Show Hide image

A right pig’s ear

The government panicked over the threat of swine flu – and got its response completely wrong

Brace yourself - swine flu is on the rise again. The second wave coincides with mounting disquiet among doctors about the way we as a nation are responding to the disease. A recent survey by Pulse, a leading GP periodical, found that 61 per cent of family doctors believe the government should review its policy of blanket provision of Tamiflu to all suspected sufferers. It also reported a growing number of cases that have resulted in death or serious harm after conditions such as meningitis have been misdiagnosed as flu, and wrongly treated.

Swine flu has wrong-footed everyone. For many years it was assumed that when the next pandemic arrived, it would create havoc: thousands would die in Britain alone; the exponential demand for services would be mirrored by the decreasing number of healthy doctors able to deliver them; societies would crumble. This projection was based in part on the 1918 global flu pandemic - which caused an estimated 50 to 100 million deaths - coupled with the high fatality rate among the few hundred cases of "bird flu" (H5N1) over the past few years.

In the UK, huge quantities of antiviral drugs were stockpiled, plans for establishing a national pandemic flu phone line were laid, and organisations both public and private were exhorted to draft detailed contingency plans for when the carnage began. Both chambers loaded, the shotgun was trained on the far horizon, the collective eye of the viral surveillance world squinting down the barrel, seeking out the first sign of an emergent threat.

Along came swine flu (H1N1). To be clear: people have died - 82 in the UK and an estimated 4,041 worldwide, at the time of writing. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), roughly 60 per cent of the severe or fatal cases have occurred in recognised risk groups, such as people with grave underlying health problems; the remaining 40 per cent have affected fit children and adults. Each death is tragic, but the mortality figures are tiny, viewed against the millions of mild cases globally.

Writing in the British Medical Journal in September, Peter Doshi, a doctoral student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, proposed a framework to differentiate between disease patterns. Type 1 infections are widespread and severe - exactly the kind towards which the current pandemic flu plans are geared. But swine flu sits in Doshi's type 3 - widespread but usually mild. These different beasts present different challenges, but because pandemic planning failed to anticipate anything other than a type 1 scenario, swine flu has triggered a completely inappropriate response.

Marginal effects

Central to doctors' unease is the National Pandemic Flu Service (NPFS). Telephone-based and web-based assessments of symptoms are made using a computer algorithm. If the computer says "swine flu", patients are given antiviral medication, usually Tamiflu. The problems are twofold.

First, data from the Health Protection Agency, which conducts confirmatory laboratory tests on a sample of cases, shows that less than 10 per cent of NPFS diagnoses are correct. The other 90 per cent of supposed swine flu sufferers have other illnesses whose symptoms happen to overlap. (Doctors fare only slightly better, diagnosing at best a quarter of cases accurately.) Second, the drugs being doled out are by and large worse than useless, even in the correctly diagnosed cases. Tamiflu makes only a marginal difference to the course of uncomplicated flu and causes side effects in up to 40 per cent of people who take it. On the whole, these are just bothersome - vomiting is the most frequent - but serious, even fatally adverse reactions do occasionally occur.

In late August, WHO advised that antivirals were not necessary for fit patients suffering from uncomplicated swine flu. The Department of Health defends its continued policy of Tamiflu-for-all on "safety first" grounds. Its concern is those exceptional cases of severe disease in fit individuals, where Tamiflu might (no one knows for sure) make a difference if started early. However, the logic - that it is better to treat everyone than risk missing those who might have benefited - belongs to a strategy for dealing with a Doshi type 1 pandemic, where the chance of severe disease is high. For swine flu, damage from indiscriminate use of antivirals outweighs the supposed benefits of catching atypical cases early.

The real challenge of a Doshi type 3 pandemic is identifying the small minority who actually and urgently require help. These could be those rare individuals with severe flu, or they might be patients in the early stages of another serious disease such as meningitis. Doctors are good at doing this (though far from infallible) and many GPs believe that only medically qualified staff should be undertaking flu assessments, but this is not achievable, given our capacity for mass hysteria. During the first wave of swine flu - before the NPFS was launched - the NHS front line was overwhelmed by waves of worried callers in flu hot spots. One of the main reasons for setting up the NPFS was to prevent a meltdown in services, but it should now change its focus from diagnosing swine flu (at which it is hopeless) to identifying patients in trouble.

