Thoughts on the swineflue/h1n1 virus: A response

I think that my recent post on the h1n1 virus may have been interpreted a little more extreme than I intended. 

Bob Wenger responded to my post with these two points:

1.  The fact that it (pandemic hysteria) has been "a little bit exaggerated" may have contributed to the fact that it has not been as great a pandemic outbreak as thought possible.

2.  The fact that it is yet to have been eradicated does not preclude the possibility that a more virulent strand manifests itself in the fall for example.

He's absolutely right. I had the same thought about point number 1. I have often thought that people criticize the media alot, but in reality, it is in situations such as these where the media as a tool to spread knowledge to the public becomes absolutely useful. 

And on point number 2, the 1918 spanish flu epidemic started exactly the same way. it started slow on the spring but mutated in the fall, and ended up killing between 50-100 million people. 

My main point with the last blog was that we need to constantly take a measured approach to things, take a close look at whats really happening, and speak to the experts before we get carried away by frantic ideas.

I've gotten some pretty outrageous emails lately claiming that swine flu is a beta test for a biological weapon.

My friend and soon to be LSE colleauge Mark Kersten writes a pretty good in depth look at the root causes of swine flu: pinpointing globalization and population explosions as major culprits (from an explanatory perspective).