Swine Flu Vaccines

In a nutshell: why?

Or to put it a little more specifically, why vaccinate everybody?

When compared with the normal seasonal forms of influenza, swine flu is significantly more mild in terms of its effects and complications than the normal flu is, meaning that if you catch normal flu you're actually very slightly more at risk than you would be if you'd caught the "pig" virus. You are of course more likely to catch swine flu - it is very virulent, and easily passed along from one individual to another, something very evident in the way it's spread from country to country so quickly. In the United Kingdom we've already had schools closed (largely the private ones where parents could afford to go to Mexico on holiday...) for brief periods of time as swine flu has got its greasy little mitts on the pupils there.

However, this does not mean any pupil died - or indeed that any pupil suffered bad repercussions. In fact, in the USA, only one person in every thousand has died after catching swine flu, and all of those thanks to underlying and serious pre-existing medical problems.

In a recession such as we're in, with healthcare already being threatened by the dwindling economy and more and more of the taxes intended to support the hospitals being diverted into benefits for those made recently unemployed, there is no surplus of money. Certainly not enough to afford mass vaccinations. If there is any conclusion we should draw from the information we have, not only from our own experiences in the Northern hemisphere, but also in the Southern hemisphere, where swine flu has been present during the traditional "flu season", it is that the only people who are seriously at risk are those who already have identifiable health conditions. We can clearly see the pattern of disease and those who are most affected by it; similarly we can clearly see the speedy recovery and relatively mild symptoms of otherwise healthy individuals.

So why, given the overwhelming evidence allowing us to identify those who are at risk of complications from those who aren't, are we considering costly and ultimately unnecessary mass vaccinations? Even when you take a look at an economy with an ill workforce, the potential financial implications of that are lower than the implications of attempting to hand out the H1N1 vaccine to every member of the public. We don't vaccinate the whole nation against seasonal flu - where is the evidence, setting aside mass hysteria, to suggest that swine flu should be treated with a different approach?

The Magus

The Magus (by John Fowles) is one of those books which instantly has a deep-set impression on you. It is impossible to put it down and not instantly have to wish you could return to pick it up again. I can honestly say it's one of the most confusing books I have ever read, and yet simultaneously one of the books which has seemed closest to meaning something. I don't know if it's something to do with how old you are when you read it, and what stage in your life you're at, but it's compelling and somehow fascinating. Personally I think it should be on everybody's reading list - one of those top 100 books you have to read before you die.
Anyway, I just found this letter he wrote back in 1966 in response to somebody who wrote into him, and thought the whole idea he boiled it down to was kinda cool - that there is no answer or mode of encapsulating anything, and that you can frame what happens in life into any sort of formal explanation as you like - but at the end of the day, if you accept that we are essentially free to make most of our own choices, there is only one way to act. That is, in his words, "humanely to all humans".

1966
Dear Mr Fowles,
I am a senior in high school in the process of delving into myself and into ideas for answers to the questions which seem to plague all 17-yr. olds on the brink of entity.
I have just finished reading "The Magus". It certainly was one of the most extraordinary reading experiences I've ever had and I completely enjoyed it. But I don't really understand the book and it keeps digging at me because the book has become something I just want to understand. I realise that you probably don't have an excess of spare time but I would deeply appreciate an explanation of the meaning of the book. I can't get at the meaning behind the meaning: the climax of reason, and the idea of "eleutheria". I hope I will hear from you soon. Thank-you.
Sincerely yours
Tina Priess.

Dear Tina,
No, I haven't much spare time, and even if I had I wouldn't spend it explaining my own creation. What one writes is one's explanation, you see, and if it's baffling, then perhaps the explanation is baffling. But two approaches - the Magus is trying to suggest to Nicholas that reality, human existance, is infinitely baffling. One gets one explanation - the Christian, the psychological, the scientific ... but it always gets burnt off like summer mist and a new landscape-explanation appears. He suggests that the one valid reality or principle for us lies in eleutheria - freedom. Accept that man has the possibility of a limited freedom and that if this is so, he must be responsible for his actions. To be free (which means rejecting all the gods and political creeds and the rest) leaves one no choice but to act according to reason: that is, humanely to all humans.
Best wishes
John Fowles.