The idea that it'd get to the point where the military had to shut down entire cities and states across the country is pretty laughable. The wwi flu
epidemic didn't require that, outside of the movies nothing like that
is going to happen.
The Katrina example is a perfect anology for why these extreme measures are are very bad idea. Its because:
We're all a bunch of idiots
. Seriously, we're simply all too stupid to properly do anything about this on such a grande scale, and trying
to do so, rather than letting the normal process of having the states handle their own end and the fed helping out too coordinate, is just going to
make the disaster all that much worse, just like Katrina. Everyone was counting on FEMA, and it failed, again. Hell, it just added to the drama and
Lets face it, americans simply aren't competent enough to handle having that much power and that much responsiblity. If everyone tries to apply it,
they're going to abuse the power, and shirk their responsilibites, just like Katrina. A global bird flu pandemic will be bad enough, its hardly
going to help having frightened troopers trying to enforce a 'quarrentine'.
To support the idea that america simply isn't competent enough to handle this sort of thing, I'd cite the fact that we're arguing about using the
Army to handle the epidemic, rather than do the logical and sensible thing of having more factories, within the US, that can produce the medecine that
fights the symptoms of the flu, and also more research labs to actually come up with a vaccine. Cause once there's a global outbreak, the countries
that actually do have the factories and stockpiles of the medications, they're not
going to let that stuff out of their country. The US has
of that, but not nearly enough.
Lets cut some more science budgets and reduce our health care infrastructure some more right?
[edit on 4-10-2005 by Nygdan]