Government and the Flu: A Short History
<<< Back to Vaccines
www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1407&id=64
Ludwig von Mises Institute
518 West Magnolia Avenue
Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
by William Anderson
[posted January 2, 2004]
Last month, my wife decided to get flu shot for our children, but when she
saw the long lines that stretched around whole city blocks, she decided that
even if a flu shot were important, nothing could justify subjecting young
children to waiting for hours. We may try later - or we may not try at all
and just hope we remain healthy this winter. Given the U.S. Government's
track record on infectious diseases, perhaps my wife and children were the
lucky ones.
As readers of this page are certainly aware, the long line accompanying the
government's "free" flu shots, as well as the vast supply shortfalls that
are visiting the vaccination centers, as whole communities have run out of
the medicine. That long lines and shortages would accompany something that
the government gives away at a zero money price (let's cut out the talk that
this is "free" medicine) is hardly a shock, except to journalists and
politicians, who cannot seem to understand why we are facing such a state of
affairs. Indeed, the fiasco that is the government's current flu program is
nothing more than a small picture of the larger fiasco that is government
health care in general.
The threat of influenza each year is real; about 36,000 people on average
die yearly from the flu - and being that it is a disease, no one in the
government has figured a way to ban it or make the flu illegal (at least
without being an even bigger laughing stock than Washington, D.C., already
has become). However, that alone does not justify what the government has
done in the name of "protecting" individuals from the flu, as it is almost
certain that if flu shots can save lives, then people will die because the
government made it nearly impossible for them to receiving the necessary
vaccines.
The rhetoric from some government officials (broadcast by an adoring media,
of course) aside, it is instructive to see what has been done and why the
government is creating yet another health disaster. However, before
examining the present and sorry state of affairs, perhaps we need to take a
longer look at the government's track record here, starting with the very
real flu pandemic of 1918-1919.
During the fall and winter of those years, an estimated 500,000 Americans
died of Spanish Influenza (as a percentage of today's U.S. population, that
number would be about 1.4 million), and millions more died overseas. The flu
outbreak coincided with the last days and the immediate post-armistice days
of World War I, with government actions guaranteeing that the flu would
spread rapidly.
During an epidemic, one of the most important things is for those who are
ill to come into as little contact with others as possible. However, the
U.S. Government was crowding thousands of soldiers onto troop ships--many
soldiers already being ill--and shipped them back to the USA, which meant
that upon landing on U.S. shores, large numbers of soldiers had contracted
the flu, and then those soldiers went back to their homes and communities to
infect others.
As if that were not enough, the government also was sponsoring large rallies
to sell war bonds, which meant that huge crowds of people would gather to
hear celebrities like Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford urge people to
purchase bonds to support the U.S. military effort. Of course, that also
meant that people would be infecting others and the crowded conditions did
the rest.
Fast forward to the winter of 1975-76, when the government decided that a
possible pandemic of swine flu lay ahead. Anxious to find a possible
campaign issue - and the Center for Disease Control equally desirous of
being a band of heroes - the Gerald Ford Administration jumped feet first
into calling for mass inoculation. Thus, the stage was set for one of the
greatest public health fiascoes ever.
CDC director David Sencer managed to convince Ford and the press (which
always likes a good story, true or not) that an epidemic to match the 1918
and 1957 flu pandemics was in the making. Congress signed on to the fiasco
and Ford called for every person in the USA to receive flu shots.
Alas, government emergency medicine proved to be as bad as government
education. Not only did an epidemic of swine flu (or any other flu) fail to
materialize, but the vaccine proved to be worse than the disease, and
thousands of people who received flu shots had serious side effects, with
nearly 100 people dying. Sencer lost his job and Ford lost the 1976
election - but the toxic combination of government and medicine apparently
was lost on the political classes and their allies.
Nearly 27 years later, the government still has not given up on its goal of
mass inoculation, and once again we have what can only charitably called a
mess. At best, this program will prevent perhaps a few deaths from the flu
(if one can be sure that these flu shots actually will keep someone from
contracting the illness); at worst, it will result in unnecessary deaths and
illnesses as people's immune systems react negatively to the vaccines - and
people standing in long lines and crowds contract the flu from others in
close quarters.
While it is tempting to write off this debacle to bureaucratic incompetence,
one must remember that the "goals" of those in "public health" are much
different than the individual goals of people who seek medical care. "Public
health" officials like David Sencer think in collective, broad-brush terms
of "saving" society (with the Sencers of the world being feted as the "great
heroes"). When such collective goals conflict with the personal goals of
individuals, "society" must always prevail, according to the advocates of
"public health."
Furthermore, actual results are secondary to "public health" officials; they
want to be seen as heroes who are "saving the nation" from pandemics, and
there is always an adoring press waiting to record and praise their every
move. (When these health crusades blow up to such an extent that they cannot
be covered up, then there are resignations and public humiliation. However,
such pitfalls are quite rare.)
About a decade ago, as the voting public began to sour on the excesses of
the welfare state, the political classes repackaged welfare as "aid to
children." A few years after Congress turned away legislative packages
proposed by Janet Reno's Department of Justice that would have vastly
expanded the federal criminal code and broken down the last walls of
constitutional protection (then-Sen. John Ashcroft labeled Reno's demands as
"smacking of Big Brother"); in the months following the infamous 9/11
attacks, suddenly Congress could not give the DOJ enough power, and Ashcroft
declared that anyone who opposed the Patriot Act and other such legislation
was "giving aid and comfort" to "terrorists."
For many years, U.S. jurors refused to award monetary judgments to
plaintiffs in lawsuits against tobacco companies, viewing those individuals
as responsible and moral creatures who willingly chose to use tobacco. In
the name of "public health," however, legislators across the country
systematically have stripped tobacco companies of their rights to defend
themselves - and in the process have, in effect, ended common law defenses
by any individual or firm. (Since the U.S. Constitution forbids the
imposition of "bills of attainder," then if tobacco companies are denied the
right of common law defenses, then in order to be "constitutional," the
destruction of such defenses must necessarily be applied to everyone else.)
Thus, the latest flu vaccination debacle is not about good health,
preventative medicine, or protecting people from communicable diseases. It
is about the aggrandizement of the state, period, and the threat of an
influenza outbreak is simply the hook that government officials use to
expand the powers of the political classes. All else is irrelevant.
William Anderson, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, teaches
economics at Frostburg State University. Send him MAIL. See his Mises.org
Articles Archive.
Back to top of Document
