Slashdot Mirror
Denver Latest City Hit By Viral Respiratory Infection That Targets Kids
A respiratory illness that almost exclusively infects children and for which there is no vaccine has struck Denver, Colorado, the latest in a series of infection clusters in the Midwest; one Denver hospital alone has treated more than 900 children for the illness since August 18, though no deaths have been reported.
Health officials believe that the sickness is related to a rare virus called human enterovirus 68 (HEV68), the [Denver] Post says. HEV68, first seen in California in 1962, and an unwelcome but highly infrequent visitor to communities worldwide since then, is a relative of the virus linked to the common cold (human rhinoviruses, or HRV), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ... HEV68, which almost uniquely affects children, tends to first cause cold-like symptoms, including body aches, sneezing and coughing. These mild complaints then worsen into life-threatening breathing problems that are all the more dangerous to children with asthma. Since viruses do not respond to antibiotics, hospitals have treated the illness with asthma therapies.
Every time I see adaptions of existing virus'/fungi/etc I'm reminded of the fact we rely on 3 very crude methods for treating the vast majority of illness.
1) Anti-biotics (which is more of a biological bomb, destroying a large array of bacteria, almost completely untargeted)
2) Immune-system & healing aids (various types of steroids, NSAIDs, simply shoving things back in place, etc)
3) Brute force removal (surgical extraction and bypass)
Very few (by ratio - that's not to say there aren't hundreds of reasonably well developed, targeted drugs and therapies - unfortunately mostly patented) treatments have any form of sophistication at all, very few treatments have an advanced understanding of the underlying causes of the illness, and as such - very few treatments are massively effective or without side effects.
When are we going to come to grips with this and realise that between a monopolized pharmaceutical/medical-research industry and generally poor public funding, at this rate we're losing the race (at best, we do a quick sprint to bandaid a problem when it becomes a pandemic).
It's pathetic.
What segment of the population do you imagine investigates cures for things like this?
Nerds and geeks, boy, nerds and geeks.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I have a feeling most docs will give out antibiotics for this anyway. It helps makes everyone feel like something is being done.
...when did Colorado become part of the Midwest?
Yes, that must be it. You'd better call the Children's Hospital in Colorado, since apparently the qualified medical staff there have no idea what they're talking about.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
From the CDC's Smallpox Fact Sheet (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/overview/disease-facts.asp): "The last case of smallpox in the United States was in 1949."
Stop spreading racist lies.
I have no problem with being concerned... The problem is how they intend to *control* people for their own good.
Remember back when NYC tried to ban soft drink cups over some set size? That's the kind of thing that government has no business trying to control though law. Public education programs are good things, but until you are able/willing to ban soft drinks totally, making the size of the cup a matter of law is stupid.
So the CDC has it's place, but trying to legislate personal/private behavior is not among them.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
They're treating it with decongestants and broncodialors.
If you have a problem with the legislation based on the research from the CDC (or lack of being based on that), take it up with your Congress critter.
Oh how I wish that was how it worked in today's age. Now, the Executive branch has been ceded the right of law to pass regulations, this should NOT be. The DOE, IRS, EPA, HHS, FCC etc are now endowed with the ability to make regulations which can send you to jail if you violate them. Congress does write law, but we need to move back towards a form of government where ONLY congress makes law at the federal level, and do away with all these other regulation writing appendages of government.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I'm with you on everything up until " I'm pointing back to first principles of SMALLER government and PERSONAL responsibility. "
This won't go well then, because Personal responsibility is fundamental to the founding of this country, in fact was WHY it was founded and why it's not a colony of Great Britain still.
That's all well and good, and should definitely be a goal for all. However...what do you think we should do with those who will fail the 'personal responsibility test'? This is where conservatives start mumbling. Most seem to be of the opinion 'Fuck off and die'.
Which you should fully know is NOT true if you are listening to what the advocates of "personal responsibility" are actually saying. One little known fact in the USA is that charitable contributions from the conservative right, far outweigh the contributions made by the left. The left has ceded the social responsibility to take care of the unfortunate to government, where the conservatives have not, so your characterization of my position is flat wrong. We don't mumble, we actually DO SOMETHING about the poor, directly, personally, and locally on our own. Yet liberals put their hands in their pockets and figure the government will take care of it.
So don't give me that garbage, it's just campaign rhetoric lies invented by the ones who want to be in charge of the biggest government they can.
That's where I differ. I'm all for personal liberty and all that, but I also realize that there will be people who will fail that test and end up destitute, homeless, a danger to themselves and others. Instead of letting stay homeless I think we should have a decent social safety net including housing, rehab centers, etc. I'm even for the creation of boarding schools for kids who live in horrible situations where it's clear the 'parent' is their largest impediment to a successful life.
So you still don't get it right? Personal responsibility does not run the opposite direction from providing help to the needy. I'm all for helping those who CANNOT help themselves (I give to charities for this very purpose) but I am NOT for enabling people to be free of responsibility for themselves. For those who are able, government help should be temporary and limited. If you want to better your station, you have my help, if you just want to sit back and complain about how bad things are or that you have to work too hard, I'm not inclined to be all that helpful.
