Political Paralysis
How many children will we need to paralyze to eradicate polio forever? Increasingly, as we approach the ultimate goal of eliminating a crippling disease once and for all from the planet, we must confront this grim calculation. Until the turn of this new century, the naturally-occurring—or wild—polio virus was the primary way for the disease to reach its human hosts, causing illness, debilitation, partial or total paralysis, even death, usually of children, almost always in remote villages ill-served by health agencies. But since the certified eradication of Type 2 polio, and the near elimination of Types 1 and 3, the primary way polio infects its hosts is, I hesitate to say it, through our own inoculation campaigns.
The twentieth-century eradication of smallpox must have emboldened us to imagine that ridding the world of polio would be a matter of course. After all, according to Donald Henderson’s “The Eradication of Smallpox—An Overview,” smallpox had killed 300 million people in the 20th century alone, “more than twice the death toll of all the military wars of that century.” Compared to that massive, almost always deadly scourge, polio, which paralyzed children but killed few and was almost never contracted by adults, must have seemed like an easy target for elimination.
But polio turned out to be a different case altogether: less deadly but sneakier, more resistant to both serums and human effort.
First of all, smallpox is easy to spot. As Henderson again notes, this time in “Countering the Posteradication Threat of Smallpox and Polio,” smallpox is readily visible. Sufferers are covered over most of their body with distinctive purulent poxes. Unlike polio, which can hide in the body for years while its bearers infect others, smallpox advertises its presence and makes intervention much more likely. Imagine trying to rid the world of a disease that has more than 200 asymptomatic carriers for every paralyzed patient.
Second, polio vaccines need to be administered several times, on a schedule, to be effective. Whereas for smallpox, again according to Henderson, a single dose of vaccine immunizes nearly 100% effectively, polio requires at least three doses of Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV). And fewer than six doses might not achieve a 90% protection against the predominant strains: types I and III. In stable communities with the enthusiastic support of the local population and health agencies, inoculating every child under five with six doses of anything on a scheduled basis would be seemingly indomitable. But, add to that the social and environmental instability of the areas where polio is endemic (Afghanistan, Pakistan, North and West India, and Nigeria), where flood, famine, and warfare shred the social fabric, and the job seems beyond human capability.
Finally, the vaccines themselves can infect patients with the virus. This is the most insidious and infuriating frustration of the fight against polio. What at the start of the campaign was an almost negligible nuisance factor (if lifelong paralysis can be discounted) of 1 case per 3 million doses of vaccine, has become—tragically and ironically—a much more significant drawback of the seemingly endless effort to finally eradicate polio.
Aylward and Tangermann relate the confident enthusiasm of the polio eradication campaign of the early 1980s, fueled by a strong start and rapid success.
By the year 2000, the incidence of polio globally had decreased by 99%. . . . By 2002 . . . the Americas, Western Pacific and European Regions had been certified polio-free. By 2005, . . . wild poliovirus (WPV) had been interrupted in all but 4 ‘endemic’ countries: India, Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan, where eradication efforts effectively stalled.
Momentum is everything in eradication campaigns. The effort is global and requires the cooperation of entire continents. Adversaries in everything else need to put aside their differences—sometimes even calling cease-fires on battlefields—to cooperate in delivering preventive measures to diverse populations regardless of their race or nationality. What had occurred so naturally in the eradication of smallpox needed to occur again if polio was to be eliminated. Henderson described it this way:
The scope of the smallpox program was unprecedented. It required the cooperation of all countries throughout the world and the active participation of more than 50. It was a universal effort unlike any that had ever been undertaken. Most countries eventually proved to be readily responsive but strong persuasion was necessary for some. National antipathies were generally set aside.
In both efforts, the vast majority of the population in endemic countries were inoculated in the early years. And in both cases complications of population movement, natural disasters, maddening bureaucracy, and dislocations of regional conflicts and civil wars frustrated the mass inoculations. But the polio campaign has not yet overcome the elemental differences of the two diseases that make the ultimate elimination of polio so much less likely.
Like the smallpox campaign, the effort to eradicate polio scored impressive early successes. According to Aylward and Tangermann, “By the year 2000, the incidence of polio globally had decreased by 99% compared with the estimated number of cases in 1988 . . . and the last case of polio due to wild poliovirus type 2 transmission anywhere in the world was recorded in Uttar Pradesh, India in 1999.” And then the effort stalled.
Polio is not smallpox: obvious, defenseless, stable. It’s nefarious, invisible until it strikes, and mutable. The 1% of cases that persisted after 2005 began to mutate. The world had failed to wipe out the last of the last viruses. Some children had only mucosal immunity while the virus thrived in their intestines. The carriers looked healthy but passed the virus to others undetected, especially in the toughest places, the remote villages and refugee camps where sanitation was crude at best and healthcare nonexistent.
