H1N1 Flu Obama's Katrina?

[kjr_trig]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3164671
Yeah, if the media followed the same standard they did on Bush during Katrina this would be compared to the black plague.
Bravo!! Well put.

While I will refrain from blaming any of the flu pandemic on Obama, we all know they (the media) would have torched Bush for this if he were still in office.

 

[lovethesea]

kids are the first who should be getting this. period. (and healthcare workers) They are the highest risk and the ones are are becoming deathly ill with it AFTER the fact. For some reason they are prone to this and the secondary infections they are being hit with. A boy in my sons school, had h1n1 for a week, fine, then 2 days later hospitilized for a week at deaths door. Literally. There are many many stories just like this with otherwise healthy kids.
Adults in their mid 30's and up really don't need it from what I have read. We have been exposed to a similar virus in the 70's and we seem to have a higher tolarence to it.
The main problem I see with how this was handled is we robbed peter to pay paul. We stopped the seasonal flu production to make this. Now it seems that many many people will be left without protection from either. The seasonal flu is best for the 30's and up and the H1N1 is best for younger.
Once again, it shows that this kind of thing needs to stay out of the governments hands.

 

[beth]

They are prone because they have the least immunity due to their young age, and they have the highest possible contact ratio with the infection just by going to school and daycares.

 

[tizzo]

We just got the permission slips from the schools to give it to my kids. But I didn't even have to fill it out as H1N1 has already made it's rounds through my house.
I swear to goodness, my hubby could look at a picture of a virus in a BOOK and catch it.

He was very sick, me and the kids, not so much.
I guess by the time it'll be available here, everyone will have already been exposed, lol.

 

[lovethesea]

Originally Posted by Tizzo
http:///forum/post/3165004
He was very sick.

they always are............

check with your Dr. , Tara, I think they are still suggesting the shot. (?)

 

[tizzo]

Originally Posted by lovethesea
http:///forum/post/3165064
they always are............

check with your Dr. , Tara, I think they are still suggesting the shot. (?)

I don't care. My immune system is bullet proof, as is my kids. Has me a "little" worried since so many die from 35-50 and are other wise healthy though...
As far as the first part... OMG! So true!

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by kjr_trig
http:///forum/post/3164672
While I will refrain from blaming any of the flu pandemic on Obama, we all know they (the media) would have torched Bush for this if he were still in office.
Ummm - really??? Define "pandemic."
The last one, 1920 or so-ish, killed more people than WWI did. ~20million vs. WWI's 14million or so.
Don't hold back though. I'd love to hear how any flu (H1N1, a/H1N1, H5N1, etc.) could possibly be Obama's or Bush's fault in any way shape or form.
You claim to have an insider perspective. I'd love to hear it.
Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3165386
Ummm - really??? Define "pandemic."
The last one, 1920 or so-ish, killed more people than WWI did. ~20million vs. WWI's 14million or so.
Don't hold back though. I'd love to hear how any flu (H1N1, a/H1N1, H5N1, etc.) could possibly be Obama's or Bush's fault in any way shape or form.
You claim to have an insider perspective. I'd love to hear it.
Enquiring minds want to know.
Your boy Obama declared the Flu deal a national emergency, doesn't that qualify it as a pandemic?

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3165446
Your boy Obama declared the Flu deal a national emergency, doesn't that qualify it as a pandemic?
No,i it doesn't. A pandemic merely (?) means that the infection is expected to be worldwide. The declaration of state of emergency activates certain provisions of the public health law that, for example, allows hospitals to set up tents outside of their main buildings to handle a possible overflow of patients.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3165386
Ummm - really??? Define "pandemic."
The last one, 1920 or so-ish, killed more people than WWI did. ~20million vs. WWI's 14million or so.
Don't hold back though. I'd love to hear how any flu (H1N1, a/H1N1, H5N1, etc.) could possibly be Obama's or Bush's fault in any way shape or form.
You claim to have an insider perspective. I'd love to hear it.
Enquiring minds want to know.
That is kind of his point, how can a hurricane be Bush's fault?

