 |
It was the pandemic you had to have, it was coming to a country near you and then maybe not
U.S. scales back H1N1 vaccine, cuts CSL order in half | Reuters
What they are saying now is that it was a beat up by the drug companies, just another case of panic marketing
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BL2ZT20100112
Yes, that seems to happen every one or two years. Each time, it is a different animal and so much more important than the regular flu that kills many more. It's a fad by now, maybe people are getting more educated? There were tons of cases of false positives too. It is a serious virus, but not as widespread as they lead you too believe.
I wonder what animal will be next on the list.
The H1N1 pandemic turned out to be milder than it appeared ;but it still met the definition of pandemic because it is a novel virus that caused widespread infection.
Clearly health officials did not know in advance that it would be a mild strain ;nor did they know that as yet it has not mutated into a more virulent strain(there have been mutated strains detected ).
To date the WHO reports 13,554 people worldwide have been killed by laboratory confirmed cases of swine flu with over half the deaths occurring in America .No one knows how many more deaths and infections would've happened without the widespread use of the vaccine.
It seems that we should regard this as a north america scare rather than a world pandemic. Once again something affecting the north americans has been seen as serious rather than what it is, a seasional dose of the flu. Let's hope they don't infect us with a second roundQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes of course ;that is why the word ignored the
Sars scare and the bird flu .
It's all well and good to second guess after the fact ;but if this had turned into another Spanish flu then the song would change to 'why didn't WHO do their job?'
Hello:
I wonder when we became scairdy cats?
excon
Because 50 million people died from Spanish flu... about 3 % of the total world population at the time . 500 million were infected... about a third of the world population.
If we can prevent it ,that would be a good thing no ? It isn't a matter of being scared... just prudent.
Hello tom:
I'm not really talking about this crisis particularly.. I just think we've become a nation of chickens.. I actually think THAT was the point of clete's post.
My point is, that as a nation, we act different when we're scared. I liked us better when we had some balls.
excon
That would be asking too much. Instead we are raising a bunch of insular children and when they hit the real world they haven't a clue what to make of it. Always being told your great when your not only reinforces the namby pamby behavior you see in today's society. Hard work is its own reward.. when did this nation forget that ?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Oh we started down that path in the 1930s and it has been a gradual movement for complete dependency on the nanny state. But in this case;where the government can actually fulfill a function that they actually have a constitutional mandate to do ,then I don't see it as comparable.
What part of the constitution mandates health care ? I know its mandated through public policy but not in the constitution.
Ex the point of my post is that H1N1 is now only a serious outbreak in places like Mongolia so the press now ignore it, yes the world has become panic prone whether it is terrorism which kills less people than the flu, or a new strain of a very old virus. One of the reasons we are less prone to the flu is we have cleaned up our act, we have stopped living in proximity to animals and we have tightened up on health laws considerably so now we know about problems much quicker and have remedies. We have also had a long time to build up immunity in the population. Perhaps the Spanish flu wouldn't have been the killer it was if the world had not been locked in a war for four years which empoverished many.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Health care.. None . However this doesn't fall under health care per se .This falls under crisis management .Crisis management is the authority of the central government to deal with threats to the general public . Surely you are not arguing that quarantine of people afflicted by contageous disease is not within the perusal of the government ?Quote:
What part of the constitution mandates health care ? I know its mandated through public policy but not in the constitution.
I certainly hear no one argue the Federal Government should not respond with strong authority when natural disasters occur. Does anyone argue the President shouldn't have the authority to declare a natural disaster ? By that same authority and by writ of Congress in the form of the Stafford Act ,the Federal Government has taken action to neutralize and perhaps prevent a nationwide pandemic that would cripple the country in so many ways.
