Disease after disasters

[James Hannam]

I found this interesting: www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n11/penn01_.html

The media and charities often suggest that epidemics follow in the wake of major natural disasters. But, it seems the evidence says not.

That doesn't mean people don't need help, just that the help they need is material rather than medical.

Best wishes

James

[jamierobertson]

Interesting article!!! Though I don't think it's silly to at least be worried about the potential for disease in such conditions; look at how a multitude of diseases were eliminated or stifled in Britain by public health measures such as clean water and proper sewage systems. These are the things that are destroyed in natural disasters, and should be replaced / repaired as a matter of urgency.

[Mike D]

Are there not some areas where material aid/medical aid cross over, so to speak? The one that leaps to mind for me is water supply. There do seem to be quite a few disasters where the clean water supply is affected, which then turns quickly through contaminated water into a medical problem e.g. dysentery and (in the worst cases) cholera.

Mike

[James Hannam]

A possibly rather depressing conclusion would be that for many of these areas there is no clean water supply or sewage disposal anyway. Thus a disaster does not makes things worse in this respect.

But I think the message of prioritising food and shelter rather than medicine still stands.

Best wishes

James