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3165465
That is kind of his point, how can a hurricane be Bush's fault?
I don't think anyone would or should fault President Bush for the hurricane. However, the government's response to such a disaster lies at the feet of the administrative arm of our government, led by the President. If the government mismanages distribution of H1N1 vaccine, or fails to respond adequately to widespread disease, then the fault would lie at President Obama's feet, too. However, he cannot be blamed if the virus grows more slowly than most other flu viruses, so that the vaccine production occurs more slowly than projected.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3165477
I don't think anyone would or should fault President Bush for the hurricane. However, the government's response to such a disaster lies at the feet of the administrative arm of our government, led by the President. If the government mismanages distribution of H1N1 vaccine, or fails to respond adequately to widespread disease, then the fault would lie at President Obama's feet, too. However, he cannot be blamed if the virus grows more slowly than most other flu viruses, so that the vaccine production occurs more slowly than projected.
Ah, so if someone )or something) hinders the president's ability to assist in the crisis then the president is exempt from ridicule is what you are saying. Much like Fema and the U.S. government could not intervene with national guard and such aid until Louisiana asked them to. Which didn't occur until days after the levies broke.....

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3165495
Ah, so if someone )or something) hinders the president's ability to assist in the crisis then the president is exempt from ridicule is what you are saying. Much like Fema and the U.S. government could not intervene with national guard and such aid until Louisiana asked them to. Which didn't occur until days after the levies broke.....
ZACTLY!!!!
Obama could have and should have handled the Flu better. I can say that looking back but I really can't say he has made any mistakes on this that another person wouldn't have made. Hindsight you know. Bushes biggest mistake with Katrina was not declaring a state of emergency so he could save that idiot mayor and the governor from their own mistakes. But had he tried that before hand he would have probably been impeached, with good cause.
Katrina was a good example of why I oppose a strong central government. It was absurd that people think the Federal government should know best how to deal with emergencies at the local level like that. Why do we have city, county and state governments? Was FEMA expected to know the capabilities of every single city in the nation in regards to transportation or shelter capacity? It's crazy.
The Flu deal is different as far as vaccines but you gotta keep in mind that isn't an exact science. You try to stock up on one strain and another emerges and you are hosed. You almost have to wait until the problem is well underway before you can correct it.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3165495
Ah, so if someone )or something) hinders the president's ability to assist in the crisis then the president is exempt from ridicule is what you are saying. Much like Fema and the U.S. government could not intervene with national guard and such aid until Louisiana asked them to. Which didn't occur until days after the levies broke.....
Look, the Republicans ran against government, and consequently gutted FEMA as a bloated, overfed bureaucracy, put unqualified people in charge, and then pretended to be surprised when it didn't function. You can rail as much as you want, but mother nature doesn't listen to the left or right when it comes to viral growth rates - it isn't an ideological issue, it's science. So far, the response of the feds has been all it could be, given the science of the thing.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3165534
ZACTLY!!!!
Katrina was a good example of why I oppose a strong central government. It was absurd that people think the Federal government should know best how to deal with emergencies at the local level like that. Why do we have city, county and state governments? Was FEMA expected to know the capabilities of every single city in the nation in regards to transportation or shelter capacity? It's crazy.
I think this is where you and I part ways. Who else but a centralized government would have the resources to respond to the loss of an entire metropolis? We have a government for just this purpose - I think the framers called it the "promoting the general welfare". The locals might know what they need, but it would be foolish and wasteful for every local municipality (even states) to have all the resources available to respond to a major disaster.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3165546
I think this is where you and I part ways. Who else but a centralized government would have the resources to respond to the loss of an entire metropolis? We have a government for just this purpose - I think the framers called it the "promoting the general welfare". The locals might know what they need, but it would be foolish and wasteful for every local municipality (even states) to have all the resources available to respond to a major disaster.
Ahhh but you are missing the point, the feds can and do help rebuild after the fact. Before hand it was up to the local and state government to make sure the federal funds they received went for dealing with the levies and flood control rather than casinos, water front parks and jets which is where a lot of those funds went.
Bush offered assistance before the storm hit and was turned down, The red cross was turned away the day after the storm by state officials, rather than using school buses to transport people inland, saving the buses and reducing the strain on local resources nagin left them to be flooded (which is a topic that should be investigated on it's own). Why is it the same "gutted" FEMA was able to respond well in Florida? Because Florida had their act together and didn't expect the feds to step in and do their job for them.
Not saying FEMA isn't messed up but that also is nothing new. The media Hype would have you believe Brown wasn't qualified and was a horse show organizer or something yet he was a deputy director of FEMA under the previous director Witt who I think everyone agrees was a pretty good guy. I don't think anyone could have done it right with what they had to work with. I don't see FEMA getting gutted as the issue, it was placing them under the umbrella of Homeland Security. When you have to deal with multiple layers of bureaucracy you end up with empty trailers sinking in a bog in Arkansas and truckloads of Ice melting in New England or wherever it ended up at.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3165465
That is kind of his point, how can a hurricane be Bush's fault?
You're right. Natural disasters are what they are. I don't recall ever having claimed differently.
It's a fair question, and not every question has a political answer.
Nature is messy. So is politics. Combine the two, and ...
The real question to me, as relates to the OP is - How is it the gov'ts responsiblity?
If it Constitutionally is, then what are we doing to reform health care so that it falls under guv'mint venue?
If we're debating health care here - in that it's in the best interests of a Nation to have a healthy population - Where does that line get drawn? I.e. at what point is Capitalism at odds with the Constitution?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3165964
You're right. Natural disasters are what they are. I don't recall ever having claimed differently.
It's a fair question, and not every question has a political answer.
Nature is messy. So is politics. Combine the two, and ...
The real question to me, as relates to the OP is - How is it the gov'ts responsiblity?
If it Constitutionally is, then what are we doing to reform health care so that it falls under guv'mint venue?
If we're debating health care here - in that it's in the best interests of a Nation to have a healthy population - Where does that line get drawn? I.e. at what point is Capitalism at odds with the Constitution?
Never. A better question is at what point is government regulation of capitalism at odds with the constitution.

