Is the new strain of influenza that has hit all corners of the globe in recent weeks a flu pandemic? It is difficult to know because the WHO has yet to offer a definitive answer. However, the WHO’s classification of the A(H1N1) outbreak as a Phase 5 outbreak is wrong.
A Phase 5 alert “is characterized by human-to-human spread of the virus into at least two countries in one WHO region.”
The WHO classifies the world into six regions, namely Africa, the Americas, Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean, Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific.
The highest possible pandemic alert is Phase 6, which “is characterized by community level outbreaks in at least one other country in a different WHO region in addition to the criteria defined in Phase 5,” or, in other words, a “global flu pandemic.”
Japan, which is part of the Western Pacific region, and the UK, part of the European region, experienced serious community-level outbreaks some time ago, with hundreds of people infected.
Strangely enough, even after news of the tranmissions in those two countries started spreading, the WHO did not raise the influenza pandemic alert to Phase 6.
The reason is that last week, countries such as the UK and Japan determined that the latest flu strain was weak, causing only mild symptoms, and that the WHO should therefore not raise the alarm to Phase 6.
The problem lies in the plans that these countries have implemented for pandemics. These plans are designed to prepare for the worst and treat any outbreak as extremely serious to gain immediate control of the situation. In other words, as soon as the WHO announces a Phase 6 influenza pandemic alert, these countries must immediately dispense their stocks of Tamiflu and other drugs to all citizens, close all schools and other public places and immediately develop a vaccine.
If the WHO were to announce a Phase 6 influenza pandemic alert, the economic activity of these countries would suffer. Such an announcement would also interfere with the operations of their medical systems, inconvenience the public and cause widespread panic. This is too high a price to pay for a flu of relatively weak virulence.
It would be a waste of valuable Tamiflu stocks and other anti-flu drugs if they were used for the current epidemic. This could also result in the emergence of drug-resistant flu strains in those countries. Depleting anti-flu stocks for a mild epidemic could be problematic if a more virulent strain were to emerge in autumn or winter.
It is worth asking ourselves whether considerations such as these are behind the WHO’s decision not to announce a Phase 6 influenza pandemic alert.
The WHO has said that the latest outbreak is an “unpredictable flu,” ostensibly to defend itself against ridicule. In addition, the WHO has taken many other actions of questionable value.
For example, the organization stopped insisting on naming the virus “swine flu” and changed its designation to A(H1NI) after being pressured by the world’s largest pork exporters.
To please China, meanwhile, it has listed information on A(H1N1) infections in Taiwan under China.
The WHO is no longer a non-biased health organization that cares for universal values, Rather, it appears to have turned into a political body.
Liou Pei-pai is the former director of the Taiwan Animal Health Research Institute.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS