Actually, it’s called picking your battles wisely or not trying to teach a pig to sing.
By the way, I’m still waiting for a cite for the proposition that Speaker was promised a plane in a few days.
Next time you pick a battle, try getting the elementary facts correct before picking up a handful of rocks.
You do realize that my post you quoted before ths was not directed at you, don’t you? And I did have my facts correct, at least the ones that matter, namely that the guy knew he had TB when he decided to leave the US. How long he knew about it before he left is immaterial.
Although the wording in this CBS News story isn’t clear, it seems to indicate options were being bandied about with Speaker when he panicked:
"When contacted in Europe and told the latest diagnosis, Speaker concluded that the only lifesaving treatment available was back in the United States.
But the CDC jets had not been used in a patient-retrieval situation like that, and CDC officials discussed other, more customary options, such as a private air ambulance or a U.S. military transport.
In a conference call with reporters last week, CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding noted additional legal and diplomatic issues. It had to be worked out whether Italian officials had medical authority over Speaker while he was in Rome, she said."
From here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/05/ap/national/main2890881.shtml
To be clear, I am not sure that “latent” TB = “Dormant” TB. “Dormant” is specifically a term I have only seen used by an article in Newsweek, which also described his TB as active. As far as I can tell, there may be 3 categories here:
Latent = not active, not contagous at all. No restrictions whatsoever (I have personal knowledge of this as a good friend has this form and is under no treatment or any kind of restriction.)
Dormant = ?? Possibly an active form, but person is showing no symptoms and therefore risk of contagousness is very low, but not completely non-existant. I think this is where the 17% stat comes from and where Speaker belongs.
Active = person is obviously sick with TB symptoms and very contagous.
IM non medical O, the contagousness and the severity of the TB are not linked, but the severity cannot be disregarded either when deciding whether or not a person should fly. Obviously people with very contagous cold and flu germs are not restricted from flying, and people with very deadly but not very contagous (for plane passengers) HIV are not either. Both must be considered, so if the CDC thought at first he had a regular, fairly curable form of TB with little chance of spreading, then I can see why he was strongly cautioned not to fly but not outright forbidden. Hence he wasn’t put on a no-fly list until after they confirmed it was a more deadly version, even if his level of contagousness did not change. There’s a difference between a 1% chance (I am making this stat up) of getting a cold (I know even regular TB is worse than a cold) and a 1% chance of getting Ebola. Somewhere in between lies Speaker and his TB.
My inetepretation form reading that is that the CDC first told Speaker that they didn’t have a jet for him, but they were working on something. Then they discussed internally what they were going to do and by the time they figured something out Speaker was vamoose.
He claims that they told him no such thing. I have no idea if that is true or not, but he was pretty adamant about that point when he was interviewed.
If the highway isn’t built, there’s no potential for disease and death to anyone. Do I need to spell out the other half?
This is from a blog by Scott McFarlane, a reporter from WHIO-TV who was covering the Congressional hearings on the situation:
"CDC Director Gerberding just told Senators how her office responded once it discovered Andrew Speaker had traveled to Greece. Gerberding said CDC staffers tried to track down Speaker’s family by searching for phone numbers and addresses on the internet – to no avail. Gerberding said Speaker ultimately called the CDC himself. During that call, she said the Department’s staffers warned him about the risks to his health of missing treatment.
Gerberding also told Senators the CDC discussed sending an ‘ambulatory-aircraft’ to bring Speaker home – and even called Speaker’s health insurance company (Kaiser Insurance) to determine if they’d help pay for the flight. But it was a ‘no go’.
Gerberding also said the CDC considered sending its own aircraft to pick up Speaker. Those plans were called off, she said, because CDC discovered its planes aren’t equipped to carry drug-resistant TB patients.
‘We gave the patient the benefit of the doubt’ Gerberding testified. She then told the Committee the CDC didn’t take the most aggressive (action) it could have."
From here: http://www.whiotv.com/health/13453621/detail.html
And, from other portions of the blog:
"We just heard some sobering words from another witness, Nils Daulaire, President of the Global Health Council.
Daulaire said, ‘I’d rather have a diagnosis of cancer than a diagnosis of XDR-TB.’ XDR-TB, he said, is only curable at a 30 percent rate. And, he added, ‘cancer isn’t contagious.’"
One final note from the blog: “Give Dr. Gerberding credit for demonstrating remarkable concentration. Her testimony is occasionally being drowned out by the noise from the speakerphone. Committee staffers failed to get Andrew Speaker to mute his telephone in Denver. His coughing and exhaling is quite loud - and overpowering the other sound in the room.”
I suppose it’s possible that part of Speaker’s current treatment includes giving him medication that encourages him to cough … I don’t know. If not, though, I’d be more than a little concerned about being in an airplane with a TB-positive person who was coughing loudly.
Seems fairly obvious to me that the CDC was caught flat-footed, and didn’t respond the way they should have. Also seems fairly obvious that Speaker is a selfish asshole who thought only of himself through the whole thing. It’s not an either-or situation. Both parties are at fault.
Other excerpts from that blog:
Ok, so if the government takes private property in order to prevent disease/death, the property owner should not be compensated. Is that what you are saying?
Still waiting for a cite.
The payoff for the scenario you reach for here is not being charged with reckless endangerment and other crimes for not cooperating when advised/ordered not to travel, etc., if other people are sicken/killed due to your non-cooperation.
Not all such tradeoffs are direct financial exchanges, kind of like the way it is now.
-
Eminent domain seizures allow for monetary compensation.
-
Quarantine/bans on travel/other restrictions due to potential deadly illnesses don’t.
Ummm, is that a yes or a no?
You said the compensation of costs for having to cancel a wedding/honeymoon due to a quarantine or travel restriction should be monetary. I disagree.
I realize that. But what’s your answer to my question?
The results of the process of eminent domain and resutls of the process of protecting the public health are not analogous.
Your wish that end the result of both result in financial remuneration for citizen who suffers a financial loss is just that – a wish.
That wish does not make them analogous.
So if the government takes private property in order to protect the public health, there should be no monetary compensation, right?
It’s a very simple yes or no question.
That I am beginning to see now. Thank you Sauron.