DVD Talk
Bush Considers Military Role in Flu Fight [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Bush Considers Military Role in Flu Fight


JasonF
10-05-05, 10:06 PM
Bush Considers Military Role in Flu Fight

By JENNIFER LOVEN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 4, 2005; 11:03 PM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, stirring debate on the worrisome possibility of a bird flu pandemic, suggested dispatching American troops to enforce quarantines in any areas with outbreaks of the killer virus.

Bush asserted aggressive action could be needed to prevent a potentially crippling U.S. outbreak of a bird flu strain that is sweeping through Asian poultry and causing experts to fear it could become the next deadly pandemic. Citing concern that state and local authorities might be unable to contain and deal with such an outbreak, Bush asked Congress to give him the authority to call in the military.

The president has already indicated he wants to give the armed forces the lead responsibility for conducting search-and-rescue operations and sending in supplies after massive natural disasters and terrorist attacks _ a notion that could require a change in law and that even some in the Pentagon have reacted to skeptically. The idea raised the startling-to-some image of soldiers cordoning off communities hit by disease.

"The president ought to have all ... assets on the table to be able to deal with something this significant," Bush said during a 55 minute question-and-answer session with reporters in the sun-splashed Rose Garden.

Dr. Irwin Redlener, associate dean of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and director of its National Center for Disaster Preparedness, called the president's suggestion an "extraordinarily draconian measure" that would be unnecessary if the nation had built the capability for rapid vaccine production, ensured a large supply of anti-virals like Tamiflu, and not allowed the degradation of the public health system.

"The translation of this is martial law in the United States," Redlener said.

It was the president's first full-fledged news conference in over four months, as the White House hopes to regain momentum lost amid sky-high gasoline prices, a rising death roll in Iraq, and a flawed response to Hurricane Katrina. Bush has seen a small rise in his approval ratings, but they remain near the lowest of his presidency.

Despite the polls and recent grumbling about his performance from some Republicans, Bush insisted he still had "plenty" of political capital that he would spend getting lawmakers to go along with his proposed budget cuts, Iraq strategy, proposals to add to U.S. oil refining capacity and desire for a reauthorization of the anti-terror Patriot Act.

He called for quick confirmation of his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

On Katrina, Bush said the federal effort to help evacuees and local communities remains uneven.

He praised his administration's success at handing out $2,000 in immediate cash assistance to some storm victims and in resolving bureaucratic hurdles that had impeded the removal of the Gulf Coast's huge debris piles. But he said the government could "probably do a better job" arranging for temporary housing for displaced people and needed to be up to the task of retraining people to fill new jobs.

Responding to fiscal conservatives' sticker shock at the costs of rebuilding the Gulf Coast, Bush called for "even deeper reductions in the mandatory spending programs than are already planned" to pay for it.

On other topics:

_Bush said the White House has begun the search for a replacement for Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, who retires in January, but he hasn't seen names yet.

_He acknowledged the public had a "diminished appetite" for overhauling Social Security, a top priority earlier this year that was in trouble before Katrina hit and has nearly completely fallen off Congress' radar since then.

_Bush said he was "disappointed, frankly, in the vote I got in the African-American community" in November after trying hard to bring it up from the 9 percent he got in 2000. Bush won 11 percent of the black vote in 2004, and the poor federal response to Katrina's mostly poor and black victims has led many to question Republicans' hopes of doing better next time.

_Citing the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity that has two White House officials as its focus, Bush declined to say if he would fire anyone indicted in the probe, or whether he has discussed the case with the two officials.

Bush signed an executive order in April adding pandemic influenza to the government's list of communicable diseases for which a quarantine is authorized.

The key question he introduced into the debate Tuesday was who would control it: the states that by law now have the main responsibility for containing an outbreak within their borders, or the federal government, which typically has been in charge of keeping diseases from entering the country.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the president envisioned possible military control of the quarantine process only "in the most extreme circumstances" and when state and local resources are overwhelmed.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the military hasn't be asked to develop such a plan. But he noted the military's capabilities, with mobile medical units and hospital ships and the ability to create field hospitals quickly.

Avian flu has killed or led to the slaughter of millions of birds, mostly in Asia but in parts of Europe, too.

It has killed about 60 people, mostly poultry workers. So far it doesn't spread easily from person to person. If that changes _ and flu viruses mutate regularly _ there could be a worldwide outbreak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400663.html

DVD Polizei
10-05-05, 10:12 PM
Wow, I didn't know so many people in the US were killed. And here I thought people being hit by lightning was a pandemic. :eek:

kvrdave
10-05-05, 10:31 PM
Bush is really pissing me off. This is the type of thing I would have expected from a liberal president who has no idea what the role of the military is. I'm ready for this term to be over.

