U.S.: Not Prepared for Avian Flu Epidemic
From the NYT, via Instapundit.
To paraphrase the wise Statisticasaurus Rex: each of us has a civic duty to be prepared for disasters.
Question: is it un-liberal to assert that YOU are responsible for taking care of YOURSELF in case of a disaster? (Tentative answer: no, but that claim is not inconsistent with the claim that the government is also responsible for it. Two people can both be responsible for doing the same task, right?)
Question: is it un-liberal to assert that the PRIMARY responsibility for taking care of you in a disaster lies with you yourself? Doesn't it sometimes seem that too many liberals think that the government has the primary responsibility for taking care of us?
The government isn't ready for a flu pandemic, but neither are most of us as individuals. Do you have a generator? Do you have sufficient water-storage capacity? Do you have a stockpile of food? Do you have some N95 particulate respirators? If not, why not?
Seems to me that almost everybody here is shirking his/her/its responsibility.
From the NYT, via Instapundit.
To paraphrase the wise Statisticasaurus Rex: each of us has a civic duty to be prepared for disasters.
Question: is it un-liberal to assert that YOU are responsible for taking care of YOURSELF in case of a disaster? (Tentative answer: no, but that claim is not inconsistent with the claim that the government is also responsible for it. Two people can both be responsible for doing the same task, right?)
Question: is it un-liberal to assert that the PRIMARY responsibility for taking care of you in a disaster lies with you yourself? Doesn't it sometimes seem that too many liberals think that the government has the primary responsibility for taking care of us?
The government isn't ready for a flu pandemic, but neither are most of us as individuals. Do you have a generator? Do you have sufficient water-storage capacity? Do you have a stockpile of food? Do you have some N95 particulate respirators? If not, why not?
Seems to me that almost everybody here is shirking his/her/its responsibility.
posted by Winston Smith at
3:07 PM
8 Comments:
I wonder why you think the water should go off?And if it should go off, why would the electricity stay on?
Stockpiling masks is rather paranoid. Other than that, The government buys vaccines. Ours is woefully lacking in pallatives and preventives.
If our national government takes rational measures, then both the probability of a pandemic, and the severity of a pandemic, should it occur, are significantly reduced.
No preparations by an individual can have a small fraction of either the preventative or palliative effects that a responsible effort by our government can achieve.
Thus, it is reasonable for:
1) US to protect ourselves by giving OUR government PRIMARY responsibility for acting to prevent a foreseeable pandemic,
And for
2) US to charge OUR government with PRIMARY responsibility for ensuring, during a pandemic, the maintenance and continued operation of the physical infrastructure and of the social structures required for
a) Providing palliative care for the ill,
b) Limiting or preventing the further spread of the disease, and
c) Ensuring that social order and essential services are maintained.
Unfortunately, we cannot rationally expect the Bush Administration to act in the best interest of the People of the United States of America. In these sad circumstances it is prudent for each of us, individually, to be prepared to care for ourselves and our loved ones in the event of a pandemic, while knowing that prudent action by our government would be far more effective.
But, let us remember Ben Franklin’s words: “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” They are as true when we face disaster or pandemic as they were when we faced the rule of that earlier George.
The radical ur-conservatives who now have a firm hold on the reins of the US would have you believe that it is liberal to expect government to do anything for individual citizens. This is part of their successful effort to turn "liberal" into a verboten word. If you happen to live out in the countryside, maybe you can crank up your generator for a while and make your own electricity, including pumping your own well. But we are a very integrated network of people, and if the power goes out and the transportation system stops working, we are all f**ked p.d.q. without government assistance. --Beel
Forget whether something's liberal or not. Is it wise?
Is it wise for 280,000,000 Americans to prepare for a pandemic individually? Is it even possible? I, personally, have no ability to select and culture an appropriate vaccine. I will wash my hands even more.
