Drudge, Swine Flu, and the Value of Panic
There are some good comments coming in, and there’s a lot of debate as to whether my proposed “panic is good” model holds any water.
So, let me pull some thoughts out of the comments and respond to them here.
* kevinchristy writes in that: “I’m not sure the benefit of indulging the anxiety du jour is worth the costs you’re so readily discounting. Pulling kids from school, canceled travel, missed work days, the toll on medical workers because people are convinced the merest sniffle is the onset of swine flu… it’s just not worth it.”
This is something worth clarifying: When I say that panic could do good, I do not mean that it would necessarily be economically optimal. You could see plenty of productivity lost in a panic. But if you look at the panic as just relating to one goal — stopping the spread of an epidemic — it would be a success.
Now, the same logic could be applied in a ridiculous way: If everyone stopped driving, there would be no car accidents. Obviously, this would be economically destructive with no substantial benefit (or, at least, a benefit far outweighed by the lost productivity of doing away with an entire mode of transportation). But, with the history of how disease has decimated human populations over the millenia, a panic response to an epidemic looks pretty reasonable.
Again, the point isn’t that it’s economically optimal. It’s that, as an evolutionary mechanism, panic elevates the preservation of the species over all other concerns. Which is useful. (I don’t mean that Swine Flu threatens the species — think of something more deadly, like Ebola or the Black Plague.)
* Brian in NYC takes issue with glorifying Drudge: “I’m not sure we can ascribe interest in the public’s safety to Drudge, I’m sure stoking the fires of bigotry against Mexican nationals here in the US might have something to do with it too.”
Fair enough. Despite the obviously over-the-top headline, nothing Drudge is doing is heroic. Or selfless. Or even public-spirited. But one doesn’t have to have the social good in mind to serve it. Drudge’s actions, however motivated, can have a positive effect in preventing the spread of Swine Flu.
As for stoking fear of Mexican nationals… unfortunately, that’s a good point. None of this helps anti-Mexican racism in the United States. But Drudge is hardly to blame for that. He’s certainly to blame for stoking nativist sentiment all-too-often. But we’re hardwired by evolution to fear disease from foreigners — and that hardwiring has a basis in our history as a species (isolated populations didn’t have the immune defenses to fight off diseases brought by outsiders).
* Lastly, a few people have brought up the problem of vaccine misallocation, as people become convinced they have Swine Flu and demand it from their doctors.
First off, we don’t really have a Swine Flu vaccine right now. But say production was ramped up and we had to distribute a limited supply. This is an economic problem. The government could mess it up. Or doctors could do the wrong thing, providing it to non-at-risk people (like, say, healthy 30-year-old bloggers). But the panic response would be only partially to blame here. I’d still say this doesn’t negate its being a healthy, population-protecting response.
Look forward to hearing more from all of you. As Drudge might say: DEVELOPING…
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
“But one doesn’t have to have the social good in mind to serve it.”
Ah, the means justify the ends argument, time to consult The Ethicist.
[...] UPDATE (4/27/09, 1:06 p.m.): I’ve added some thoughts in response to all of your comments here. [...]
Oh, and thanks for the “shout out”!
“anti-Mexican racism”
You should choose your words more carefully.
Mexican is not a RACE by any stretch of the imagination – it IS a nationality as you note earlier.
For that matter, biologically speaking, there are no human races even if we still have our biological imperative of “fear of the other”.
I read both the sources you cite – in the real time you mention they occurred.
I’ve come not to rely on the New York Times for trendy “its happening now news”. And, Drudge, well, frankly, he’s merely a repository of aggregate links to other places for me. But I appreciate that in this instance because I’d rather have TOO much information AND MAKE UP MY OWN MIND – than have what the New York Times thought I needed WHICH WAS NONE.
Nice piece, Ryan – and nice follow up. I love an alternative thinker. ~ DD
Of course, Drudge vs. NYT is a bit of a false choice. We all have access to both and an awful lot more. As grim as things are with newspapers, I still think we’re getting a lot more news now than ever before.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] On: Drudge, Swine Flu, and the Value of Panic [...]
[...] new millennium health innovation? Well, this blog’s already made its stance clear on the value of panic. Happy hunting, iPhone-armed bug [...]