 

[oscardeuce]

I had 2 points behind my OP
1.) The double standard
2.) The same people calling for Bush's head after Katrina want ALL of healthcare in the control of the same gov't that supposedly messed up Katrina. The names may have changed, but the basic beaurocracy has not.
I have a unique perspective on disaster planning and medicine. I have sat on hospital disaster committees. I have participated in disater drills from small SWAT team training to international airports to regional WMD mock attacks.
There is ( and should) be a 3 level response.
Local: the first hours
State: the first 1-3 days
Federal: The first 3-7 days
Taking Katrina as an example the first 2 tiers failed and the 3rd tier was slowed. You cannot "pre place" assets too close to the disaster or you will lose people and material. I heard this asked more times than I thought possible by people who should have known better.
Sometime you cannot be totally prepared. In the current flu epidemic, the press and other sources are blowing it a bit out of proportion. We do have a shortage of tamiflu across the country, but who is to blame? POTUS? the Press? Big Pharm? Physicians? Patients? Evil conservatives? Rush? Glenn Beck?
NONE!

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3165546
I think this is where you and I part ways. Who else but a centralized government would have the resources to respond to the loss of an entire metropolis? We have a government for just this purpose - I think the framers called it the "promoting the general welfare". The locals might know what they need, but it would be foolish and wasteful for every local municipality (even states) to have all the resources available to respond to a major disaster.
I don't think even the biggest "centralized gov't" has this level of assistance readily available.
This would take the state and feds days to weeks to get the right equimpment and people in the right place. Assuming the disaster is realatively localized.
With this level of disaster, it is really the individual who will need to step up and be prepared.
How many of you today could hunker down for 3-7 days in you house?
Some of us in earthquake areas are better informed, but how have you prepared.
Will you be a sheep dog or a sheep when the fox shows up?