I’m still recovering from flu, which I caught in San Jose, just before flying to New York. I still have it now, here in Portland, and apparently I’m still contagious (I had to abandon going over to a nursing home to help Quinn’s grandfather today for fear of spreading it). I got it from Gilbert, and I do wonder if he picked it up from the Boston LISA conference. My hosts in New York caught it while I was there, and I’m sure I must have handed it to at least a couple of the people at the Social Software summit, who will be displacing it all over the world.
I wonder what strain it was? It was the worse flu I’ve had for years, and snagged everybody in our house by the time it had finished. But the CDC report for this week (permanent link for November 16th flu report here) says that there’s been no noticeable flu activity in California.
I wonder if that will change in the next few weeks. I wonder if the strain will spread in other areas, and I wonder that if it does whether I might have something to do with that. I feel like Typhoid Mary.
Less egotistically, Quinn asks how anarcho-capitalist systems without centralised disease control would deal with epidemiology: how do you introduce standards to monitor, control and eliminate, say, smallpox without a central organising force? I wonder if our amazement at vanquishing smallpox and TB by centrally setting standards isn’t partly fuelled by a sense that epidemics are rarely controllable centrally at all: that these are the exceptions rather than the rules, and require massive acts of co-operation to work. Disease control is the act of a mature and very sophisticated centralised system: is it fair to compare it with simple models of decentralisation?
Doesn’t answer the question, though: Q thinks that this is up there with National Defence as a life-without-the-state showstopper. It’s one of those warning flags that makes most of us feel that radical decentralisation might tumble into something rather more horrid than the bright lights of Libertaria.