Word choice

I see the words “epidemic” and “public health emergency,” and a little rubbery nodule of worry erupts somewhere in the back of my mind.

A flu epidemic that warrants a declared emergency?

Really?

It’s a bit early to tell if my worry is a good, natural thing or simply a result of media hype and word choice.

So instead I sit in front of my computer, momentarily forgetting my central nervous system pathology notes because my Google Reader page, in the space of 15 to 20 minutes, updates with a series of heavy-handed, faintly yellow journalism articles on swine flu, or alternatively, a “deadly” new strain of influenza.

Tuesday, the World Health Organization was scheduled to decide whether or not this outbreak deserves the pandemic title.

Much like the national emergency declaration this past weekend, which made money and resources available to respond effectively and early to the outbreak, such a title would mean that a pandemic preparedness plan would be put into action.

Unfortunately, as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano noted Sunday, “national emergency” also sounds pretty bad – much worse, in fact, than the current situation.

She didn’t mention anything about how calling something a “national emergency” could either help or hinder public health intervention.

I don’t envy the job of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spokesman right now.

Sure, it’s worrisome that most of the cases have been in young, healthy people, however mild the symptoms here in the States. And pigs can be genetic mixing bowls among strains of human, bird and swine flu. That indicates potential for a pandemic.
But an overzealous response to an influenza pandemic in 1976 that never actually materialized resulted in some pretty considerable backlash against influenza vaccines, among other things.

Public health scientists and administrators, as numerous headlines have described in varied terms since I began writing this column, have to “(race) to parse (the) new virus,” and figure out its potency – especially why the cases in Mexico have been much more severe than those elsewhere. They also have to figure out how to frame it when they present it to country and world.

A friend sent me a link a couple months ago to HealthNewsReview.org, a Web site on which public health experts, researchers and doctors evaluate science and health news for bias and accuracy.

Much of their criticism unsurprisingly hinges on word choice and adding, omitting or otherwise modifying sentence structure.

The effects of words and language rhythms work a mysterious kind of alchemy beyond literal meaning.

For obvious reasons, this assumes a different kind of significance when reporting things with public health implications.

It’s perhaps a bit early to tell if there has been careful, prudent information dissemination or not, but in the coming months, the government and media outlets will be put to the test.

Here’s hoping that not only does the outbreak fizzle, but the CDC and media outlets choose their words carefully.