why is this still a topic, this infant came from Mexico, he just happened to return to the U.S. This is just like all the other flus that kill 35,000 a year.

why is this still a topic, this infant came from Mexico, he just happened to return to the U.S. This is just like all the other flus that kill 35,000 a year.

It's not like the other flus because we don't have vaccines for it. As a health adult, I'm not concerned, but what about the elderly? What about the young children?

 

Should we be going crazy? Probably not. But we should just dismiss it either.

How much is known about this strain though? I have to admit I haven't researched it much. If it incubates for a long time, then it could be spread much farther than we think it is as of this moment. Who knows? No reason not to take precautions, in my book. If it's as contagious as it seems then it doesn't take much carelessness for it to spread exponentially very quickly. I think it's a "better safe than sorry" type of thing.

 

I have a friend who is a doctor, and I asked her about all the panic. She told me, right now, the flu isn't bad. But the fear in the medical community stems from the fact that they don't know anything about this flu strain, and at any time, it could mutate into a more deadly form. That is why they want people to be extra careful. Simply put, it is better to be safe than sorry.

 

She also said it makes no sense to use he death rate of he regular flu as a counter. Yes, people die with the regular flu. But they know what it is, and they can stop it via vaccines. They have NO vaccine for this flu. So if it turns deadly via mutation, and it spreads, the death rate would be far above that of the regular flu.

 

But why should be listen to doctors and global health experts.

Let's keep in mind that we're all of 6 days into this viral outbreak. Six days since the WHO started issuing updates. Six days since the CDC began looking for this virus. Also, as with most situations, there's undoubtedly info that we're not aware of. So far, I wholeheartedly agree with how President Obama is dealing with this issue. Apart from fringe libertarians, the rest of the citizenry wants to hear how the goverment is dealing with the issue, and they want as much info as possible.

.

.

Last night I saw a President who was not fear mongering. He calmly urged the citizens to wash their hands, stay home if they have flu symptoms, and reassured the citizens that their goverment is prepared to do what's needed. What's needed in the future may very well be nothing....or it may be quite a bit. For now, I have no problem with having the taxpayer take out a possible 1.5 billion dollar insurance policy, if it turns out in the coming weeks that preparing mass vaccines is medically appropriate.

.

2 minor points.

1. Biden's gaffe was clearly a foot in mouth moment.

2. Urging schools to close if their were confirmed cases. I have no problem with this. It's not a law, it's a recommendation. One that's ultimately decided on a local level. We don't see mass closings, apart from the decision by the Tarrant County School Board, where there haven't even been any confirmed cases. Right or wrong, it's a local decision.

I want to hear how the government is dealing with it. I don't like to hear suggestions to close schools (and yes, I know this wasn't by law). This virus is no more virulent than common influenza and is arguably more closer to the potency of the common cold (considering that 36,000 Americans die from influenza every year). Encouragement of closing schools with infected cases is just fueling the hysteria of something that never even should have been a national media item to begin with.

 

Finally, I want to say that I consider influenza vaccination to be mostly ineffective (and at times dangerous). I have never in my life received one despite working in a hospital where they are distributed for free and are widely accessible. I can't even remember the last time I had influenza.

If you want to hear what the goverment is doing just listen to the daily briefings by the CDC, or check out their website. Right now as I'm sure you know they're in the data gathering stage in an evolving young situation. I don't think we know enough yet about mortality rate...could be more or less than seasonal flu. I think that the main concern is that this strain or some mutation may come back in the fall.....what the effects are then maybe you know but the rest of the people in the world don't know. Maybe you should call the CDC and tell them you've got it all figured out. Tell them to stand down. Better yet, close 'em up and let each individual state deal with it themselves. Isn't that the party line?

.

Of course you're against anything that whiffs of federal goverment, unless it's having a limited army necessary to defend the country. That's you and it's fine, but the school closings again have only happened en masse in one county in Texas, based on a local decision. Hopefully the whole thing will die down and never reapppear. Time will tell. Maybe otherwise healthy 20-40 year olds will start dropping dead overnight in the fall. If it begins to happen in late fall, perhaps a vaccine would be available by then. If you don't want to take the vaccine at that point based on your individual analysis and liberty then fine, don't take it.

It has been the government entities (I cited the WHO above) that has been downplaying the mortality rate. As long as bureaucracy exists and as being funded, it certainly should be data gathering (I haven't expressed opposition to this). As I've been saying, one needs to step back when considering random mutation into a global pandemic. As long as bureaucracy exists they are going to be preparing for worst case scenarios, but at times this becomes unreasonable. Many competent scientists went off of sequencing and epidemiological data and claimed that the H5N1 was over-exaggerated and were right. No, I don't have the answers. Obviously I have not studied this and can only go off of my own experience with evolutionary biology. I am merely suggesting that this entire country take a deep breath and allow the private and public health officials to do their job. As long as we are invoking unnecessary bureaucracy (why does the DHS need to become involved with medical issues?) and suggesting schools closings we are more likely to send people into a frenzy that would potentially inhibit the medical establishment from functioning properly. In light of what the White House and the media have been pumping through the airwaves, we are now diverting resources for hypochrondriacs. All of this is the result not of what is happening but what some believe might happen. Nowhere am I advocating that no research be conducted or no infected case receive hospital treatment. I am saying that it is foolish to be taking hasty measures. I'm glad that only one school has decided to close. And I'm glad that it was a local decision. Our local school districts should be competent enough to be making these decisions themselves.

