Swine flu and other plagues

If some people are to be believed, the world is about to melt down and everyone is doomed and we should run to the hills/hide/shoot anyone with a cold. I don't believe this outbreak is a great cause for alarm...yet.

The Spanish flu outbreak of 1918 has always been difficult to trace, at the end of the Great war many countries in Europe were still under censorship so the initial cases were hidden until the disease hopped over the French border into uncensored Spain. The exact death toll is still unclear, but it may have as many as 100 million.

Tragically, the Spanish flu killed young, healthy adults, many of whom returned from the trenches only to be struck down by the virus. Early reports from Mexico suggest that young adults are dying there too, but why?

The answer lies in the immune systems of young people: when a virus attacks the body, the immune system produces cytokines, which encourage coordinate the body's defence and encourages cells to produce even more cytokines.. Normally the body controls the production of cytokines, but in some cases production of cytokines rages out of control and healthy cells are attacked instead of the virus. This can lead to the death of the individual in a phenomenon known as a "cytokine storm." Many blame this for the high death toll in 1918.

But how can such a devastating pandemic be prevented? A new flu pandemic has been expected for a long time. Hospitals have contingency plans in place to deal with pandemics, including shutting down the hospital, vaccinating essential staff and setting up marquees in hospital grounds to hold the infected. If these plans are put into action, the flu virus will already have taken hold in Britain, so how can we stop the virus getting here in the first place?

Containment is an effective option for preventing the spread of diseases. Even in the Bubonic plague in London in 1665, attempts were made to quarantine those infected and guards were placed around infected houses for 40 days. But this was unsuccessful as often the plague-carriers had already infected others and the guards were frequently bribed by the inhabitants of a house. However, there are success stories.

The SARS outbreak in 2003 was controlled by removing contact with the outside world. Flights to affected cities were cancelled and the virus was eventually stopped in its tracks. The virus has already left Mexico, in a less lethal strain, but it is still not too late to prevent it reaching the UK by monitoring flights or ,in extremis, shutting down airports altogether.

All of these things are scary, but I believe that it is too early to label this as the New Black Death or New Spanish Flu. For now, just monitor the news and don't panic unless it reaches the UK and starts spreading. There are lots of ways to keep the flu from wiping out humanity.

Oh, and by the way, avoiding pork does not protect you from Swine flu. It just doesn't work that way.

PR and medicine: an unhealthy combination?

Medicines can be made to seem like a wonder-cure, they are portrayed as a miracle, both safe and effective. PR is keen to convince us that they have an amazing cure to give us. Just as it is wise to be suspicious of a used car salesman who smiles too much, it must be remembered that PR is not always a kind friend. Sometimes they are something far worse.

Seroxat was wonderful, or so we were told. It was safe for children with no dangerous side effects. Parents could rest safe in the knowledge that this drug would help their kids, without anything to worry about. But there was a dark secret behind Seroxat. It actually increased thoughts of suicide and self-harm in vulnerable young people. The study which showed this evidence was buried, and the company continued to promote Seroxat as though the report did not exist. It was only when the BBC’s Panorama programme forced the problem into public that GlaxoSmithKline finally admitted there was a problem.

Young people were driven to suicide by Seroxat – the drug that promised to save them from depression. It was immoral for the Press Officers to promote the drug when they knew what it could do. There is blood on their hands.

PR can make almost anything look good. Even oil companies have websites that make them look like environmentalists, but when it comes to science burying bad news is not something that should be put in the hands of a publicity officer.

Herceptin was another miracle drug, and a PR success thanks to campaigning women. Jayne Sullivan staged a sit-in at the Welsh Assembly to put pressure on the Welsh Health minister, Brian Gibbons AM. Popular support for Jayne Sullivan’s campaign embarrassed the authorities into licensing the drug for use in Wales. It was an emotive campaign led by independent campaigners, who brought the drug to the attention of the public. Without their actions, it might not have become available for NHS patients.

But with herceptin there were side-effects that did not receive great public attention, such as the damage it can do to a woman’s heart or doubts that it is not as effective as the campaigners claimed. PR can’t be blamed entirely for that – people ignored any doubts because they didn’t want to hear it.

PR in the field of health may be irresponsible or even dangerous, because the public is not made aware of potential risks. PR must be held at least partly responsible in the suicides of Seroxat-users. They misinformed the public about Herceptin too, ignoring the potential risks to sell the drug, selling only on its good points. PR can give people false hope – that drugs will benefit them without any side effects. It is not just manipulative, it’s cruel.

Hysterical economists

The Financial Times reports that Ben Bernanke had to calm down panicking markets, after Alan Greenspan remarked that the US might be heading for a recession. The paper reports that Greenspan caused a “global sell-off in equities.”

Journalists seemed to jump on the story without much thought. Alan Greenspan says in The Independent that: “there is the possibility but not the probability of recession.” This did not stop the paper covering Friday’s front page with the headline: “After three days of turmoil, is the world’s economy heading for a CRASH?”

The Independent forecasts disaster. On the other hand, The Financial Times is more restrained. This article is trying to limit the damage of Alan Greenspan’s remarks.

Here, the article on Bernanke gives the impression that earlier panics were unfounded. Bernanke is not worried, so why should we be? But from the reaction to Greenspan’s comments, it is clear that expressing any fears would be a mistake.

Bernanke says it was a “market correction,” but he has to be cautious because of his great influence. He cannot speak freely, or give a totally trustworthy version of events. After all, look what happened when Alan Greenspan was misinterpreted.

