by jcskinner » Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:52 pm
In defence of the WHO, whose communicable diseases section is led by an Irishman and which did amazing work suppressing outbreaks of Ebola in Angola as well as SARS, I think their response to the possibility of a flu pandemic was well-judged.
It's not their fault that Swine Flu isn't very fatal. Initially in Mexico it looked pretty fatal, but thankfully has turned out not to be. In fairness, governments severely over-reacted in terms of stockpiling drugs. But the WHO didn't tell them to do that.
Like most medic-dominated organisations, the WHO takes a dim view of alcohol. They see it for what it does - both to individuals as a debilitating drug and to society for the social harm and costs it causes.
You should hear some of the proposals from the Irish Medical Organisation about alcohol! And they see no difference between superstrong 'park drink' ciders and lagers and high-end spirits which clearly are going to be sipped and not slugged down.
They'd probably like to see a Scandinavian regime everywhere - state monopoly on alcohol sales, limited outlets, sky-high tarriffs, no advertising and strong penalties for breaches of law.
Generally, governments tend to ignore medics on the issue of alcohol, because they have other concerns - be it revenue raised from duty, or indigenous drinks industries, or vintner lobbies, or whatever.
I wouldn't worry too much about whatever the WHO decides on duty-free. I'd be much more worried about EU moves to scrap duty-free myself.