National State of Emergency declared by President!

[Guest American Woman]

I live in Texas, a border state, prone to more contagious diseases than other states. CNN has a map on H1N1 cases on a state by state basis, check it out.

This is what I just read:

Texas To Receive 831,000 Swine Flu Vaccinations

Monday October 26, 2009

It was reported today that Texas will receive 831,000 doses of Swine Flu vaccinations soon (someone please call the Department of Health and Services and tell them that Houston has about 500 percent more people than that).

Harris County alone has seen at least 13 deaths caused by Swine Flu ....

That's dated yesterday, the same day you made your claim that there have been 100 deaths in your city alone, 1000 statewide.

Why would an article single out an entire county with only 13 deaths, while not mentioning a city with 100 deaths, and not pointing out that virtually all of the deaths in the U.S. were in Texas?

You're wrong. Your numbers are way, way off. There have been 46 states hit hard, and Obama declared a state of emergency when the death toll from H1N1 went over 1000 nationwide.

I have no idea where you are getting the idea that your city alone had 100 deaths/your state alone had 1000 deaths. But you are wrong.

[weareone]

This is what I just read:

Texas To Receive 831,000 Swine Flu Vaccinations

Monday October 26, 2009

It was reported today that Texas will receive 831,000 doses of Swine Flu vaccinations soon (someone please call the Department of Health and Services and tell them that Houston has about 500 percent more people than that).

Harris County alone has seen at least 13 deaths caused by Swine Flu ....

That's dated yesterday, the same day you made your claim that there have been 100 deaths in your city alone, 1000 statewide.

Why would an article single out an entire county with only 13 deaths, while not mentioning a city with 100 deaths, and not pointing out that virtually all of the deaths in the U.S. were in Texas?

You're wrong. Your numbers are way, way off. There have been 46 states hit hard, and Obama declared a state of emergency when the death toll from H1N1 went over 1000 nationwide.

If you would have read the posts, you would not have to attack, I apologized and said I was wrong. Get a grip, but not La Grippe, as they say in France.

I have no idea where you are getting the idea that your city alone had 100 deaths/your state alone had 1000 deaths. But you are wrong.

[Guest American Woman]

If you would have read the posts, you would not have to attack, I apologized and said I was wrong. Get a grip, but not La Grippe, as they say in France.

Correcting your numbers is not "attacking you," so get a grip and recognize the difference. You pointed out that Pliny was wrong about the number in his initial post. Were you attacking him?

You apologized and said you were wrong about the '1000' deaths in your city and 'corrected' it by saying there were 1000 in your state.

That is also incorrect. The 1000 figure is for the entire United States. Texas is no where near 1000 deaths, or it would be all over the news. Worldwide.

Edited October 27, 2009 by American Woman

[Sir Bandelot]

What I find puzzling and sad is that we are in a time when hype and spin account for more than real issues of public safety. Its sad that they would politicize something like calling a national emergency. But not really surprising, when they politicized the nobel peace prize award as well.

I think what people don't realize is how it might affect us in a time of real emergency. Like the boy who cried wolf, people are beginning to realize that much of this is being excessively hyped. Although this virus does seem to be rather "virulent", it doesn't appear to be any more lethal than others. Making it political, even for the advantage of freeing up resources, money, and removing legal barriers as Obama has done, could mean that people will ignore it, when a real emergency comes.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Guest American Woman]

What I find puzzling and sad is that we are in a time when hype and spin account for more than real issues of public safety. Its sad that they would politicize something like calling a national emergency.

There are reasons why Obama declared a National Emergency, and it wasn't to "politicize" it, but rather to look out for "public safety:"

The move will allow health officials to bypass some federal regulations and paperwork as they take measures to combat the outbreak and deliver scarce vaccine supplies across the country. link

....because the H1N1 flu has been declared a national emergency, people who have the virus can receive treatment at a highly reduced rate. link

President Barack Obama declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, giving his health chief the power to let hospitals move emergency rooms offsite to speed treatment and protect noninfected patients. link

Edited October 28, 2009 by American Woman

[Sir Bandelot]

There are reasons why Obama declared a National Emergency, and it wasn't to "politicize" it, but rather to look out for "public safety:"

The move will allow health officials to bypass some federal regulations and paperwork as they take measures to combat the outbreak and deliver scarce vaccine supplies across the country. link

....because the H1N1 flu has been declared a national emergency, people who have the virus can receive treatment at a highly reduced rate. link

President Barack Obama declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, giving his health chief the power to let hospitals move emergency rooms offsite to speed treatment and protect noninfected patients. link

I realize that, AW as indicated in my previous post-

Making it political, even for the advantage of freeing up resources, money, and removing legal barriers as Obama has done, could mean that people will ignore it, when a real emergency comes.

