Imposing wellness

The threat of a global pandemic is a major concern to nation states, corporations and individuals alike. Although global spread of diseases has not been new however the concerns are further amplified with the speed at which people can now travel around the world seamlessly. As proven by the SARS epidemic, the movement of the infected individuals was so fast that by the time authorities realised something was wrong the disease had already spread to several cities each with its own mass of people living in high density settings. However it is interesting to note the steps taken to prevent SARS and also steps taken to immediately prevent HIV have been very different. As for the case of SARS, it was a virus that had the potential to infect quickly with a high rate of transmission between individuals but the latter is also true for HIV as well, yet the immediate response has not been on the same scale as the SARS epidemic. Why is there a disparity between the handling of these two particular diseases?

HIV has drawn a worldwide response as many scientists are working on a cure for the disease across many parts of the world. Financial institutions such as the World Bank are also stepping in to provide financial assistance to improve education and preventive measures to avert the virus. However the virus is still deadly and has now spread to many other parts of the world. Unlike the SARS virus which resulted in many of the patients being quarantined, as in the case of Singapore, in a designated hospital. Temperature taking was also introduced at many public areas such as schools and entry points into the country to isolate cases early so that it may be treated. But the same treatment is not given to HIV. Testing for HIV is not compulsory neither is there impositions made by the state to ensure that travellers or more importantly residents know of the status of their health. This has been left to the digression of the individual, partly due to the costs and the time required to conduct such tests and also due to privacy issues however wouldn’t a virus such as this that is able to spread from person to person through particular normal human functions demand a waiver of privacy at least?

The nature of HIV is such that it can remain dormant in a host for an extended period of time therefore it would require immediate attention when the individual begins to show signs of infection. However as individuals have the freedom to choose whether to be tested or not, the pretext of ignorance is often utilised when unexpected effects occur. These effects often involves innocent parties who do not subscribe to the lifestyle associated with HIV, to be infected with the disease, as with unborn children infected through their mothers and women infected by their travelling husbands. These could have been prevented if the individuals had been tested regularly. The treatment of the results from the test might differ from person to person however with the assumption there is a basic sense of concern by most people with regards to the well being of others this information would be treated with the upmost importance that would possibly causing a change in lifestyles. No doubt education and prevention are fundamental tools to prevent the spread of HIV however such tools pale in comparison to the results of a lab test.

Due to the global spread of the virus it is undoubtedly difficult for states to impose testing on individuals to ascertain their HIV status but perhaps this can be done at the point of travel between borders as was the case with SARS. However this does not insinuate that states have to subsequently undertake measures to begin medical care on the individual but perhaps with the knowledge of their HIV status they will exercise a level of self control and not infect their loved ones at least. This would not stop the spread of HIV altogether but it could slow down the rate of infection significantly. Consequently with the imposition of these testing measures, research and development will be done to further streamline the testing process to make it more effective and cheaper to meet the demands of the world. Therefore indiscriminate testing might provide the ballast needed to complement the many preventive educational campaigns that are ongoing all over the world to raise the awareness of HIV.

Perhaps these measures are not considered workable as they involve heavy logistical demands as well as a heavy state imposition on a disease that is ravaging many parts of the world in poverty. Hence unlike SARS, urgent steps taken to actively prevent the spread are not taken as states are reluctant to spend added resources on a virus that has already spread across the world and more importantly the fact that the most infected states are developing countries teetering on poverty and not the developed areas of the world. There is therefore an important disparity between reactions to viruses as it affects different demographics especially when it comes to income disparities. It is time for the world to look beyond such differences and focus on the principle of viruses, as treats to the human race.