The trickiest problem is when patients who initially feel mildly unwell start to deteriorate. The Department of Health stresses that patients are advised to consult a doctor if they get worse, but this fails to appreciate the Tamiflu effect. Having been "diagnosed" with swine flu and put on antivirals, patients are then falsely reassured that appropriate treatment is under way. By stopping its blanket use of Tamiflu, the NPFS would greatly increase the likelihood of patients consulting a doctor if they deteriorate.

Lessons in planning

Swine flu may in time be seen as a great learning opportunity. It has exposed a rigidity in pandemic planning that needs urgent correction. WHO has a scale to denote the spread of in­fection - level six being pandemic. It needs to develop a simple, parallel system to differen­tiate between Doshi types, one that should trigger responses appropriate to the particular challenge posed.

For now, the Department of Health should stop sticking doggedly to contingencies laid against a very different threat. The public and the NHS need clear identification of the at-risk groups and a message that the danger of swine flu, for everyone else, is almost certain to be minimal. They also need information about the warning signs of a more serious problem. The vast stocks of antivirals should be left on the shelf to go quietly out of date.

Yet it may be too late. Another facet of the Tamiflu effect is that we have educated hordes of people that what they thought felt like just a bad cold (and, most of the time, was just a bad cold) needed treatment with powerful drugs involving mystical rituals with a special authorisation number and a flu friend. Doctors will be dealing with mass hysteria in the face of ­minor illness for some time to come.

Phil Whitaker is a doctor and novelist. He is currently working on his fifth novel, "Sister Sebastian's Library"

 

Computer says flu

What do malaria, meningitis, diabetic coma, leukaemia and appendicitis have in common? They are just a few of the conditions that were originally diagnosed as swine flu during the first wave of the pandemic. Most patients have lived to tell the tale; some have not. The case reports have been appearing in the letters pages of medical journals, and on discussion forums of networking sites for doctors. The GPs reporting them are frequently unsure who in authority should be informed.

In fact, the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) has been tasked by the Department of Health with investigating alleged misdiagnoses. In a statement, John Scarpello, NPSA deputy medical director, confirmed that the agency had received "a small number of reports where swine flu may have been misdiagnosed", but was unwilling to go into detail while the facts had not been established. Given that the reporting system is entirely voluntary, and few clinicians know to contact the NPSA, this "small number" of reports is likely to be the tip of an iceberg.

The National Pandemic Flu Service is a first: never before have patients been diagnosed by computer or unqualified call-centre staff. There is a real need for research to examine this approach, yet none appears to be planned. The Department of Health refers inquiries about patient safety to the NPSA, while the NPSA believes commissioning such a study would be outside its capacity and brief.

Phil Whitaker

This article first appeared in the 12 October 2009 issue of the New Statesman, Barack W Bush

Jeremy Corbyn. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Lexit: the EU is a neoliberal project, so let's do something different when we leave it

Brexit affords the British left a historic opportunity for a decisive break with EU market liberalism.

The Brexit vote to leave the European Union has many parents, but "Lexit" – the argument for exiting the EU from the left – remains an orphan. A third of Labour voters backed Leave, but they did so without any significant leadership from the Labour Party. Left-of-centre votes proved decisive in determining the outcome of a referendum that was otherwise framed, shaped, and presented almost exclusively by the right. A proper left discussion of the issues has been, if not entirely absent, then decidedly marginal – part of a more general malaise when it comes to developing left alternatives that has begun to be corrected only recently, under Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.

Ceding Brexit to the right was very nearly the most serious strategic mistake by the British left since the ‘70s. Under successive leaders Labour became so incorporated into the ideology of Europeanism as to preclude any clear-eyed critical analysis of the actually existing EU as a regulatory and trade regime pursuing deep economic integration. The same political journey that carried Labour into its technocratic embrace of the EU also resulted in the abandonment of any form of distinctive economics separate from the orthodoxies of market liberalism.

