by J J Cohen
Ten minutes after receiving a request from a faculty member to administer her final exam electronically to avoid gathering students into a disease spreading classroom, I received an electronic alert from the GW Powers That Be announcing that two freshmen had been diagnosed with probable "H1N1 influenza" (AKA swine flu). They were, the note declares, "treated with Relenza after exhibiting flu symptoms and were given private rooms in a residence hall for their comfort and to limit exposure to other students."
Well I am happy that their comfort was foremost, otherwise I am sure they would have been herded to a sanitized containment facility and fed hospital food by people in hazmat suits. Maybe even deportation to a Swine Flu Colony. Next step: all people with swine flu will have to wear surgical masks shaped like pig snouts to publicly mark them as contaminated and to ensure they are shunned.
I am beginning to wonder if the university will close down before I administer my own final exam on May 11. My son's middle school was swarming with local media yesterday when it was announced that an asymptomatic student had been told to remain home: his father works for the World Bank and caught H1N1 influenza while in Mexico. This same family has another student at another local school, and the mother is a teacher at a third county school. Another nearby school has been shut down indefinitely because a student there did catch the flu. Meanwhile the family of the federal agent who got H1N1 while in Mexico has to make declarations like "We've got nothing to be ashamed of ... We didn't get anyone else at school sick." Would they need to be ashamed if they had? From leprosy to AIDS to swine flu: even in 2009 a disease can carry a moral taint into the bodies it infects.
6 comments:
You know, it's not that I don't take this seriously. But at the same time, I haven't heard one report that doesn't indicate that, caught early and treated with one of the antivirals and all the anti-flu-symptom meds, people will almost all get better. I even heard something on NPR (or the Beeb) the other day saying that many of us, especially those who have been getting flu shots and/or have had a serious bout of one of the related strains, might even have a little resistance.
Meanwhile, a friend teaching in Cairo reports that Egyptian authorities are slaughtering all pigs in the country. Pigs are the chief means of getting rid of organic garbage and compostables.
Um.
Hoping none of us gets sick, but hoping really more that we don't get killed by the stupid.
Great post. I doubt H1N1 could carry the same taint if the disease were (currently) concentrated in Canada; and I do wonder what taint it would assume had the disease been concentrated in some particular playground of the rich, say, [let the rich fill in the blank here]. But with American conspiracy nuts and know-nothing nativists, and not even only those on the Right, Mexico carries a particular taint. Although I haven't examined the matter too closely, I imagine public sentiments in re: H1N1 blame its American victims either for having allowed themselves to become 'zombiefied' by contact with the non-white, dusty lumpenproletariat (think the recent Resident Evil videogame) or for inflicting us hard-working Americans with the ill-effects of their misbegotten pleasures (this directed @ vacationers returning from Cancun &c).
In other words, I wish, for a great many reasons, that the disease were concentrated right now in someplace culturally innocuous, say, Duluth or Milwaukee.
Lest I be misinterpreted:
my point is not, obviously, to wish disease upon Duluth, a fine, albeit chilly, lakeside town.
My point is that Duluth, unlike, say, New York City, or San Francisco, or Dallas, or Hyannis Port, has no national reputation, for good or for ill. Does this mean that if H1N1 were concentrated in Duluth that America--at least those outside, say, Chisholm--would be able to engage with the disease non-ideologically? Of course not. But I imagine the ideological comprehension of the disease (which is of course comprehension itself) would be less poisonous.
My son lives in the dorm with the infected students. It is irresponsible to place ill students in a dorm. They walk the halls, use the elevators, and are causing other students great concern. Other students are even moving out to hotels. Why can't GW place the ill kids in a more isolated place that does not put students at risk? They are risking a lawsuit.
My original response to Karl Steel did not apparently make it past the moderator, so I will try again.
"My point is that Duluth, unlike, say, New York City, or San Francisco, or Dallas, or Hyannis Port, has no national reputation, for good or for ill. Does this mean that if H1N1 were concentrated in Duluth that America--at least those outside, say, Chisholm--would be able to engage with the disease non-ideologically? Of course not. But I imagine the ideological comprehension of the disease (which is of course comprehension itself) would be less poisonous."
But it seems to me that in your qualification you are simply reiterating the same point you made in your original comment: that you personally would find it preferable (i.e, you think the "the ideological comprehension of the disease . . . would be less poisonous") if "the disease were concentrated right now in someplace culturally innocuous," like Duluth. You're not simply "imagining" in a disinterested way what it would be like if the disease were centered elsewhere; you are saying it would result in a better, less corrosive ideological understanding(in your view), if the disease were centered there.
My response was simply to point out that there is something ethically disturbing in imagining that it would be "better" if the disease could be magically transported from Mexico and dumped somewhere in "flyover country". "Better" for whom? Not for the people in Duluth or Milwaukee! Some empathy for the immediate effects of the disease on bodies and the real pain and suffering that it can bring to real people and their families (in Mexico or, putatively in Duluth) would seem to be merited, rather than a blind concern for the fabric of the disease's (supposed) ideological inflection/understanding, and (possible) prejudice that might cause.
"All things considered," I'm generally on the side of humans rather than viruses, so I'd rather the virus didn't exist at all. Since it does exist, however, I would prefer it to have centered itself someplace less culturally loaded. I'm not sure why you write "(possible) prejudice that might cause," as there's plenty of evidence that there have already been bigoted reactions because of the disease's current association with Mexico. For example: here and here.I would be happy to continue this conversation off-blog, if you feel it's important to continue.
Post a Comment