What do we do if germs are set free?

8 Jan, 2003 05:53 AM4 mins to read

By HEATHER ROY*

At functions, the conversation over coffee is often more telling than the official agenda. At a recent meeting of the Medical Association, the doctors were chatting about how to diagnose smallpox and the treatment of anthrax. Although initially taken aback, I thought through the politics of the situation and realised that the threat of biological terrorism will be a major concern in the health sector this year.

Let's review the political situation. It seems increasingly likely that Iraq will be attacked by a United States-led coalition and, although the course of such a war is hard to predict, the eventual outcome is certain. Saddam Hussein is sure to be toppled and he must greatly fear falling into the hands of his own people.

Many New Zealanders think the US is wrong to prosecute such a war. Wellington psychiatrist John Gleisner's departure to Baghdad with the Voices in the Wilderness group underlines that viewpoint.

However, we would be wise to plan for such a war, and it seems likely that Saddam will try to use terror weapons. New Zealand sits safely outside the range of chemical and nuclear weapons but geographical distance provides no certain protection from infectious disease.

Prime Minister Helen Clark's repeated comment that we "live in an incredibly benign strategic environment" sounds naive and hollow, especially since Bali.

To understand the threat of infectious weapons, we must understand another political situation - that of the Soviet Union before and during its collapse.

When Boris Yeltsin was a rising star in the Communist Party he served a period as First Secretary for the city of Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg again). In 1979 a mysterious disease killed some 70 inhabitants. It was later revealed that the disease was anthrax, and the outbreak was caused by a leak at a secret biological weapons factory.

Although this research violated international treaties, the incident was simply hushed up and officials ordered a clampdown on butchers, who were blamed for the epidemic.

But Mr Yeltsin was aware of what was going on and, in 1992, when he was President, ordered the destruction of Russia's biological weapons stocks. The fear is that some weapons might have escaped Mr Yeltsin and have been sold to rogue states, including Iraq.

With weapons inspectors in Iraq seeking evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the debate around Iraq's intentions has often been badly informed. It is forgotten that the inspectors who entered Iraq after the Gulf War found and destroyed large quantities of anthrax. It has always been Saddam's intention to develop weapons of mass destruction.

While there are a number of biological weapons, one stands out as the most dangerous - smallpox. This disease ravaged mankind for centuries and only 200 years ago Jenner discovered that cowpox confers immunity and began the first campaign of mass vaccination.

The last natural case of smallpox was in Ethiopia in 1997, although several powers kept stocks of vaccine.

After a laboratory worker accidentally contaminated himself in Britain in 1979, all stocks were destroyed, except those of the US and the Soviet Union. Russian smallpox should have been destroyed but some might have fallen into the hands of criminals and been sold.

If it were released, most of the world's young to middle-aged people would have no immunity and the disease has a high mortality rate. To guard against a smallpox plague, many countries have bought stocks of long-frozen vaccine - and President George W. Bush has received his own well-publicised shot.

Australian authorities have ordered enough vaccine to immunise 50,000 military and health professionals, and New Zealand has ordered 10,000 doses - although that would be inadequate to immunise every soldier, doctor and nurse.

Some New Zealand soldiers do train with protective suits but our overall level of readiness is low. Cuts to our armed forces have left us little reserve capacity for unexpected threats.

A decline in military preparedness - thanks to Helen Clark's inability to perceive danger - was always a bad policy. Now we face the particularly nasty threat of biological terrorism. A response will require a co-ordinated reaction from the Ministries of Defence and Health, and it would be wise to seek advice from the US.

The development of an adequate plan to deal with a weapon of mass destruction would not have been a bad New Year's resolution for the Minister of Health.

* Heather Roy is Act's health spokeswoman.

Story archives: