Por supuesto, esto no ha disuadido a los políticos de usar este episodio como una excusa para incrementar el control del gobierno: “revisiones” en los aeropuertos llevadas a cabo por personal de Aduanas y Protección de Fronteras, propuestas de prohibir viajes provenientes de países africanos con brotes de Ébola, la formación de un equipo militar de “respuesta rápida”, etc.

Me sorprende que en este caso no se haya machacado a los libertarios con más propaganda del tipo “¿ven lo mucho que necesitamos al gobierno?” de lo habitual. Pero pensándolo bien, puedo ver por qué. No es que la respuesta gubernamental inspire mucha confianza, y hay maneras obvias en las que incluso el actual no tan libre mercado podría responder con mucha más eficacia. Dos puntos potenciales de pánico revelados en el último par de semanas proporcionan muy buenos ejemplos:

Amber Vinson, una enfermera que contrajo el virus del Ébola de Duncan, voló ida y vuelta de Dallas a Cleveland antes de su diagnóstico con la aprobación de los Centros de Control de Enfermedades a pesar de que tenía una fiebre baja todo el tiempo.

Otro trabajador sanitario no identificado (un supervisor de laboratorio que había manipulado las muestras de sangre de Duncan) y su marido se sometieron voluntariamente a una cuarentena a bordo de un barco de crucero, pero resultaron estar libres de la infección.

Si se les dejase hacer las cosas por sí mismas, es posible que las líneas aéreas y de cruceros manejarían el potencial problema con facilidad. Pero desafortunadamente hay un recurso con el que no contarían si tuviesen que encargarse del asunto por sus propios medios: Una prueba de punción en el dedo para el Ébola que está “en fase de desarrollo”.

Lo que en realidad significa “fase de desarrollo” es “ya en uso por los militares, pero atascado en el proceso de aprobación de la Agencia de Alimentos y Medicamentos de los Estados Unidos para todos los demás”.

Enviar sangre a un laboratorio para el análisis de Ébola toma varios días. La prueba de la punción del dedo lleva unos minutos, y si bien aun no está perfeccionada es probablemente mucho más fiable que el procedimiento actual de “revisión” del gobierno consistente en tomar la temperatura de los pasajeros.

Supongamos que usted maneja una empresa 35 millardos de dólares como Carnival Cruise Lines, o incluso una empresa 150 millones de dólares como Frontier Airlines. ¿Cree que estaría dispuesto a pagar durante un brote por una prueba rápida y fácil para proteger a sus pasajeros del Ébola (y a usted mismo de las demandas por negligencia si un pasajero infectase a otros)? Mi conjetura es que usted estaría muy dispuesto a hacerlo. De hecho, estoy seguro que las líneas de cruceros estarían encantadas de que hubiera una prueba de pre-embarque igualmente rápida, barata y fiable para el norovirus, también conocido como “gripe estomacal”, ya que en este momento la única opción que tienen para hacer frente a los brotes (han habido unos cuantos) es poner en cuarentena a los pasajeros sintomáticos y ofrecer reembolsos y descuentos a aquellos cuyos viajes se vean afectados.

Un mercado verdaderamente liberado, en el que estén completamente ausentes los juegos de poder del estado, probablemente luciría muy distinto del sistema actual. No tenemos ninguna manera de saber cómo y a donde viajaría la gente en una sociedad libre (¡o en un mundo libre!), pero es sensato predecir que si incluso el mercado distorsionado actual ofrece mejores soluciones para los brotes que el gobierno, un mercado liberado lo haría mejor todavía.

Artículo original publicado por Thomas L. Knapp el 20 de octubre de 2014.

Traducido del inglés por Alan Furth.

That’s not stopping the politicians from using all this as an excuse for more government control, of course — airport “screenings” by Customs and Border Protection personnel, proposed travel bans from African countries with Ebola outbreaks, formation of a “rapid response” military team, etc.

I’m surprised that libertarians haven’t been smeared with more “see how much we need government?” propaganda than usual over this. But thinking about it, I can see why. It’s not like the governmental response inspires much confidence, and there are obvious ways in which even the current not-very-free market could respond far more effectively. Two potential panic points revealed over the last couple of weeks provide great examples:

Amber Vinson, a nurse who contracted the Ebola virus from Duncan, flew from Dallas to Cleveland and back before her diagnosis, with the approval of the Centers for Disease Control even though she was running a low-grade fever the whole time.

Another unidentified healthcare worker (a lab supervisor who had handled Duncan’s blood samples) and her husband voluntarily quarantined themselves on board a cruise ship, but turned out to be free of the infection.

