I was saying that flying airplanes over populated areas is such a common occurrence that there are laws to govern that kind of behaviour. But if you prefer, take out the word law from my post. If you have an expert pilot telling someone with no expert knowledge “don’t fly over here” and the amateur decides to fly anyway, the amateur is at fault, even in the absence of a law that would forbid him to do such a thing, unless he has opinions from other experts saying that the first expert is wrong.
Cite?
So, it’s your position that doctors at the organization responsible for preventing and controlling the spread of infectious diseases can be ignored if they don’t provide a “good answer” to someone?
What other authorities can be safely disregarded if you don’t think they’ve explained themselves well enough?
Not for TB. The high-infective form of TB is the active form, only low-infective TB is dormant. This means that if your TB is serious and active (putting you at risk for death), you are highly contagious. If you aren’t very contagious, then your TB isn’t active, and doesn’t pose you the same threat.
This was mentioned by Velma in post 401, who even provided this cite, which says “However, not everyone infected with TB bacteria becomes sick. People who are not sick have what is called latent TB infection. People who have latent TB infection do not feel sick, do not have any symptoms, and cannot spread TB to others. But, some people with latent TB infection go on to get TB disease.”
It will help you look like less of a moron if you actually read the threads you respond to.
Anyway, Speaker was either afraid for his life, or he was not contagious enough to bother listening to the CDC. He was NOT both.
Remember the analogy I made for you? The one you so conveniently excised from your reply so you can disingenuously and lamely pretend I didn’t answer, like you’re doing now?
Sure. From my own post 444.
Less of an idiot, read the thread, etc.
Oh, so he is laying a trap, and Fulton County is right to be wary and not say anything in case there’s a civil trial. How about that.
If expert 1 says “it’s ok to fly there”
And expert 2 says “But now it’s not ok to fly there”
And you say “what’s changed?”
And expert 2 doesnt have a good answer.
And you fly because you think there’s a good chance it will save your life.
Are you an asshole?
Do you really believe eminent domain and protecting the public health are analogous?
Kokopilau, while I applaud your intelligent and insightful replies, I have to say that you’re wasting your efforts as it’s not ignorance you’re fighting here. It’s stupidity, and sadly, it appears to be malignant.
Yeah, sadly I know. But while I may never convince this guy, hopefully I may be helping thread lurkers who are on the fence about the issue.
I appreciate your kind words, though!
It must be the XDR ST strain.
He’s analogy-disabled too. He’s 0 for 3 in this thread.
Do we know that Mr. Speaker asked that question (“what’s changed?”), and that the CDC person had no answer for him? I didn’t see anything in any of the articles I’ve read saying that.
Sometimes, yes. If a doctor told me it was necessary for the good of humanity for me to play a round of Russian Roullette, I would demand a good explanation.
Note that you still haven’t explained why my Russian Roullete analogy is fundamentally different.
All, under the right circumstances.
So drug resistant TB is more contagious than other strains? Do you have a cite for that?
Absolutely. That wasn’t an explanation – it was just a bad analogy.
Why do you keep ducking the question? What exactly is wrong with my analogy?
Umm, please show me where in that press release it says that Speaker was promised a plane in a few days.
And please show me the exact words in the press release that you claim excuse Fulton County from discussing their earlier claimed advice.
Public health is one of many public purposes that could justify a taking.
By the way, as I mentioned in a previous post, one thing we definitely know that did change is that the disease is much deadlier than originally supposed. Even if the probability of infection remained the same, the risk occurred by someone being infected seemed much greater after Mr. Speaker learned in Rome that his strain of tuberculosis was unusually dangerous.
I see that the CDC doctor didn’t address that question from Mr. Speaker in his comment. I would like to see an explanation as to why they told him not to fly back on a commercial airliner. If it is true that he was not given a reason over the telephone, that is a point in his favor. I still would have asked someone else (for example his father-in-law?) before coming back. The quotes from his father-in-law that I’ve seen indicate that his father-in-law never told him it was OK to fly.
I did notice (as I commented before) that in the hospital in Denver they were waiting for a test result before they allowed him to leave his isolation room.
Because the doctors weren’t asking him to risk death for the good of humanity. He was already at risk, the doctors were simply asking him not to risk others the same way.
I’d love to hear the results of your refusal to pay taxes after the IRS doesn’t give you a good enough explanation for why you should.
No, you moron. No one in this entire thread even SUGGESTED that. It doesn’t even have any bearing on the case at hand!
It was far better than any of yours.
Do you want me to type slower? Speaker wasn’t being asked to risk death any more than he already was by simply being in Europe and having drug-resistant TB in the first place. All the doctors wanted to do was make sure he didn’t infect anyone else.
It doesn’t, because that’s not what you asked for when you demanded a cite in this particular instance. Please at least TRY to keep up with what I write.
Again, that’s not what you demanded that I replied to. I said that some information released by Fulton County was also released in other places (like the CDC press conference), and other information hadn’t been.
From your post 540, “Let’s see . . . it’s ok to reveal that a patient was advised not to travel, but it’s not ok to reveal that he was advised he was or wasn’t contagious?”
The fact that Speaker was advised not to travel was brought up in the CDC press conference, when the head of the CDC said
"The local health officials have been involved in the care of this patient with tuberculosis from the moment that they were aware of the diagnosis and he was being seen in the clinic.
It’s our understanding, from conversations with the health officials, that the issue of travel was discussed, that the patient was advised that it was not appropriate to travel when you have tuberculosis. I think most of us recognize the kind of a common sense way people would understand that."
The “local health officials” in question were Fulton County. And since the CDC already told the press that Fulton County told Speaker not to travel, they can safely say the same thing. Since the CDC DIDN’T say what he was told about contagion by Fulton County, they aren’t saying.
Get it now?
I understand that you’re saying the undertakings of both are for the greater public good.
But if you think the result of not building a highway is analogous to the result of allowing infectious disease to possibly spread unchecked, I’ve got a bridge with rust rot I’d like to sell ya.
I can’t find the article right now, but I do recall the local health officials in Atlanta who interviewed him being concerned because of his nonchalant attitude the day before he left. They served him with a letter the next day because of this reaction, but he had already skipped town…
I find it strange he left 2 days early, given this information. If you add that fact to the tape recording, the whole thing seems weird. To me that indicates a guy who is more concerned about being deprived of his own pleasure while entertaining the notion that he might be liable for something and needs protection.
He felt that by going to the Italian authorities instead of returning to the US he was increasing his risk. No?
Umm, you suggested it yourself.
I asked you the following question:
And here was your answer:
Thus, your (moronic) claim was that the degree of contagiousness is ALWAYS correllated to the danger to the infected person. Since drug resistant TB is more dangerous to the infected person, it follows (based on your moronic reasoning) that drug resistant TB is more contagious.
Get it now?
[/QUOTE]
Oh I get it all right. Looks to me like Fulton County gave their self-serving version of events to the CDC and to the general public; the CDC repeated the story; and that repetition justifies (according to you) Fulton County’s initial decision.
When all else fails, just start throwing rocks. Nice philosophy.
Fundamentally, how are they different?