Post #253,267
4/24/06 3:30:59 PM
|
Groups question US plan to detain sick travelers
[link|http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-04-22T003051Z_01_N21390924_RTRUKOC_0_US-BIRDFLU-QUARANTINE.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13|http://today.reuters...ageid=&cap=&sz=13]
[...]
"It also provides for Customs or Border Patrol agents to forcibly detain, if necessary, anyone coming in who appears to be sick while the CDC is contacted."
[...]
Hey, officer, doesn't that guy over there look sick to you? I sat next to him, and he coughed!
|
Post #253,278
4/24/06 4:15:59 PM
|
ACLU maybe...but no disease expert would question this.
If a pandemic causing pathogen is isolated anywhere, any infectious disease expert worth calling him/herself that would be all for detaining the infected party. Period.
And anyone questioning this hasn't a clue about whats at stake.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #253,283
4/24/06 4:28:30 PM
4/24/06 4:30:18 PM
|
I think the problem is
that while they're talking about detaining people with H5N1 should it make the transition to human-human infectibility, in reality it is carte blanche to pass info around on anyone with a cough.
Since eventually that is everyone, it means they get to pass around information on anyone.
Edit: to make my point clearer, the real problem is not the detention of people who are sick; in fact, border folks have that power already, should they choose to exercise it. The real problem is the continued and growing promiscuity with citizen's information among government departments.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by jake123
April 24, 2006, 04:30:18 PM EDT
|
Post #253,294
4/24/06 5:48:38 PM
|
Only one answer to that:
[link|http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html|http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html]
Seriously folks. It's like democracy - the worst way, except for all the others.
When somebody asks you to trade your freedoms for security, it isn't your security they're talking about.
|
Post #253,309
4/24/06 7:52:27 PM
|
I'm well aware of that
the question is, what do you think is the likelihood of DHS or CDC (or CSIS in my country) deigning to share with the Rest Of Us?
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #253,317
4/24/06 9:30:26 PM
|
It's going to take a rebellion.
|
Post #253,301
4/24/06 6:10:53 PM
|
Freedom, Safety....pick one.
Ultimately that is the nutshell. The ability of the government to freeze individual (or even masses of people) in the spirit of safety is the twin-edge sword that allows the government to suppress freedom.
The ultimate solution (in both cases), in my opinion is to be avoided. Allowing infectious people to travel threatens the lives of the general populous. Allowing government to lock up scores of people on a trumped up issue threatens our very liberty.
Lucky for us - we have the Bush/Hillary test. Pick the one you hate and ask yourself that if the President didn't lock up individual with an infectious disease (oh, for example, the plague) - what would you think.
Likewise, ask yourself what you would think if the President if they started locking people up claiming it was for our own safety.
(I note with humor that if Clinton had considered locking people up... what certain individuals -- who don't have a clue about whats at stake -- would've said.)
|
Post #253,324
4/25/06 3:57:39 AM
|
"Populace". ("Populous" is an adjective.) HTH!
|
Post #253,305
4/24/06 6:38:36 PM
|
Read the article, at least one did
I would have agreed with you, but I read the article before replying.
But Dr. Donald Henderson, an expert on influenza, smallpox and other infectious diseases who has advised the administration of President George W. Bush on such issues, calls it "silly." ... Henderson noted that people can be infectious with influenza and other diseases long before they begin to feel sick or show any symptoms.
That makes perfect sense to me. While I'm all for enforcing quarantines to prevent the spread of disease, overwhelming health workers with false alarms is not a good idea. The basic fact about public health and bird flu is that either a potential epidemic is nipped in the bud or else we can't stop it.
Nipping it in the bud means contact tracing and enforced quarantines, like we did with SARS. In that stage something like this proposal doesn't help because the number with the disease is so tiny that this program would consume a lot of resources to turn up a ton of false positives. After the disease becomes wide enough spread that this program starts turning up real cases, it is far too late for quarantines to work.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #253,308
4/24/06 6:48:39 PM
|
Yup.
|
Post #253,341
4/25/06 10:14:28 AM
|
And without the ability to access flight info
anyone on the plane with that person is lost.
We're in a discussion about ficticious rights again. There is no right to fly hither and yonder without your name showing up on a list. The expectation that the government, or any airline or any credit card company (or your frequent flyer program) will not use the info you surrender when doing so is, at least to me at a minimum, unrealistic.
You want to get there in private? Drive. Better yet (since toll cameras will likely get your license at least once)...walk.
If my reading of the article is correct. This information being shared is airline passenger manifests and its being shared with the CDC in cases where there were passengers who showed symptoms and have been detained because of this.
My read is that this article is masking the real complaint, which is that we are gathering and tracking airline traffic information...regardless of purpose. I have no issue with this practice, as I don't feel its a privacy rights issue.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #253,353
4/25/06 11:54:19 AM
|
That part I agree with
I think that they should have that power, but it is a need that I think should be well-publicized when it happens. In other words I'd be all for, You can have whatever flight data you have, but every time you ask for it the press will be notified.
However the silly part was having the crew look for people who are coughing and then notifying health authorities.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
