3 ms·

That's really sad about the 1977 flu. Was there evidence that it was human-caused, and that proper procedures weren't followed? Could local prosecutors have p

That's really sad about the 1977 flu. Was there evidence that it was human-caused, and that proper procedures weren't followed? Could local prosecutors have pursued a case based on something like manslaughter or criminal negligence? Would it even be possible to still build such a case? (i.e. maybe the statute of limitations didn't expire yet?)

tripletao 4y ago
There's very little question that the 1977 flu pandemic was human-caused. Even Gigi Gronvall opens her paper with: > The 1977-1978 influenza epidemic was probably not a natural event, [...] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4542197/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4542197/ She goes on to say it wasn't a "laboratory accident", because it was probably a vaccine accident, either an incompletely attenuated vaccine or a trial in which vaccine recipients were deliberately challenged with live virus to test their immunity. That distinction seems like a legalistic game to me, intended to distract from the lesson that pandemic may teach us about this one; but I believe her historical background is good. I don't know any mechanism by which those responsible would be punished, even if the exact truth came out, and even if they're still alive. I'm not even sure they should be--virology was still in its infancy then, and the escape presumably really was an honest mistake. Of course the more times this happens, the harder it gets to accept such an excuse, especially when deliberate efforts are made to minimize and distract from the lessons of the past.