And while the agencies assigned to eradication tried to counter the mutations with customized variations of the Oral Polio Vaccine to meet local conditions, mounting resistance to an intrusive, expensive, and seemingly endless global eradication effort weakened the support needed to force the effort past the last 1%. According to Taylor, Cutts, and Taylor, in the American Journal of Public Health, “Negative effects were greatest in poor countries with many other diseases of public health importance.” It’s not hard to imagine the reluctance of villagers in India, for example, whose children routinely die of diarrhea, objecting to the massive effort to eliminate polio, which many have never seen, and which does not kill.
There was blessed, magnificent, altogether positive enthusiasm at the UN, at the WHO, at Rotary International, in the 1980s, that the world could once again achieve with polio the triumph of man over disease that had been accomplished against smallpox. But similar efforts achieve similar results only when conditions are similar, and smallpox and polio are too different for the same formulas to work.
References
Aylward, B., & Tangermann, R. (2012, April 06). The global polio eradication initiative: Lessons learned and prospects for success. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X11015994?via%3Dihub
Henderson, D. A. (2002, January 01). Countering the Posteradication Threat of Smallpox and Polio | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/34/1/79/312029
Questions for You
Answer with a Reply below.
- How is this a Definition Essay? It doesn’t define polio, smallpox, or eradication.
- What is the clearest and briefest statement of the thesis of this argument?
- What differences between polio and smallpox make it less likely that polio can be eradicated?
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
-It is a definition essay because it reveals the severity of the diseases. It doesn’t give a dictionary definition of polio, smallpox or eradication, but it gives a clear indication of what they are and how important/severe they are.
-The clearest and briefest statement of the thesis is that “smallpox and polio are too different for the same formula to work”.
-Polio is not detectable until the infection has taken place- as the text says, “Polio is mutable until it strikes”. This makes it extremely difficult to know who has polio, therefore we cannot give someone treatment if we do not know if they have polio.
1. It is considered a definition essay because it, “technically”, defines polio and smallpox by explaining how they effect people, the death rates of them, and simple compare/contrast analysis. The essay also explains eradication by using statistics and describing how polio had almost been completely gone, but that it had broken out again and had never achieved 10 years of no cases (the definition of eradication). This enables the reader to understand what the terms mean without using a dictionary definition.
2. The main argument of the thesis is that polio and smallpox have received different support for being eradicated, and that they are different diseases. Therefore, polio and smallpox require different strategies when attempting to eradicate them. (smallpox has already been eradicated, of course)
3. Polio is invisible until it strikes, as well as mutable, more resistant to serums, and it is not as deadly as smallpox. Meanwhile, symptoms of smallpox are very visible, and it is a very deadly disease. For these reasons, the diseases are very different, and due to their differences the momentum and effort to eradicate polio is less involved than it was for smallpox.
1. It is a definition essay because throughout the essay it defines what the disease is capable of doing and who it will greatly affect.
2. The clearest and briefest statement is that polio and smallpox are two completely different diseases that won’t allow the for the same formula to work.
3. Smallpox can be visible to the human eye and polio cannot which means polio is much harder to be diagnosed without being tested for.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
I believe this example did help my understanding. Here are my class notes where I’m figuring it out:
-thought we could have eradicated polio, because we did it with smallpox. Is this a categorical argument yet?
-Under what conditions?
-We think they are similar enough that the analogy will hold.
-We think polio is similar to smallpox so that the same conditions will be met. They’re under the same category.
-Looking to accomplish, decide whether the analogy between smallpox and polio to argue by analogy, they belong to the same category, conditions are similar enough. Under this question they are analogous.
-What are the conditions?
-smallpox eradication, polio not: different characteristics. Define those and see if they fit under the same category.
This is a definition essay as it compares both between a category and defines rather what they are not.
“smallpox and polio are too different for the same formula to work”.
To quote the essay, “Polio is not smallpox: obvious, defenseless, stable. It’s nefarious, invisible until it strikes, and mutable. The 1% of cases that persisted after 2005 began to mutate.” Its because of these type of mutation and inability to detect that this disease is less likely to be eradicated. If it ever even can.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
It defines an eradicable disease. It may not define all of the parts but an eradicable disease on the world stage is defined and the author puts smallpox but not polio in that category.
Polio is not an eradicable disease.
Polio is not visible. The inoculation carries risk. Polio is less big on the world stage, many people don’t think about polio for months at a time. The problem is not on the forefront of many peoples minds.