But to me that is using politics to circumvent legal obstacles, not a direct response to a real emergency. It may have been done with good intentions, maybe for the right reasons, but that doesn't mean it wont undermine the process in a future real emrgency.

This, coupled with recent responses to other spooky sounding disease that amounted to nothing, like "SARS" and "West Nile virus", seems like either the reaction of a bunch of amateurs (neo-politicians), or some sort of hidden agenda. At this point I go with the former.

[Sir Bandelot]

I only mention the latter because, there are some who say that big pharma uses its influence to sell their dope to us via their political connections. In this day and age, it's vaguely possible.

[Guest American Woman]

I realize that, AW as indicated in my previous post-

Ok, fair enough. I wasn't quite sure you understood the extent of it because I think it goes further than what you mentioned. I think that treating people in clinics off grounds so other people aren't affected by it, treating people without medical coverage for less, etc, are all a good thing. It seems to me it's important to do these things. It's better to be safe than sorry, so why not do them?

But to me that is using politics to circumvent legal obstacles, not a direct response to a real emergency.

This is what I don't get, and why I thought maybe you didn't see the reasons why Obama did what he did, because it is a direct response. Cheaper treatment. Treating people away from those not infected. Moving the vaccine quicker and easier. How is that not a "direct response?"

It may have been done with good intentions, maybe for the right reasons, but that doesn't mean it wont undermine the process in a future real emrgency.

If it was done "for the right reasons," then seems to me it was the right thing to do. And who's to say this isn't a 'real emergency?' Not all emergencies are of the 'the sky is falling!' variety. But a lot of people are getting this flu, and the best way to combat it is to lessen it as much as possible.

This, coupled with recent responses to other spooky sounding disease that amounted to nothing, like "SARS" and "West Nile virus", seems like either the reaction of a bunch of amateurs (neo-politicians), or some sort of hidden agenda. At this point I go with the former.

I understand what you're saying, but this is hitting a lot more people in a lot more places than SARS, for example, did. I think the country is reacting the way it should, too. School closings, offering the vaccine as quickly as possible, treating those who have it away from the general population so they aren't infected, cheaper treatments for those who can't afford medical care ... it's all good. I think it would be wrong to handle it any differently. I just don't see how you see it as "politicizing" it rather than "looking out for public safety."

Edited October 28, 2009 by American Woman

[Sir Bandelot]

If it was done "for the right reasons," then seems to me it was the right thing to do. And who's to say this isn't a 'real emergency?' Not all emergencies are of the 'the sky is falling!' variety. But a lot of people are getting this flu, and the best way to combat it is to lessen it as much as possible.

Something needed to be done to circumvent a legal or political barrier (in terms of freeing up resources), and doing something is better then doing nothing. In the short term. But if it is not a real "emergency", or if calling it an emergency just to enable the process to respond as necessary, that mechanism is not appropriate, in the long run. We should use the term "emergency" when it is real, not start calling things emergencies simply because that solves a political problem. I hope you get what I mean here by political, not partisan.

I am not a pathologist, but I know a bit about statistics of death rates in past years. Yesterday we heard the sad story about a 13 year old who died of swine flu in Toronto. This caused a big media sensation, many headlines in papers and n th web. People at work talked about it throughout the day. Yet I know, these things happen every year, even to some young or seemingly healthy people, by the thousands we die from the flu. So why the big hype, I don't understand that.

If this is true, I don't see how its an emergency compared to any other normal season, so far.-

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/h1...illance-eng.php

[GostHacked]

I only mention the latter because, there are some who say that big pharma uses its influence to sell their dope to us via their political connections. In this day and age, it's vaguely possible.

Up here in Canukistan, (aka Canada) there was no emergency declared, and yet the clinics are flooded with people wanting to get the vaccine. Here in Ottawa, line ups are over 3 hours, and most places simply don't have enough to give out to the ones who really need it.

People are freaking out and there is no reason to. The media is overhyping the crap out of this thing, and making people panic. This will not be helpful to get the vaccine to those who really need it now, many of us who are freaking out are not even in any risk group, so why the hell is everyone all in a panic about it???

[Pliny]

I can't remember where I heard the figure 100 deaths but here is an article with the same number.

http://www.thesunnews.com/news/local/story/1137653.html

Sir Bandelot posted the Canadian statistics which at teh time stood at 89. I imagine that America's is close to ten times our amount because their population is ten times ours so that would put it at close to 1000.