Actually it has been proven in court that its not the business of the federal government to quarantine people. Lets take a page from history. Look at the aids epidemic. In its earliest stages they tried to do just that. Then through the court systems it was fought out. Aids IS deadly and has affected millions of people. Its my belief that people allow the government to do things even when its not written in stone. Declaring natural disasters is a way of creating a free road to getting funds. A state still has the right to refuse. In this case of H1N1 do you really think the government has the right to force people to take injections if they choose not to ? I think that's the bottom line on this. Aren't we being told to take a shot because we might get something and it turn out to be a pandemic ?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It was interesting last year when a Texas hospital and Stanford Hospital had so many patients that had the flu coming into test for H1N1, that they actually created drive-thru emergency rooms and/or tents to test sick people. At Stanford, the people did not get out of the car, a nurse would come check vital signs, and symptoms, sometimes of whole families at a time. If they tested positive or had symptoms of this virus, they would be admitted. This let the hospital protect itself from too many people coming in and exposing the rest of the patients. It was definitely a big worry for people in these areas. It was a good example of what could be done in certain emergency situations. Heck, even regular hospitals have so many problems with emergency rooms, maybe there is something to be learned here through these hospitals.
Jacobson v Massachusetts theQuote:
Actually it has been proven in court that its not the business of the federal government to quarantine people.
Supreme Court ruled on the issue of mandatory vaccinations .It ruled 7–2 in favor of mandatory vaccinations saying that sometimes the freedom of the individual must be subordinated to the common welfare.before that , lower courts around the country had handed down dozens of decisions on the legitimacy of compulsory vaccination. The majority of these rulings upheld the requirement of the procedure.
Yes ,however it has proven that lifestyle choices are the biggest factor in the risk of getting AIDS .It is not infectious in the same way as air-born or other contagins that you can get by just going about your normal life. There are ways to prevent contracting AIDs without a vaccination requirement and/or the quarantine of the individual.But ,had that been the case ,then yes it would've been warranted and constitutional.Quote:
Look at the aids epidemic. In its earliest stages they tried to do just that. Then through the court systems it was fought out. Aids IS deadly and has affected millions of people.
No it is not warranted at this time ;and there has been no such mandatory decision made. I do think however that the government has played a vital role in containing the possibility of a wider pandemic ,despite the charges being made on this op that it is a bunch of chicken -little .Quote:
In this case of H1N1 do you really think the government has the right to force people to take injections if they choose not to ?I think that's the bottom line on this. Aren't we being told to take a shot because we might get something and it turn out to be a pandemic ?
I am finding this to be a fascinating discussion. Vaccinations have eradicated or severely reduced the instances of some of the most dreaded diseases of history. Am I really reading that it is an intrusion by the government that some of these vacinations are mandatory ? Diseases such as small pox (world wide)and Polio(in the US) have been completely eradicated here because of the immunization programs .Other public health decision has eradicated malaria in the US .
Time for us to get real and stop being wimps. We have seen the benefits of public immunisation and yet there are some who want their freedom to infect the rest of us. I prefer to cite my freedom to be free of preventable disease just like I cite my freedon to live in a smoke free evironment. What it comes down to is I am sick of dills who think they have a freedom to impose objectionable behaviour on the rest of us just because they think they have some God given or constitutional rightQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Sorry Tom, But the reference you made has made my point exactly.
Jacobson v Massachusetts 1905
This decision about vaccination came down to the STATE vs THE PEOPLE.
Just like I had said about disasters. States are the ones with the rights. Its not the Federal Government. And that's how the constitution is suppose to work.
Abstract:
Jacobson v Massachusetts, a 1905 US Supreme Court decision, raised questions about the power of state government to protect the public's health and the Constitution's protection of personal liberty. We examined conceptions about state power and personal liberty in Jacobson and later cases that expanded, superseded, or even ignored those ideas.Public health and constitutional law have evolved to better protect both health and human rights. States' sovereign power to make laws of all kinds has not changed in the past century. What has changed is the Court's recognition of the importance of individual liberty and how it limits that power. Preserving the public's health in the 21st century requires preserving respect for personal liberty.
Ref:
Jacobson v Massachusetts: It?s Not Your Great-Great-Grandfather?s Public Health Law
I'm actually thinking of starting a thread called "What ever happened to those people who were vaccinated against swine flu".
My guess is that they are just going about their business, because they didn't get swine flu.
Or they were never exposed to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokugawa
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:21 AM. |