|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 5, 2014 1:16:10 GMT -5
One of my biggest concerns has always been.....will governments do the right thing if there is a deadly outbreak?
Let's say there is an serious outbreak in the US. Will we seal the border and cut off billions of dollars in trade? Tourism? Trapping Canadians on the other side? I seriously doubt even evil Harper would be that gutsy. Forget the rest. If for nothing else, the political temperature for anyone making that decision would make it impossible to do the right thing. If they are sealed and nothing major develops, people will scream about the economic damage. If he is right and some get through before it's sealed, then it will be why he waited. Damn if you do and damn if you don't.
I really think that politicians would be too slow to act because of the economics and social pressure of "loved ones" across the border. Plus we have too much faith in our own ablilties. Spanish Influenza is something we read in a book.
Assuming it has a long enough incubation period, easily transmitable and muted early symptoms, nothing done until it's too late.
Opinions?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Aug 5, 2014 5:55:51 GMT -5
will governments do the right thing you? you actually ask this? of course they will . . . if it's politically expedient. no, let me rephrase that: the right thing is the politically expedient thing . . . so that means that they will do the right thing. and if it turns out wrong, it's someone else's fault. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Aug 5, 2014 7:04:14 GMT -5
No Western government would ever do such a thing. Ever. Not because of any fear of a political fallout, but simply because we in the West have lost the concept of "Total War". Which is in fact what this would be, albeit against a non-human enemy. But the idea of "sacrifice for the greater good?" Of mass casualties being a necessity to protect our way of life, or our actual lives? Not going to happen. We just don't have that mentality anymore. Not saying it's necessarily a bad thing - we don't really need to have that mentality anymore - but that's just the way it is. We've become a culture that values, ostensibly, every single life. The idea that we'd have to kill 10,000 to save 30 million... nice in theory, but the urge to "find another way" would be our downfall. As you said, we'd have too much faith... or perhaps "hope" is a better word... in our own abilities to find another way. Too many Hollywood movies have told us there is a way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 5, 2014 13:16:18 GMT -5
No Western government would ever do such a thing. Ever. Not because of any fear of a political fallout, but simply because we in the West have lost the concept of "Total War". Which is in fact what this would be, albeit against a non-human enemy. But the idea of "sacrifice for the greater good?" Of mass casualties being a necessity to protect our way of life, or our actual lives? Not going to happen. We just don't have that mentality anymore. Not saying it's necessarily a bad thing - we don't really need to have that mentality anymore - but that's just the way it is. We've become a culture that values, ostensibly, every single life. The idea that we'd have to kill 10,000 to save 30 million... nice in theory, but the urge to "find another way" would be our downfall. As you said, we'd have too much faith... or perhaps "hope" is a better word... in our own abilities to find another way. Too many Hollywood movies have told us there is a way. I didn't ask if they would sacrifice people. Of course they wont. It's beyond a doubt that we are too soft to directly and openly sacrifice our own. But....let's deviate slightly here.....because deviation is good..... EVERYBODY on the left has re-written history about going to Iraq war. Congress including Democrats approved the war. IN CNN poll, 79% of Americans thought the war was justified. Today, half of those people remember only what they want to believe. Revisionist hallucinations aside, my point is that if people are frightened enough to be motivated enough, they will do and approve some pretty drastic measures. I actually think that we can have "Total War" but the motivators of such has to be slow enough so all the slow ones can absorb reality. Needless to say, you will have the extremely religious and the fringe "we are all gonna die happily together" whackos that may or may not need culling. Unless we have a minor and very deadly scare, if a world wide pathogen happens today, too much politics and inaction will lead to a lot of body bags. A vicious IF/THEN.....IF a deadly pathogen can indeed kill a large percentage of the population, THEN a small vicious taste of death may actually save humanity. And last but not least.... I actually hope they don't have any cure for ebola. It's lethality is great enough and it's transmission so limited that it would serve as the poster child of fear without any real ability to cause an epidemic. However, if they find a cure, it would give us yet ANOTHER level of complacency. The reality is that even if we have a cure, there simply wouldn't be enough of it for an ariel/contact spreading (common cold) deadly pathogen. We will t hen run into another nightmare of who should get it and who should be sacrificed. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 5, 2014 16:35:53 GMT -5
Had to do a little research on this before responding. Here's what I found:: What are the symptoms of the Ebola virus?