Lemdog
10-05-05, 11:18 PM
Bush is really pissing me off. This is the type of thing I would have expected from a liberal president who has no idea what the role of the military is. I'm ready for this term to be over.

Yea I agree Bush is wrong on this one. Man he is just pissing everyone off lately.

DVD Polizei
10-05-05, 11:45 PM
Maybe he has Alzheimer's.

Giantrobo
10-06-05, 04:34 AM
I don't mind our Military waving its Dick in other contries but when the Gov starts telling them to wave it here stateside I get worried.

But then again, I know people who've been following this Bird Flu thing closely and it's a bitch of a disease.... :(

Mammal
10-06-05, 06:54 AM
How long have we been reading about the bird flu? Didn't we have a flu vaccine shortage that should have focused our half-assed government on the problem? Or is this another attack by the "mainstream media" on the beloved bush administration?

al_bundy
10-06-05, 07:04 AM
what the people want, they get

Mopower
10-06-05, 07:29 AM
what the people want, they get


Exactly. People bitched and moaned that Bush didn't do enough after Katrina. That pretty much gives him the green light for shit like this. You all asked for it.

nemein
10-06-05, 07:44 AM
You all asked for it.

:wave: I didn't -ptth-

I guess this also means we shouldn't have rediculed hahn http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=437455&highlight=fascist as much as we did :sad:

;)

Mopower
10-06-05, 07:51 AM
:wave: I didn't -ptth-



I ment those that said Bush didn't do anything during Katrina.

classicman2
10-06-05, 07:59 AM
Hell, a bunch of folks want to use troops on the Mexican border and complain about this.

mosquitobite
10-06-05, 08:15 AM
Exactly. People bitched and moaned that Bush didn't do enough after Katrina. That pretty much gives him the green light for shit like this. You all asked for it.

Yep. The same people who accuse him of being fascist claimed he wasn't fascist ENOUGH during Katrina.

And let's say the local governments aren't adept at containing the disease. Will that be Bush's fault too?

I've been reading about this flu, it's some pretty scary shit.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171356,00.html

"The avian flu, or what scientists call the H5N1 virus (search), is of grave concern right now because it's spreading around the world," Leavitt said. "They call it a 'shift' and when a virus shifts, it moves into a status where humans literally have no immunity. And so it creates a potential for a pandemic flu," Leavitt said.

Tracer Bullet
10-06-05, 08:27 AM
In other news, new evidence suggests the 1918 flu epidemic was caused by a strain of bird flu:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/health/06flu.html

DVD Polizei
10-06-05, 08:32 AM
What about mice droppings?

VinVega
10-06-05, 10:31 AM
If a real Pandemic broke out, I doubt the Federal or local governments could do anything to stop it. The means of transmission are too wide and varied. Air travel alone pretty much means it's going to get in the back door somehow.

Mammal
10-06-05, 10:43 AM
So now they're starting to manufacture vaccine - with limited (but profitable) facilities available. Ordinary people won't get it, except for the military and emergency folk. This is important. The government should be on top of this sort of problem, not vegetative ladies and the rights of stem cells.

nemein
10-06-05, 10:47 AM
Ordinary people won't get it, except for the military and emergency folk.

So you're suggesting this is just another recruiting tool/ploy uh -ptth-

Tracer Bullet
10-06-05, 10:54 AM
So now they're starting to manufacture vaccine - with limited (but profitable) facilities available. Ordinary people won't get it, except for the military and emergency folk. This is important. The government should be on top of this sort of problem, not vegetative ladies and the rights of stem cells.

Is this the annual flu vaccine, where they "guess" what strain will be prevalent this winter, or is it a vaccine specifically tailored to this strain of bird flu?

Mammal
10-06-05, 11:39 AM
Bird flu, I think. Not the garden variety annual shot.

greydt
10-06-05, 11:52 AM
Yep. The same people who accuse him of being fascist claimed he wasn't fascist ENOUGH during Katrina.


As usual, you only consider the solution as being one way or another. You do realize there's various increments of decision making in-between right?
(is this the conservative answer: only two answers to everything?)

Jason
10-06-05, 05:33 PM
So is this bird flu a real threat, or is just some inflated bullshit to stage a power grab, like the WMD thing was?

al_bundy
10-06-05, 05:43 PM
it's like global warming

scientists need grant money for their research, so they are spreading mass hysteria

DVD Polizei
10-06-05, 10:02 PM
So is this bird flu a real threat, or is just some inflated bullshit to stage a power grab, like the WMD thing was?

It's as much as a threat as my 7lb cat is to a pack of 1000 hungry wild dogs.

And I'm beginning to wonder about the power-hungry thing myself. But more than likely, we have a President who thinks using the military for every single thing, is a wise decision. He couldn't be more retarded.

hahn
10-07-05, 01:35 AM
Exactly. People bitched and moaned that Bush didn't do enough after Katrina. That pretty much gives him the green light for shit like this. You all asked for it.

