This is very like what happens in the book World War Z, which was probably inspired by government responses to SARS and other epidemics. A mysterious disease arises in China, and the government strongly censors reporting of outbreaks. This and other factors (people smuggling, illegal organ trade) contribute to its spread worldwide, and it is only when it cannot be contained that the world is aware and can start to understand and fight it.
As downvote-prone as that comment seems like it could be, I would like to add it it by saying that this can't be the right way to handle diseases. There has to be a sweet spot between telling everyone immediately, insighting a panic, and holding back all of the information.
I'm not too incredibly concerned with managing the information from the general public; but, the WHO and other people should always be immediately informed. In fact, if they were rapidly informed and we can get a cure out quickly, then the loss of life from these new diseases wouldn't be as bad, I would like to hope.
Because if it leaks out that they have a new, lethal, incurable and contagious disease, they'll be treated like they have the plague. (See where the metaphor comes from?)
I moved to Singapore in 2003, when the SARS epidemic was raging. (IIRC, the last death in Singapore was the day I arrived.) People back home thought I was crazy, the usually crowded city-state's streets were rattlingly empty, restaurants had desperately promotions ($1/plate sushi etc) and the five-star hotel I'd been booked into at an already low rate bumped me to an apartment suite.
Of course, I was far more at risk of dying in a traffic accident, but "plague!" is one of those risk factors like "terrorism!" that makes people's hindbrains gibber in fear and discount all rational risk analysis.
It's a prisoner's dilemma. All countries are better off if everyone shares information, but there is a huge incentive to 'cheat' in this agreement.
News of an outbreak in a given country will have a substantial, negative economic impact. At the very least, tourism and trade will suffer. It's not unreasonable that other countries will quarantine and outright block off ties with the affected country.
Back in 2003 with SARS, Toronto Canada took a substantial hit in tourism dollars, so much so that the Rolling Stones stepped in to host a charity concert to help the city out... Chinese tourism was likely affected worse.
As a politician or public health official, crying wolf early or raising the alarm of a potential outbreak will certainly have a negative financial impact... what's not known is how serious a given outbreak might be. So in short, they are weighing a known, substantial cost (lost tourism) against an unknown and unquantifiable benefit (avoiding an outbreak)... being the political worms they are that got them into office in the first place, they will most likely take the route that provides the least direct blow-back to them, which is sadly the route of hiding the outbreak.
Some would argue the desire to censor is a disease of the mind. Or perhaps, a symptom of a mind plagued by fear of the unknown and shaken by the threat of new information.
[+] [-] bausson|12 years ago|reply
It is refreshing, since 90% of the links I come by here about censorship are either about privacy, privacy expectation and influence on economy.
That way, nobody can say "I've done nothing wrong, so I'm not concerned".
[+] [-] koshatnik|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sukuriant|12 years ago|reply
I'm not too incredibly concerned with managing the information from the general public; but, the WHO and other people should always be immediately informed. In fact, if they were rapidly informed and we can get a cure out quickly, then the loss of life from these new diseases wouldn't be as bad, I would like to hope.
The problem is in hiding the information.
[+] [-] ginko|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpatokal|12 years ago|reply
I moved to Singapore in 2003, when the SARS epidemic was raging. (IIRC, the last death in Singapore was the day I arrived.) People back home thought I was crazy, the usually crowded city-state's streets were rattlingly empty, restaurants had desperately promotions ($1/plate sushi etc) and the five-star hotel I'd been booked into at an already low rate bumped me to an apartment suite.
Of course, I was far more at risk of dying in a traffic accident, but "plague!" is one of those risk factors like "terrorism!" that makes people's hindbrains gibber in fear and discount all rational risk analysis.
[+] [-] cnorgate|12 years ago|reply
News of an outbreak in a given country will have a substantial, negative economic impact. At the very least, tourism and trade will suffer. It's not unreasonable that other countries will quarantine and outright block off ties with the affected country.
Back in 2003 with SARS, Toronto Canada took a substantial hit in tourism dollars, so much so that the Rolling Stones stepped in to host a charity concert to help the city out... Chinese tourism was likely affected worse.
As a politician or public health official, crying wolf early or raising the alarm of a potential outbreak will certainly have a negative financial impact... what's not known is how serious a given outbreak might be. So in short, they are weighing a known, substantial cost (lost tourism) against an unknown and unquantifiable benefit (avoiding an outbreak)... being the political worms they are that got them into office in the first place, they will most likely take the route that provides the least direct blow-back to them, which is sadly the route of hiding the outbreak.
[+] [-] JonSkeptic|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djf1|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seiji|12 years ago|reply
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
[+] [-] noonespecial|12 years ago|reply