Population and Health: What are the consequences of a globalised disease?
Throughout history of mankind, deadly diseases spread throughout the world, such as the bubonic plagues and HIV and AIDS. With globalisation, I feel that it is likely that any other major diseases would spread at a more astonishing pace, due to the ease of travel through airports and seaports. Diseases would no longer be local, but global. Hence, a deadly strain of virus found in the far reaches of Asia, might be a cause of catastrophe in North America. These diseases bring about widespread chaos, deaths and uncertainties to societies, but what are the social consequences of these diseases besides all the negativity mentioned above?
Of course there would be the conventional negative social consequences. Let us look at the example of SARS. The pneumonia-like disease affected a wide number of countries (as far as Canada) and it has been discovered to have originated from China. Throughout the whole period of SARS, many countries have attributed the pace of the infection to the slow announcement of discoveries of SARS cases by the Chinese authorities. (Besides the fact that the virus is very hardy, water-borne and air-borne) They believed that should the Chinese made known to the world of the cases earlier, it could be prevented. This belief eventually led to discrimination of the Chinese, sometimes even Asians in some nations. There were reports that Canadians shunned Chinatown in Toronto, and racist slurs by non-Asians towards Asians appeared in the Chinese press. Some people argued that the lack of human traffic was not only evident in Chinatown but all other parts, it still echoes the fact that racial discrimination might exist, and the disease in this case could well be the catalyst for the social framework to collapse, even before the diseases wipes out the society.
Besides discrimination of different race of ethnic groups, there appears to be discrimination towards medical workers who come into contact with the diseases. Famous cases of Taxi drivers in Singapore refusing to pick up nurses during the SARS period; a gynaecologist refusing to provide consultation to a nurse was again in the Singapore press. The discrimination of the medical workers is obvious, but is the discrimination justified?
Opponents to the stand say that medical workers should not be discriminated, for they are the few noble ones willing to put their lives on the line to save other lives. They are the brave one who should be lauded for their efforts, rather than discriminated. But proponents suggests otherwise. Instead of being ‘discriminating’, they justify their actions as ‘for the good of the society’. It is an undeniable fact that medical workers are the most vulnerable group of people and we cannot discount the fact that they might be virus carriers. By refusing service to them, it minimises the chances of a person being a new virus carrier unknowingly and infecting the healthy population. In short, proponents defend their stand by arguing that they do it for the sake of the society, rather than to protect themselves. How true is it?
Firstly, I think we have to consider the number of people who really thought that way (‘for the sake of society’) rather than for themselves. My first thought was that the number would definitely be low due to the general mentality of Singaporeans (I know I am stereotyping here) and with the panic that is around Singapore at that time, it seems that not many people would be able to sit down and think in-depth as to why they should discriminate.
Nonetheless, there are positives out of the situation. In face of adversities, society tends to work more closely and be more bonded. IN the case of SARS, Singaporeans united against the fight of the virus. Despite the small group of people, Singaporeans generally supported medical workers in their job. Morale support was at an all time high. Childcares centres that were closed down sent teachers to homes of children to provide care when parents had to go to work as usual.
Hence, a single deadly globalised disease is likely to trigger various social consequences, both good and bad. There might be deaths and economical implications, but positive consequences can still be taken out of these situations as lessons for all.
