Bird Flu

[Tgace]

http://www.doctorsiegel.com/on_bird_flu_fears.htm

 

[Tgace]

Of course none of my "doubting the hype" means that preparations shouldnt be being made. We need to be prepared because someday this probably will happen. (I wonder how many other "bugs" are floating around out there that are getting zero attention?) The president is doing his job concerning our safety IMO.

 

[michaeledward]

I would like very much for the President to turn his attention to our safety. There's this 'cough' that has descended on many of the people who have returned to New Orleans. Perhaps, that could use some attention, eh?

I know, I know, I'm a looney nut bird ... Haven't I read that EPA has said everything is AOK. After all, they are the government agency that is supposed to handle this stuff, right? And, they did such a bang up job certifying the air was OK to breath at Ground Zero after 911 ... and that turned out just great, right? I mean, here we are four years later, and its not like the workers at ground zero are experiencing any problems, right? Right? O.K. Then, well never mind.

It is so much nicer to have the President reading every report about H5N1 so he can be prepared for this Phantom Menace.

I guess, it would just be nice if occassionally he would read a newpaper (preferably with articles from someone other than JudithIrving MillerLibby).

 

[Don Roley]

Of course none of my "doubting the hype" means that preparations shouldnt be being made. We need to be prepared because some day this probably will happen. The president is doing his job concerning our safety IMO.

Agreed. The world has been worried about things that have been (in retrospect) to have been hyped like Ebola, West Nile Virus, etc. The medical community gets worried about things like these. That is their job- to think about and discuss worse case scenarios. Thankfully, most of the time there really is not all that much to worry about. But we only know that after the fact.

But sometimes it is not an unfounded fear. Being prepared for an outbreak of something like this is just good policy.

The proposals laid out by the president can help in more than just this case. I keep harping back to the idea of giving protection to companies that rush vacines that have not gone through years of tests to combat epidemics because it blows my mind that there isn't that type of protection in place already.

Americans sue at the drop of a hat. And they win a lot of those cases as well. You only have to convince 9 out of twelve people who are too stupid to wiggle out of jury duty that there may possibly be a link between a vaccine that was not fully tested and the thousands of cases of cancer years later by people that took it. If you vacinate millions of people, then that number of thousands is not any different from the normal percentage that get cancer (or anything else you care to use as an example) but it sounds convincing to a jury.

And as an aside, for a ploy that is supposed to fix our attention on it and away from other matters, this does not seem to be panning out. After the initial announcements, Bush really is not doing much in public about this. What is going on is doing so among the medical community and halls of goverment and not on the news.

 

[michaeledward]

New York Times 11/6/2005

Douglas Jehl

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi

It will be an interesting read tomorrow.

 

[Tgace]

Link to bird-flu???

:idunno:

 

[michaeledward]

A link to evidence that the Administration may have knowingly exaggerated, hyped, and / or distorted to further the cause for an invasion of Iraq.

Of course, it could just be the tinfoil hat ... right?

I wonder how many feathered, webbed-footed, quacking animals some would have to see before they could recognize it as a duck.

 

[7starmantis]

The bottom line here is that our "hype" or "worrying" about these things, like e-boli and such is many times the very reason the fears dont come to pass. Addressing issues brings action and this action which is so often percieved as unfounded by those who dont understand it is often what saves lifes. Addressing the issues is what needs to be done. Critizing anyone, including the president, for doing so is argumentative.

7sm

 

[Don Roley]

Addressing issues brings action and this action which is so often percieved as unfounded by those who dont understand it is often what saves lifes.

Good point. A good example is the millenium bug. We knew there was a problem, we worried and worked at it and in the end there was not much damage done. In retrospect, it may seem we worried too much. But we don't know what could have happened had we done nothing.

I can kind of see how this is going to go tommorow. There will be a story released that Mike will scream, 'See! See! PROOF that ....' and those that actually read it will say, 'no...no PROOF here.' Those that read it will probably be outnumbered that get sidetracked by the volume.

But then, the thinking person would have to ask is there any proof of hype here? There may be mistakes. But to say that the president is hyping this to divert attention is rather silly. For one he is not doing much that is atracting the media attention over this. For another, there are a heck of a lot of groups and goverments doing a lot more. Are they part of the conspiracy?

It is sad that we can't deal with a very serious situation rationally and put the hatred and the agendas aside. This thing could kill millions and I find it sad that Mike is trying to convince us that it really is not a worry just so that he can bash the president yet again.

 

[Tgace]

I think hes trying to associate the "lies about Iraq" with the ongoing conspiracy that bird flu is a part of...tin hat stuff.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think hes trying to associate the "lies about Iraq" with the ongoing conspiracy that bird flu is a part of...tin hat stuff.

It's all part of the same conspiracy, man.

 

[michaeledward]

Don Roley .... perhaps when you land in the United States, you will see what kind of attention this is getting from the President's attention. Yesterday, I heard about two people who got sick on the other side of the world. You know, I just don't think two people getting sick over 10,000 miles away is news. Now when compared to what goes on every day around this country.

7starmantis ... I missed the Presidents detailed explanation of ebola and the threats it presents.

Tgace & sgtmac_46 ... it is representative of a pattern of behavior (as opposed to a direct link). Isn't that something police officers use to make determinations about situations when dealing with citizens?

