I have been following the resurgence of MERS as keenly as anyone. The Italian cases got my attention this weekend, and I worry about the way the Saudis are handling their cases. (Check the comment by Magpie on the photo of the newest Saudi case, whose attendant isn't even gloved.)
But at the end of this eventful weekend, the most disturbing news to me was the Guardian editorial about the political instability of Saudi Arabia. As the editorial points out, the Saudis are a gerontocracy; King Abdullah, despite his dyed-black goatee, is about to turn 90, and his heir presumptive, a pup of 77, is said to suffer dementia. At 72, I no longer have illusions about the wisdom accruing to great age; I know from personal experience how a small leak in a blood vessel can threaten the healthiest brain.
For the last couple of years we've seen the Arab world in turmoil, with Syria as the most ghastly example. But a collapse in Saudi Arabia would be far worse.
Suppose MERS had arisen in Syria last year, as the country was tearing itself apart. The refugees fleeing into Jordan and Turkey could have carried it, and under those conditions it would have spread unnoticed and unresisted. By the time the Turks and Jordanians sounded the alarm, it could have been anywhere.
Something like that could happen in a Saudi collapse, and we probably wouldn't even notice. Instead we'd be panicking about the spike in oil prices, the threat of new wars, and the flight of thousands of expats from Saudi Arabia to Bangladesh, Pakistan, and the Philippines—carrying not only new viruses but also new economic and political problems for their homelands.
And public health problems for nations around the world, which would reliably cut their healthcare budgets as their economies imploded. That in turn would lead to a resurgence of polio, dengue, leptospirosis, cholera, and any other infectious disease you care to name. If a few people were still contracting MERS under such conditions, who would care?
Consider this: MERS is supposedly the "new SARS." SARS, which scared us all silly ten years ago, sickened 8,273 people around the world, causing 775 deaths, before its source (civet cats) was taken off the menus of Chinese restaurants. Presumably MERS could do the same before we figure out how to suppress it.
But put those cases and deaths in perspective. According to WHO, boring old diarrhea kills 760,000 children under 5 every year. That's 2,082 toddlers killed every god-damned day of our lives, or 86 in the next hour, or 3 in the next two minutes. SARS, going full out for months, killed 9 hours' worth of diarrhea victims under 5.
I will continue to follow MERS, and H7N9, and H5N1, because they are interesting in themselves and they will teach us a lot about how viruses and animals (including humans) interact, and how our societies respond to such threats. But the Italians are already turning their attention to the European floods and the current soccer situation; the Saudis are fussing about expat workers running away from their sponsors.
So please, don't look at MERS or H7N9 as the next apocalypse. We've been living in an ongoing apocalypse for years, and we have been as starkly insensible to it as we ought to be to upstart hopeful monsters like bird flu and coronavirus. The apocalypse won't end until we address the reasons for diarrhea, and malnutrition, and the poverty that kills children while our attention is directed elsewhere.
Recent Comments