But who can you listen to? There is a wide gulf between The Independent and The Financial Times, and it is difficult to know which to trust. Financial publications will be less dramatic, as their articles may affect the global economy. Tabloids will always try to put a dramatic spin on a story to make it exciting.

The only way to have any idea of the real situation is to look at a variety of sources, as none will give you the whole truth.

Dealing with the Devil...I mean PR

Since I started doing journalism, I have found myself having to deal with PR types. Not out of choice, but because any attempt to get any information from an organisation usually means that they'll transfer you to the press office straight away.

Once you get through, you face a number of problems:

1) "I know nothing." Either they appear very ill-informed about what their organisation actually does, or they pretend it isn't their problem. They say things like: "actually, you need to speak to Bob, he's out of the office at the moment." Bob, when you eventually get hold of him, will transfer you to someone else. When you do get hold of them, they rarely give you the information you want.

2) No one's listening! Sometimes the only way to get through is email. I'm sure this is great for PR as an email is so easily ignored. There is often a gap of a day or more before they get back to you. Sometimes you have to chase it up.

3) Don't mention the course. As soon as you mention you're a student, you get shunted right down their list of priorities. It might be tempting to say you're from The Times, but I don't think it's very ethical. The only solution is to avoid mentioning it if at all possible.

4) Trust no one. It is far too easy for them to fob you off with a press release. If you ask about something they don't have a press release on, then they'll have to come up with something different.

Of course, it's better to try and avoid them altogether, but sometimes you have to deal with them. I'm finding out very quickly just how frustrating that can be. I can see why they have such a bad reputation and life if so much easier if you find your own material, rather than wait for some distant person who may or may not get back to you.

Dealing with PR is like striking a deal with the Devil. You never quite get what you want and they get to keep your soul. You have been warned.

Taking him for every last penny

Lois Rogers suggests that all women are money-grabbing, some even coming to England from Europe as “divorce tourists”.

Rogers is sceptical of the “misty-eyed compassion” of judges in divorce cases towards women. Women portray themselves as weak victims to milk the system. But the women who won large payouts are unusual cases.

Women gained 53 per cent of the “pot of wealth” to be divided on divorce in 2005, so women were getting roughly half of their combined assets. Is this unfair? If marriage is an equal partnership shouldn’t the assets be divided equally?

In other European countries, divorce settlements are “along the lines of redundancy.” In the UK marriage is not considered as employment. European law is less generous, but perhaps less fair too. Rogers thinks this is a better system, and is upholding feminist ideals.

I understand some of Roger’s anger. Yes, it is sad if equality has been lost in favour of greed. Generous settlements seem to belong to a bygone age when men were the breadwinners. If a woman has been working during her marriage, should she demand more?

But what if the couple ran a business? In the White vs. White case, Pamela White was awarded £1.5m for helping to run their farm.

Some women give up work to care for children, they are hardly mentioned. One woman sacrificed a successful career to raise children and this was taken into account.

The current situation is not fair, and perhaps it can be manipulated too easily, but this article is not fair either. Each case should be judged individually, that is the fairest way.

A matter of life and death

Imagine you can see a runaway trolley rolling down a railway track. If you do nothing, five people on the track will die. But if you pull a lever and divert the train, it will only take one life. A simple decision for most people - it is better to save five lives than one.

Another dilemma: this time the only way to save five people is to push someone in front of the train. Logically, it is no different to pulling the lever, but scientists found that people were less happy to push someone. Pushing a person seems more brutal because it is “up close and personal”, but in both situations you directly kill someone. People who push engage the cognitive part of the brain more, in those who refuse emotion wins.

This body-count approach is unsettling. On the other hand, is it better to save ten African babies or keep your aged father on life support? With this problem, numbers are less likely to win because people prefer to save their kin.

What if you have five ordinary people on one track and a man on the brink of discovering a cure for malaria on the other? In taking one life, you would actually save fewer lives than if you let the five people die.

It can be dangerous to consider one life to be more important than another, but the medical profession have to make decisions like this all the time. Do you operate on a young person who may not survive or on an older person who will definitely survive? Weighing lives may be difficult for most of us, but for some people it is just their job.

The Economist - A house with many mansions.

The terror raids last month prompted widescale panic in the media. Papers screamed hysterically that Muslims were planning to behead a British Muslim soldier. In this case five men were charged under the Terrorism Act, other raids have not produced results.

The Economist article does not accuse the media of panic, nor does it accuse the police of overreacting in most cases. The Economist said: “There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism, the problem is terrorism,” but they don’t look at the problem closely enough.

People argue that the 7/7 bombers were from Yorkshire and they were all apparently respectable citizens, but in recent terror raids the suspects have usually been released. This does not stop muttering about bomb factories and chemical warfare by the press, even if there is no evidence. It just becomes another way to equate Islam with terrorism.

The writer notes that there has been fighting between different races. It doesn’t mention that these are usually deprived areas like Oldham, where there were mutterings that immigrants were taking jobs from the white population.

The BNP is referred to as “members of the white working class who felt dispossessed.” The BNP might have influence in some areas, but they still only received 200,000 votes in the May 2006 elections. The BNP usually claim that they are the voice of the silent majority, but clearly the silent majority didn’t turn out to vote.

Who can blame the Muslim community for feeling victimised? It goes too far to say that Britain today is comparable to Germany in the 1930’s, but it is dangerous to alienate the Muslim community. In the future, they might not be so keen to cooperate with the authorities.