Don't worry though ... the bird flu doesn't seem to be working. Look for either a) an New Credible Terrorist Threat or b) a the capture of a major al Qaeda terrorist (from the hidden prisons in Poland, eh?).

The channel will change soon enough. Or as that New York Times guy said, the 'Narrative will have to change'.

 

[Don Roley]

Don Roley .... perhaps when you land in the United States, you will see what kind of attention this is getting from the President's attention. Yesterday, I heard about two people who got sick on the other side of the world. You know, I just don't think two people getting sick over 10,000 miles away is news.

Are you honestly trying to say that the president controls the news????

And I have been hearing a lot about people who get sick in all corners of the world. So much for your idea that it is just something spun up by the president. If you watch the news, you might have heard about the guy they buried last month who got it from eating a chicken egg. Even if this thing does not mutate, that alone is a big threat to everyone who eats eggs. And do you know just how big an economic loss this could be?

 

[7starmantis]

Don't worry though ... the bird flu doesn't seem to be working. Look for either a) an New Credible Terrorist Threat or b) a the capture of a major al Qaeda terrorist (from the hidden prisons in Poland, eh?).

The channel will change soon enough. Or as that New York Times guy said, the 'Narrative will have to change'.

So when news is coming out about things going on around the world, the president is hyping to make us submissive. Yet, if there is no news coming out about current affairs, the president is sitting on his *** playing his guitar.
:idunno:
You can't criticise both sides of action, that only shows your blind allegance to this agenda of yours to bash the president regardless of the reality of your claims. There is no correct action by the president in your eyes, its either "shame on him for doing too little" or "shame on him for doing too much". Your agenda is getting painfully obvious, bash the president regardless of what he does.

7sm

 

[michaeledward]

Yet, if there is no news coming out about current affairs, the president is sitting on his *** playing his guitar.

The 'Current affair' when the President was sitting on his *** playing guitar, was the a Major American City was drowning.

 

[Don Roley]

You see.... the President was not involved in the day-to-day grind of FEMA's plan, nor should he have been.

The above is from post #52. The following is the last post he made.

The 'Current affair' when the President was sitting on his *** playing guitar, was the a Major American City was drowning.

Should not have been involved in the day-to-day grind on one hand, but blasted for sitting on his *** on the other.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The above is from post #52. The following is the last post he made.



Should not have been involved in the day-to-day grind on one hand, but blasted for sitting on his *** on the other.

I think i've made this point before about Michael's posts. It really doesn't matter what the president does, it's about "attack, attack, attack".

 

[michaeledward]

The above is from post #52. The following is the last post he made.

Should not have been involved in the day-to-day grind on one hand, but blasted for sitting on his *** on the other.

I always thought that the best plans are laid after the events for which they are designed to effect.

So, for those who aren't temporaly challenged, how'd that FEMA plan work out?

 

[Don Roley]

I always thought that the best plans are laid after the events for which they are designed to effect.

So, for those who aren't temporaly challenged, how'd that FEMA plan work out?

First part- I do not understand at all. Are you trying to be silly? You plan for things when you have an idea of what you are dealing with.

Second part, off topic. And of course the planning for flood control in New Orleans had been in place for a good, long time. The whole thing is a very interesting read in how various agencies and jurisdictions passed the buck on each other. But again, off topic.

In this case, the president is doing something in the face of a threat that has such possibilty for disaster that today various goverments are meeting in Geneva to discuss the matter. And the president is not supposed to get involved in the face of this?

And what the president is doing is right up his alley in terms of what he should and can do. You say that he should leave it up to orginizations such as the CDC. But in case you did not know, they can't introduce legislation to do things like change the liability laws for drugs rushed to service in the case of an epidemic. Nor can they write their budget for vacines. If they want it, they can talk to the president and ask him to do it. And he is doing it.

I truely fail to see the logic of these attacks you are making. I wonder if someone other than you can point them out to me. You do not seem to be having much success in making your points. Since no one else besides me seems to see the logic behind your statements, I do not feel bad in saying I do not understand how you can maintain your position.

 

[sgtmac_46]

First part- I do not understand at all. Are you trying to be silly? You plan for things when you have an idea of what you are dealing with.

Second part, off topic. And of course the planning for flood control in New Orleans had been in place for a good, long time. The whole thing is a very interesting read in how various agencies and jurisdictions passed the buck on each other. But again, off topic.

In this case, the president is doing something in the face of a threat that has such possibilty for disaster that today various goverments are meeting in Geneva to discuss the matter. And the president is not supposed to get involved in the face of this?

And what the president is doing is right up his alley in terms of what he should and can do. You say that he should leave it up to orginizations such as the CDC. But in case you did not know, they can't introduce legislation to do things like change the liability laws for drugs rushed to service in the case of an epidemic. Nor can they write their budget for vacines. If they want it, they can talk to the president and ask him to do it. And he is doing it.

I truely fail to see the logic of these attacks you are making. I wonder if someone other than you can point them out to me. You do not seem to be having much success in making your points. Since no one else besides me seems to see the logic behind your statements, I do not feel bad in saying I do not understand how you can maintain your position.

I already explained his "logic". It's about attacking the president for everything at every turn, whether or not there is a valid issue to attack on. Throw up enough flak, and something will hit.