So today, President Obama announced he’s naming an “Ebola czar”. He’s a guy named Ron Klain. It was immediately noted that Klain has no medial background of any kind; he’s Joe Biden’s former chief of staff.
Way to phone it in, Barak. Couldn’t you find a former surgeon general, or at least a freakin doctor, to be your “Ebola Czar”?
Seems to me than an Ebola czar will mostly be in charge of organizing and coordinating responses. I would think that expertise in those areas would be more important and more useful than medical knowledge would be. I’m sure he has plenty of highly qualified medical consultants around to give him the medical facts as needed.
Personally I think he’s giving the ebola threat exactly as much attention as it deserves. Appointing a czar is a political move to appease fear-mongerers who think he’s not doing enough. I don’t blame him, but considering some of the health threats out there not getting a czar, appointing one just for ebola is silly.
Since his job doesn’t involve personally treating patients, I don’t think that’s a huge problem.
I am Shodan, and I approve this message.
Regards,
Shodan
I assume that the “Ebola Czar” (what the fuck are we, 1800s Russia?) will have physicians and people with public health background working for him…
Surely your thread title should be:
Once again, Obama criticised for any action he takes - or any action he doesn’t take. :rolleyes:
These are excellent points.
With so few cases in the US, it’s not clear why you need a Czar.
But if you do appoint one, it’s an Admin job. The Czar isn’t going to be rushing around airports testing travellers…
Yes, I’ve been critical of the public-health response thus far, but I think this move is fine. He’s someone with the president’s ear. There’s an MD running the CDC already.
And unless they also have a business background, most MDs I’ve known are not very effective managers.
That’s my thought. I’d rather have Radar O’Reilly organizing the logistics of the response than Hawkeye Pierce.
Some of the same Goppers who blasted Obama earlier for having too many czars wanted this one added to the list. Said Sen. Jerry Moran of (What’s the Matter with) Kansas five years ago:
And now:
They could also help by not blocking the President from appointing a Surgeon General anymore. The office has been vacant for a year. However,
so that ain’t happenin’.
I think he’s doing more than Ebola rates, but people who are panicking over nothing demand something be done. It’s all for show.
Look, there are three cases of Ebola in the US so far, with one death. There have been 400+ cases of enterovirus D68 in the same time frame, with seven deaths. The number of deaths from flu this year is still about ten time the number of Ebola deaths worldwide.
The “czar” is a stupid term in any case. It’s just signifies an official who coordinates information, makes policy decisions, and makes sure they’re carried out. That’s no different from any other executive department heads.
And, of course, the logical choice to do this would be the Surgeon General. But we have none because the NRA has demanded senators block his appointment.
Most managers I’ve known aren’t very effective managers.
I’m not sure if this appointment is necessary or not, but since even the CDC has acknowledged mistakes it’s fair to talk about putting more energy and resources into the problem. I’d say I don’t know why anyone would complain about that, but…
Just yesterday I heard a radio talk host breathlessly predicting/hoping that this would become Obama’s “Katrina moment” (blech)
I’m sure within a matter of weeks, we’ll start hearing about how Ebola was never a real threat, Obama panicked and over-reacted to an imaginary crisis, and all the resources spent were just more government waste.
How long until the response is “Worse than Watergate times a million”?
This Ebola thing is scary for sure…but in terms of becoming some “out of control epidemic” here in the US…I don’t think so. Actually, for a while I thought it would; but here’s why I changed my tune-
Remember, Ebola is named for the Ebola River in the Republic of the Congo. It was first discovered (humans dying from it) in 1976. So, there has been Ebola virus in humans, in Africa since 1976 (at least) and it’s just wasn’t wiping people out. This outbreak is much worse, but I just don’t see it really becoming a “thing”, especially here. Does it have potential? Yes. But I don’t think it will.
In the times where people didn’t understand what was going on (think plague), bacterium would spread without pause. Now that we understand the microbiology of it…I just doubt that it will happen. The bubonic plague is a good example. Yes it’s deadly…but no, it’s jut not a problem, unless you catch it.:eek:
The epidemic in Senegal was declared over today, and other countries have been successful in fighting the virus. It’s a horrible disease to catch, but it’s not mega-contagious or always lethal and it’s possible to fight it with the right techniques. However it’s bad that the U.S. wasn’t as prepared as it should have been.