Petition CDC to Lift Travel Advisory to Coz

[mikemill]

Congrats on throwing out a straw man and killing any sense of credibility you might have had.

How does swine flu spread?
Influenza viruses can be directly transmitted from pigs to people and from people to pigs. Human infection with flu viruses from pigs are most likely to occur when people are in close proximity to infected pigs, such as in pig barns and livestock exhibits housing pigs at fairs. Human-to-human transmission of swine flu can also occur. This is thought to occur in the same way as seasonal flu occurs in people, which is mainly person-to-person transmission through coughing or sneezing of people infected with the influenza virus. People may become infected by touching something with flu viruses on it and then touching their mouth or nose.

Now consider that transmission of HIV requires much more intimidate contact with the person you can see the difference in action taken by the CDC. And the CDC actually has an HIV site.

 

[DandyDon]

I've read that it takes hundreds of years for plastic to break down.

I buried some at the bottom of my compost.

I'll give you annual reports.

 

[Thalassamania]

If there's anyone out there who doesn't think the CDC plays politics, consider this:

"During 2007 more than two and a half million adults and children became infected with this virus. By the end of the year, an estimated 33 million people worldwide were living with it. The year also saw two million deaths from it, despite recent improvements in access to antiretroviral treatment."

And yet this particular contageous virus has a near "protected" status. There are laws protecting the rights of the infected to walk among us. All the arguments supporting the efficacy of this policy fall flat in the face of the facts... 2.5 million new cases a year; two million deaths. But those sad facts are swept under the rug of political correctness.

What's the virus? HIV. Compared to that, Swine Flu is nothing.


><>

It requires significantly more than casual contact to contract HIV, thus a different suite of approaches are needed for control. But then my guess is that you knew that, but you'd rather make a fatuous arument than none at all.

 

[mstevens]

If there's anyone out there who doesn't think the CDC plays politics, consider this:

"During 2007 more than two and a half million adults and children became infected with this virus. By the end of the year, an estimated 33 million people worldwide were living with it. The year also saw two million deaths from it, despite recent improvements in access to antiretroviral treatment."

And yet this particular contageous virus has a near "protected" status. There are laws protecting the rights of the infected to walk among us. All the arguments supporting the efficacy of this policy fall flat in the face of the facts... 2.5 million new cases a year; two million deaths. But those sad facts are swept under the rug of political correctness.

What's the virus? HIV. Compared to that, Swine Flu is nothing.
><>

You're an utter moron if you believe that it's possible to contract HIV without (very) intimate contact. Even with that, it typically requires repeated exposure.

I had no qualms whatsoever having my best friend (who was dying of AIDS) babysit my immunosuppressed daughter (who was dying of cancer). As a physician who loved her, he was the best person to watch over her when her mother and I couldn't be there. There was absolutely no chance at all of her ever catching HIV from him. If he'd had the 'flu (any 'flu), we wouldn't have let her in the same room as him.

My personal vote is to round up and quarantine all the idiots.

 

[IXΘYΣ]

You're an utter moron if you believe that it's possible to contract HIV without (very) intimate contact. Even with that, it typically requires repeated exposure.
>snip<
My personal vote is to round up and quarantine all the idiots.

For the record, I fully understand that it takes intimate contact to spread HIV. It's curious that you'd draw the conclusion that I might not... rather a large leap, don't you think? Do you understand that the policy of government allowing this virus to be carried about in the general population incognito - a worldwide general population that has proven an inability to avoid that intimate contact - is an utter failure? If you are as concerned about the spread of dangerous contageous diseases as you claim to be, you'd look at the continued unnecessary deaths from this virus - that is, the facts - and come to the sane conclusion that it needs to be treated like the dangerous fatal contageous virus that it is. Perhaps it is only the HIV positive who engage in "intimate contact" (while those don't automatically qualify as "idiot" they are certainly the principal vector) who need rounding up and quarantining.
My point isn't that "AIDS sufferers must be rounded up" or "stamped with a red 'A'," but rather that what we're doing now is politically and not epidemiologically driven. From an epidemiology viewpoint the policy is an abject failure; two million human lives a year sacrificed on that altar is too steep a price to pay, and we need to figure out something that will work. We've certainly figured out what does not.
By the way, if you'd like to argue the facts, that's fine; I am unimpressed with ad hominem fallacies and name calling.
><>

 

[IXΘYΣ]

It requires significantly more than casual contact to contract HIV, thus a different suite of approaches are needed for control. But then my guess is that you knew that, but you'd rather make a fatuous arument than none at all.

