Antiviral stockpiles and value systems.

Antiviral stockpiles, against the influenza virus tell a lot about the value systems of a society. This silent action - to stock or not to stock - speaks eloquently of what is important to a government: saving money, or saving lives.

Around the world, different governments have made different decisions on this saving money, saving lives spectrum. You see the problem that some governments see, regarding stockpiles, is that it could all be money down the drain. A large stockpile of antiviral drugs may never be used because, after all, it will only have a shelf life of a few years - perhaps five or so. It will, therefore, have to be replaced if maintained. Thus, some governments are cautious as to how much money they tie up in such stockpiles. Again, what we are seeing is how much they value the lives of their citizens, versus the money on hand.

America has a stockpile of 50,000,000 courses of appropriate antivirals according to Bloomberg. That is enough for one in six of the population. Britain, on the other hand, is showing greater caution and clearly placing greater value on the lives of its citizens, by stockpiling 33 million doses (source: The Guardian newspaper). That is enough for 55% of the population: a three fold preparedness advantage over the USA.

However, the USA is not doing too badly. Canada has only 1,400,000 courses of antivirals on hand (Bloomberg), for its population of 33.6 million people. That is only enough for one in twenty-four, or just over 4.1% of the population. To my eyes, that seems rather unprepared since swine flu could easily infect a large fraction of a population, if it behaves like the flu pandemics of the past. Norway, also has 1,400,000 courses of antivirals on hand. However, they have a population of just 4.8 million - and so have enough to treat 29.1% of their population. There is some confusion as to just how much antivirals Singapore has on hand. At the beginning of the week, the Singaporean media mentioned 500,000 courses of Tamiflu, for a population of 4.8 million, allowing the treatment of 10% of the population. Today, the newly stated number for courses available is 1.15 million courses of Tamiflu and Relenza (50,000 courses). Should these newly issued figures turn out to be true (the sudden change could indicate new purchases of anti-virals, and I hope this is so, or could indicate PR spin) then Singapore now has enough antivirals for 25% of the population. This is much less than for the UK...but rather better than that of Costa Rica, whom Nacion.com says has just 3,000 courses of antivirals for a population of almost 4.6 million. This is enough to treat just one person in 1,533. (These figures for stockpiles are checkable on Wikipedia, too).

Clearly, there is no international agreement about how much a nation should plan ahead, against a flu pandemic. There is such a great range of preparedness that it is quite clear no two nations quite see the situation in the same way. Yet, the truth is, all face the same potential outcome: large scale sudden deaths in their populations, from a flu pandemic. It has happened many times before, in human history and it will happen many times, again, until there are no humans left to suffer from it. All we can do is prepare.

I am puzzled, however, that so many developed nations are so relatively undefended. The antivirals cost about one hundred dollars per person, per course. This is not a great sum for a developed nation. To my mind, it seems an easy decision to make to have enough antivirals on hand to treat the entire population. The upside is the minimization of death in the population in the face of a pandemic, the downside is the loss (if unused) of about 20 dollars per year, per person, to protect the nation. (Since the drugs will probably have to be replaced every five years or so). This assumes that only one type of antiviral is stocked. It would be wise to stock more than one type to guard against resistance. In any case, the cost of stockpiles is minimal, compared to the cost in life that would be paid, in the event of not having enough drugs on hand.

What surprises me, therefore, is how much many nations seem to value money, over human life - for so many of them are relatively unprepared for what humanity could soon face. I use the word humanity deliberately, for pandemics put all of humanity at risk, in the sense that anyone could die, of a flu pandemic.

My hope is that this particular "pandemic" turns out to be much more moderate than feared - and that all nations learn from it, to be better prepared for the next one to come. Perhaps the stockpiling of antiviral drugs should not just be a national responsibility, but should be taken up at the international level at the United Nations. It would seem to me to be sensible for the United Nations to ensure that ALL nations have good stocks of antivirals on hand - even the poorest nations. The rich nations could, in effect, buy antivirals for the poor nations. This should be done, at least to some extent, to moderate any pandemic. It would be the humane thing to do - and not only that, but moderating the pandemic anywhere in the world, will help reduce its spread everywhere in the world, for we are all interconnected.

I would like to see a shift, in national priorities, away from saving money, towards saving lives. Too many nations, seem to have chosen to guess what kind of need they might have, and so have stocked, like Singapore, an "adequate" amount. They don't seem to see that the only adequate amount is full coverage of the population. Anything less is not only short-sighted (for a pandemic could truly be one that infects almost everyone), but also immoral. It is not moral to have to force doctors to choose how they ration the medicine available; it is not moral to have doctors choose who will live and who will die. That is not a choice for humans to make. All lives are valuable, all lives should receive, therefore, the best of care, humanity presently has available...and that includes anti-viral drugs.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Little Master Mischief.

Today, we took a bus with Tiarnan, twenty-five months. He rather liked this, being immune, from his childish perspective, to all those irritations which adults might have with the mode of transport.

He observed that, to stop the bus, you must push the bell. It is good that he understands this. What was not so good, however, was the use to which he put this knowledge.

