quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesiduriScuri

How much of a National Security Threat is this really?

Thank you, thank you, thank you for raising a key question that hasn't gotten nearly enough attention!

quote:

This is a public health issue that could turn into a public health crisis any day now, in possibly epidemic proportions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

This is a public health issue that could turn into a public health crisis any day now, in possibly epidemic proportions.

Can you flesh this out a bit? How many cases have there been in the U.S. so far? How many folks have contracted the disease here?

quote:

Don’t worry, there’s no chance of an outbreak, they said. Then it was, Oops, we must rethink all procedures for handling cases. Then there was no worry about a “wide” outbreak, yet quarantines for lots of people.

The irrational fear of an alien pathogen is fueled by rational suspicion of an incompetent and dishonest government. How did the so-called experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention give Nurse No. 2 permission to travel by air, even though she had a mild fever?

That’s a great question — if only the CDC would answer it. “I have not seen the transcript of the conversation,” was Director Thomas Frieden’s lame answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

In a fundamental sense I disagree. Western countries need to become more socialistic, in a global sense, to sort this out. We need more of a sense of looking after the welfare of others around the world. A sense of 'global society' - in other words. The help that's being given by Western countries has so far had little effect. We need to have the institutions in place to deal with events like this and we need to front the money for that, too. The neoliberal institutions that we've all come to rely upon in the last few decades just aren't up to the job: for instance, we could never expect any of the multinational drug developers to have come up with the solutions.

I say 'more socialistic' - but really this about enlightened self-interest. We need to take on board the fact that we don't get to keep ourselves happy and healthy unless those living far away are kept happy and healthy - to some minimal degree - too.

quote:

With all due respect, if that one out of how many or how few cases happens to be you or your loved one, statistics won't much matter then, will they?

quote:

I agree it is primarily a government issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesiduriScuri

How much of a National Security Threat is this really?

Thank you, thank you, thank you for raising a key question that hasn't gotten nearly enough attention!

This is a public health issue that could turn into a public health crisis any day now, in possibly epidemic proportions. Potential threats to our citizenry should be taken seriously with preventative measures, whether by enforcing quarantines or whatever other appropriate measures are called for.

Perhaps there are those who would disagree, but safeguarding national security - the security and welfare of our nation - isn't just about whether military intervention is justifiable, or patrolling our borders, or whether we have Wikileaks.

@Peon, what is it about Bama's post that you disagree with? And how does that tie into Socialism? Pardon my not connecting your dots there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

In a fundamental sense I disagree. Western countries need to become more socialistic, in a global sense, to sort this out. We need more of a sense of looking after the welfare of others around the world. A sense of 'global society' - in other words. The help that's being given by Western countries has so far had little effect. We need to have the institutions in place to deal with events like this and we need to front the money for that, too. The neoliberal institutions that we've all come to rely upon in the last few decades just aren't up to the job: for instance, we could never expect any of the multinational drug developers to have come up with the solutions.

I say 'more socialistic' - but really this about enlightened self-interest. We need to take on board the fact that we don't get to keep ourselves happy and healthy unless those living far away are kept happy and healthy - to some minimal degree - too.

For mine you raise a very good point here.

The Ebola crisis has brought home just how mutually dependent and connected the world is nowadays. Just as terrorism has shown us that no one nation's security is isolated from the security of other nations and peoples throughout the world. Globalisation and the GFC showed us how mutually dependent and connected economies around the world are. It would appear that the security and welfare of all nations are bound together in ways that seem complex and difficult if not impossible to unscramble.

The question has always been can the rich Western nations afford to take an interest in the welfare of less developed countries. Should we be asking ourselves instead can we afford NOT to take an interest in less developed countries?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

With all due respect, if that one out of how many or how few cases happens to be you or your loved one, statistics won't much matter then, will they?

By that "logic," just about anything could be a "public health crisis."

To me, that underscores the importance of clear-eyed, clear-headed threat assessment, especially if we're talking about drastic steps--quarantining whole countries--likely to feed, and feed on, public panic. Fear is no substitute for facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

In this day and age, just about anything could turn into a public health crisis...some are more lethal than other, but minimizing the severity of whether we have reached crisis proportions doesn't help tackle the problem before it mushrooms into a full-blown crisis. Being behind the eight-ball doesn't make for greater rational or level-headed decision-making processes for the public good.

The real problem here (other than setting off panic responses, as you mentioned) is that we really don't know what we're dealing with in order to mitigate the situation as if we were fully informed. Ebola is not new. How much longer should we keep twiddling our thumbs, mulling over the "facts," with our Western-style hubris that this was/is an "African" problem that won't affect us in more developed nations? We can plainly see that it already has, contemporaneously living as we do in a global village of interconnectivity on so many levels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

With all due respect, if that one out of how many or how few cases happens to be you or your loved one, statistics won't much matter then, will they?

By that "logic," just about anything could be a "public health crisis."
To me, that underscores the importance of clear-eyed, clear-headed threat assessment, especially if we're talking about drastic steps--quarantining whole countries--likely to feed, and feed on, public panic. Fear is no substitute for facts.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal
With all due respect, if that one out of how many or how few cases happens to be you or your loved one, statistics won't much matter then, will they?

By that "logic," just about anything could be a "public health crisis."
To me, that underscores the importance of clear-eyed, clear-headed threat assessment, especially if we're talking about drastic steps--quarantining whole countries--likely to feed, and feed on, public panic. Fear is no substitute for facts.

In this day and age, just about anything could turn into a public health crisis...some are more lethal than other, but minimizing the severity of whether we have reached crisis proportions doesn't help tackle the problem before it mushrooms into a full-blown crisis. Being behind the eight-ball doesn't make for greater rational or level-headed decision-making processes for the public good.
The real problem here (other than setting off panic responses, as you mentioned) is that we really don't know what we're dealing with in order to mitigate the situation as if we were fully informed. Ebola is not new. How much longer should we keep twiddling our thumbs, mulling over the "facts," with our Western-style hubris that this was/is an "African" problem that won't affect us in more developed nations? We can plainly see that it already has, contemporaneously living as we do in a global village of interconnectivity on so many levels.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Of course, there are limits to what this screening can accomplish. A person can unknowingly contract Ebola and exhibit no symptoms while traveling, which means the screening would be unable to identify them as a possible carrier of the illness.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)