Yeah, cuz that makes COMPLETE sense. Bush didn't do shit after Katrina (giving aid and helping people out of NO) = the right to make the MEDICAL decision to call in the military to use military force to quarantine communities.

How do you manage to make such a total bullshit connection and actually believe you just made complete sense?

hahn
10-07-05, 01:41 AM
If an outbreak ever happens, no one is blaming Bush for the outbreak itself, so let's just put an end to that idiocy right here and right now, ok? The blame is on Bush for putting such a low priority on public health organizations such as the CDC who would be effective at preventing such an outbreak to begin with or who would be able to implement public health measures to prevent an outbreak (testing water supplies, animals, vaccines, etc), while simultaneously giving tax breaks that heavily favor the rich who could have afforded the taxes without any significant change of their lifestyle and committing hundreds of billions of dollars to a war with no winnable goal. (Go ahead and start Googling on all things related to public health and George Bush). Contrary to the beliefs of an unbelievably high number of people in this country, the military isn't useful for all things non-war related. Unless you want to start calling this the global War on Viruses. Then I'd have to mercilessly mock you.

In addition, it's not even about the blame. Everyone makes mistakes. It's that Bush absolutely refuses to own up to his mistakes and WORSE, refuses to do anything to correct them. He stubbornly and moronically adheres to his beliefs and to hell with everyone else's opinions. Even if it takes the whole country down with him, he absolutely WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND. THAT, right there is the thing that pisses me off most about him. He's so fucking pathetically desperate to view himself as a great leader and makes the assumption that great leaders are flawless, that he simply chooses to live in a state of denial that he makes or is capable of making mistakes. And he surrounds himself with people who will NEVER tell him he made a mistake. The BIG mistake he makes is that great leaders not only make mistakes, but they own up to them, and they do their best to correct them because they're for the good of the country, not because they're for the good of their own ego. A man like that would be worthy of admiration not in spite of his mistakes, but because of them. I want a president who knows he's flawed simply because he's human. And because of it, TRIES to be a better person, and a better leader. Bush is not and never will be that man.

hahn
10-07-05, 01:44 AM
Yep. The same people who accuse him of being fascist claimed he wasn't fascist ENOUGH during Katrina.
OMG. You are something else.

classicman2
10-07-05, 06:53 AM
It would be interesting if someone posted the annual CDC budget over the past 14 years and showed the percentage of increase during those years. There might be some surprises there.

mosquitobite
10-07-05, 07:08 AM
On December 8, 2004, the President signed into law HR 4818, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005. CDC received a total funding level of $7.7 billion for FY 2005, which equals about $30 million each work day. The CDC annual budget represents our best attempt to balance the priorities we know are vital from our past experience with our ideas about emerging public health concerns.

I couldn't find a graph.

My guess is that if the CDC weren't wasting so much money on obesity (DUH! Get your kid off the couch!) and who knows how much other stuff there would be plenty there. There is a lot going towards bioterrorism. Aren't you a doctor Hahn?

Instead of ranting and raving why don't you give us your physician opinion on the avian flu (and smallpox - in the event of bioterrorism)

Mopower
10-07-05, 07:30 AM
Yeah, cuz that makes COMPLETE sense. Bush didn't do shit after Katrina (giving aid and helping people out of NO) = the right to make the MEDICAL decision to call in the military to use military force to quarantine communities.

How do you manage to make such a total bullshit connection and actually believe you just made complete sense?

Because Bird Flu = National emergency
Hurricane Katrina = National emergency.

There is your fucking connection. It's not too hard to put those together. Even though it wasn't Bush's responsiblilty to get people out of NO he was blamed for it. That means in another national emergency he'd better not drop the ball right? People in NO asked why he didn't get the military in there to evacuate people and stop the looters. Even though it was illegal for him to do so. They didn't give a shit or even know. Because of the emergency at the time. So if there is a bird flu that starts killing people Bush would use the military to try to stop the spread of it. See the connection? At all? Are you just completely fucking clueless?

VinVega
10-07-05, 07:40 AM
-popcorn-

NOW things are getting good in here. Let the healing begin!

:lol:

mosquitobite
10-07-05, 07:42 AM
The more power we wish to give our federal government, the more power the President will have. For Democrats, that's ok, so long as it's a Democrat in power. For Republicans, ok so long as it's a Republican in power.

For conservatives/libertarians it's not ok no matter how you dice it. Our framers did not intend for us to be fascist or monarchy.

But for every blame that gets laid at Bush's feet, that's exactly what we become when Congress and Bush work to "fix it" at the behest of the NY Times...

classicman2
10-07-05, 07:43 AM
Bush cut CDC spending in certain areas.

Clinton cut CDC spending in certain areas.

