The Farce of CDC Spending

[westwall]

Yet the cdc has since changed their own protocal...

No it wouldn't. If you think hospital emergency rooms today are sitting there outfitted in hazard gear to see all patients, you are deluded. And original protocal did not include haz mat gear with respirator when those nurses cared for Duncan. Cdc has stated they don't know that protocal was broken. Frieden backtracked, stating, protocal at the time was used, and they have now changed it-not that the nurses broke protocal.

The CDC recommended that hospitals engage in practice exercises to handle potential Ebola cases. The Texas hospital admitted that they had done zero training since receiving the CDC recommendation.

Irrelevant to the fact that the Texas Hospital had adequate warning but chose to ignore it instead.

And once again the CDC didn't bother to send a rep till AFTER the man had died. Why is that? I would think that there would have been a line of people from the CDC clamoring for the privilege to go see for themselves the first case of one of the most interesting and destructive diseases on the planet. That's like a bunch of scientists at JPL staying home when a probe does a fly by of a asteroid for the first time. It simply doesn't compute.

If it doesn't compute perhaps you should check your facts. Why did the CDC need to "send a rep" once the diagnosis was confirmed? The hospital had already been provided with the protocol. The CDC is not responsible for going to all 4000 hospitals in the nation to see of they are doing their jobs.

Sounds to me like you are getting disinformation about the role of the CDC.

Let's see. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I wonder what that could possibly mean? Hmmm. Lets review shall we? Ebola Zaire has a 90% kill rate. Ebola Sudan has a 50% kill rate. That means that this new strain (which is what it is) with its kill rate of 70% is ripe for study. Here we have a case ON OUR SHORES, where we don't have to travel to a country with minimal to no research capability and where we can absolutely positively get the straight skinny on the disease (do I hear PhD opportunities here?) and instead we ignore it.

You tell me how that makes any logical sense in a research facility.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Mental illness is a disease just like any other. The fact that it not only results in tens of thousands on individual deaths (suicides by firearms) each year but is also resulting in the deaths of innocent victims via mass shootings on an every increasing scale makes it relevant to study.

From the POV of a gun owner if there is a way to reduce these firearm deaths with medical treatment then that has got to be a good thing since it will eliminate some of the stigma that has become attached to owning guns. Simply by preventing suicides that could reduce firearm deaths by 2/3rd every year. That has got to be something that you would support. I know that I do.

Mental illness is not a disease just like any other. Mental illnesses can not be cured. Some can be mitigated by the administration of drugs but they can't be "cured". Studying mental illness is the purview of the two APA's, not the CDC. The failings of the CDC in this most recent fiasco illustrates what happens when you choose political activism over actual work.

Firstly it is possible to cure clinical depression.

Secondly not every physical disease can be cured either but that doesn't mean that researchers simply give up trying to find treatments and cures.

Since we have an ongoing death toll of tens of thousands each year from mental illness that causes the loss of life to innocent bystanders as well it is serious enough to warrant the attention of the CDC.

No, it's not. We can treat it and we can monitor the individual who suffers from it to intervene before they begin a downward spiral, but as we have witnessed over and over again, clinical depression is something we have a handle on but we are far from curing it. Further, if you really wanted to reduce the number of deaths then attacking the issues within the MEDICAL FIELD will have a greater effect, faster than wasting time on back door gun control legislation (which is what the CDC is attempting.

Your argument falls flat on its face due to that simple fact.

As someone who has had a bout of clinical depression and am now completely cured of it I can attest to the fact that it is curable.

Secondly your own personal belief that the CDC is in engaged in "back door gun control legislation" has nothing to do with reality. The CDC does not write legislation. They study diseases, both mental and physical, and from those they come with ways to deal with them. Identifying people who are at risk for suicide and providing intervention, counseling and treatment have nothing whatsoever to do with your imaginary "back door gun control legislation".

Not everything is about guns. The paranoia of the NRA should probably be studied and a treatment found but that is a lower priority than dealing with suicides. Preventing 20,000 needless deaths each and every year should be a priority for those who profess to be "pro-life".

Clinical Depression comes in a couple of forms (I checked with my wife) that induced by trauma which can indeed be cured, and 'systemic depression' which cannot. Congrats on beating it. She tells me it is hard work. Any research on gun deaths as a "mental health" issue, or as a disease is political in nature. There is a long history of the AMA and its efforts at gun control regulation and the CDC's research is merely a furtherance of that goal.

The CDC is not in the business of "gun control". It is in the business of dealing with mental diseases that kill Americans. The NRA needs to butt out and let the CDC do it's job.