Some years do have more virulent strains and there are, from that variations from year to year but on average about 36,000 people die of the flu in the US every year and about 500,000 worldwide.

On another thread about vaccines and their efficacy I did some research and found there wasn't much difference in the annual influenza death rate before and after they had started vaccinating for it whihc has been about ten years, if memory serves me.

The best part of this marketing scheme is no one will be able to gauge the efficacy of the vaccination. I predict approximately the same amount of people will die of the flu this year as in any other year. ALL thanks to the vaccine.

Sir Bandelot's point about crying wolf has merit. Are we all going to turn into a Howard Hughes or a weareone?

Edited October 28, 2009 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Up here in Canukistan, (aka Canada) there was no emergency declared, and yet the clinics are flooded with people wanting to get the vaccine. Here in Ottawa, line ups are over 3 hours, and most places simply don't have enough to give out to the ones who really need it.

People are freaking out and there is no reason to. The media is overhyping the crap out of this thing, and making people panic. This will not be helpful to get the vaccine to those who really need it now, many of us who are freaking out are not even in any risk group, so why the hell is everyone all in a panic about it???

The hype and subsequent hysteria is nothing less than bizarre!

[Guest American Woman]

I can't remember where I heard the figure 100 deaths but here is an article with the same number.

http://www.thesunnews.com/news/local/story/1137653.html

That's either a typo, or they're talking about "over the weekend" -- but I can see why you posted the wrong information. That's very misleading if it's the latter. Perhaps it is simply an error.

Sir Bandelot posted the Canadian statistics which at teh time stood at 89. I imagine that America's is close to ten times our amount because their population is ten times ours so that would put it at close to 1000.

It's over a thousand. Can't say how much, but Obama declared the National Emergency after the death toll hit over a thousand.

Some years do have more virulent strains and there are, from that variations from year to year but on average about 36,000 people die of the flu in the US every year and about 500,000 worldwide.

This is true, but in the past, illnesses have not become more serious because of the preventive measures taken.

On another thread about vaccines and their efficacy I did some research and found there wasn't much difference in the annual influenza death rate before and after they had started vaccinating for it whihc has been about ten years, if memory serves me.

Without a link confirming that, I have to question it.

The best part of this marketing scheme is no one will be able to gauge the efficacy of the vaccination. I predict approximately the same amount of people will die of the flu this year as in any other year. ALL thanks to the vaccine.

Better to be safe than sorry. Would it be a bad thing if the death rate were no higher? Would it prove that the vaccine prevented more deaths? Would it prove that the other measures being taken helped prevent more deaths? No. At least not conclusively. But it's better to do it and have a death toll within the norm than it is to do nothing and find out too late that something should have been done.

Sir Bandelot's point about crying wolf has merit. Are we all going to turn into a Howard Hughes or a weareone?

There's a huge gray area between 'doing nothing' and "crying wolf." While there are always going to be people on both ends of the spectrum, I think there's always going to be more in the middle ground.

I sure have no 'fear' of catching H1N1. In fact, I've been about as exposed as one can be, really, on more than one occasion. But I'm not personally in a high risk group and I personally don't worry about catching things. I was one of the few tourists on the streets of Toronto at the height of the SARS scare. Yet I agree with Obama's decision. First and foremost, remember that Americans don't all have health coverage, so making the treatment less expensive is a big thing for those who can't afford it. So while Canada may have no need to make such a declaration, it helps some here in the States.

Furthermore, it's not just the flu itself. Those who are hit with this flu need to beware a secondary infection after recovering from the flu, as there is a real likelihood of that happening. One little two year old I know who survived the flu just fine was just diagnosed with pneumonia.

So if treating people without the symptoms away from those who are exhibiting them can prevent others from getting this flu, I say that's also a good thing. I don't see how anyone could argue that.

I really don't see a huge danger of people not paying attention in the future when national emergencies are declared because if the numbers of H1N1 flu deaths are no higher than ordinary flu seasons, I think people will see the precautions as having worked.

Edited October 28, 2009 by American Woman

[gc1765]

A good source for H1N1 statistics

Updated daily

[weareone]

That's either a typo, or they're talking about "over the weekend" -- but I can see why you posted the wrong information. That's very misleading if it's the latter. Perhaps it is simply an error.

It's over a thousand. Can't say how much, but Obama declared the National Emergency after the death toll hit over a thousand.

This is true, but in the past, illnesses have not become more serious because of the preventive measures taken.