It’s been astounding to witness so many left-wingers, in meltdown over Brexit, resort to parroting liberal economics. Thus we hear that factor mobility isn’t about labour arbitrage, that public services aren’t under pressure, that we must prioritise foreign direct investment and trade. It’s little wonder Labour became so detached from its base. Such claims do not match the lived experience of ordinary people in regions of the country devastated by deindustrialisation and disinvestment.

Nor should concerns about wage stagnation and bargaining power be met with finger-wagging accusations of racism, as if the manner in which capitalism pits workers against each other hasn’t long been understood. Instead, we should be offering real solutions – including a willingness to rethink capital mobility and trade. This places us in direct conflict with the constitutionalised neoliberalism of the EU.

Only the political savvy of the leadership has enabled Labour to recover from its disastrous positioning post-referendum. Incredibly, what seemed an unbeatable electoral bloc around Theresa May has been deftly prized apart in the course of an extraordinary General Election campaign. To consolidate the political project they have initiated, Corbyn and McDonnell must now follow through with a truly radical economic programme. The place to look for inspiration is precisely the range of instruments and policy options discouraged or outright forbidden by the EU.

A neoliberal project

The fact that right-wing arguments for Leave predominated during the referendum says far more about today’s left than it does about the European Union. There has been a great deal of myth-making concerning the latter –much of it funded, directly or indirectly, by the EU itself.

From its inception, the EU has been a top-down project driven by political and administrative elites, "a protected sphere", in the judgment of the late Peter Mair, "in which policy-making can evade the constraints imposed by representative democracy". To complain about the EU’s "democratic deficit" is to have misunderstood its purpose. The main thrust of European economic policy has been to extend and deepen the market through liberalisation, privatisation, and flexiblisation, subordinating employment and social protection to goals of low inflation, debt reduction, and increased competitiveness.

Prospects for Keynesian reflationary policies, or even for pan-European economic planning – never great – soon gave way to more Hayekian conceptions. Hayek’s original insight, in The Economic Conditions of Interstate Federalism, was that free movement of capital, goods, and labour – a "single market" – among a federation of nations would severely and necessarily restrict the economic policy space available to individual members. Pro-European socialists, whose aim had been to acquire new supranational options for the regulation of capital, found themselves surrendering the tools they already possessed at home. The national road to socialism, or even to social democracy, was closed.

The direction of travel has been singular and unrelenting. To take one example, workers’ rights – a supposed EU strength – are steadily being eroded, as can be seen in landmark judgments by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Viking and Laval cases, among others. In both instances, workers attempting to strike in protest at plans to replace workers from one EU country with lower-wage workers from another, were told their right to strike could not infringe upon the "four freedoms" – free movement of capital, labour, goods, and services – established by the treaties.

More broadly, on trade, financial regulation, state aid, government purchasing, public service delivery, and more, any attempt to create a different kind of economy from inside the EU has largely been forestalled by competition policy or single market regulation.

A new political economy

Given that the UK will soon be escaping the EU, what opportunities might this afford? Three policy directions immediately stand out: public ownership, industrial strategy, and procurement. In each case, EU regulation previously stood in the way of promising left strategies. In each case, the political and economic returns from bold departures from neoliberal orthodoxy after Brexit could be substantial.

While not banned outright by EU law, public ownership is severely discouraged and disadvantaged by it. ECJ interpretation of Article 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) has steadily eroded public ownership options. "The ECJ", argues law professor Danny Nicol, "appears to have constructed a one-way street in favour of private-sector provision: nationalised services are prima facie suspect and must be analysed for their necessity". Sure enough, the EU has been a significant driver of privatisation, functioning like a ratchet. It’s much easier for a member state to pursue the liberalisation of sectors than to secure their (re)nationalisation. Article 59 (TFEU) specifically allows the European Council and Parliament to liberalise services. Since the ‘80s, there have been single market programmes in energy, transport, postal services, telecommunications, education, and health.

