Tyler Cowen looks for a silver lining for Mexico in the swine flu:

Once the national government discovered what is going on, they acted decisively and without undue panic.  There has been very little denial, a common feature in the early stages of health crises (how long was it until the U.S. government acknowledged AIDS?).  No one is treating the Mexican federal government like a banana republic or a basket case or thinking that the Canadian government would have done so much better.

Am I wrong?  Could this episode in the longer run bring Mexico closer to the community of developed nations?  Might Mexicans now be more likely to self-identify with a government that is at least partially competent?

Most Mexicans seem to agree. Over 70 percent give Felipe Calderon's government high marks for its handling of the crisis. 

Thanks to Mexico's raging drug violence, there's been a growing meme in the U.S. media -- including this magazine -- that the country was teetering on the brink of anarchy. The Obama administration even chose an expert on state failure as its ambassador to the country. The Calderon administration's decisive response to swine flu at least complicates this notion.

Compare, for instance, Mexico's fast and seemingly effective handling of swine flu to China's disastrous initial denial of the 2003 SARS outbreak and ask which one looks more like a failed state.  

Mexico's problems haven't gone away. This is still a country where 11,000 public servants have been sanctioned for corruption in the last three years and more people have been killed in drug violence than all the U.S. troops killed in Iraq. There are also new fears that Calderon will use the flu crisis to consolidate power. 

However, I think it's safe to say that more than a few governments around the world would have collapsed or reverted to dictatorship given the horrendous few months that Mexico has had on the economic, crime, and public health fronts. Mexico, on the other hand, is gearing up for what promises to be a lively and close-fought midterm election.

It shouldn't be shocking that stable and functioning states can sometimes respond to crises in ways that seem hopelessly inept (Just ask anyone in New Orleans) or that weak and corrupt ones can provide some public services quite well. Where Mexico falls on this spectrum is certainly open for debate, but the fundamental strength of the country's political institutions are stronger than they're often given credit for.

ALFREDO GUERRERO/AFP/Getty Images

 

LUIS A. DE JESUS R.

9:48 PM ET

May 4, 2009

Did the Mexican state prove itself in the swine flu response?

Control? You need mediums to keep people in check. The recent calm in Mexico in this distressful period speaks more of fear than it does of trust in government and administrative effectiveness. There were moments the health minister could not even answer the most basic of questions regarding the flu outbreak. There is evidence the Mexican authorities could had acted much sooner to prevent the spread of the virus as cases were reported as early as February. Mexico was not even ready, when the WHO had been admonishing it to take steps since 1999 via the acquisition of equipment, to diagnose or identify the strain domestically. It had to depend on outside resources and knowhow. Furthermore, the average time it took for those who died to seek medical attention was from seven to eight days, which does not surprise me given the tendency of people to self-medicate, and the lack of proper and ethical health practices in the medical community. To elaborate the later, doctors seldom take throat cultures to identify pathogens, but instead subscribe medicine based merely on external medical symptoms. Imagine being dosed with antibacterial drugs when you have a deadly virus that left untreated could evolve into a deadly pneumonia? Did you know that people were being turned away from some government hospitals because they were not covered by the government insurance program? The families of those initially suspected of falling victim to this new flu strain were not even visited until it was exposed on the press, and then the government reacted.
We here in Mexico are still asking ourselves many questions: Why haven’t people who recovered from the virus been interviewed? Why is there a difference between the “official” dead used by the Mexican authorities and that used by the World Health Organization? How many people in Mexico were in fact infected? Why was the press prevented from speaking to medical personnel? How is it that just two to three days ago the impression was given that people where dropping like flies from this flu and now they have CONTROL and a handle on a virus the general public knew nothing of before last Thursday?
I think you are jumping the gun in your assessment. Let time and the facts already known --and those yet to be revealed-- give an honest and truthful account of how this was handled and who or what deserves the credit.

 

CLANAD

11:35 PM ET

May 4, 2009

Yes, control....

From my point of view my co-national here its a little bit disgruntled.
Answering to some of his questions..

Imagine being dosed with antibacterial drugs when you have a deadly virus that left untreated could evolve into a deadly pneumonia?

OK...if this happened was at the beginning and then it changed, no more deaths since several days.

Did you know that people were being turned away from some government hospitals because they were not covered by the government insurance program?

This is a lie, from day one the Government passed on official communications that even if you didnt have insurance you could get treatment.

The families of those initially suspected of falling victim to this new flu strain were not even visited until it was exposed on the press, and then the government reacted.

They were visited from day one and actually some of them got re-checked.

Why haven’t people who recovered from the virus been interviewed?

Come on! you can even find the interview from a leftist politician (Camacho Solis) and the story of how he recovered from this illness.

Why is there a difference between the “official” dead used by the Mexican authorities and that used by the World Health Organization?

The WHO is counting the number of people that fell ill of seasonal influenza.

the press prevented from speaking to medical personnel?

You can find the intervies in the TV already.

How is it that just two to three days ago the impression was given that people where dropping like flies from this flu and now they have CONTROL and a handle on a virus the general public knew nothing of before last Thursday?

Well you should check that actually an influenza epidemic takes like one week or a little bit more to find its peak if its good controled. Then the curve goes down.

Its still early but I find the response of the government and civil society quite good...for a city of 20 million people.

 

MAKO

4:12 PM ET

May 5, 2009

response

I've been living in Mexico for more than 2 years now. And the impression I have is that Mexicans themselves (not to mention sophisticated governments)are often reluctant to give due credit to the government that is far more efficient that pictured by the media. War against drug dealers, poverty alleviation, infrastructure development...these are things that take time and individual input of everybody. And I can see that things are getting better..
And I'm convinced that the flu outbreak is being handled with competence and responsibility. Now it's responsibility of everybody...which not everybody seems to be willing to admit and act on it. Yesterday in metro (which btw is much cleaner and trains are more frequent) I saw a number of people fitting their masks already being inside and touching their eyes, noses and mouths (probably #1 thing not to do)...

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More