At one point, he stood up on the seat and reached up to the bell and pressed it. The "bus stopping" sign duly lit up. He was fully aware of the mischief behind such an action for he then turned towards us and, rather comically, placed his tiny index finger against his lips and went: "Shh!", to us. Quite clearly, he was telling us not to tell anyone what he had done.

Of course, the bus came to a halt - whether or not anyone actually wanted to get out, or get on.

It was funny to see that he was aware of what he should do and should not do - and chose, out of perhaps a sense of curiosity, to do what he should not. He wanted to see the bus stop, at his command. That no-one might want the bus to stop was something he seemed to understand - hence his urging of us not to tell on him.

Though he was clearly being mischievous, he did so in such an endearing way, that all we could was laugh at his antics.

I can see many mischief filled days ahead, with our little Tiarnan.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and one month, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and seven months, and Tiarnan, two years exactly, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Tiarnan, the little policeman

About three days ago, Tiarnan, fifteen months, stepped in to control his brothers' behaviour.

Ainan, 7, and Fintan, 3, were playing in a rough and tumble style. This is characteristic of boys everywhere and, generally speaking, no-one really gets hurt: it is just play wrestling. Tiarnan, however, thought differently of this. He looked at Fintan on top of Ainan on the couch, the two struggling together and he looked up at me, then pointed at his brothers: "Heh..."

I looked at where he pointed, then decided to do something. I stepped in and pulled the two boys apart. The funny thing was Tiarnan's reaction. He was flabbergasted that I had listened to him and taken his instruction. His little pixie form began dancing around the room in excitement that I had acted on his tip off: he was exhilarated.

It was a little thing - but in listening to Tiarnan and acting on his intention, I think I did much to reach through to him. What does he think now: that Daddy listens to him.

It was a good moment.

By the way, the boys didn't go back to their wrestling.

(If you would like to read more of Tiarnan, fifteen months, or his gifted brothers, Ainan Celeste Cawley, seven years and five months, or Fintan, three, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children and gifted adults. Thanks.)

Fintan puzzles at the fairness of the world

About two weeks ago, Fintan came into our room in the morning, with a question on his lips.

"Daddy...why are there four boys and only one mummy?" He pointed at me, himself and his brothers, as he said so.

His voice and face were both concerned - he seemed to think there was something inherently unfair in all of this.

"Well, when mummy has a baby, half of them are boys and half are girls...it just happens that all of them have been boys. That is all."

He listened to this, but wasn't convinced of its fairness. I felt like telling him that mummy would have a girl one day - but didn't - for how could I be sure of that?

I see in this question, and in others that Fintan asks, a developing sense of what is right, true and moral. He senses unfairness in some of the characteristics of the world - and puzzles at them. He is not one to accept that which does not seem just.

Without knowing it, therefore, Fintan is measuring the world against some inner sense of what is fair and just. He has an internal moral sense - and it appears to be developing nicely.

I am happy about that, for one who senses unfairness in the world around them, is also very likely to be one who behaves fairly in their conduct towards others. The development of a moral sense is also a sign of the development of a moral character: the two go together. A child cannot sense immorality, injustice or unfairness - and then behave unjustly, immorally or unfairly - for the child would sense the wrongness of their own behaviour, then, measured against their developing internal standard.

It appears that, in Fintan, at least, a sense of justice and morality develops quite early - after all, he is only three.

I look forward to the good hearted man he promises to become, knowing, as I do, the good-hearted child that he is.

More lessons from the classroom: morality

I wrote, recently, of the lack of imagination observable in many young people today. What implications are there for their functioning in the world?

Well, one implication came to light today in another brief conversation, I am aware of:

Teacher: "What would you do if you found a wallet in the street?"

Student, from mainland China (the same one as in the earlier posting):

"I have never found a wallet."

End of both thought and conversation.

This particular student has displayed a lack of imagination in many contexts, in the past, however, the implication that he was unable to consider a moral situation - because he lacked imagination - is a new observation. It is shocking to realize that the lack of imagination means he is not able to consider his own responses in situations he has never been in. Fundamentally, therefore, it means that he cannot know himself. Lack of imagination is, therefore, a kind of pervasive mental disability whose wide-ranging effects are little appreciated. We think of it in terms of not being creative - but it is much more than that. Without imagination a child is not fully human, and lacks the mental resources to understand themselves. Imagination is a key aspect of what it means to be a fully alive, thinking being.

Any education that imperils imagination, imperils the very future of Man. A world without imagination, is a world in which people cannot even understand themselves - never mind the world they live in.

Is this young man - for he is eighteen or nineteen years old - unable to imagine because of some native deficiency - or is it because of the way he was educated in mainland China? In some way, I hope that it is a deficiency, for if it is his education then the implication is clear: there may be over a billion like him, all having received such a debilitating education. I don't know which it is - but I can tell you this: I have seen this lack of imagination in many others of his origin. I do not know the cause - whether it be innate or environmental. The question may be essentially undecidable without doing an experiment that would, itself, be questionable.

I will keep you posted on more observations of this phenomenon, as and when they arise.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and three months or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three, and Tiarnan, thirteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)