The State Versus The Microbe

My hazarded guess is probably not far wrong in assuming that bioterrorism is the latest conversational topic around the dinner party tables of New York and Boca Raton. As Samuel Johnson once said, death is a subject that concentrates the mind wonderfully and close proximity to the Grim Reaper always makes one a little less composed than normal and a reassuring conversation is a tried and tested outlet. But, as focussed a subject as this may be, I personally don’t see how anthrax and Strawberry Pavlova sit well together on the cultured palate.

But to prove it does indeed fix in the mind, I don’t remember many small flat islands, but the closest I have personally got to anthrax was when I once passed the Scottish island of Gruinard. This was the island chosen by the British Military to conduct biological warfare experiments during World War II as the hapless sheep of the island were sacrificed to the spore clouds of military advancement.

To the sheep’s chagrin, their sacrifice in the line of duty was not needed as the weapons were deemed “frightening” in classified documents of the time as conventional warfare proved to be enough in Europe. Even unto this day, I am only aware of one brave crofter who has attempted to resettle on the island.

Back amongst the urbanites, the media cranks the panic organ as an opportunity to boost the circulation figures is seized. By way of example, two hyperbolic headlines I saw recently read, “Anthrax terror grips Britain” and, for the hard of reading, “PANIC”. As I scanned these headlines, I glanced around at my fellow supermarket patrons and was hard pressed to see any panic registering on their faces at all. This is hardly surprising since no confirmed case of anthrax has yet alighted on these shores.

I will still bet I am more likely to die in a road accident than from anthrax spores. I think most Americans have made that deduction as well.

Of course, people don’t want the disease, but the media are betting they can’t get enough of the talking heads holding forth on the vagaries of species such as bacillus anthracis and homo sapiens bin ladenus.

Now, we know the State has aspirations to infinitude, but this humble bacterium is content with its infinitesimal status. There is a quite a lesson to be learnt from this self-effacing beastie. On its own it is no match for the vast human body, but gang them together and the human body’s doom is writ. Know then, individual, that the fight against Statism is won when like minds come together in ferocious aggregation.

But, no, this is not my main line of enquiry today. Indeed, what would the New Yorker think of the topic of 4 million dead over the hors d'oeuvre? Methinks I would swiftly change the subject to the New York Giants (even though I know nothing about grid-iron football).

Four million or one in five New Yorkers decimated by plague. Not so fantastical when I appeal to historical precedent in the great London plague of 1665 and the role of the State in its handling of this deathly affair. It is estimated that 100,000 Londoners out of 500,000 died in that year and a look at the State’s involvement offers some lessons into what we can expect if a major biological attack hits an American city.

Like the current anthrax cases, this outbreak of bubonic plague started in an inauspicious manner with a couple of cases being listed on the public mortality posters (the equivalent of CNN in those days). But, thanks to the rather unhygienic lifestyle of your typical London citizen, the spread of the disease began to take on exponential proportions.

But, behold! Like some dashing white knight of old, the State galloped in and proceeded to make a hash of things.

The first and rather strange edict issued was to kill all the cats and dogs in London. This would not have gone down too well with ye olde animal rights fraternity, and was admittedly a measure borne of the knowledge of the times.

The scientific theory of the time postulated that pestilence was carried on malodorous streams of air which were generated from dung heaps and the like. According to the scientists of the day, any beast associating itself with such unmentionable piles was a potential threat itself.

So, a bounty of two pennies was given for every mutt that was despatched and it is estimated that 80,000 animals met their deaths. With hindsight, it is now understood that it was the rats that should have been targeted, since they carried the flea which carried the germs.

Not surprisingly, this made matters worse since the decimation of the rats’ natural predators allowed them to breed unfettered and spread the disease even more.

The next piece of dubious, cutting-edge science which was advanced was that bonfires scented with incense may drive away the bad air and hence the plague. This seemed eminently reasonable and so the government proceeded to waste large amounts of public money buying up all the stocks of coal, wood and sweet-smelling perfumeries they could find.

Unfortunately, this nasal-pleasing exercise was speedily brought to an end on the first torrential downpour over London.