Patients with Ebola are often overcome by a sudden onset of fever and weakness, muscle pain and headaches and sore throat, followed by vomiting, diarrhoea and rashes. In some cases, both internal and external bleeding occurs.
The time interval from infection to onset of symptoms, is two to 21 days. (this is the scary part for me)
How is Ebola transmitted?
The World Health Organisation say Ebola is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission.
It can be transmitted from person to person as a result of direct contact with the blood, organs or other bodily fluids of those infected, with healthcare workers among those most at risk.
In Africa, infection has been documented through the handling of infected chimpanzees, gorillas, fruit bats, monkeys, forest antelope and porcupines found ill or dead or in the rainforest.Imagine trying to isolate a disease like this when the symptoms come out anywhere from two to 21 days ... if there weren't professionals being as vigilant as they have been, I suspect it might take quite a while (months maybe?) to eradicate all of the isolated pockets of the virus, more so if it can take up to three weeks to show any signs ... having Ebola for several weeks before detection makes it even more difficult to treat ... I don't have a solution but it's been my experience that people will support a tough decision so long as it doesn't impact them directly ... closing the borders? ... well, it was under different circumstances but the USA had no problem closing their borders on 9/11 ... just on that, I'd hope the US would understand if, after exhausting all other options, Harper made the call to temporarily close the border ... I'm not sure how Obama would react, but he's capable of hard decisions ("we tortured some folks") ... yet, I get the feeling that if it were the Republicans we'd possibly see have to brace for a new outbreak of Mad Cow, or some new softwood disease in Canada ... sounds like a bad movie, but I wouldn't put anything past desperate people ... it's been played before if not in Canada, then elsewhere ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 6, 2014 8:24:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Aug 6, 2014 9:08:54 GMT -5
I didn't ask if they would sacrifice people. Of course they wont. It's beyond a doubt that we are too soft to directly and openly sacrifice our own. But....let's deviate slightly here.....because deviation is good..... EVERYBODY on the left has re-written history about going to Iraq war. Congress including Democrats approved the war. IN CNN poll, 79% of Americans thought the war was justified. Today, half of those people remember only what they want to believe. Revisionist hallucinations aside, my point is that if people are frightened enough to be motivated enough, they will do and approve some pretty drastic measures. I actually think that we can have "Total War" but the motivators of such has to be slow enough so all the slow ones can absorb reality. Needless to say, you will have the extremely religious and the fringe "we are all gonna die happily together" whackos that may or may not need culling. Unless we have a minor and very deadly scare, if a world wide pathogen happens today, too much politics and inaction will lead to a lot of body bags. A vicious IF/THEN.....IF a deadly pathogen can indeed kill a large percentage of the population, THEN a small vicious taste of death may actually save humanity. And last but not least.... I actually hope they don't have any cure for ebola. It's lethality is great enough and it's transmission so limited that it would serve as the poster child of fear without any real ability to cause an epidemic. However, if they find a cure, it would give us yet ANOTHER level of complacency. The reality is that even if we have a cure, there simply wouldn't be enough of it for an ariel/contact spreading (common cold) deadly pathogen. We will t hen run into another nightmare of who should get it and who should be sacrificed. I get what you are saying about Iraq, in that the masses can be swayed pretty easily, especially when feared is involved, but I still think it's different. There was nothing personal about Iraq. We were going to send some soldiers, they were going to kick some butt, we were going to be viewed as saviours and there would be unicorns farting Skittles everywhere. For the average American there was really no personal investment. Would support for the war be as high as it was if the draft was re-instated to fight it? If every American adult had to enlist, and do a tour? Hell, support probably would have plummeted had they simply instituted a 5% increase in taxes to pay for the whole thing. If it came to a pandemic that was infecting the country I think it would move too fast for people to accept the harsh measures that needed to be taken, and that every Western government would suffer from paralysis by analysis. Anything that moved slow enough to allow people to wrap their heads around the new reality of Total War could probably be easily contained anyways. If we are talking about a virus that is. Of course one could segue I suppose and turn this into a debate on security, privacy and government control, right? Very slowly we have seen all manners of personal liberties taken away in the name of 'security' and 'the war on terror'. 