ATS.F: CDC's Proposed Quarantine Rules

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

PODcast: CDC's Proposed Quarantine Rules
PART 1

length: 31:31
file: atsfpod_988.mp3
size: 3694k
feed: atsf
status: live (at time of posting)





posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

PODcast: CDC's Proposed Quarantine Rules (reply 1)
PART 2

length: 13:51
file: atsfpod_989.mp3
size: 1624k
feed:
status: live (at time of posting)




posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   



Control of Communicable Disease Proposed 42 CFR Parts 70 and 71

Take the time to read in detail Section IV.




Interesting Snippets














posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Absolutely excellent work loam. Thank you.




You have voted loam for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.




...I am hearing a commitment to quarantine - but I am hearing nothing about government covering the costs of treatment from people who are quarantined.

Did I miss that part?





posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Thank you, soficrow.

They are not required to pay....and if you read carefully, they are not required to treat you either...


[edit on 23-11-2005 by loam]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Thank you, soficrow.

They are not required to pay....and if you read carefully, they are not required to treat you either...





Let me get this straight. The law says government can:

1. Say people are sick without real proof, and is not required to provide a diagnosis;

2. Lock people up and/or prevent them from travelling on suspicion of illness;

3. Without providing treatment. ?!?


So government can lock up people they say are suspected of being sick, but doesn't have to confirm any diagnosis OR provide treatment.

Just out of curiosity - does the new quarantine law say government is required to feed the prisoners?





posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Let me get this straight. The law says government can:

1. Say people are sick without real proof, and is not required to provide a diagnosis;


Section IV seems to indicate that isolation or quarantine may take place for a period of at least 90 days. There appears to be no specific standard applied- other than the judgment of the CDC.

There is an administrative appeal process that would be made available, but reading the rules surrounding that process does not make it appear that unjustified isolations would be addressed very quickly.


Originally posted by soficrow
2. Lock people up and/or prevent them from travelling on suspicion of illness;


That appears to be the idea.



Originally posted by soficrow
3. Without providing treatment. ?!?


That is correct. Nothing compels the CDC to provide treatment.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
loam. I hate to say I told you so...

Does anyone see the import of this legislation? Especially if it is used with, and shored up by the Patriot Act?



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
loam -

Do you have any news on the status of this proposed legislation? Any idea of how it is being received in our hallowed halls of power?



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
This freaks me out so much.

I just wanted to say thanks for the great work, loam.

Unfortunately, I have lost faith in the hallowed halls of power as well as the big guys. They're all bought and paid for. Money speaks louder than morals to this crowd.

Why do you think they call them politicians?



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

PODcast: CDC's Proposed Quarantine Rules (reply 2)
CDC Quarantine - or what?

length: 04:42
file: atsfpod_1001.mp3
size: 4404k
feed:
status: live (at time of posting)




posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Excellent work loam.

Just one question. Did you record the press conference or was that an original broadcast? If so please give credit and a link.
.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

PODcast: CDC's Proposed Quarantine Rules (reply 3)
Legitimate quarantine isn't the problem.

length: 03:23
file: atsfpod_1002.mp3
size: 1586k
feed:
status: live (at time of posting)




posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

PODcast: CDC's Proposed Quarantine Rules (reply 4)
CDC Proposal - Not a Final Document - Act Now

length: 04:01
file: atsfpod_1003.mp3
size: 3761k
feed:
status: live (at time of posting)




posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   

PODcast: CDC's Proposed Quarantine Rules (reply 5)
The wisdom of looking at the problem from both sides.

length: 02:04
file: atsfpod_1004.mp3
size: 974k
feed:
status: live (at time of posting)




posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
Excellent work loam.

Just one question. Did you record the press conference or was that an original broadcast? If so please give credit and a link.
.


Thanks, Gools

Sorry, forgot to do that. Here is the audio link.

CDC Conference call Audio Link



Originally posted by soficrow
loam -

Do you have any news on the status of this proposed legislation? Any idea of how it is being received in our hallowed halls of power?


Soficrow:

My understanding is that under the CDC's rule-making authority this isn't technically new legislation requiring a vote of Congress. The CDC has the right, after publishing within the Federal Register for the required period of time, to automatically enforce the new rules. The only thing that could be done to thwart them would be to bring court action against them or introduce legislation in Congress to change them. In this case, the "hallowed halls of power" are firmly in the CDC's offices in Atlanta.


Relentless & Benevolent Heretic:

I agree that the issue is a complicated one, and that legitimately quarantining someone who has an infectious disease sounds reasonable.

However, where are the due process protections in these rules? What ensures these powers will not be abused- whether intentionally or negligently? Where is the restitution if either of those two conditions are true?

How effective are these rules really? I can easily see a scenario where they will unjustifiably quarantine many people and still miss the infectious people they really need to get.

If that is true, does the risk of abuse justify what may be an ineffective process anyway?

Finally, did anyone notice that the CDC failed to answer the question asked in the conference call concerning how many people in the past have been quarantined????
Why is that?!?


[edit on 26-11-2005 by loam]



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

PODcast: CDC's Proposed Quarantine Rules (reply 6)
Why didn't the CDC answer the question???

length: 03:35
file: atsfpod_1005.mp3
size: 421k
feed:
status: live (at time of posting)




posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Relentless:

I agree with your statement that there may be "...no grand conspiracy here, just stupidity..." But, who says a conspiracy has to start at the point of stupidity? Can't it start by capitalizing upon the stupidity after such rules are enacted?

Also, in case you missed it, I republished above the portion of the call where the question of how many quarantines or isolations have taken place in the past is completely avoided.... Why is that?!?



[edit on 26-11-2005 by loam]



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   

PODcast: CDC's Proposed Quarantine Rules (reply 7)
We need to know, don't stop asking

length: 05:49
file: atsfpod_1006.mp3
size: 5454k
feed:
status: live (at time of posting)




posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Relentless

Your husband's interruptions are classic!!! I was laughing so hard, I had to stop your podcast twice.


In any event, I can't help but feel that there has been a sea change in the way people think in our country. The notion that the government needs to protect a dumb populous from itself- at the potential expense of certain long standing liberties that have served as the bedrock of our founding principles- seems to permeate almost every government policy now.

In isolation, they seem mildly beyond reasonable. In the aggregate, you realize under the right conditions tyranny is a stone's throw away....

It's all quite depressing...





top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join