 |
     |
|
|
Actually, I can't disagree with the recommendation made in the underlying Science article referred to in this Toronto Star article entitledTreat elderly last in pandemic: Study.
It's all about choices and survival. Of course those things are not always consistent with social mores or particular moralities. Off the top of my head, I can think of about seven vectors (note how I got the virology reference in?) for an argument to substantiate the position that those with the highest probability of survival and most value to provide in the future should be protected in priority to others. But, I am also abundantly aware that H5N1 has peculiarities with regard to what conditions are best to incubate it (i.e., health, etc.) such as the apparent fact that people already sick with lowered immune systems are more likely to survive this flu than those who are robust and healthy. Look it up.
In short, it's guaranteed to be complicated. And, the science-based prevention and treatment courses should be determined on scientific bases, not on the basis of morals and social mores.
What a place to restart (!) this thing.
Posted by Grayson at May 12, 2006 04:46 PM | TrackBack