 

[PredFan]

Mental illness is not a disease just like any other. Mental illnesses can not be cured. Some can be mitigated by the administration of drugs but they can't be "cured". Studying mental illness is the purview of the two APA's, not the CDC. The failings of the CDC in this most recent fiasco illustrates what happens when you choose political activism over actual work.

Firstly it is possible to cure clinical depression.

Secondly not every physical disease can be cured either but that doesn't mean that researchers simply give up trying to find treatments and cures.

Since we have an ongoing death toll of tens of thousands each year from mental illness that causes the loss of life to innocent bystanders as well it is serious enough to warrant the attention of the CDC.

No, it's not. We can treat it and we can monitor the individual who suffers from it to intervene before they begin a downward spiral, but as we have witnessed over and over again, clinical depression is something we have a handle on but we are far from curing it. Further, if you really wanted to reduce the number of deaths then attacking the issues within the MEDICAL FIELD will have a greater effect, faster than wasting time on back door gun control legislation (which is what the CDC is attempting.

Your argument falls flat on its face due to that simple fact.

As someone who has had a bout of clinical depression and am now completely cured of it I can attest to the fact that it is curable.

Secondly your own personal belief that the CDC is in engaged in "back door gun control legislation" has nothing to do with reality. The CDC does not write legislation. They study diseases, both mental and physical, and from those they come with ways to deal with them. Identifying people who are at risk for suicide and providing intervention, counseling and treatment have nothing whatsoever to do with your imaginary "back door gun control legislation".

Not everything is about guns. The paranoia of the NRA should probably be studied and a treatment found but that is a lower priority than dealing with suicides. Preventing 20,000 needless deaths each and every year should be a priority for those who profess to be "pro-life".

Clinical Depression comes in a couple of forms (I checked with my wife) that induced by trauma which can indeed be cured, and 'systemic depression' which cannot. Congrats on beating it. She tells me it is hard work. Any research on gun deaths as a "mental health" issue, or as a disease is political in nature. There is a long history of the AMA and its efforts at gun control regulation and the CDC's research is merely a furtherance of that goal.

The CDC is not in the business of "gun control". It is in the business of dealing with mental diseases that kill Americans. The NRA needs to butt out and let the CDC do it's job.

In sure they will. As soon as the CDC quits wasting money and starts doing its job.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yet the cdc has since changed their own protocal...

The CDC recommended that hospitals engage in practice exercises to handle potential Ebola cases. The Texas hospital admitted that they had done zero training since receiving the CDC recommendation.

Irrelevant to the fact that the Texas Hospital had adequate warning but chose to ignore it instead.

And once again the CDC didn't bother to send a rep till AFTER the man had died. Why is that? I would think that there would have been a line of people from the CDC clamoring for the privilege to go see for themselves the first case of one of the most interesting and destructive diseases on the planet. That's like a bunch of scientists at JPL staying home when a probe does a fly by of a asteroid for the first time. It simply doesn't compute.

If it doesn't compute perhaps you should check your facts. Why did the CDC need to "send a rep" once the diagnosis was confirmed? The hospital had already been provided with the protocol. The CDC is not responsible for going to all 4000 hospitals in the nation to see of they are doing their jobs.

Sounds to me like you are getting disinformation about the role of the CDC.

Let's see. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I wonder what that could possibly mean? Hmmm. Lets review shall we? Ebola Zaire has a 90% kill rate. Ebola Sudan has a 50% kill rate. That means that this new strain (which is what it is) with its kill rate of 70% is ripe for study. Here we have a case ON OUR SHORES, where we don't have to travel to a country with minimal to no research capability and where we can absolutely positively get the straight skinny on the disease (do I hear PhD opportunities here?) and instead we ignore it.

You tell me how that makes any logical sense in a research facility.

What exactly could be learned from a single isolated case in Texas that isn't already available by the thousands in West Africa? This case came directly from West Africa. There was nothing to be gained once the diagnosis was made.

 

[westwall]

Yet the cdc has since changed their own protocal...

Irrelevant to the fact that the Texas Hospital had adequate warning but chose to ignore it instead.

And once again the CDC didn't bother to send a rep till AFTER the man had died. Why is that? I would think that there would have been a line of people from the CDC clamoring for the privilege to go see for themselves the first case of one of the most interesting and destructive diseases on the planet. That's like a bunch of scientists at JPL staying home when a probe does a fly by of a asteroid for the first time. It simply doesn't compute.

If it doesn't compute perhaps you should check your facts. Why did the CDC need to "send a rep" once the diagnosis was confirmed? The hospital had already been provided with the protocol. The CDC is not responsible for going to all 4000 hospitals in the nation to see of they are doing their jobs.