Two million lives a year is hardly "fatuous." If you'd like to argue the epidemiological soundness of the current approach I'd love to see your logic.
><>

 

[DandyDon]

What are you doing to battle Dihydrogen Monoxide .../

 

[mstevens]

For the record, I fully understand that it takes intimate contact to spread HIV. It's curious that you'd draw the conclusion that I might not... rather a large leap, don't you think? Do you understand that the policy of government allowing this virus to be carried about in the general population incognito - a worldwide general population that has proven an inability to avoid that intimate contact - is an utter failure? If you are as concerned about the spread of dangerous contageous diseases as you claim to be, you'd look at the continued unnecessary deaths from this virus - that is, the facts - and come to the sane conclusion that it needs to be treated like the dangerous fatal contageous virus that it is. Perhaps it is only the HIV positive who engage in "intimate contact" (while those don't automatically qualify as "idiot" they are certainly the principal vector) who need rounding up and quarantining.
My point isn't that "AIDS sufferers must be rounded up" or "stamped with a red 'A'," but rather that what we're doing now is politically and not epidemiologically driven. From an epidemiology viewpoint the policy is an abject failure; two million human lives a year sacrificed on that altar is too steep a price to pay, and we need to figure out something that will work. We've certainly figured out what does not.
By the way, if you'd like to argue the facts, that's fine; I am unimpressed with ad hominem fallacies and name calling.
><>

I'm willing to argue the epidemiology with you (elsewhere than here) if and only if you have epidemiology training. I strongly suspect you don't, or you'd be able to spell "contagious."

 

[1KWIK_69]

No offense, but the name calling and criticizing spelling doesn't add weight to any argument. In fact, it makes one look as if they have nothing intelligent to contribute.

 

[caseybird]

For the record, I fully understand that it takes intimate contact to spread HIV. It's curious that you'd draw the conclusion that I might not... rather a large leap, don't you think? Do you understand that the policy of government allowing this virus to be carried about in the general population incognito - a worldwide general population that has proven an inability to avoid that intimate contact - is an utter failure? If you are as concerned about the spread of dangerous contageous diseases as you claim to be, you'd look at the continued unnecessary deaths from this virus - that is, the facts - and come to the sane conclusion that it needs to be treated like the dangerous fatal contageous virus that it is. Perhaps it is only the HIV positive who engage in "intimate contact" (while those don't automatically qualify as "idiot" they are certainly the principal vector) who need rounding up and quarantining.
My point isn't that "AIDS sufferers must be rounded up" or "stamped with a red 'A'," but rather that what we're doing now is politically and not epidemiologically driven. From an epidemiology viewpoint the policy is an abject failure; two million human lives a year sacrificed on that altar is too steep a price to pay, and we need to figure out something that will work. We've certainly figured out what does not.
By the way, if you'd like to argue the facts, that's fine; I am unimpressed with ad hominem fallacies and name calling.
><>

So do you want to round people up or not? You seem to call for it at the end of the first paragraph.
"the facts - and come to the sane conclusion that it needs to be treated like the dangerous fatal contageous virus that it is. Perhaps it is only the HIV positive who engage in "intimate contact" (while those don't automatically qualify as "idiot" they are certainly the principal vector) who need rounding up and quarantining. "
If so, do we: Quarantine for life? Why not? Where? At whose cost? Do we quarantine for HIV status or active AIDS?
But then you say :"My point isn't that "AIDS sufferers must be rounded up" or "stamped with a red 'A'," and then "we need to figure out something that will work. We've certainly figured out what does not." So what do you propose doing?
Of course, this has nothing to do with swine flu in Coz at all.
No name calling here!