Left to their own devices, airlines and cruise ship lines would likely handle the potential problem with ease. Unfortunately, they’re literally NOT left to one specific device: A stick test for Ebola that’s “under development.”

The fine print on “under development” is “already in use by the military but hung up in the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval process for everyone else.”

Shipping blood to a lab for Ebola analysis takes several days. The stick test takes minutes and while not yet perfected is probably much more reliable than the current government “screening” procedure of taking passengers’ temperatures.

Suppose you ran a $35 billion company like Carnival Cruise Lines or even a $150 million company like Frontier Airlines. Do you think you’d be willing to fork over during an outbreak for a quick and easy test to protect your passengers from Ebola (and yourself from negligence lawsuits should one passenger infect others)? My guess is that you’d be very willing to do that. In fact, I’m sure the cruise lines wish there was a similarly quick, inexpensive and reliable pre-boarding test for norovirus, aka “stomach flu,” as right now the only way they can respond to outbreaks (there have been a couple) is to quarantine symptomatic passengers and offer those whose trips are affected refunds and discounts.

A truly freed market, completely absent state power plays, would likely look a lot different than the current system. We don’t have any way of knowing how people would travel and to where in a free society (or free world!) but it’s safe to predict that if even the current hobbled market offers better solutions for outbreaks than political government does, a freed market would be better yet.

Translations for this article:

• Spanish, Dejemos que el mercado contenga el Ébola.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), as of October 3, a documented 3,439 deaths have struck West Africa. There are currently 4,792 known infected individuals in the region. Specific to the United States, reports note possible infections in Texas and Washington DC. For this reason, Ebola has ignited interest in pandemic management.

Unfortunately, everything is politicized in the United States. Pick a party and walk the line — the sides have already been drawn. Any conservative commentator of your choice clouds the airwaves and writes columns espousing the urgent need to close the U.S. border and ban travel to and from West Africa. The beltway left trumpets its faith in the effectiveness of existing institutions. Both approaches champion an all-powerful state to battle pandemics — but is this beneficial?

Closing the border will do nothing to protect U.S. citizens from Ebola because it isn’t needed to keep us safe. The spread of Ebola from person to person is actually rather difficult. The virus isn’t airborne. Ebola spreads quickly in Africa because of poor health infrastructure and dated customs in dealing with deceased bodies. This is not the case for industrialized nations where an Ebola pandemic is highly unlikely. The border is just the nationalist right-wing cause du jour. The jargon is simple fear-mongering — the “others,” we are told once again, will only harm us.

As for the liberal approach, an internal investigation from the DHS, ominously titled “DHS Has Not Effectively Managed Pandemic Personal Protective Equipment and Antiviral Medical Countermeasures,” reveals that the existing power structure is under-prepared to handle a true epidemic. The report notes that the DHS “did not adequately conduct a needs assessment prior to purchasing pandemic preparedness supplies and then did not effectively manage its stockpile of pandemic personal protective equipment and antiviral medical countermeasures.” There is troubling inefficiency everywhere in large-scale governance but it is always the liberal cause du jour.

But what of the market? Institutions that work to protect society from disease outbreak are indeed legitimate, but centralized authority limits these institutions and often perpetuates inefficiency. Authority also restricts the libertarian principle of freedom of association and thus a networked, adaptive approach to crisis management. Such restriction empowers a slow to change top-down bureaucracy that is ill-equipped to manage rapid virus mutation.

All government, conservative or liberal, is overdone. Liberated of state monopoly, the market can cultivate alternatives to the less desirable large-scale approach to disease management. Just give social power a chance.

Take Firestone for example. NPR reports “Firestone did what governments have not: Stopped Ebola in its tracks.” When the wife of an employee fell ill with the virus, the tire company quarantined the family to stop further transmission. In addition, Firestone constructed its own treatment center. The chief executive of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Team in Liberia, Dr. Brendan Flannery, describes Firestone’s efforts as “resourceful, innovative and effective.” As the epidemic rages in Africa, Firestone is saving lives where government decree has failed. This model can now be emulated by other private institutions, cooperatives, networks and more.

It is always important to remember that social organization, in liberty, is dynamic and complex. These properties allow for adaptive institutions, federations and systems of governance. In the absence of authoritarian control, coordination and collaboration can craft effective management policies that meet challenges requiring quick action — much more so than any hierarchy or bureaucratic system ever could. The transition to decentralized power structures is a popular trend in the 21st century. This trend may save countless lives if a true pandemic ever were to hit.