Therein lies our first lesson; Science and the State working in tandem often collude to produce some dubious, wasteful and actually harmful results.

As the death toll began to rise into the thousands, the State’s next bright idea was to ghettoise the poor by not allowing them to leave London to escape the plague. Only those who had been issued exit visas and those who were deemed important enough escaped the onslaught of this terrible disease.

The House of Lords had already moved to protect the Statist elite by relocating to the countryside and those who had the wherewithal had resorted to their country houses and relations. For some reason, the Mayor of London had decided to stay in his palatial residence, but had wisely confined himself to a glass cage from which he conducted operations.

Was this some kind of strict quarantine procedure similar to what we saw displayed in such films as “Outbreak”? No, the answer lies in the politics of the State supported parish system. In scenes reminiscent of refugees trying to leave Afghanistan, a stream of destitute Londoners fleeing to outlying parishes was seen as a potential drain on resources. Since the nationalised Anglican Church ran the parishes and also had the ear of government, it was not difficult to keep the poor incarcerated.

Not very Christian, I agree. This politico-ecclesiastical monopoly ensured that the plague had plenty more fodder. If charity had been depoliticised and other denominations and secular groups allowed to “compete” for those in need, the scenario may have been rather different. Besides, charity or not, the poor should been allowed the option of fending for themselves.

Thus, the second lesson. Welfareism working in tandem with the State can make the lives of the poor it was designed to help so much the poorer.

Finally, and most tragically, was the State policy when it was discovered that a family member had contracted bubonic plague. To put it bluntly, the whole family was sealed up in the house with the victim and left to die.

As to the reasons for this barbaric policy, I am a bit vague. Since only one person may have visibly carried the signs of the plague, then why shut in everyone else? The theory of “bad air” being the carrier would not lead them to the conclusion that anyone near the afflicted person was automatically infected.

I can only conclude that the government did not believe the afflicted person was a sufficient threat to those in the same house. But, rather than let the family members decide whether to stay or leave, the government overruled their civil liberties in a most fatal manner.

As an aside, quarantining the plagued person was the right policy since such a person wilfully walking abroad who knew they could kill others by a mere breath was tantamount to culpable homicide (I say that with modern hindsight).

What you do with those who are not proven to be infected is another matter and a vital one if a large-scale attack overshadows a major city. But, this is not so relevant with anthrax since person-to-person transmission is very unlikely. It is the initially dispersed spores that do the infecting.

Persons wishing to leave the vicinity of such an attack should be allowed to do so once it is established that they are not carrying residual spores on items of clothing. The only location that should be relevant is access to good medical aid in prevention and cure.

Alas, going by government’s propensity for over-erring on the side of caution, it would not surprise me if they also ghettoised such a low-risk area purely for the purposes of being seen to be doing something.

Thus, the third lesson. Panic working in tandem with the State leads to needless curfews on innocent individuals’ daily lives.

One last lesson is the saga of the “Watchers”. In order to keep an eye on these quarantined families, the government employed their own neighbours as informers to stay on guard outside those doleful domiciles. They were charged to ensure that their “prisoners” did not escape and to take whatever precautions were necessary to ensure it.

As I mentioned in my last article, the State is antithetical to the community when it takes to itself the mandates of community. By paying this virtual blood money to ensure your own neighbours would die is as certain a blow to the community as the plague itself.

Imagine, if you would, the resentment amongst kith and kin of departed households when they knew that you had taken the shilling to ensure their last days were their worst. Revenge rather than neighbourliness would seem to be the order of the day in such a situation.

Thus, the final lesson. Bribery working in tandem with the State leads to the alienation of one’s own community.

As providence would have it, the onset of winter killed off the carriers and the plague was stayed. The following year was the Great Fire of London, which destroyed many of the unsanitary living conditions, which encouraged disease to spread. No more would the plague have such favourable conditions to spread in the capital as nature and accident achieved what the State had eminently failed to do.

The churchmen of the day sought out what sin had incurred this outbreak of God’s wrath against their land. How ironic that the government of the day managed to take a natural outbreak of a disease and turn it into a form of State bioterrorism by prolonging and protracting the effects of it.

October 29, 2001