



: Since the global outbreak of the swine flu pandemic was detected in March 2009, it has claimed over 7,860 lives in 206 countries and territories. Compared to the localised SARS epidemic of 2002-03 (774 deaths in 24 countries) and the avian flu influenza of 2004-07 (262 deaths in 12 countries), swine flu has stoked collective fears of entire humanity.
Not even fundamentalist Islam or major wars can match the combined panic that set in when the H1N1 virus began causing mass casualties. The initial shock jolted people into making painful adjustments to daily routines—donning masks, repeatedly washing hands and avoiding the kiss in greetings. The world’s ways and even social relations, it seemed, had to adapt to cope with this serious threat.
Nine months have passed since the first wave of swine flu waxed and waned. Horror stories that the Spanish influenza pandemic, which killed 50 million people in 1918, could repeat have now lost traction.
One reason for swine flu not being as destructive as its awful predecessor during World War I is the universalisation of the idea of rapid and effective state intervention to contain, isolate and eliminate pandemics. The emergence of the welfare and developmental state in the post-World War II period elevated the importance of public health as a major priority for governments.
Yet, the first wave of swine flu in the last nine months has shown that not all governments uniformly lived up to the expectations of squelching this major threat to public health. Some have done exceedingly well in restricting the spread of the virus, while others have stumbled at the cost of precious lives.
Just because 2009 has not been as devastating as 1918 does not justify ignoring the shortcomings of certain countries in mounting vigorous and timely missions against swine flu.
One egregious instance of state failure to adequately combat the virus is Argentina, which holds the record for the most infected country with nearly 1,50,000 cases and 600 deaths (14.95 deaths per million of population).
The government of this South American country has earned the unenviable reputation of behaving criminally negligently at a time of social peril. When H1N1 hit the roof, the government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner was too busy with petty politicking. Kirchner had preponed national congressional elections by four months to improve the chances of her husband, former President Nestor Kirchner, winning from his constituency. This power couple was keen to use congressional...
More from FE Special
| Single Page Format | 1 - 2 - 3 - Next |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |

© 2010: The Indian Express Limited. All rights reserved throughout the world