Both (overall) increased CDC spending.

classicman2
10-07-05, 07:45 AM
Our framers did not intend for us to be facsist or monarchy.

Do you consider Alexander Hamilton to be a framer? ;)

mosquitobite
10-07-05, 07:45 AM
Is the government we ended up with not SEPARATION of powers? ;)

VinVega
10-07-05, 07:46 AM
The more power we wish to give our federal government, the more power the President will have. For Democrats, that's ok, so long as it's a Democrat in power. For Republicans, ok so long as it's a Republican in power.

For conservatives/libertarians it's not ok no matter how you dice it. Our framers did not intend for us to be facsist or monarchy.

But for every blame that gets laid at Bush's feet, that's exactly what we become when Congress and Bush work to "fix it" at the behest of the NY Times...
Fair enough, but who other than the federal government has the power or the resources to react to a pandemic that would effect the entire nation within a short amount of time? Also, who has the logistic network or the manpower in place to make a quarantine happen, other than the US military? Walmart might be able to make it happen, maybe. ;)

classicman2
10-07-05, 07:47 AM
Is the government we ended up with not SEPARATION of powers? ;)

You can have a monarchy and have a separation of powers - look at Great Britain.

mosquitobite
10-07-05, 07:51 AM
rotfl

VinVega
10-07-05, 07:54 AM
Who is she laughing at, c-man or me? :hscratch:

Probably both. :sad:

mosquitobite
10-07-05, 08:02 AM
Not you Vin. I love you. ;)

I was laughing at c-man bringing the UK into this discussion. We all know how the framers felt about parliament, right? :lol:

mosquitobite
10-07-05, 08:04 AM
Fair enough, but who other than the federal government has the power or the resources to react to a pandemic that would effect the entire nation within a short amount of time? Also, who has the logistic network or the manpower in place to make a quarantine happen, other than the US military? Walmart might be able to make it happen, maybe. ;)

Who other? How about ourselves?

Yeah, I may sound like a crazy alarmist but I bought supplies, just in case. I bought some flu medicine since I figure if it hits, it'll sell out quick. I bought a pack of masks. I bought more canned goods than I usually would, and dry milk. I figure if they quarantine or house bound us, I'd rather be safe than sorry. If nothing happens, I wasted $20. :shrug:

classicman2
10-07-05, 08:18 AM
Not you Vin. I love you. ;)

I was laughing at c-man bringing the UK into this discussion. We all know how the framers felt about parliament, right? :lol:


If they so disenchanted with the English Parliament, why did they direct their grievances (Declaration of Independence) at the King?

Tracer Bullet
10-07-05, 08:23 AM
You can have a monarchy and have a separation of powers - look at Great Britain.

You're kidding, right?

classicman2
10-07-05, 08:29 AM
Granted - the vast, vast majority of the power in GB is with the Parliament; but, the monarchy does retain certain powers.

Great Britain certainly had separation of powers 100 years ago.

Tracer Bullet
10-07-05, 08:42 AM
Granted - the vast, vast majority of the power in GB is with the Parliament; but, the monarchy does retain certain powers.

Great Britain certainly had separation of powers 100 years ago.

That's a reasonable answer- but the powers the monarch retains are ceremonial and could easily be removed. The same was true 100 years ago.

This is, of course, the benefit to a written Constitution. ;)

classicman2
10-07-05, 08:54 AM
BTW: To totally & completely digress from JasonF's thread subject, why did the founders direct their grievances toward the King instead of the Parliament? ;)

mosquitobite
10-07-05, 08:57 AM
All written today:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/birdflu.wrap/
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-10-07-voa2.cfm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100602118.html

Tracer Bullet
10-07-05, 09:10 AM
BTW: To totally & completely digress from JasonF's thread subject, why did the founders direct their grievances toward the King instead of the Parliament? ;)

Well, the structure of British government was just slightly different 200+ years ago. The King appointed the Prime Minister and had de facto control over the actions of Parliament.

al_bundy
10-07-05, 09:41 AM
Who other? How about ourselves?

Yeah, I may sound like a crazy alarmist but I bought supplies, just in case. I bought some flu medicine since I figure if it hits, it'll sell out quick. I bought a pack of masks. I bought more canned goods than I usually would, and dry milk. I figure if they quarantine or house bound us, I'd rather be safe than sorry. If nothing happens, I wasted $20. :shrug:


who is going to enforce the quarantine?

JasonF
10-07-05, 09:44 AM
Well, the structure of British government was just slightly different 200+ years ago. The King appointed the Prime Minister and had de facto control over the actions of Parliament.

