I got some comments about
the relative risks of H1N1. A few people said that I was missing the point: while we shouldn't stop being worried about meningitis because HIV kills more people,
the chart is really saying that we shouldn't get
disproportionately worried about meningitis when HIV is killing
more people. We shouldn't be
disproportionately allocating resources from big problems to small problems.
I disagree.
First, resources. Prevention is cheap. It would be one thing if we were talking about whether to empty a family's bank account to irradiate Mom's breast cancer or bypass Dad's heart but this isn't that kind of situation. Flu shots are $30 over the counter, $20 with insurance, and
sometimes free. If flu/H1N1 vaccine production caused shortages of polio or meningitis vaccine that would be a problem, but it isn't.
There are more shots than people who want them. The only shortage right now is a shortage of the H1N1 vaccine itself, and that's only because they caught the strain too late to incorporate it into the trivalent seasonal vaccine that you already got. Some areas of health care may be zero sum games, but flu prevention is not one of them.
Second, actions. Not a zero sum game either. Washing my hands, covering my mouth when I cough, and getting vaccinated shouldn't and isn't going to stop me from doing other things I also ought to be doing. Heart disease and car accidents kill more people than influenza, but I don't end up eating a Big Mac or driving drunk because I've "lost" effort resources by getting vaccinated. It's a false choice to pretend that paying attention to one means neglecting the others.
Third, general concern. It's true that we give disproportionate attention to new unknown risks than old well-known risks,
as we should. It's is an effective, naturally selected survival strategy. Cavemen talked more about the new tiger in the bushes than droughts and plagues because people needed to know about the new tiger whereas everyone had figured out what they were going to do, drought-and-plague-wise. Modern people started talking about the nine people
found strangled in La Crescenta even though hundreds of people died in car accidents during the same time because we'd settled on a strategy for car accidents while the Hillside Strangler was a new thing. I'm not advocating complacency, but there are good reasons to spend disproportionate attention on relatively new and unknown risks instead of old and well-established risks.
Of course we shouldn't pretend that H1N1 is going to kill us all, but there seem to be far fewer people thinking this than people who think people are thinking this. (I'm not helping either, since now I'm alarmed about people who are alarmed about people who are alarmed about H1N1 killing us all.) It's true that there are some irresponsible news sources trying to attract eyeballs and sell fishwrap, but the consensus opinion is that H1N1 really sucks, it is
dominating this year's flu season in some areas, it causes
more fatalities in young and old people, and you can reduce your chances of spreading it to your high-risk friends if you get vaccinated and keep your well-washed hands out of your eyes nose and mouth. So do that, OK?