to the financial markets could postpone and worsen any international economic recovery, creating an economic Armageddon.
The 1918 influenza killed more people in one year than the Black Death did in a century and it killed more people in 24 weeks than AIDS killed in 24 years. Annually, the influenza virus still kills 36,000 Americans, with more than 200,000 hospitalized for flu-related complications.
Forty-thousand Europeans also succumb each year to this pestilence. Now that we live in an age of megacities, megaslums and megatravel, what do you think a pandemic like that of 1918 could produce?
Can we handle the mortal and economic drain of another influenza strain? It's better to be safe and healthy than economically dead and mortally sorry.
Rebecca Butterworth has lived, worked and studied in Korea for nearly eight years. She is from San Francisco, Calif. She can be reached at butterworth.rebecca01@yahoo.com.