Health officials responded to the outbreak of swine flu as if it was an "unfolding disaster" and the response may now be seen as "alarmist, overly restrictive, or even unjustified", a researcher has said.
Peter Doshi said actions were taken "in an environment of high public attention and low scientific certainty" and added that the wisdom of such a move would "undoubtedly be debated in the future".
He called for a new framework for dealing with epidemics, saying a single, one-size-fits-all public health strategy cannot respond to the "vastly different challenges" posed by the different types of threat in the world.
Writing online at bmj.com, Mr Doshi, a doctoral student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said officials needed to consider more than the worst case scenario.
"Strategies that anticipate only type 1 epidemics carry the risk of doing more harm than they prevent when epidemiologically-limited or clinically-mild epidemics or pandemics occur," he said.
He said the success of public health strategies depended "as much on technical expertise as it does on media relations", and added that "concern and anxiety" may have driven events more than the disease itself.
"Experts are unsure that the 2009 pandemic will be any worse than seasonal flu," he said.
"Officials responded to the H1N1 outbreak as an unfolding disaster. Measures were taken that in hindsight may be seen as alarmist, overly restrictive, or even unjustified.
"If the 2009 influenza pandemic turns severe, far exceeding the impact of seasonal influenza, early and enhanced surveillance may prove to have bought critical time to prepare a vaccine that could reduce morbidity and mortality.
"But if this pandemic does not increase in severity, it may signal the need to reassess both the risk assessment and risk management strategies towards emerging infectious diseases."