20 years ago would it have been acceptable for airport security personnel to see nude images of all passengers? Or to grope 80 year olds and children in the name of security? How about the government listening in on every phone call you ever make, should they decide that is what they want to do? Computer use? We have accepted this as reality. One could argue that "we can have "Total War" but the motivators of such has to be slow enough so all the slow ones can absorb reality" is already happening. How about: IF a deadly pathogen terrorist attack can indeed kill a large percentage of the population, THEN a small vicious taste of death like on 9/11, may actually save humanity. Is this happening? Are Western governments slowly instituting Total War measures, but just slow enough so that we can absorb them? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 6, 2014 13:27:34 GMT -5
I get what you are saying about Iraq, in that the masses can be swayed pretty easily, especially when feared is involved, but I still think it's different. There was nothing personal about Iraq. We were going to send some soldiers, they were going to kick some butt, we were going to be viewed as saviours and there would be unicorns farting Skittles everywhere. For the average American there was really no personal investment. Would support for the war be as high as it was if the draft was re-instated to fight it? If every American adult had to enlist, and do a tour? Hell, support probably would have plummeted had they simply instituted a 5% increase in taxes to pay for the whole thing. If it came to a pandemic that was infecting the country I think it would move too fast for people to accept the harsh measures that needed to be taken, and that every Western government would suffer from paralysis by analysis. Anything that moved slow enough to allow people to wrap their heads around the new reality of Total War could probably be easily contained anyways. If we are talking about a virus that is. Of course one could segue I suppose and turn this into a debate on security, privacy and government control, right? Very slowly we have seen all manners of personal liberties taken away in the name of 'security' and 'the war on terror'. 20 years ago would it have been acceptable for airport security personnel to see nude images of all passengers? Or to grope 80 year olds and children in the name of security? How about the government listening in on every phone call you ever make, should they decide that is what they want to do? Computer use? We have accepted this as reality. One could argue that "we can have "Total War" but the motivators of such has to be slow enough so all the slow ones can absorb reality" is already happening. How about: IF a deadly pathogen terrorist attack can indeed kill a large percentage of the population, THEN a small vicious taste of death like on 9/11, may actually save humanity. Is this happening? Are Western governments slowly instituting Total War measures, but just slow enough so that we can absorb them? First of all, even though we are a generation apart (I'm 60 and I think you are 43?), I think that we are firmly glued on the same side of the coin and not even arguing about the need, but rather just a general discussion. On topic.... I'm not fully sold that we are already implementing any "Total War", but perhaps some aspects of it. If there is any resemblance, it has to do more with the natural progression of people in power to collect MORE power rather then a master plan of controlling the masses. Invading their privacy? Sure, but gunpoint control? Militarization would be the tipping point.....but wait..... One can argue that by pointing our the militarization of the American police forces, but I think it's more of a matter of having the biggest military in the world having so much weaponry and no one to give it too when it's mostly worn out. What the hell does a police force need an armored personal carrier and yet, they are now common in police departments....instead of scrap yards. A coat of paint and Officer Gomer Pyle has a shiny new "tank" to chase down those damn spray painters.... I really don't think that obama, bush and the rest of the political class not named Chaney have some master plan ripped from the pages of the Nazi party. Stupidity is not a plan, it's just stupidity. Having said that, stupid or not, if the toys are there, there will certainly be a lot of temptation to use it. Sooo.... While I agree that we have some direct shifting to end privacy, I wouldn't want to call it social control....yet. While we have some materialization of police forces, it's not to some direct master plan of social engineering or 1984.....yet. And as I'm writing this.....I'm wondering...... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 6, 2014 13:44:38 GMT -5
Had to do a little research on this before responding. Here's what I found:: What are the symptoms of the Ebola virus?
