(Computer) models, designed by two international research teams, suggest a pandemic could be stopped if a ring of contacts around the first human cases were given antiviral drugs to keep them from becoming ill.
Success is predicated on rapid detection of initial cases, quick deployment of teams to distribute the drugs, high levels of compliance among those told to take the drugs and quarantine for cases and contacts. And, of course, the emerging pandemic virus must be susceptible to the drugs.
Naturally, there are plenty of variables involved, and no guarantee of success. But some of those variables themselves should be very much subject to change. In particular, a lack of health infrastructure in third-world states isn't a reason to avoid doing anything, it's a reason to put resources toward building infrastructure as well as toward the vaccine which could stop a pandemic. (And contrary to the implication in the article, there's no apparent conflict between producing enough vaccine to stop a known virus in its tracks, and creating enough production capacity to create new vaccines if necessary.)
Given sound data stating that a global disaster can be avoided, is there really any doubt that health organizations should be taking all reasonable measures to that effect?
No comments:
Post a Comment