Without a link confirming that, I have to question it.

Better to be safe than sorry. Would it be a bad thing if the death rate were no higher? Would it prove that the vaccine prevented more deaths? Would it prove that the other measures being taken helped prevent more deaths? No. At least not conclusively. But it's better to do it and have a death toll within the norm than it is to do nothing and find out too late that something should have been done.

There's a huge gray area between 'doing nothing' and "crying wolf." While there are always going to be people on both ends of the spectrum, I think there's always going to be more in the middle ground.

I sure have no 'fear' of catching H1N1. In fact, I've been about as exposed as one can be, really, on more than one occasion. But I'm not personally in a high risk group and I personally don't worry about catching things. I was one of the few tourists on the streets of Toronto at the height of the SARS scare. Yet I agree with Obama's decision. First and foremost, remember that Americans don't all have health coverage, so making the treatment less expensive is a big thing for those who can't afford it. So while Canada may have no need to make such a declaration, it helps some here in the States.

Furthermore, it's not just the flu itself. Those who are hit with this flu need to beware a secondary infection after recovering from the flu, as there is a real likelihood of that happening. One little two year old I know who survived the flu just fine was just diagnosed with pneumonia.

So if treating people without the symptoms away from those who are exhibiting them can prevent others from getting this flu, I say that's also a good thing. I don't see how anyone could argue that.

I really don't see a huge danger of people not paying attention in the future when national emergencies are declared because if the numbers of H1N1 flu deaths are no higher than ordinary flu seasons, I think people will see the precautions as having worked.

All anyone needs is to follow simple hygiene rules. WASH YOUR HANDS. Unfortunately most humans do not and pass on their dirty germs.

[gc1765]

All anyone needs is to follow simple hygiene rules. WASH YOUR HANDS. Unfortunately most humans do not and pass on their dirty germs.

Yeah, seriously.

I don't agree with the paranoia that you shouldn't shake anyone's hand (if you are healthy) as the media has been reporting lately.

But if you ARE sick, stay at home as much as possible, don't shake people's hands and for the love of God cover your mouth when you cough. If everyone did these very simple things, illnesses would be cut down dramatically.

[BubberMiley]

The hype and subsequent hysteria is nothing less than bizarre!

That's just because they aren't distracted by the number of deaths there have been, and have a clear understanding of the number of potential deaths. New human-to-human-transmitted strains of the flu like this are not a common, everyday occurence, and there is no telling the real danger of it until it is already passed.

Hopefully the "hysterical" efforts to deal with it work, so that when there aren't astronomical death rates, you can smugly say you were correct in doing nothing.

[Pliny]

That's either a typo, or they're talking about "over the weekend" -- but I can see why you posted the wrong information. That's very misleading if it's the latter. Perhaps it is simply an error.

I agree, it must be a typo but I heard it from other sources, too and that's why I posted it as that. It spreads faster than H1N1.

It's over a thousand. Can't say how much, but Obama declared the National Emergency after the death toll hit over a thousand.

All right.

Without a link confirming that, I have to question it.

Please do.

Better to be safe than sorry. Would it be a bad thing if the death rate were no higher? Would it prove that the vaccine prevented more deaths? Would it prove that the other measures being taken helped prevent more deaths? No. At least not conclusively. But it's better to do it and have a death toll within the norm than it is to do nothing and find out too late that something should have been done.

WE know basically how to keep communicable diseases from spreading. How many lives this knowledge saves is inestimable. The only true measure of efficacy is in the rate of change in the numbers of deaths. I haven't seen an improvement in the annual influenza rate since vaccinations started. There is another thread on this topic with some links. I really don't feel like covering the same ground and re-posting them.

There's a huge gray area between 'doing nothing' and "crying wolf." While there are always going to be people on both ends of the spectrum, I think there's always going to be more in the middle ground.

I sure have no 'fear' of catching H1N1. In fact, I've been about as exposed as one can be, really, on more than one occasion. But I'm not personally in a high risk group and I personally don't worry about catching things. I was one of the few tourists on the streets of Toronto at the height of the SARS scare. Yet I agree with Obama's decision. First and foremost, remember that Americans don't all have health coverage, so making the treatment less expensive is a big thing for those who can't afford it. So while Canada may have no need to make such a declaration, it helps some here in the States.

In Canada we have preferred groups who will get the vaccine. Criminals in prison have priority.

It doesn't matter if you can afford it, you can't buy it here - you have to go to the US to buy it.

