Overwrought and Uninspiring

The World Health Organization (a nanny group) has declared the swine flu epidemic a pandemic, now that the number of cases worldwide has risen to 30,000. Why the interest in such an announcement? To be sure, part of it is intended as a plain old warning. That's okay. In this day and age where we have the technology to spread news quickly, it is good that we can caution the general populace about dangers such as this. But I must wonder whether there is an ulterior motive involved. You see, at least according to the article I'm referencing as I pound this out on my keyboard, part of the reason for issuing this 'long awaited' announcement is to get drug companies to act faster in developing cures (and as with the above mention, I really have no issue with that) but to encourage governments to 'devote more money' towards the purpose of containing the virus. It would be easy to say that all we have here is the voice of genuine concern expressing the opinion that we must devote more time, effort, and yes, cash, to the cause of eradicating disease. A third time I say, nothing wrong with that. Yet the same article which I am referring to (it's on AOL under 'Swine Flu Pandemic') also assures us that most cases of the disease are 'mild and require no treatment' while the leader of the WHO describes the virus as 'moderate'. So while none of the deaths because of the virus should be treated as unimportant, it sounds as though they're overstating their case. In that light particularly, what I find worrisome is that when we begin to encourage governments to ante up, I have to wonder whether we are significantly concerned enough about the real power of government to stop such things. Have we really reached the point where we believe that only government can help us? How much government effort was involved in the search for a polio vaccine? Was it government concern or private interests which lead to the eradication of smallpox? Was penicillin developed as a result of government efforts and infusions of money or as the product of the medical community striving for ways to kill a virus and save lives? I do not know, off the top of my head, the answers to these questions. But to the best of my knowledge, the greatest innovations in medicine came the most quickly from doctors who had true and immediate concerns in helping sick people. Why do we not trust such altrusitic endeavors today? It would probably serve me right to contract the swine flu in repentance for this column. Even so, does that answer my questions? Since when does reason dictate that we should trust people who know nothing about diseases and cures to enhance the development of diseases and cures? Why ought we trust a tall black monolith ahead of people who actually know what they're doing? I recently read where Pravda has begun calling Americans sheep for our blind fawning over Barack Obama. Perhaps our bleating has deafened our ears towards actually considering issues on merit over substance.