A Dangerous (Partisan?) Game

I'm not even going to bother complaining about Cindy Sheehan, Katrina, or Ronnie Earle - my target today is one Irwin Redlener up at Columbia. A little background on this is necessary. As many of you will know, Asia is currently affected by an avian influenza epidemic to which we have no natural defense. Obviously, that makes very potent and pathogenic. Right now it's not a terribly big deal, because it can only be transmitted from birds to humans, not humans to humans; unfortunately there is a very real possbility that it may mutate to allow human to human trasmission. In that case, expect to see a very deadly pandemic, more leathal than the infamous "Spanish Flu" outbreak of 1918. As bad as that one was, this one will be worse thanks to modern travel which can easily spread it to almost every part of the world overnight.

For the last several years, scientists have known about H5N1, this particular strain of avian flu. But their warnings have fallen on deaf ears for reasons that I can only speculate are political. Finally though, officials have started listening and paying attention. The President recently discussed this issue at the United Nations, and health ministers will meet in Canada next month. This is all positive, especially the President's serious discussion of potential policies in case of pandemic. One of these would be to use the military for law enforcement in such a scenario, based I assume on the logical assumption that widespread panic would be the order of the day. The military's role, according to him, would primarily be to effect quarantines and thus limit affected areas; this is a role that I fear police might not be able to fulfill effectively. But Dr. Redlener has called this a dangerous precedent, and an "extraordinarily Draconian measure" - what this tells me is that the good doctor knows very little about Dracon. But I have to question this fellow's motives, as I do anyone at Columbia, and ask if he isn't playing with fire here. These arguments mirror those of Cindy Sheehan saying New Orleans was an occupied city, or the NYCLU decrying profiling in New York subways. All of these people desperately, and perhaps partisanly, seek to defend a definition of their freedoms more broadly construed than any of the Founding Fathers may have wished, and at such great cost. Is there any hope to separate policy from poliics?

My apologies

Sorry all few of you who read this for the silence of nearly two months - academics have dominated my life. But I'm trying to get things back into balance, and that includes this. So prepare yourself for another barrage - and tell your friends.