Not really. The King did appoint the Prime Minister (I believe that even today, the Queen technically still appoints the Prime Minister), but certainly did not have de facto control over Parliament. Indeed, several times, Parliament forced King George III to appoint PMs he didn't particularly want to appoint. For example, the Fox-North coalition forced George III to appoint the Duke of Portland PM in 1783.

classicman2
10-07-05, 09:48 AM
JasonF,

Do you the turn that your thread has taken? ;)

Tracer Bullet
10-07-05, 09:59 AM
Not really. The King did appoint the Prime Minister (I believe that even today, the Queen technically still appoints the Prime Minister), but certainly did not have de facto control over Parliament. Indeed, several times, Parliament forced King George III to appoint PMs he didn't particularly want to appoint. For example, the Fox-North coalition forced George III to appoint the Duke of Portland PM in 1783.

Well, true; I was simplifying. Still, the monarch had much greater control over Parliament than now, and could (and did) appoint PMs that he could control. Thus, at least in terms of what classicman2 was referring to, it made more sense for the framers to mention the King instead of Parliament. Plus, I'm sure it made for better PR. ;)

mosquitobite
10-07-05, 10:07 AM
who is going to enforce the quarantine?

Um, how about if I enforce it on myself. If others don't... well let's just chalk it up to Darwin, K?

Or do we need to pass a law that says if you're stupid enough to go outside and expose yourself when a communicable illness is killing people, well I have no pity. At least, unlike with Katrina, the people who can't get out will be safe. ;)

We *might* need the government or Red Cross to deliver goods, but again if people were to prepare - that wouldn't be needed either.

Ranger
10-07-05, 10:11 AM
Who other? How about ourselves?

Um, how about if I enforce it on myself. If others don't... well let's just chalk it up to Darwin, K?
Hahn's right, you really are something else. :lol:

mosquitobite
10-07-05, 10:12 AM
*takes bow*
;)

al_bundy
10-07-05, 10:21 AM
Um, how about if I enforce it on myself. If others don't... well let's just chalk it up to Darwin, K?

Or do we need to pass a law that says if you're stupid enough to go outside and expose yourself when a communicable illness is killing people, well I have no pity. At least, unlike with Katrina, the people who can't get out will be safe. ;)

We *might* need the government or Red Cross to deliver goods, but again if people were to prepare - that wouldn't be needed either.

so if this flu thing strikes an area you don't think there will be a mad rush out of the area? You think people will stay put and risk getting sick and having their children die?

mosquitobite
10-07-05, 10:27 AM
Where will they GO? Running away from the flu has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard of! Going home is the safest place to go if you don't already have it. Staying AWAY from other people! Other people are the risk, not the location!

JasonF
10-07-05, 11:01 AM
Well, true; I was simplifying. Still, the monarch had much greater control over Parliament than now, and could (and did) appoint PMs that he could control. Thus, at least in terms of what classicman2 was referring to, it made more sense for the framers to mention the King instead of Parliament. Plus, I'm sure it made for better PR. ;)

True, it's easier to galvanize the public around a single figure like King George than around a legislative body, particularly one that is (in part) democratically elected. I just don't like it when people oversimplify and say or suggest that George III was a figurehead (or, for that matter, that George III had all the power). The reality is that Britain was in transition from a monarchy ruled by nobles to a popular democracy pretty much from the time of the Glorious Revolution until the First World War. I would peg the 1760s through the 1830s as the tipping point in which power really was shared between the two, with Parliament relatively powerless before that and the Monarchy relatively powerless after.

Classicman -- I'm always up for a discussion on political history, particularly late 18th century political history. :)

JasonF
10-07-05, 11:03 AM
Where will they GO? Running away from the flu has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard of! Going home is the safest place to go if you don't already have it. Staying AWAY from other people! Other people are the risk, not the location!

If there are reports that people in, for example, NYC are getting sick with the flu, you can bet a bunch of people will think "I'd better head to Aunt Minnie's house in Atlanta before I catch the flu."

mosquitobite
10-07-05, 11:09 AM
Again. Darwin. :shrug:

By the time the government is even able to get a quarantine effective people will have left the area and spread it. That's why they are called a pandemics. There is no stopping it in my opinion. Once this thing starts to spread the military isn't going to be able to do a damn thing about it, neither is Bush :shrug: ;)

Besides, how do we get other governments to cooperate? Will we shut down all airports into the US? What about Mexico and people that cross the border?

If it hits the US at all, I'll probably be calling into work and working from home.

mosquitobite
10-07-05, 11:24 AM
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B11E3717F-2866-4F33-9087-9B25C134A0F1%7D&siteid=google
Through international travel, experts have predicted, a ramped-up virus could spread throughout the entire world in a matter of weeks, potentially leaving millions dead in its wake.

Picture it, one guy on an airplane, sick. Coughing, sneezing... hundreds of other passengers on board. They get off that plane get on the next and spread throughout the country in a matter of hours. Then what?

