tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596892575737885357.post7521781525253200071..comments2024-03-20T03:05:06.958-07:00Comments on Workers' Compensation Perspectives: Is Asbestos-related Disease a Pandemic?TerryBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08600065444131519437noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596892575737885357.post-58568516347816525902010-03-09T10:59:54.671-08:002010-03-09T10:59:54.671-08:00A somewhat tangential comment:
I have reservation...<i>A somewhat tangential comment</i>:<br /><br />I have reservations about the use of the term "pandemic" in this context. It strikes me as using a currently "hot" term to gain attention at the cost of blurring or diluting the meaning of the term. <br /><br />Currently, a "pandemic" requires three conditions:<br />1) a source of illness against which humans have no or little immunity;<br />2) the source must make humans ill;<br />3) the source must be efficiently transmissable from human to human.<br /><br />I don't think asbestos-related disease qualifies under point 3.<br /><br />My reservations stem from the concern and confusion engendered during the recent "Pandemic H1N1" event. In the lead up to the pandemic, the word pandemic was used to conjure images of mass deaths and societal disruption on a scale of the 1918 Spanish Flu or the Black Death of the middle ages. In effect, "pandemic" was conflated with "high mortality".<br /><br />In retrospect, I think this sloppy use of the term pandemic hampered us in our contingency planning and also cost us credibility when the actual pandemic infection turned out to be a relatively mild illness.<br /><br />In a nutshell, my preference would be to use another term but I realise this is probably being pedantic. Ideally, I think we need a new definition or terminology which includes a measure of the severity of the consequences of the illness.Zanuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04695033575157804259noreply@blogger.com