Balta1701 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Illinois currently counting 41 potential cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Shutting down the border would also harm the thousands and thousands of Americans who work in Mexico. The tourism industry along the border would collapse. Basically it would destroy this economy and most along the border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 07:57 PM) Illinois currently counting 41 potential cases. Probable cases which havent been tested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Well crap, they closed the largest school district in my area. I had several projects with them next week, which are now canceled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ May 1, 2009 -> 11:47 AM) Well crap, they closed the largest school district in my area. I had several projects with them next week, which are now canceled. Crap...now what supply room is going to host a performance of "Tex's Puppet Show in his Pants"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 2k5, found an interesting read for you on the effectiveness of border controls if you have the time (it's a good 30 page+ document from the World Bank on flu epidemic containment properties). The conclusions that affect our discussion are; border controls can have a significant delaying impact on the entrance and intensity of a flu outbreak. But a 90% closure is only weakly effective. You literally need to get up above 99% control of the people entering your country, including border crossings and airports, and combine that with a full scale school closing and immediate, heavy treatment program if you want to do more than delay the peak of the flu hitting by more than a week. A 90% effective closure of the borders buys you an extra 10 days to develop a vaccine before the true peak of the flu hits. That's the data they're looking at regarding closing the border. You have to know in advance that it's going to be absolutely a devastating outbreak, because to have a big enough impact that it actually delays the flu by more than a week, and thus buys you time to manufacture an effective vaccine or implement better treatment methods, you have to shut down all inbound air travel and close the border to keep well over 90% of the people currently crossing from entering. For a cost-benefit analysis, it has to be an absolute disaster of the worst sense. Worse than 1918, before it becomes a reasonable option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) Maybe the borders should just be closed every flu season. After all, it appears the general, seasonal flu is worse than this thing. Edited May 1, 2009 by whitesoxfan101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 1, 2009 -> 02:34 PM) 2k5, found an interesting read for you on the effectiveness of border controls if you have the time (it's a good 30 page+ document from the World Bank on flu epidemic containment properties). The conclusions that affect our discussion are; border controls can have a significant delaying impact on the entrance and intensity of a flu outbreak. But a 90% closure is only weakly effective. You literally need to get up above 99% control of the people entering your country, including border crossings and airports, and combine that with a full scale school closing and immediate, heavy treatment program if you want to do more than delay the peak of the flu hitting by more than a week. A 90% effective closure of the borders buys you an extra 10 days to develop a vaccine before the true peak of the flu hits. That's the data they're looking at regarding closing the border. You have to know in advance that it's going to be absolutely a devastating outbreak, because to have a big enough impact that it actually delays the flu by more than a week, and thus buys you time to manufacture an effective vaccine or implement better treatment methods, you have to shut down all inbound air travel and close the border to keep well over 90% of the people currently crossing from entering. For a cost-benefit analysis, it has to be an absolute disaster of the worst sense. Worse than 1918, before it becomes a reasonable option. So lives are now worth a cost benefit analysis? Interesting change of liberal philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2009 -> 06:25 PM) So lives are now worth a cost benefit analysis? Interesting change of liberal philosophy. lol, you can't be serious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2009 -> 05:25 PM) So lives are now worth a cost benefit analysis? Interesting change of liberal philosophy. I am not understanding who you are directing this at? Balta? CDC? Obama? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2009 -> 03:25 PM) So lives are now worth a cost benefit analysis? Interesting change of liberal philosophy. You're causing serious harm to a lot of people's lives if you close the border. Which is why it needs to be a truly dire situation. You can't just close it for days and get the effect, you need to close off the country until the epidemic burns out. That's a period of months. And we're not just talking about the Mexican border...you're talking air travel, and you've got to be talking ship travel as well. Imagine no trade coming in to or out of the U.S. for a period of 3 months. How many people die because of the famine that sparks off when we don't have energy to ship around foodstuffs? How many people's lives are totally ruined? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ May 1, 2009 -> 05:44 PM) lol, you can't be serious Where'd I leave that straw man at.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 1, 2009 -> 06:50 PM) You're causing serious harm to a lot of people's lives if you close the border. Which is why it needs to be a truly dire situation. You can't just close it for days and get the effect, you need to close off the country until the epidemic burns out. That's a period of months. And we're not just talking about the Mexican border...you're talking air travel, and you've got to be talking ship travel as well. Imagine no trade coming in to or out of the U.S. for a period of 3 months. How many people die because of the famine that sparks off when we don't have energy to ship around foodstuffs? How many people's lives are totally ruined? Its really interesting that you mention food and energy specifically in all of this. Energy because the Obama policy is to increase the price of all energy significantly, to the point where alternative energy is cheaper, and the people who are going to suffer the most are the ultra-poor. Food is another interesting mention, because if they start tearing down all of the free trade