shannonsays.com

Bird Flu: Should Australia be worried

The news yesterday that some dodgy imported (from Canada) pigeons that were exposed to bird flu have been quarantined in Melbourne has sparked lots of discussion here in Australia; do we start to panic, or do we have nothing to worry about?  Well, Crikey's Sophie Vorrath gives us some reasons why Australians should and shouldn't panic:

Why we SHOULD panic:

• Because the H5N1 strain of the virus has killed about half the 120 people known to have picked it up from birds, says David Dobbs in Slate – and it bears disturbing genetic and clinical likenesses to the mass-killer Spanish flu virus of 1918.

• Because while scientists predict that the virus may become less pathogenic when it adapts to humans, even with much lower virulence the human and economic cost would be high, says Haruhiko Kuroda in the Financial Times.

• Because Australian customs officers discovered that 102 pigeons exposed to the bird flu made it to our shores, with three of the birds imported from Canada testing positive to bird flu antibodies.

• Because the European Union seems to be panicking, says The Economist. After outbreaks of the deadly H5N1 strain were confirmed in Russia, Romania, Turkey and possibly Greece, the EU's ministers held urgent meetings to discuss how to tackle an epidemic that could devastate the poultry industry or, worse, if the virus changes to become more easily communicable among people, set off a human influenza pandemic that threatens the lives of millions.

• Because bird flu has claimed another human life – this time a Thai villager, who contracted the disease when handling contaminated dead chickens. And though it's been a year since the virus last killed someone in Thailand, this highlights the difficulties south-east Asian countries still face in stamping out the disease.

Why we SHOULDN'T panic:

• Because the Prime Minister says so. While acknowledging that Australia is at risk from the virus, John Howard says the government is taking all the precautions it can, including trying to remedy the situation in which the public is finding it hard to access anti-viral medication such as Tamiflu.

• Because the UK's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson says so – he told a media gathering this week that a pandemic was unlikely this European winter, says the Financial Times.

• Because fear distorts thinking and renders much of the decision-making in epidemics irrational and inefficient, says Raj Persaud in the Financial Times. Managing our fears is as vital at this time as understanding the virus.

• Because it's a beat-up, says Mick Hume in The Times. No doubt the experts and authorities should have contingency plans for a possible pandemic, but this doesn't justify the “public circus of warnings and point-scoring that is making a melodrama out of a health crisis, even before one exists.”

• Because it's the regular old human flu we should be worrying about, says Erdal Safak in Turkey's Sabah (via the BBC). World Health Organisation officials warn that the real danger of an epidemic will appear when these two viruses meet – we should start a campaign of free flu vaccinations before winter comes.

• Because clinical testing now under way suggests we'll soon have a viable vaccine, says Dobbs (in Slate). The biggest trial so far, conducted by drug maker Sanofi-Pasteur, has found that the company's vaccine safely produces immunity in healthy adults. They are now testing it on the elderly and children. Other drug makers, including Chiron, GlaxoSmithKline, and Medimmune, are running early trials of other formulations

I remember Tony saying earlier in the year that the whole Bird Flu thing scare's him; but even the "Canadian Pigeon" scare has failed to frighten me too much.  That probably says more about me than it does about Tony (or anyone who is scared by Bird Flu).

I understand how deadly it is, and the article in this weeks Economist sure got me thinking, but the "I'm alright Jack" attitude in me still holds sway.  It's not that I have absolute confidence in the ability of our Government's and authorities to keep us shielded from the virus, or that I am blessed with a super immune system.

There are three reasons that prevent me from raising a worrying cold sweat over Bird Flu.  One; what's the probability of it making it to Australia?  In all reality, pretty low.  Two; if it does make it to Australia what are the odds that I, or anyone I know will contract it?  Again, slim.  And the third, and most telling (and the one that binds the first two) is that I am simply too self-centred to think that it will ever happen to me....And I reakon most Australians have their head in the same hole as me.

Breaking Election Pledges- breach of contract?

And politicians wonder why we don't trust them....

Let's say that  you or I made someone an "absolutely rock-solid ironclad commitment[s]", to deliver something such as the election pledge by the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, to maintain the Medicare safety net.  And then that person accepts our offer and gives us something as consideration, (like a vote!) in return, but we fail to deliver on our promise, what would happen?

We would be carted of to court and sued for breach of contract, that's what.  Especially when the terms of the contract where delivered with such a clear guarantee.

But when the Government came out this week and did a u-turn on thier election pledge, all they had to do was shrug their shoulders, issue an apology, and we all have to get on with it.  Stiff.

Given the circumstance of the projected expediture blow-out the policy needed to be tweaked.  And this isn't the first time that politician has been caught saying and doing anything to get elected, and then once in power changing their mind.  And why wouldn't they?  There is no form of recourse for us until the next election (still three and a half years away), so they can do what they like.  Of course it sucks, it is wrong, and is totally inconsistent with what would happen to you or I if we behaved the same way in our business dealings.  But that is the way it it.

