Swine Flu Label Debacle?

So this is the season of the swine flu. Not overlooking the seriousness of the current outbreak and the need to contain it in a concerted worldwide effort, I seem to have missed something.

There is a lot in the news about how it spreads (still waiting for "Swine flu reaches the moon"), questions of where it originated (with journalists going to interview neighbors of 'the first cases' in Mexico City), and how people react. But why exactly is it called swine flu?

Ok, swine influenza is caused by strains of influeza virus that usually infect pigs; an illness not uncommon for pigs in some areas of the world. This virus, though, is rarely transmitted to humans, and even then often just results in antibodies being developed. And that's it.

Without getting into details (mainly because I don't know them), the current outbreak, while we call it 'swine flu', results from a new strain that developed from bits of several different types of influenza viruses - only one of them actually is part of the swine influenza virus; and according to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the new strain has not yet been isolated in pigs.

Nonetheless, the term, suggesting a close link to those animals, is used widely in the media, and has quickly become a fixed expression in our daily vocabulary. (Amazing area for linguists, by the way - to trace how the term spread around the world).

Maybe this is partly because the label 'swine flu' is easier for journalists and people to use than something like 'influnza A virus subtype H1N1', and it links into a concept people are used to from their experiences with bird flu. Other animal, more advanced virus, same scary story?

With the bird flu outbreak, many thought it was sensible to kill chicken populations in the fight to curb the virus. Handy as the term 'swine flu' might seem to speak about the current phenomenon, it may be misleading, though.

Consider this reaction: I read that officials in Abu Dhabi have issued a circular banning the import and sale of all types of pork in the country "as a precautionary measure against swine flu". Background is "the alarming situation".

Now, from what I understand you can't get 'swine flu' through eating pork. So what does it help to keep pork out of a country where, in addition, that sort of meat isn't consumed widely due to Muslim belief anyway?

Maybe it'd indeed be better to use a more technical term when we speak about the current flu, one that is not misleading in helping to understand and discuss what measures are appropriate to take.

This might actually also make it easier for governments to communicate their actions. Who knows if there aren't people around asking for killing pigs, as they had seen similar measures taken against the bird flu?

And then we should help our fellow journalists find a short and striking way of referring to the flu within the limitations of a 15 seconds news spot.

Meanwhile, better wash your hands.


PS: On May 5th, the ban on pork products was lifted in the UAE. You may now notice thermal scanners at Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Dubai airports, though, checking for people with high fevers entering the country.