 

Not exactly sure what it is you're having a problem with then.

I don't know why. I've been pretty clear. We are experiencing hysteria over something that shouldn't warrant hysteria.

 

I don't like the White House telling us that this is "a serious situation" and that we should be avoiding "planes," "subways," and "confined places."

 

I don't like the expansion of the DHS into the health business and additional funding for vaccination that could be unnecessary.

I don't understand your objection to funding a vaccine if you believe that it could be necessary. From a purely financial point of view, even if you feel the probability is very low, doesn't it make sense from a cost benefit pov to spend 1.5B, as an insurance policy, if the possible benefit, in terms of economic output and public health costs would be at least a 1000 times that figure.

..

You also didn't answer my question about the CDC. I'm curious. Would I be right in saying that the libertarian platform would call for no centralized federal CDC, in favor of a less efficient system of having each of the 50 states having their own lil' CDC, if they chose to have one. And if I'm right, do you agree with that or would that be a plank of the platform you disagree with?

.

.

I also think it's disingenuous to single out the involvment of DHS into medical matters. Isn't this an agency that you oppose in it's entirety and don't want them involved in any matters. Logistically though, when this thing broke a few days ago, we didn't have a head of HHS or CDC. Just acting heads. DHS got involved too much early on by default really, amongst the various government bureaucracies.

.

.

Edited: FWIW.... Personally, I don't see the need for this agency(DHS). I opposed it's creation, opposed and or was troubled with any actions that they've taken, and would like to see them dismantled. Hopefully we'll see that as soon as possible. In the impefect political system, it's I think unrealistic to expect this disbanding in the first few months of a new President's term, but perhaps that's something we can hope will happen in 2-6 years.

we have idiots running our government....Our VP is more dangerous than the swine flu

 

 

Biden would avoid subways, planes after swine flu outbreak........

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21925.html

 

Biden should be quarantined and confined to speak only with the help of a teleprompter

 

The only thing more foolish than him are the people who actually listen.

 

Not only because the severity of the virus was not yet determined at the time of the comments, but also because airplanes are fed purely from outside air. You are not repeatedly "breathing" the same air, and it is not being circulated anymore than your typical air conditioner. To top that off, airplanes use hepa filters. The only thing that could get you a disease from riding on a plane would be coming in the vicinity of someone with the disease. In that case, you might as well stay out of the public... because you come into at least 100 times more people in public than you do on an airplane.

we are all going to die. :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead just kidding.

I don't understand your objection to funding a vaccine if you believe that it could be necessary. From a purely financial point of view, even if you feel the probability is very low, doesn't it make sense from a cost benefit pov to spend 1.5B, as an insurance policy, if the possible benefit, in terms of economic output and public health costs would be at least a 1000 times that figure.

I don't think it will be necessary, based upon the virus mutability under that scenario. Ideally we would have the necessary antibiotics to treat the secondary bacterial infections that could arise but we are already equipped for this. I am not opposed to all vaccinations for all diseases but I am opposed to most types of influenza vaccination.

You not so deftly avoided answering my question. I'll try and simplify it.

From a financial pov......the cost is 1.5B. The benifent is potentially 1.5T+.

Do you or don't you pay the 1.5B?.

Especially in light of the fact that you state you are not 100% sure. You do say it could, and I think..which are kind of nebulous words that imply you give it some probability lower than 1000/1..eh

You also didn't answer my question about the CDC. I'm curious. Would I be right in saying that the libertarian platform would call for no centralized federal CDC, in favor of a less efficient system of having each of the 50 states having their own lil' CDC, if they chose to have one. And if I'm right, do you agree with that or would that be a plank of the platform you disagree with?

You come off as a bit ignorant in making presumptions about my beliefs. I do not believe in blind loyalty to a platform. I believe in logic and practicality. In other words, my policy recommendations are based upon empirical trends I find to be true and some a priori reasoning.

 

 

 

As for the CDC, I am unconvinced that a highly centralized bureaucratic entity actually provides the necessary benefits. I have no problems with government solutions to outbreaks (to put it simply, there is obviously no free-market solution to combat this), but if we are going to be conducting quarantines and evacuations these are most efficiently executed by local officials presumably collecting data pertinent to that particular region.

 

So you are against having a CDC. Or you want some type of El Penguino like creation that's less centralized. ok

Still not sure if that's the party platform or not, I guess it is.

I merely asked what the platform was and what your beliefs were. I didn't presume anything. Is it possible for you to have a discussion without crying that someone's ignorant?

I also think it's disingenuous to single out the involvment of DHS into medical matters. Isn't this an agency that you oppose in it's entirety and don't want them involved in any matters. Logistically though, when this thing broke a few days ago, we didn't have a head of HHS or CDC. Just acting heads. DHS got involved too much early on by default really, amongst the various government bureaucracies.

The DHS never should have been created and I would fully support its abolition. See above.

And I agree. See above. You didn't answer my question about singling them out for 1 thing when you are against everything.