As an aside thought, I reakon the whole Safety Net idea was poor policy to begin with, but not one to be defeated easily, Tresurer Peter Costello had this to say on AM during the week:

STEPHANIE KENNEDY: Older Australians are high users of the Medicare Safety Net, and that is obviously blowing out from around $440 million to $1 billion. Hasn't the government completely miscalculated the cost of the Medicare Safety Net?

PETER COSTELLO: No we haven't. We've actually put down in our estimates reasonable anticipation of those costs. But since you're on the question, let me remind you of this. With the population aging, with the draw down on services four times higher for over 65s, the policy that was put forward at the last election, the so called Medicare Gold policy – free health care – must have been the most irresponsible policy ever announced in Australian history. Fortunately nobody ever had to hang around to see its implementation.

STEPHANIE KENNEDY: But Labor also said at the time that the Medicare Safety Net would blow out to around $1 billion and it has done. What will you do to rein it in?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, as I've said now, in the last three questions, the answer in Australia is to get our health services on to a sustainable basis.

In other words, if you think this is bad policy, you should have seen Labor’s.

Nothing though on how the doctored Medicare Safety Net will still cost twice the original estimate. Nothing on how the clumsy idea of a Safety Net wouldn’t even be needed if Medicare worked properly – or if levels of bulk billing were maintained.

But like I said.  Stiff.

Gambling on our Health

Last week the Victorian State Government announced that it is going to clobber the pokie machine industry  with a 100% tax increase that will bring in an extra $45 million a year.  Now usually a yax hike makes people groan, but the clever spin here is that the revenue will be used to help fix waiting lists, staff numbers and services in our cash strapped hospital system.

There are two ways of looking at this, I suppose.

The first is that Victorias gambling companies (Crown, Tabcorp and Tattersalls) are sin companies that are making tidy profits from their heavily protected monopoly or duopoly gaming licences, so they deserve to get slugged.  And in any case the new levies will  be tax deductible so Canberra will share in the pain.  Plus the money is going towards hospitals, and that's gotta be a good thing, right?

Well, I disagree. 

At the end of the day, these are real businesses, with real shareholders, real employees and real customers.  They won't just sit around and let a doubling of a tax hit the bottom line profits.  They will work out how to make more revenue to cover it; ie, they will work out how to get more button pushing zombies into their garish venues, and then work out how to get them to spend more, by  cranking up the number of high-denomination poker machines to recoup more money.  This of course will ultimately hit problem gamblers even harder.   And  they are the ones that can least afford it.

But more than that, I don't like the fact that we are have such an unhealthy realiance on gambling to fund our hospital systems.  As State Opposition leader Robert Doyle noted, we must be in a pretty desperate situation if the plight of our hospital system is dependant on becoming more reliant on gambling.

What do others think?  Is this unique to Australia, or is gambling used to prop up public services in other parts of the world?

New Age Shannon (sans-headaches)

According to a report in today's Herald Sun, we are turning their backs on traditional medicine in favour of new-age treatments, such as acupuncture, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine  herbalism, aromatherapy, iridologyt reflexology and massage.  According to the report, 40 per cent of all medical consultations in Australia are for alternative therapies, and it is predicted alternative therapies will overtake conventional medicine within 10 years.

These statistics don't really surprise me, and the trend away from traditional G.P's is a result of the state of the Health Care system in Australia.  It is a "sick-care" system not a "health-care" system.

Despite what the Australian Medical Association and well-meaning doctor's might have us believe, they aren't interested in our overall health and well-being, they are only interested in us if we are sick, can be diagnosed within 15 minutes or less and there is a pill that will makes us better... They’ll fix us when we are broken, but don'r really "care" about our overall and general "health."   It’s not all their fault though, our whole healthcare system is just designed (very badly) like that, and urgently needs fixing; or as Tom put it once:

“Shift focus—dramatically—from dosing, cutting and fixing-after-the-fact to Prevention, Wellness and Healing.”

The truth is that I have a great relationship with my G.P., in fact I have been seeing him for nearly 15 years.  When I am sick, he is great.  But I had long been suffering bad headaches; I had a headache more often than I didn't, not fun.  You name it my doctor tried it (in 15minute intervals of course!), but was really only interested in fixing the symptoms after the fact, rather than looking and fixing (= healing, curing) the cause, which we thought was linked to some muscles in my back.

So I took myself off to see a Shiatsu Therapist, who was interested  in healing my back, not just curing my headaches. He clearly informed me of his diagnosis and on each visit kept me up to date with how the, treatment, healing, and my “wellness” was progressing.. To cut a long story short, Shiastu Therapist visits= 8, headaches in the last 4 months, almost zero.  And with regular exercises prescribed by the Shiatsu "guru" I can now maintain my headache free lifestyle.

And I am obviously not alone, and I can see why there is a trend on towards therapies that were once reserved for hippies in tie-dyed shirts.  It is another example of a niche product (the natural therapy market) catering to a disgruntled market unsatisfied with the status-quo. 

(Hint:  Non traditional therapists like to talk (have a conversation!) about you, a doctor wants to talk about your symptoms....what would you prefer?)

(Read Tom's best Health Care Rant)