SARS: a gloomy prognosis

There is an interesting article by Nigel Hawkes in The Times today entitled, Why I believe we should all be worried about Sars.

The gist of the argument is that we foolishly believed that infectious disease was a thing of the past but actually it is rearing its ugly head again and again. SARS is just the latest new disease to strike. AIDS demonstrates that it is still possible for novel diseases to have devastating impacts. It is only a matter of time before another super bug comes along that wipes out large numbers of people like Spanish Flu did in 1918.

What seeps through every word is an utterly pessimistic view of human capacity to deal with disease. The fact is that, for the most part, the major contagions of the past have been dealt with. Smallpox has been eradicated, malaria and TB are less significant than they were (although the ban on DDT may effectively mean fighting malaria with one hand tied behind our backs). Within weeks, SARS is better understood and treated (if not cured).

What is clear is that medicine and the general state of society go hand in hand. AIDS is no longer a major killer in the West because of the availability of anti-retrovirals. They don't offer a cure, but they allow the disease to be managed. It is poverty that is the killer in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. With access to better nutrition, sanitation and medical care, the problems of those countries would be greatly reduced. But we should not be so downhearted about our capacity to understand and deal with new threats. The problems are political, not scientific.