Patients with Ebola are often overcome by a sudden onset of fever and weakness, muscle pain and headaches and sore throat, followed by vomiting, diarrhoea and rashes. In some cases, both internal and external bleeding occurs.
The time interval from infection to onset of symptoms, is two to 21 days. (this is the scary part for me)
How is Ebola transmitted?
The World Health Organisation say Ebola is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission.
It can be transmitted from person to person as a result of direct contact with the blood, organs or other bodily fluids of those infected, with healthcare workers among those most at risk.
In Africa, infection has been documented through the handling of infected chimpanzees, gorillas, fruit bats, monkeys, forest antelope and porcupines found ill or dead or in the rainforest.Imagine trying to isolate a disease like this when the symptoms come out anywhere from two to 21 days ... if there weren't professionals being as vigilant as they have been, I suspect it might take quite a while (months maybe?) to eradicate all of the isolated pockets of the virus, more so if it can take up to three weeks to show any signs ... having Ebola for several weeks before detection makes it even more difficult to treat ... I don't have a solution but it's been my experience that people will support a tough decision so long as it doesn't impact them directly ... closing the borders? ... well, it was under different circumstances but the USA had no problem closing their borders on 9/11 ... just on that, I'd hope the US would understand if, after exhausting all other options, Harper made the call to temporarily close the border ... I'm not sure how Obama would react, but he's capable of hard decisions ("we tortured some folks") ... yet, I get the feeling that if it were the Republicans we'd possibly see have to brace for a new outbreak of Mad Cow, or some new softwood disease in Canada ... sounds like a bad movie, but I wouldn't put anything past desperate people ... it's been played before if not in Canada, then elsewhere ... Cheers. I wondered how a world bent on NBC would come about and one of the most lethal and hardest to prove that the enemy caused it would be a biological attack. The pathogen had to be slow enough to be absorbed by the population (21 days), show no special or particular symptoms in the beginning, air transmitted (common cold) and be at least 50% lethal. Ebola has 3 out of 4. Or does it have them all? And no, I don't think it's man made......and I will try to find a link to that fascinating book on bio warfare. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 6, 2014 20:25:54 GMT -5
I get what you are saying about Iraq, in that the masses can be swayed pretty easily, especially when feared is involved, but I still think it's different. There was nothing personal about Iraq. We were going to send some soldiers, they were going to kick some butt, we were going to be viewed as saviours and there would be unicorns farting Skittles everywhere. To a Canadian, this describes Afghanistan ... The inaction by Canada and the US to recent events in Crimea and Ukraine, suggests to me that wartime conscription wouldn't be accepted on either side of the border ... our reluctance to go where-no-western-country-wants-to-go was perceived by other countries as a weakness and they tested that weakness by going into Crimea ... we're not supportive of a "total war" concept with the societies we have ... people see things differently these days ... they'll support the troops when they deploy on our behalf, which is the patriotic thing to do ... but it's much easier when there's no personal impact on them ... If we're talking about a virus it's as you say, it may run it's course too quickly for some emergency procedures to be implemented ... note the end of the 1918 flu pandemic ... "In Philadelphia ... 4,597 people died in the week ending 16 October, but by 11 November, influenza had almost disappeared from the city ..." there are theories as to what caused this rapid departure, but it's been my experience that viruses just have to run their course (Golan Heights, '96, and a gastro virus [sometimes referred to as the Golan Gut] hit the camp ... most personnel were infected yet the camp was pretty much clean by the third week) ... what does concern me, again, is that (up to) 21-day incubation period ... how do you prepare for that ... I think Canada's equivalent to The Patriot Act, is Bill S-7,the Combating Terrorism Act, 2012 ... this act "... allow(s) the police, with the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, to force a person to appear at a hearing to answer questions related to past or future terrorist offences" ... it irks me that we've lost certain freedoms, but what concerns me more is that the average, John Q Canadian, doesn't know of Bill S-7 and if they did, they've long forgotten it ... is the government moving more towards a "total war" posture ... if they are Canadians don't seem to care about it ... until it affects them personally ... Cheers. |
|