Case in point. If you stand on a street corner asking for spare change "for a cup of coffee" expect me to offer to buy you a cup. I get cussed at about half the time, they don't want coffee, they want money, I don't give them a cent, but you take the coffee I'm likely to drop a few dollars in your hand. I've had poor people show up at my front door asking if I had any work they could do to earn something, and when they do, they are likely to get work from me, get paid well, get fed as much as I can come up with and sent away with leftovers. Show up with your wife and kids (as happened last week) and try and work hard, I'm going to over pay you and send you home with as much as I can without offending you with charity.
So, your characterization of conservatives is flat out wrong.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
" Now, the Executive branch has been ceded the right of law to pass regulations,"
false. But hey, fix news loves misrepresenting that.
" form of government where ONLY congress makes law at the federal level,"
Every president has issued executive orders, and this includes founding fathers that became president.
You do know that those agency you list where created, funded, and given their authority by congress, right?
Some of us have read history. Have read about why those agency's came to be, and what life was like before them.
For the most part, thy are needed to have a functioning society.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You know, you still haven't answered the question. Where does this end? What logical limits do you place on government? How big, how intrusive does it get in your view? When is it too big, too intrusive and how do we know we've reached that point? What are your governing principles on this?
Yes, I'm making logical arguments this illustrating my points by being absurd, that's no surprise, it's what I'm SAYING I'm doing. I'm asking your types to put logical limits in place so I can understand what your arguments, positions, actually are. Because as it stands, debating your types is like nailing jello to the wall. You can always claim "It's for the children" (or the poor, or this group or that) but what you don't want to discuss is where your limits are?
Personally, I think we've gone well past a federal government that is reasonable in size and scope and now have a behemoth out of control, unnecessarily expensive government that does too much and costs way too much. Where does it stop?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
That's one way to look at it.
The other way would be with facts and science.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If nobody has died why is this news? Slow news day?
Do you have children?
From the article -
HEV68, which almost uniquely affects children, tends to first cause cold-like symptoms, including body aches, sneezing and coughing. These mild complaints then worsen into life-threatening breathing problems that are all the more dangerous to children with asthma.
Sure, having your child day is way worse than having your kid really sick, but having a really sick kid is pretty horrible as well. That's why it's news.
Here are the two problems I have with "personal responsibility" and the "charitable contributions" thing.
First off, if you take away tithing to churches, conservatives give the same or less than liberals. I don't have a problem with tithing, but the thing is, it isn't fundamentally about helping people, or compassion, or social benefit. It's about propping up the expensive machinery of religious institutions, paying for giant buildings, high-tech entertainment equipment, and the most dynamic public speakers... er...pastors. This kind of "charitable giving" has more in common with country club dues than it does with giving money to the homeless guy on the street or the starving child in another country.
My other beef is that results should matter more than ideals. I'm all for helping people to help themselves, and aiming for an ultimate goal of self-sufficiency rather than government dependency, but the thing is, there are some very good indications that the best way to help people re-integrate into society is through handouts. For instance, in Utah some beancounter realized that the average cost to the state of a homeless person was around $15k a year from police/legal interactions, unpaid emergency room visits, etc... which happens to be less than it would cost to give that homeless person a home. So, they provided a "handout" of a basic apartment, for free, with the only stipulation being that if the person got a job, 30% of the income would go towards rent. The program has been a roaring success. I'm also reminded of the welfare drug tests, which were intended to prevent junkies from getting government assistance, and which caught so few people that it ended up costing much more from testing than it saved by excluding people.
My point is, it is fine to be all about personal responsibility. But what matters to you, ultimately - is it people becoming more self-sufficient, responsible, and productive? Or is it making sure that nobody gets a handout that isn't earned? Because the latter seems to be the real subtext behind many conservative efforts.
Shesh, What do you THINK matters to me? You question my motives, yet you don't answer the posed question.
Wait, what? I don't know which question you're talking about. What I'm saying is that we've got some example of handouts (as in, things given to people with no strings attached and which are in no way "earned") that produce lasting positive results. There's a trend recently in charity for this too - some of the most efficient and productive charities allow contributors to directly transfer cash to people in impoverished areas, with the idea that poor people know what they need the most, and will thus be the best qualified to decide how to lift themselves out of poverty.
That is offensive to conservatives, who care very much about these things.
I have no doubt that conservatives care very much for people, and many of them truly believe that smaller government, limited handouts, etc, is the best way to fix our country's problems. The thing is, I think that belief is, in some cases, totally wrong. And, I think there's an incredibly powerful rhetorical apparatus that keeps producing these arguments that appeal to basic values (of course everybody is for personal responsibility) while having very little merit in terms of producing effective policy.
Do you have ANY principles that would limit the size of government? Do you have ANY limiting principles beyond "As long as it doesn't cost me directly!"? If so, what are they?
Sure I do. Let's limit government when there are clear problems. Let's cut military spending and limit cost-plus funding. Let's cut back some government regulation of nuclear power so there are less barriers to entry. Let's limit congress's control over NASA - allow them to set a budget but not control decisions and funding on specific programs. My thing is, I think ideals are all well and good, but they need to be secondary to what really matters - finding the best and cheapest way to accomplish a given goal. When appeals to personal responsibility are used to justify policy that is both more expensive and less effective, we have a problem.