This has been what's scared me most in the form of terrorism. A jihadist could easily decide that a smallpox or flu suicide mission would do far more damage worldwide than a couple of planes into buildings.

Or say the Mall of America...the circulation vents...are they WELL guarded?

Tracer Bullet
10-07-05, 11:33 AM
JasonF: Are there any books you'd recommend on 17th/18th Century British political history? It's been a while for me, and I'd like to brush up. Specifics, mostly.

nemein
10-07-05, 11:42 AM
Picture it, one guy on an airplane, sick. Coughing, sneezing... hundreds of other passengers on board. They get off that plane get on the next and spread throughout the country in a matter of hours.

W/ how much hype is going on over this is anyone is even allowed on a plane coughing and sneezing I could easily see the passengers forcing that person to sit it out in the bathroom or drop a mask for them. Seriously I wouldn't be surprised if some airlines start enforcing some sort of "no fly if you're sick" policy.

JasonF
10-07-05, 12:11 PM
JasonF: Are there any books you'd recommend on 17th/18th Century British political history? It's been a while for me, and I'd like to brush up. Specifics, mostly.

Not off the top of my head. I took a few classes in college and refresh my memory with wikipedia, which is usually pretty reliable for non-controversial history stuff.

VinVega
10-07-05, 12:50 PM
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B11E3717F-2866-4F33-9087-9B25C134A0F1%7D&siteid=google


Picture it, one guy on an airplane, sick. Coughing, sneezing... hundreds of other passengers on board. They get off that plane get on the next and spread throughout the country in a matter of hours. Then what?

This has been what's scared me most in the form of terrorism. A jihadist could easily decide that a smallpox or flu suicide mission would do far more damage worldwide than a couple of planes into buildings.

Or say the Mall of America...the circulation vents...are they WELL guarded?
Now you're starting to see the big picture. :)

All in all, Bush's gesture is really just a feel good measure. If we get a real pandemic, you can kiss your ass goodbye, unless you have some natural immunity to the virus/bacteria that saves you. All the masks and flu medicine isn't going to do you a bit of good, unless you're in an air tight facility.

Pharoh
10-07-05, 01:06 PM
JasonF: Are there any books you'd recommend on 17th/18th Century British political history? It's been a while for me, and I'd like to brush up. Specifics, mostly.



If a readable piece is something desired, try Morgan's Inventing the People, which deals with both England and America during the time in question. Pocock's essay compilation Virtue, Commerce, and History is also not bad, particularly since it touches upon England, America, and France. I can give other titles, depending on what you are looking for.

Tracer Bullet
10-07-05, 01:39 PM
If a readable piece is something desired, try Morgan's Inventing the People, which deals with both England and America during the time in question. Pocock's essay compilation Virtue, Commerce, and History is also not bad, particularly since it touches upon England, America, and France. I can give other titles, depending on what you are looking for.

I'll check those out. Thanks. :thumbsup:

Any titles you know of that deal solely with monarch/Parliament issues?

Pharoh
10-07-05, 02:16 PM
I'll check those out. Thanks. :thumbsup:

Any titles you know of that deal solely with monarch/Parliament issues?



I remember enjoying Bolingbroke and His Circle by Kramnick. Also Hill's The Early Parties and Politics in Britain is one that I semi-frequently reference. I will look for other when I get home.

hahn
10-07-05, 06:06 PM
Because Bird Flu = National emergency
Hurricane Katrina = National emergency.

There is your fucking connection. It's not too hard to put those together. Even though it wasn't Bush's responsiblilty to get people out of NO he was blamed for it. That means in another national emergency he'd better not drop the ball right? People in NO asked why he didn't get the military in there to evacuate people and stop the looters. Even though it was illegal for him to do so. They didn't give a shit or even know. Because of the emergency at the time. So if there is a bird flu that starts killing people Bush would use the military to try to stop the spread of it. See the connection? At all? Are you just completely fucking clueless?

Apples are a type of fruit.
Oranges are a type of fruit.
You do know what the phrase "Comparing apples and oranges..." means, right?

Yeah, you got me. I'm completely clueless. :sad:

DVD Polizei
10-07-05, 06:22 PM
Bush better start training his military to shoot a little more accurate, because finding a center mass on a Bird Flu virus stem, is rather difficult I hear.

But hey, I'm no military expert (as others have pointed out), so I'm sure our leader and his men of might, courage, and resolve could do it.

hahn
10-07-05, 07:21 PM
On a more serious note, there is a BIG BIG differerence in the lax federal response in helping people get out of Katrina's way and afterwards, helping get aid to the survivors, and using the military to force people at gunpoint to stay within boundaries because a couple of people in the community may or may not have a type of bird flu.