agreements like they made noise about during the campaign, it means that more family farmers, and even the larger factory farms go out of business, food prices increase, and less food gets grown. How many people would die because American farmers go broke and wouldn't plant? The replealing of NAFTA would pretty much cause a defacto border close for months are the trade wars and tariffs escalated in their usual historical manner. I don't think that has stopped the Anti-Mexico trade groups from trying to kill it. Mainly its crap because we make cost/benefit analysis in pretty much everything. Because the Obama administration wants to look "tough" just in case, and not panicking for everyone else, they are trying to play both sides of the fence. If this isn't a big deal, tell people to quit canceling schools and staying home from work. If this is an ordinary flu, don't ask for $1.5 billion that we don't have. If it isn't a big deal, take a trip down to Mexico to meet with their leadership to try to calm the situation instead of letting a crisis go to waste. If this is important, take some real steps and actually try to stop some infections, instead of hoping that no more cases come in. You think some people want border fences now, let some illegals bring a killer virus over and see how nasty it gets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2009 -> 05:48 PM) Its really interesting that you mention food and energy specifically in all of this. Energy because the Obama policy is to increase the price of all energy significantly, to the point where alternative energy is cheaper, and the people who are going to suffer the most are the ultra-poor. Food is another interesting mention, because if they start tearing down all of the free trade agreements like they made noise about during the campaign, it means that more family farmers, and even the larger factory farms go out of business, food prices increase, and less food gets grown. How many people would die because American farmers go broke and wouldn't plant? The replealing of NAFTA would pretty much cause a defacto border close for months are the trade wars and tariffs escalated in their usual historical manner. I don't think that has stopped the Anti-Mexico trade groups from trying to kill it. Mainly its crap because we make cost/benefit analysis in pretty much everything. Because the Obama administration wants to look "tough" just in case, and not panicking for everyone else, they are trying to play both sides of the fence. If this isn't a big deal, tell people to quit canceling schools and staying home from work. If this is an ordinary flu, don't ask for $1.5 billion that we don't have. If it isn't a big deal, take a trip down to Mexico to meet with their leadership to try to calm the situation instead of letting a crisis go to waste. If this is important, take some real steps and actually try to stop some infections, instead of hoping that no more cases come in. You think some people want border fences now, let some illegals bring a killer virus over and see how nasty it gets. You know, I'm just going to laugh at this rant and leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 ITS NOT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. ITS THE UN AND THE CDC AND THE WHO. ITS EPIDEMIOLOGISTS AND DOCTORS AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS. I have not seen one epidemiologist (or even doctor for that matter) calling for border closures. This is not an Obama thing and turning it into one is just ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 1, 2009 -> 08:15 PM) You know, I'm just going to laugh at this rant and leave it at that. I'm sure as soon as someone blogs, or makes a comedy routine, about it, you'll have an answer for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 We *import* a majority of our food, from grain to beef. Something I have been rallying about for years. The American farmer is now a multinational corporation. The only saving grace is much of our land is still intact for farming, if we become that desperate. Of course the land is still agriculture because of the subsidies farmers receive for keeping it that way. Once we close the borders, the tourism trade is destroyed. We also have a net import of tourist dollars, so we lose that. The whole idea is just crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Illinois has 3 confirmed and 85 probable cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted May 2, 2009 Author Share Posted May 2, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 2, 2009 -> 06:00 PM) Illinois has 3 confirmed and 85 probable cases. They were last seen hanging out with these guys: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 1, 2009 -> 07:27 PM) Where'd I leave that straw man at.... "I'm right here, playing golf or something." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 A serious question that I don't know the answer to yet. It's been reported several times now that one of the distinctive things about recent pandemics, especially the legendary 1918 one, was that they started with a brief flare up in the spring, died off, but then re-emerged later in the year in a far more dangerous/virulent form. Thus, the CDC/WHO et al. are all trying to get people to stay vigilant for a long time to come even after the wave of school closings stops. My question is...why exactly does the flu come, vanish for a while, and then come back like that? I can see an evolutionary reason to buy it, that the bodies fight back, then the flu mutates in some way and the fact that the bodies fought back enables it to evolve in some way to work around the body's response, but I'm not sure that's the answer and I'd like to know more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Balta I'm not a molecular biologist or anything, but I think your guess is close enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ May 3, 2009 -> 01:59 PM) Balta I'm not a molecular biologist or anything, but I think your guess is close enough. If that's the case, then I wonder whether any precautions are somewhat foolish, since it turns out that you can't predict at all which ones are going to flare back up. You put all the effort in to improving your vaccine and then suddenly you find its worthless and it explodes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 They said the day a black man became President, pig's would fly. 100 days later, Swine Flu. I'll be here all week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 We are shutting down all of our programs and closing our camps. We are kind of forced to follow the lead of the schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.