Sounds to me like you are getting disinformation about the role of the CDC.

Let's see. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I wonder what that could possibly mean? Hmmm. Lets review shall we? Ebola Zaire has a 90% kill rate. Ebola Sudan has a 50% kill rate. That means that this new strain (which is what it is) with its kill rate of 70% is ripe for study. Here we have a case ON OUR SHORES, where we don't have to travel to a country with minimal to no research capability and where we can absolutely positively get the straight skinny on the disease (do I hear PhD opportunities here?) and instead we ignore it.

You tell me how that makes any logical sense in a research facility.

What exactly could be learned from a single isolated case in Texas that isn't already available by the thousands in West Africa? This case came directly from West Africa. There was nothing to be gained once the diagnosis was made.

They COULD have begun genomic research at the very beginning. Something that ALL researchers fight to be able to do. They COULD have been on site to ENSURE that all protocols are being followed. Based on the lethality of ebola, the fact that they weren't there is troubling. They COULD have been testing other virus control devices, drugs, chemical compounds...you know..DOING RESEARCH. Instead they let a small private hospital handle the case of the century (at least in the USA) and didn't even begin to do their job.

Not in the slightest.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Irrelevant to the fact that the Texas Hospital had adequate warning but chose to ignore it instead.

And once again the CDC didn't bother to send a rep till AFTER the man had died. Why is that? I would think that there would have been a line of people from the CDC clamoring for the privilege to go see for themselves the first case of one of the most interesting and destructive diseases on the planet. That's like a bunch of scientists at JPL staying home when a probe does a fly by of a asteroid for the first time. It simply doesn't compute.

If it doesn't compute perhaps you should check your facts. Why did the CDC need to "send a rep" once the diagnosis was confirmed? The hospital had already been provided with the protocol. The CDC is not responsible for going to all 4000 hospitals in the nation to see of they are doing their jobs.

Sounds to me like you are getting disinformation about the role of the CDC.

Let's see. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I wonder what that could possibly mean? Hmmm. Lets review shall we? Ebola Zaire has a 90% kill rate. Ebola Sudan has a 50% kill rate. That means that this new strain (which is what it is) with its kill rate of 70% is ripe for study. Here we have a case ON OUR SHORES, where we don't have to travel to a country with minimal to no research capability and where we can absolutely positively get the straight skinny on the disease (do I hear PhD opportunities here?) and instead we ignore it.

You tell me how that makes any logical sense in a research facility.

What exactly could be learned from a single isolated case in Texas that isn't already available by the thousands in West Africa? This case came directly from West Africa. There was nothing to be gained once the diagnosis was made.

They COULD have begun genomic research at the very beginning. Something that ALL researchers fight to be able to do. They COULD have been on site to ENSURE that all protocols are being followed. Based on the lethality of ebola, the fact that they weren't there is troubling. They COULD have been testing other virus control devices, drugs, chemical compounds...you know..DOING RESEARCH. Instead they let a small private hospital handle the case of the century (at least in the USA) and didn't even begin to do their job.

Not in the slightest.

Nope! Nothing to be gained that could not have been done by medical courier. Furthermore the needless risk entailed was far greater than the reward. They would have been sent samples as a matter of course.

 

[westwall]

And once again the CDC didn't bother to send a rep till AFTER the man had died. Why is that? I would think that there would have been a line of people from the CDC clamoring for the privilege to go see for themselves the first case of one of the most interesting and destructive diseases on the planet. That's like a bunch of scientists at JPL staying home when a probe does a fly by of a asteroid for the first time. It simply doesn't compute.

If it doesn't compute perhaps you should check your facts. Why did the CDC need to "send a rep" once the diagnosis was confirmed? The hospital had already been provided with the protocol. The CDC is not responsible for going to all 4000 hospitals in the nation to see of they are doing their jobs.

Sounds to me like you are getting disinformation about the role of the CDC.

Let's see. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I wonder what that could possibly mean? Hmmm. Lets review shall we? Ebola Zaire has a 90% kill rate. Ebola Sudan has a 50% kill rate. That means that this new strain (which is what it is) with its kill rate of 70% is ripe for study. Here we have a case ON OUR SHORES, where we don't have to travel to a country with minimal to no research capability and where we can absolutely positively get the straight skinny on the disease (do I hear PhD opportunities here?) and instead we ignore it.

You tell me how that makes any logical sense in a research facility.