Britain has long been an extreme outlier on privatisation, responsible for 40 per cent of the total assets privatised across the OECD between 1980 and 1996. Today, however, increasing inequality, poverty, environmental degradation and the general sense of an impoverished public sphere are leading to growing calls for renewed public ownership (albeit in new, more democratic forms). Soon to be free of EU constraints, it’s time to explore an expanded and fundamentally reimagined UK public sector.

Next, Britain’s industrial production has been virtually flat since the late 1990s, with a yawning trade deficit in industrial goods. Any serious industrial strategy to address the structural weaknesses of UK manufacturing will rely on "state aid" – the nurturing of a next generation of companies through grants, interest and tax relief, guarantees, government holdings, and the provision of goods and services on a preferential basis.

Article 107 TFEU allows for state aid only if it is compatible with the internal market and does not distort competition, laying out the specific circumstances in which it could be lawful. Whether or not state aid meets these criteria is at the sole discretion of the Commission – and courts in member states are obligated to enforce the commission’s decisions. The Commission has adopted an approach that considers, among other things, the existence of market failure, the effectiveness of other options, and the impact on the market and competition, thereby allowing state aid only in exceptional circumstances.

For many parts of the UK, the challenges of industrial decline remain starkly present – entire communities are thrown on the scrap heap, with all the associated capital and carbon costs and wasted lives. It’s high time the left returned to the possibilities inherent in a proactive industrial strategy. A true community-sustaining industrial strategy would consist of the deliberate direction of capital to sectors, localities, and regions, so as to balance out market trends and prevent communities from falling into decay, while also ensuring the investment in research and development necessary to maintain a highly productive economy. Policy, in this vision, would function to re-deploy infrastructure, production facilities, and workers left unemployed because of a shutdown or increased automation.

In some cases, this might mean assistance to workers or localities to buy up facilities and keep them running under worker or community ownership. In other cases it might involve re-training workers for new skills and re-fitting facilities. A regional approach might help launch new enterprises that would eventually be spun off as worker or local community-owned firms, supporting the development of strong and vibrant network economies, perhaps on the basis of a Green New Deal. All of this will be possible post-Brexit, under a Corbyn government.

Lastly, there is procurement. Under EU law, explicitly linking public procurement to local entities or social needs is difficult. The ECJ has ruled that, even if there is no specific legislation, procurement activity must "comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty, in particular the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality". This means that all procurement contracts must be open to all bidders across the EU, and public authorities must advertise contracts widely in other EU countries. In 2004, the European Parliament and Council issued two directives establishing the criteria governing such contracts: "lowest price only" and "most economically advantageous tender".

Unleashed from EU constraints, there are major opportunities for targeting large-scale public procurement to rebuild and transform communities, cities, and regions. The vision behind the celebrated Preston Model of community wealth building – inspired by the work of our own organisation, The Democracy Collaborative, in Cleveland, Ohio – leverages public procurement and the stabilising power of place-based anchor institutions (governments, hospitals, universities) to support rooted, participatory, democratic local economies built around multipliers. In this way, public funds can be made to do "double duty"; anchoring jobs and building community wealth, reversing long-term economic decline. This suggests the viability of a very different economic approach and potential for a winning political coalition, building support for a new socialist economics from the ground up.

With the prospect of a Corbyn government now tantalisingly close, it’s imperative that Labour reconciles its policy objectives in the Brexit negotiations with its plans for a radical economic transformation and redistribution of power and wealth. Only by pursuing strategies capable of re-establishing broad control over the national economy can Labour hope to manage the coming period of pain and dislocation following Brexit. Based on new institutions and approaches and the centrality of ownership and control, democracy, and participation, we should be busy assembling the tools and strategies that will allow departure from the EU to open up new political-economic horizons in Britain and bring about the profound transformation the country so desperately wants and needs.

Joe Guinan is executive director of the Next System Project at The Democracy Collaborative. Thomas M. Hanna is research director at The Democracy Collaborative.

This is an extract from a longer essay which appears in the inaugural edition of the IPPR Progressive Review.

 

 

This article first appeared in the 12 October 2009 issue of the New Statesman, Barack W Bush