Very nice. So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
How is this a Definition Essay? It doesn’t define polio, smallpox, or eradication?
This essay describes the similarity and the difference of what a disease is. This whole essay talks about the concept of what a disease does to people, and it is affecting them physically.
What is the clearest and briefest statement of the thesis of this argument?
When it comes to forming a thesis statement in an argumentative essay is that it usually goes at the end of a paragraph that transitions to the next paragraph. I would believe its the very last sentence of the paragraph.
“But similar efforts achieve similar results only when conditions are similar, and smallpox and polio are too different for the same formulas to work.”
It’s like a proposal claim of stating that in order to get rid of polio is by doing the same methods with different formulas .
What differences between polio and smallpox make it less likely that polio can be eradicated?
The biggest difference that I read is that smallpox are easier to spot while polio does not. Polio accumulates overtime until it is too late to react to it. The key words that describes polio is silent but not deadly. Not only that but even if there is a vaccine for polio, there is a chance that the vaccine can do more harm to the host then what a it should have done.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
1.How is this a Definition Essay? It doesn’t define polio, smallpox, or eradication.
This is a definition essay because it describes similarities and differences between two diseases, which leads to the reader gather facts and learn more about them. Although it doesn’t specifically define polio, smallpox, or eradication, it describes it by comparing each of the diseases.
2. What is the clearest and briefest statement of the thesis of this argument?
The clearest and briefest statement of the thesis in this argument is “smallpox and polio are too different for the same formulas to work.”
3. What differences between polio and smallpox make it less likely that polio can be eradicated?
The difference between polio and smallpox that makes it hard for polio to be eradicated is that smallpox is way easier to spot if someone has it, while polio takes long to affect people. Polio is hard to see if someone has it, which leads to the problem of even finding a person who has this disease to help “cure” them. Also one of the big things is that polio is not as deadly as smallpox. This leads to no new solutions because it is not an immediate threat. Even with some new vaccines, it is more dangerous to take it because it could give you polio instead of preventing it; there is not much care to make a vaccine to prevent/cure the disease.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
So, it’s actually a Categorical Argument: Polio and Smallpox don’t belong to the same category: Eradicable Diseases.
How is this a Definition Essay? It doesn’t define polio, smallpox, or eradication.
My first grade teacher once told me the subject of a paragraph is usually the first or second sentence, with the rest of the sentences in the paragraph providing support. However is not uncommon to see a writer do the opposite of this and feature the subject in the last sentence. This is usually paired with a strategy were the writer wants to hook the reader (with the subject acting as a sort of punchline).
This post features something similar however on a larger scale of of paragraphs instead of sentences. The paragraph that sets the subject for the other paragraphs is towards the bottom of the body of the post (13th paragraph I would qualify it as):
“Polio is not smallpox: obvious, defenseless, stable. It’s nefarious, invisible until it strikes, and mutable. The 1% of cases that persisted after 2005 began to mutate. The world had failed to wipe out the last of the last viruses. Some children had only mucosal immunity while the virus thrived in their intestines. The carriers looked healthy but passed the virus to others undetected, especially in the toughest places, the remote villages and refugee camps where sanitation was crude at best and healthcare nonexistent.“
And for simplicity just focus in on the first line here: “Polio is not smallpox”. That is, in a nutshell, how this post is definitional in nature. All the paragraphs above, are support of this notion of polio not being smallpox; not even remotely close to it. The above paragraphs demonstrate that the symptoms are different, the strategy involved is different, the cure is different, and the challenges involved are different.
The last two paragraphs (14 and 15) are a sort of segway of the present into the future, with the last I would specifically label as a conclusion.
What is the clearest and briefest statement of the thesis of this argument?
“Polio is not smallpox.”
What differences between polio and smallpox make it less likely that polio can be eradicated?
The symptoms are different, the strategy involved is different, the cure is different, and the challenges involved are different.
Small pox is obvious due to red bumps. Polio is less obvious, the host case spread it while the virus is still incubating.
Small pox has a more guttural reaction with its deadliness. Polio is like bad but doesn’t grab the public the same way since it sucks, but is not as severe. Yea, I mean some people need an iron lung to stay alive.
Curing smallpox is just a single vaccine away. Polio is multiple does over period of time.
Both viruses have seen momentum (aka a level of enthusiasm or zeal) from the world’s many nations to collectively rid the world of said viruses, however while smallpox was eliminated, there is the implication that comes with asking how much longer till we rid the world of polio; an indicator of patience (see momentum) growing thinner.
Beautifully stated. Your first-grade teacher was not wrong. (Clearly she was quite advanced, discussing writing strategy with 6-year-olds.)
Segue.