I say "may or may not" to illustrate the point that when it comes to communicable diseases, there is a huge lapse of knowledge by the general public. A lot of that lack of knowledge is accompanied by too many Hollywood movies that portary flesh-eating bacteria or viruses that meltdown your insides in a matter of hours. There's this almost mythical quality that we've assigned to certain pathogenic organisms such as ebola and hanta virus.

That's not to say that this lack of knowledge is a fault, but the unfortunate side effect is that it creates full on panic and hysteria when the federal government decides that they NEED to have a military force with weapons to keep people in an area. Even when this avian flu had an outbreak in a population as crowded as Asia, the spread was very limited, and the mortality rate from those who got infected was actually quite low. In fact, far lower than your average run-of-the-mill influenza. Only 50 some people died. This was in areas of extremely poor sanitation, overcrowding, lack of public health measures (such as clean fresh water), and keep in mind, NO QUARANTINE. Yes, it's fun to imagine some apocolyptic pathogen that will wipe out mankind, but it's just not realistic. SARS was something that media used to create this frenzied hysteria about this mythical new bug. Oh god! It crossed over from birds into humans! It could wipe us out! It didn't wipe out the birds. So why do we imagine that it will wipe out humans?

Am I saying we shouldn't be concerned at all? Of course not. Of course you want to limit the damage of an epidemic as much as possible. The common sense solution is public health measures: communication, education, clean water, clean living conditions, good ventilation on public transportation, avoiding overcrowded living conditions, and promotion of general good health (the people who survive the flu are people who were healthy to begin with). Other solutions including funding science to investigate the virus and potential treatments or vaccinations. A military force is a waste of time, it's a waste of money, and it does nothing except incite widespread panic. COMPLETELY needlessly.

Now some might say, what about the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic? Sure, it killed millions of people worldwide. But I argue that it's not comparable to today. What did we know back in 1918? We didn't have global communications. We didn't have the capacity to mass manufacture vaccines, to say nothing of designing them. No one had a really good understanding of epidemiology and public health measures. Medical treatments were extremely limited. Hell, we JUST started to do surgery at that time and actually managing not to kill them. Hardly anyone had electricity. I think you get my point. We live in very different times. The hype and hysteria raised over all these potential mankind killer bugs I think is ridiculous. IMHO, man is a greater danger to himself than ANY virus or bacteria will ever be.

bwvanh114
10-07-05, 07:28 PM
Sure, it [Spanish flu] killed millions of people worldwide. But I argue that it's not comparable to today. Hardly anyone had electricity.

We live in very different times.Now we have the ability to go all over the world fairly easily... and take our infections with us.

Rockmjd23
10-07-05, 07:31 PM
Now we have the ability to go all over the world fairly easily... and take our infections with us.
Very good point.

hahn
10-07-05, 07:38 PM
Now we have the ability to go all over the world fairly easily... and take our infections with us.

That has been true for over 50 years. Why the sudden panic now and consideration of apolyptic scenarios and imagining that the military will be useful in preventing an outbreak? The hysteria is just ridiculous. Do you know many people with the common cold came into our hospital during the SARS outbreak because they had a headache and cough, and THAT was what they read was also symptomatic of a SARS infection? It's almost like it's human nature to simply panic first before using common sense.

Remember West Nile? Anyone? The point here is that these "threats" will always exist. Malaria, flu, and tuberculosis are ongoing threats and have been around since the beginning of mankind. They kill FAR more people EACH YEAR than HIV, Ebola, Hanta, Marburg, or any of the other mythical pathogens have EVER killed, combined. Yet, you don't hear about the military potentially bordering off a town because someone got TB. So why are we considering military action for a bug that's killed 50 people so far in the past 5-6 years?

DVD Polizei
10-07-05, 07:53 PM
History tells us religious fanatics tend to "freak out" and "panic" much more than others, regardless of the reality around them. :D

bwvanh114
10-07-05, 08:02 PM
Do you know many people with the common cold came into our hospital during the SARS outbreak because they had a headache and cough, and THAT was what they read was also symptomatic of a SARS infection? It's almost like it's human nature to simply panic first before using common sense.It sounds like they were using common sense... they went to the doctor to find out if they had SARS because they thought their symptoms were similiar.

Patient: I think I broke my leg. I fell and have lots of pain.

Doctor: Quit panicking and use common sense, you only have a bruise, the x-ray is negative. Idiot. Now get out of my office.

That conversation doesn't seem right for some reason.

Remember West Nile? Anyone? The point here is that these "threats" will always exist.Prior to Hurricane Katrina, the threat of a cat 3+ hurricane jacking up New Orleans always existed too. That doesn't mean one should ignore creating continency plans.

Malaria, flu, and tuberculosis are ongoing threats and have been around since the beginning of mankind. They kill FAR more people than HIV, Ebola, Hanta, Marburg, or any of the other mythical pathogens.The nuclear bomb killed more people than Hurricane Katrina. Are you saying we should concentrate only on how to survive a nuclear bomb and not how to survive a cat+ hurricane in New Orleans?