Is it wise for us to expect individuals acting alone (the "free" market, even if not all denominated in dollars) to solve this sort of problem? Is it wise to believe that we could possibly solve this problem without government action? So far, private businesses have not found flu vaccination profitable enough to be in the market to the degree needed to preserve public health.
How about this rhetorical question, structured just like yours: is it un-liberal to assert that YOU are responsible for taking care of YOURSELF in case of invasion?
Ideally, we act through our government to help ourselves. In that regard, I guess we all are failing our responsibilities.
Lovable Liberal writes:
"is it un-liberal to assert that YOU are responsible for taking care of YOURSELF in case of invasion?"
Indeed -- why is a collective response wrong just because the invaders happen to be viruses? (Or is it virii? ;-)
Or, have we decide that it is wrong for our government (aka "the government") to provide for our common defense, despite what the founders set forth?
Well, how about this question (really rhetorical--whereas my last one wasn't rhetorical at all):
Wouldn't it be better if individuals did what they could do best (e.g. prepare to be relatively self-sufficient for a couple of weeks (or months?)), while government does what IT does best (e.g. repel invaders and get somebody to make vaccines)?
Why think it's got to be all or nothing one way or the other?
Yes, I'm changing my position in response to criticism. I consider this a virtue. (that is, I WAS inclined to think that individuals had primary responsibility...now I'm thinking it's 50-50...)
WS,
Seems to me that it is reasonable to expect individuals to be prepared to live through an X-day/week long period without food/water/power. This is reasonable for a variety of reasons, including pandemic, natural disaster, terrorist attack, or widespread social unrest.
It would be nice to get authoritative statement disseminated widely as to how long X is. The statement should include an itemization of those reasonable steps which would constitute being "prepared." (And, for many safety reasons, a gasoline powered electric generator in every domicile is probably not reasonable.)
As for changing your mind based on what others say -- it's so *nice* to see such rare behaviour in the blogsphere!
Good luck on the tenure case. If need be, tell the job to go to hell, but do what you must to keep the world's greatest girlfriend!
(FWIW, I asked mine to marry me. She replied, "James, I'd be delighted to." :-)
Best,
Jim
WS,
I'm a closet survivalist, too, probably because I misspent my teens reading sci-fi stories of widespread disaster at the same time I was an active backpacker.
One of the vital characteristics of capitalism is the two-sided coin of specialization and division of labor. They bring the efficiency to serve larger markets which brings further economies of scale and even larger markets.
Large markets reinforce specialization and interdependence. This isn't bad in and of itself. It's just a fact. Interdependence can even make civility and cooperation more necessary, which can make the world a more peaceful place. We can't attack our financiers in the PRC, and they can't attack their biggest market - sort of a doctrine of mutually assured economic destruction.
Specialized societies, though, are inevitably fragile in certain ways, at least those that dwell in cities and rely on the transport system, the power grid, civil order, etc. to sustain the conditions they require to keep functioning. We've seen over and over again how single disasters can push a functioning society to thirst and hunger - and how long it can take to restore normalcy.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility that some of us might live to see a complete breakdown of society. Combine a couple of dirty bombs, a flu pandemic, a confluence of weather disasters, and a financial panic. If the government failed, what would we do in the interregnum? There would be no help coming from anywhere.
I look at my nice suburban yard and this summer's shriveled and useless tomato vines, and I know that I can't grow my living even if I have a year's lead time. I do have drinking water for several weeks and I recall fondly the pasta and dried beans left over from my Y2K hedge that I donated to a food pantry. I have a book on plant gathering but no experience. When the deer go through, I think, "Come the Depression, there's dinner." But I've never shot one, much less butchered, dressed, and preserved it.
So, yes, you're right, there are things we should do as individuals, too, some of which won't get done otherwise. I've mused lately about installing a small wind turbine to run the furnace and maybe even the refrigerator. I should probably have more nonperishable food on hand.
Still, when you look past a specific danger and try to plan for every one-in-a-thousand scenario, at least one of which is likely to hit in the next century, it's hard to know how much effort is required to be prudent.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home