The Epidemic Question

From a review of two books about epidemics (Dread: How Fear and Fantasy Have Fueled Epidemics From the Black Death to Avian Flu by Philip Alcabes and The Lassa Ward: One Man's Fight Against One of the World's Deadliest Diseases by Ross I. Donaldson, M.D.) in today's New York Times:

.......once you call a disease an “epidemic,” for instance, you immediately imply that it has a story line, with a beginning and an end, a certain moral tenor and a narrative flow that regular old illness lacks.

And so, [Philip Alcabes] asks provocatively, is obesity is really the newest modern epidemic? Or is the word being used cannily by public health officials, with the intent of inspiring a specific public reaction — creating an “us” and a “them” (“they” have bad habits and have made poor choices) and implying that someday it will be “over”?

More than a few have suggested that autism is another such "modern epidemic." Certainly the prevalence rate of autism in children---now 1 in 150 on average and 1 in 94 in New Jersey, where I live---has risen dramatically in just the past few years. Autism, once considered a "rare" disorder, is now thought of as quite the opposite so that it feels as if there is an "epidemic," and so that arguments about how better diagnosis and more understanding have contributed to the rise are met with disbelief and counter-arguments; are scoffed at.

Talking about an "epidemic" of autism is certainly useful. The word comes up frequently in discussions about autism, in appeals and arguments for (for instance) legislation about autism. Alcabes' comments suggest that, simply by calling autism an "epidemic" changes how people think about autism. Suddenly there is a time "before" there was autism, plus it's possible to think of an "end to autism"---as Alcabes writes, there is "a story line, with a beginning and an end." And problems arise when we start losing sight of what is, and what's a really good-sounding story.