Yet, you don't hear about the military potentially bordering off a town because someone got TB.I also don't hear about bordering off towns because someone got colon cancer.

So why are we considering military action for a bug that's killed 50 people so far in the past 5-6 years?Good question. Have you considered that the government's response is not limited to one bug but by investigating what can be done, the government is developing a response to many different situations?

X
10-07-05, 08:08 PM
History tells us religious fanatics tend to "freak out" and "panic" much more than others, regardless of the reality around them. :DReally? I've missed those lessons. I really have no knowledge of that distinction.

Could you please provide examples of where pandemic/catastrophic-type events occurred and the reactions of people were broken down by strength of religious belief?

Pharoh
10-07-05, 08:28 PM
So the general consensus of the medical/scientific community is to not do much, since after all only fifty people have died?



How long does the medical community suspect it will take the virus to spread globally if, (once), it mutates to human-to-human transmission again?

hahn
10-07-05, 08:43 PM
So the general consensus of the medical/scientific community is to not do much, since after all only fifty people have died?

How long does the medical community suspect it will take the virus to spread globally if, (once), it mutates to human-to-human transmission again?
Did you just decide to ignore the entire paragraph I wrote that specifically addressed your first question?

I'm not saying it's insignificant. I'm saying it got blown out of proportion and created panic for a situation that didn't warrant it.

hahn
10-07-05, 08:57 PM
It sounds like they were using common sense... they went to the doctor to find out if they had SARS because they thought their symptoms were similiar.

Patient: I think I broke my leg. I fell and have lots of pain.

Doctor: Quit panicking and use common sense, you only have a bruise, the x-ray is negative. Idiot. Now get out of my office.

That conversation doesn't seem right for some reason.
And so I'm inferring that you think a doctor can do something for you if you did have SARS, or that a doctor can diagnose SARS based on a headache and cough. Want to fill me in?

Your analogy of a broken leg is offbase. Broken legs happen commonly. There's a good chance if someone has a lot of pain, that they COULD have a broken leg. That makes sense to check. SARS was rare, even at its height. BUT, SARS was also an illness that people didn't hear about before so it took on this apocolyptic aura. The first reaction was to panic rather than to think hm, what's the real likelihood someone contracting this? Do you think people should start getting an HIV test everytime after they've had sex? Do you think we should start testing for ebola whenever someone starts feeling nauseous? Of course, you can say you never know. Because you DON'T. But it's a matter of odds. People didn't know better, this SARS thing was in the news everyday and so people thought, Oh god, I have a good chance of dying from this thing. The REALITY of course was far different.

Prior to Hurricane Katrina, the threat of a cat 3+ hurricane jacking up New Orleans always existed too. That doesn't mean one should ignore creating continency plans.
Um, yeah. I never said we shouldn't. My point here is that the military is not helpful in fighting a infectious disease outbreak.

The nuclear bomb killed more people than Hurricane Katrina. Are you saying we should concentrate only on how to survive a nuclear bomb and not how to survive a cat+ hurricane in New Orleans? You're just agreeing with my point. A Cat+ hurricane is far more common, so we should be preparing for hurricanes where hurricanes are likely to hit. TB, malaria, and flu not only kill more, but are far HIGHER in prevalence as well. So I'm really not clear on what point you think you're making here.

I also don't hear about bordering off towns because someone got colon cancer. Colon cancer isn't infectious last time I checked.

Good question. Have you considered that the government's response is not limited to one bug but by investigating what can be done, the government is developing a response to many different situations? And what does it tell us that the government's first proposed solution is a military one and not a public health one?

Pharoh
10-07-05, 09:30 PM
Did you just decide to ignore the entire paragraph I wrote that specifically addressed your first question?

I'm not saying it's insignificant. I'm saying it got blown out of proportion and created panic for a situation that didn't warrant it.



I honestly don't see your comments relating to the opinion of the health community.

I also don't know how it can be an uniformed, or misinformed, public spreading a panic when Director General Lee Jong-wook claims it is the single greatest known health threat facing the world today. And as far as the second part of my question, the virus will go global within mere weeks once it begins to spread from human to human. A very conservative estimate puts the eventual wordwide cost at 2 to 3 trillion. Who do you think is going to pay the lions share of that one? I would rather spend some cash now myself.

Though I do agree that the military is not the answer, especially since a quarantine likely wouldn't do anything.

DVD Polizei
10-07-05, 09:57 PM
Pharoh,

Maybe we shouldn't be importing chickens from other countries just because they are cheaper. :)

ItsGreekToMe
10-08-05, 02:05 AM
When the flu hits, whatever you do, go to Boulder - DON'T go to Las Vegas.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0