Furthermore, it's not just the flu itself. Those who are hit with this flu need to beware a secondary infection after recovering from the flu, as there is a real likelihood of that happening. One little two year old I know who survived the flu just fine was just diagnosed with pneumonia.

So if treating people without the symptoms away from those who are exhibiting them can prevent others from getting this flu, I say that's also a good thing. I don't see how anyone could argue that.

I really don't see a huge danger of people not paying attention in the future when national emergencies are declared because if the numbers of H1N1 flu deaths are no higher than ordinary flu seasons, I think people will see the precautions as having worked.

I prefer to take my chances and catch whatever is going around. I have a concern that vaccinations for such things compromise the immune system rather than strengthen it. I hate to think I have to be dependent upon vaccinations to fight off such diseases.

[Pliny]

That's just because they aren't distracted by the number of deaths there have been, and have a clear understanding of the number of potential deaths. New human-to-human-transmitted strains of the flu like this are not a common, everyday occurence, and there is no telling the real danger of it until it is already passed.

Hopefully the "hysterical" efforts to deal with it work, so that when there aren't astronomical death rates, you can smugly say you were correct in doing nothing.

We'll never know how effective pro-active preventative measures such as vaccinations occur unless we look at the death rates. We know that smallpox vaccinations helped because the death rate dropped dramatically after they were introduced. I have not seen a similar drop in the influenza death rate since the introduction of flu vaccines. Could the "potential" numbers have been astronomical? We'll never know. SARS, West Nile Virus, H1N5, never tooK off, Was it the vaccinations?

[Guest American Woman]

In Canada we have preferred groups who will get the vaccine. Criminals in prison have priority.It doesn't matter if you can afford it, you can't buy it here - you have to go to the US to buy it.

You may have to go to the US to buy the vaccine, but anyone who gets the flu will be treated without cost, which isn't true in the U.S.-- which is why it's meaningful to a lot of people that declaring a national emergency makes treatment cheaper.

As for having to buy it in the US, sounds as if they may have problems finding it here.

I prefer to take my chances and catch whatever is going around. I have a concern that vaccinations for such things compromise the immune system rather than strengthen it. I hate to think I have to be dependent upon vaccinations to fight off suchdiseases

I agree. I think the less a person is exposed to, the weaker their immune system. Those who wipe every surface with a disinfectant cloth are not slowly building up an immunity over time the way those who are exposed bit by bit are.

But again, for those who do get sick, being able to get cheaper care is a good thing.

Edited October 29, 2009 by American Woman

[lictor616]

You may have to go to the US to buy the vaccine, but anyone who gets the flu will be treated without cost, which isn't true in the U.S.-- which is why it's meaningful to a lot of people that declaring a national emergency makes treatment cheaper.

As for having to buy it in the US, sounds as if they may have problems finding it here.

I agree. I think the less a person is exposed to, the weaker their immune system. Those who wipe every surface with a disinfectant cloth are not slowly building up an immunity over time the way those who are exposed bit by bit are.

But again, for those who do get sick, being able to get cheaper care is a good thing.

swine flu conspiracy:

"Ret Chief medical Officer for Finland condemns the Swine Flu issues and explores other related matters. Excerpt from The Researchers series, BASES 5. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=185HKE2c5Gg

[Sir Bandelot]

Sounds crazy? She mentioned that Great Britain has de-listed the swine flu as a serious threat. I went to the BBC news web site, there is no mention of swine flu anywhere. I even clicked on the "Health" tab, still no mention of it. The top headline was about diabetes.

Clicked on the "Americas" link, still nothing!

So whats with that? Maybe the British are naturally immune?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Edited October 29, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Pliny]

You may have to go to the US to buy the vaccine, but anyone who gets the flu will be treated without cost, which isn't true in the U.S.-- which is why it's meaningful to a lot of people that declaring a national emergency makes treatment cheaper.

You mean it's free here???? You have been watching too much Michael Moore.

As for cheaper...well.... Does our health care system pay less for medical treatment and medical staff than your insurance companies? If it really were a matter of choosing who should live and who should die, and dying is the claim of the hysterical proponents of H1N1 so choosing is essentially what they are doing, I wouldn't be putting criminals on that priority list.

As for having to buy it in the US, sounds as if they may have problems finding it here.

I agree. I think the less a person is exposed to, the weaker their immune system. Those who wipe every surface with a disinfectant cloth are not slowly building up an immunity over time the way those who are exposed bit by bit are.

But again, for those who do get sick, being able to get cheaper care is a good thing.

Cheaper is always better!

[Pliny]

Here is a very interesting interview with the founder of the National Vaccination Information Center.