What exactly could be learned from a single isolated case in Texas that isn't already available by the thousands in West Africa? This case came directly from West Africa. There was nothing to be gained once the diagnosis was made.

They COULD have begun genomic research at the very beginning. Something that ALL researchers fight to be able to do. They COULD have been on site to ENSURE that all protocols are being followed. Based on the lethality of ebola, the fact that they weren't there is troubling. They COULD have been testing other virus control devices, drugs, chemical compounds...you know..DOING RESEARCH. Instead they let a small private hospital handle the case of the century (at least in the USA) and didn't even begin to do their job.

Not in the slightest.

Nope! Nothing to be gained that could not have been done by medical courier. Furthermore the needless risk entailed was far greater than the reward. They would have been sent samples as a matter of course.

Medical COURIER! Are you high? In medical research time is everything. Were the CDC doing its job correctly they would have built a special lab ON SITE and staffed it with their best and brightest. Your blind support for the nondefensible is not doing you any good. It's just making you look foolish.

 

[depotoo]

Fauci Ebola response system still needs improvement
Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institutes of Health center on infectious diseases, said Sunday on several morning talk shows that the federal government will be issuing new protocols calling for protective gear "with no skin showing."

Earlier Ebola protocols, Fauci said on ABC's This Week, "were really based on a (World Health Organization) model in which people were taking care of people in a different environment, essentially in the bush, as they say, in remote places almost sometimes outdoors. Those people did not have to do the tertiary care, intensive type of training that we do. So there were parts about that protocol that left vulnerability, parts of the skin that were open."

Such procedures were not protective enough for a modern health care system, Fauci said
...
well, what do you know. The cdc screwed up, just as stated. The experts that are supposed to being prepared for and advise failed to properly prepare themselves. Wonder what they are doing with that $6.2 billion a year?

 

[depotoo]

Health officials gave Texas nurse Amber Vinson permission to fly to Ohio and back even though she voiced concern about Ebola, her relatives said Sunday, adding that they have retained a high-profile attorney.

Their statement contradicted a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention account of what took place before the nurse was diagnosed with the virus.

LA Times

why is it this administration's people feel they can lie, disparage others, and keep getting away with it?

 

[longknife]

Well, let's settle things. Here's information on the 2014 CDC Budget:

http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/topic/Budget...et_form_pdf/FY2014_Budget_Request_Summary.pdf

And

http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/topic/Budget...et_form_pdf/FY2014_Budget_Request_Summary.pdf

And

http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/topic/Budget...et_form_pdf/FY2015_Budget_Request_Summary.pdf

So, how about one of you with the time go through these documents and give us a list of the absurd items in the budgets?

 

[Derideo_Te]

If it doesn't compute perhaps you should check your facts. Why did the CDC need to "send a rep" once the diagnosis was confirmed? The hospital had already been provided with the protocol. The CDC is not responsible for going to all 4000 hospitals in the nation to see of they are doing their jobs.

Sounds to me like you are getting disinformation about the role of the CDC.

Let's see. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I wonder what that could possibly mean? Hmmm. Lets review shall we? Ebola Zaire has a 90% kill rate. Ebola Sudan has a 50% kill rate. That means that this new strain (which is what it is) with its kill rate of 70% is ripe for study. Here we have a case ON OUR SHORES, where we don't have to travel to a country with minimal to no research capability and where we can absolutely positively get the straight skinny on the disease (do I hear PhD opportunities here?) and instead we ignore it.

You tell me how that makes any logical sense in a research facility.

What exactly could be learned from a single isolated case in Texas that isn't already available by the thousands in West Africa? This case came directly from West Africa. There was nothing to be gained once the diagnosis was made.

They COULD have begun genomic research at the very beginning. Something that ALL researchers fight to be able to do. They COULD have been on site to ENSURE that all protocols are being followed. Based on the lethality of ebola, the fact that they weren't there is troubling. They COULD have been testing other virus control devices, drugs, chemical compounds...you know..DOING RESEARCH. Instead they let a small private hospital handle the case of the century (at least in the USA) and didn't even begin to do their job.

Not in the slightest.

Nope! Nothing to be gained that could not have been done by medical courier. Furthermore the needless risk entailed was far greater than the reward. They would have been sent samples as a matter of course.

Medical COURIER! Are you high? In medical research time is everything. Were the CDC doing its job correctly they would have built a special lab ON SITE and staffed it with their best and brightest. Your blind support for the nondefensible is not doing you any good. It's just making you look foolish.

If the CDC did as you suggested you would be berating them for wasting taxpayer dollars.

Obviously they simply cannot do anything right in your opinion because there is a Dem in the Whitehouse.