When in doubt, blame Twilight

So, this whole swine flu thing.

When it comes to news, I am the equivalent of an unvaccinated individual taking advantage of the vaccinations of the people around me. I don't put any effort into following general news myself, but so many people around me do that I find out everything I need to know about, and then some.

So, the swine flu thing comes up and I'm going "you know, I've heard that if you get it, it's more mild than the normal flu." And the people around me are all "Oh no, it's as bad as the big bad flu epidemic in 1918 and if you catch it you need to get antivirals or you die" and so on. I defer, thinking I hit a bad rumor. Then I come home and look up the real deal, and... turns out I'm right. Less severe than normal flu. It does have some similarities with the 1918 Spanish flu, but there's also key differences.

Now, there's nothing wrong with keeping in mind the lessons of the 1918. Then, there was a wave of mild flu, and then the bugger mutated into its deadly form. So by all means, we do want to contain this thing and get it to die out its natural virusy death as quickly as possible. At the same time, we should also remember that 1918 had the problems of WWI. Many of the countries hard hit with it were war-torn, low on resources, and with widely malnourished (and thus less able to fight off infection) populations.

Right now, what we actually have is a mild flu strain that transmits easily, does not yet have a vaccine available, and --like any flu-- has a potential to mutate into something nastier. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, 1918. That date has come up recently. Isn't that the deal with Edward in Twilight, that he was made a vampire to keep him from dying in that flu epidemic? No one's drawn that exact connection yet that I've seen, but I can't help but think that it's why the mass media is jumping to that particular pandemic, when early analysis suggests it's more similar to the pandemic of 1957. (Well, and the fear-mongering "massive amounts of death" part.)

Now, another thing. As I said, I came home and looked up what I need to do if I catch the flu. One of the first things that came up was a British site, and it basically said, "Look, you don't have anything to worry about unless you've been in Mexico or the US."
Is anything else embarrassed by that juxtaposition?

This situation here is why we need some form of universal healthcare. Right now we have a very dangerous combination of a large population with poor healthcare access, and a cultural expectation that you will go into work with an illness and work through it with no regard for the coworkers you are infecting. These two things together make this sort of situation more dangerous than it has to be.

The second one, Powers That Be are trying to negate by encouraging anyone who thinks they have a flu to stay the hell home. My own company has told us that if we think we have the flu, they don't want to see us at our desks for at least a week. That's good. But, this should be the case all the time. People need to be encouraged to stay home when sick all the time.

For the first, even a bass-akward system in which basic care is provided, but more expensive care requires insurance, would be a huge step up. Imagine a system where treatment for infections, minor injuries -- the stuff your PCP covers -- are free, but if you need testing or hospitalization, you pay out of pocket/with insurance; now put this flu thing on it. I think even that half-assed universal healthcare effort would do a LOT to contain the problem. And we would at least have the option of saying that we're expanding that basic care to include anything related to the flu epidemic, so no one who thinks they have the flu should avoid treatment because they're afraid it'll lead to hospital bills they can't pay.

C'mon, country. It's time to join the rest of the world in the 21st century. I know I'll like it; they have cookies.