Tweet
Published 3 September 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b3471
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b3471
Analysis
Calibrated response to emerging infections
Peter Doshi, doctoral student
<sup>1</sup> Program in History, Anthropology, and Science, Technology and Society, E51-070, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
pnd@mit.edu
WHO has revised its definition of pandemic flu in response to<sup> </sup>current experience with A/H1N1. Peter Doshi argues that our<sup> </sup>plans for pandemics need to take into account more than the<sup> </sup>worst case scenarios.
The current flu pandemic raises a public health policy question<sup> </sup>that could have been asked after the emergence of severe acute<sup> </sup>respiratory syndrome (SARS): what is the proper response to<sup> </sup>clinically mild or epidemiologically limited (small number)<sup> </sup>outbreaks caused by new viruses? Over the past four years, pandemic<sup> </sup>preparations have focused on responding to worst case scenarios.<sup> </sup>As a result, officials responded to the H1N1 outbreak as an<sup> </sup>unfolding disaster. Measures were taken that in hindsight may<sup> </sup>be seen as alarmist, overly restrictive, or even unjustified.<sup> </sup>Assumptions about the nature of emerging infections along with<sup> </sup>advanced laboratory surveillance have changed the way we understand<sup> </sup>epidemics and we need a new framework for thinking about epidemic<sup> </sup>disease.<sup> </sup>
Before the arrival of novel A/H1N1 virus, pandemics were said<sup> </sup>to occur when a new subtype of influenza virus to which humans<sup> </sup>have no immunity enters the population, begins spreading widely,<sup> </sup>and causes severe <nobr>. . .</nobr> [Full text of this article]
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extra.../sep03_2/b3471
News report on this article at: http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=123943
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b3471
Analysis
Calibrated response to emerging infections
Peter Doshi, doctoral student
<sup>1</sup> Program in History, Anthropology, and Science, Technology and Society, E51-070, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
pnd@mit.edu
WHO has revised its definition of pandemic flu in response to<sup> </sup>current experience with A/H1N1. Peter Doshi argues that our<sup> </sup>plans for pandemics need to take into account more than the<sup> </sup>worst case scenarios.
The current flu pandemic raises a public health policy question<sup> </sup>that could have been asked after the emergence of severe acute<sup> </sup>respiratory syndrome (SARS): what is the proper response to<sup> </sup>clinically mild or epidemiologically limited (small number)<sup> </sup>outbreaks caused by new viruses? Over the past four years, pandemic<sup> </sup>preparations have focused on responding to worst case scenarios.<sup> </sup>As a result, officials responded to the H1N1 outbreak as an<sup> </sup>unfolding disaster. Measures were taken that in hindsight may<sup> </sup>be seen as alarmist, overly restrictive, or even unjustified.<sup> </sup>Assumptions about the nature of emerging infections along with<sup> </sup>advanced laboratory surveillance have changed the way we understand<sup> </sup>epidemics and we need a new framework for thinking about epidemic<sup> </sup>disease.<sup> </sup>
Before the arrival of novel A/H1N1 virus, pandemics were said<sup> </sup>to occur when a new subtype of influenza virus to which humans<sup> </sup>have no immunity enters the population, begins spreading widely,<sup> </sup>and causes severe <nobr>. . .</nobr> [Full text of this article]
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extra.../sep03_2/b3471
News report on this article at: http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=123943