Common Sense Ombudsman: Vaccines for a Real Epidemic

Sometimes, there is hysteria.

There has been chaos and gnashing of teeth over the past few weeks over swine flu. Its a pandemic!!!!!! Well, maybe not...but its going to be! There have been HUNDREDS killed in Mexico... or maybe just 16.

Putting aside the media's interest in stirring the public into a frenzy (could this be just like Pandemic or Quarantine - or - even better - I Am Legend?!) ...what are the facts?

There have been 61 deaths worldwide, including 3 in the United States. There have been only 40 confirmed swine flu cases in the US, more than half occurring in one New York school. Only 4 other states have had a single person test positive for swine flu. For a country with 300 million people, those figures aren't too bad. And they certainly don't seem to warrant the panicked coverage given by our media. When you consider that the normal influenza killed 83 children in 2008, the hysteria is even more puzzling.

But what if I told you that every year, around 40,000 otherwise healthy Americans are killed from one particular cause? Before I could even finish the sentence, Sanjay Gupta would reflexively gear up his hazmat suit, pack a few Ensures and prepare himself for 18 hour shifts on CNN. Fox News would create a special music intro with drums and electric guitars for reports on the topic.

Can you imagine their disappointment when I tell them that the cause was traffic accidents?

Over the past few years, deaths have ranged from the low 40,000s to a near-record low of 37,000 in 2008. But no one really cares. Why?

First, its old news. Traffic accidents might go slightly up, or might go slightly down - but no one is going to make a horror movie out of traffic accidents (although Duel was a great old school film) and the media knows its not going to be able to frighten the bejesus out of the masses with the reports. If it won't increase ratings, then why report on it?

Second - and this is related to the first - people, rationally or irrationally, internalize certain dangers, treating them as a fixed cost of living. We like driving, we like living in the suburbs, we like getting places fast, trucks deliver things to us - its a shame that people also die, but overall the benefits outweigh the costs. Over time, people just begin accepting the fact that there are going to be a lot of deaths from traffic accidents and stop asking why.

Not TWO.

When one considers that a quarter of a million people marched on Washington to oppose abortion, that 2,000 people protested the execution of a convicted killer in Texas, that New York spends roughly $50 million per year to prevent disease and premature death due to cigarette smoking, that the entire nation - including both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court - fiercely debated the life or death of a single woman, the only inference is that our culture places a high degree of value on life and its protection.

From afar, then, it must look quite odd that we allow nearly anyone to drive 3,000 pound vehicles at high rates of speed in opposite directions, separated by just a few feet and a painted line.

Some simple steps, in addition to wearing a seat belt, to reduce the likelihood of accident deaths:

1) Substantial dividers or spacial separation on highways. Crashes at high speeds are always dangerous, but head on collisions are far more deadly. There is no reason why any road should be built where cars travel over 50 mph in opposite directions with just a double yellow line separating them.

2) Stricter driving tests for teenagers. Driving should not be considered a right of passage. Lack of coordination or lack of maturity are great reasons to keep kids off of the road unless they are with a parent or a driving instructor.

3) Stricter rules for kids under 21. Inexperienced drivers cause a disproportionate amount of damage. As such, laws should be geared to address this segment of the population. At the risk of sounding over the top, I think that governors on engines, restrictions on driving with friends and at night, and limitations on highway driving are all reasonable steps to take. If a driver under 21 goes a period of time without incident, then some of these rules can be eased. Immaturity and distraction can be deadly.

4) Stricter rules for people over 70. As people lose their motor skills/concentration, they become a liability on the road. Requiring a test every 5 years or after any driving related incident would help weed out potentially dangerous drivers.

5) Revoke people's licenses for egregious behavior. For some reason, we are willing to sentence babbling meth-heads and cocaine peddlers to 30 years, but allow drunks to get DUI after DUI with mere slaps on the wrist. Why should this ever happen? Look, minor traffic accidents and speeding tickets are understandable. But people should only be allowed to endanger other peoples' lives a couple of times before they get moved to the passenger's seat.

In conclusion, "We are in the midst of a national epidemic....if this many people were to die from any one disease in a single year, Americans would demand a vaccine."