blogic blogic

A Tale of Two Countries: How Bush Helped Make the Flu Crisis

▼

A Tale of Two Countries: How Bush Helped Make the Flu Crisis

from JoeUser Forums
Bush supporters have tried to argue that the Bush administration bears no responsiblity for this year's critical shortage of flu vaccine.

This is from Medical News Today:
Last August UK officials, with the same information the US officials had, decided something had to be done in case the Chiron supplies, 14% of UK supplies, went belly up. The US officials decided to believe Chiron and gamble 48% of their supplies on an assurance that everything would turn out fine despite some worrying set backs.

When October 5th arrived, the British authorities pulled the plug on the Chiron, Liverpool, supplies. US authorities were caught out - nothing had been done in advance, the country had allowed itself to get into this situation.

[snip]

Even without this crisis, the UK authorities have always had a situation where they can fall back on six or seven suppliers that have been pre-approved by UK authorities. The US, on the other hand, only has two - one of which has let them down. Had the US had more pre-approved suppliers, had the US started to do something about this problem last August when alarm bells were ringing, had the US…….? This is what many Americans are now starting to ask.

The American Health Dept saw no reason last August to do anything, says their spokesman Tony Jewell. Americans hear him and ask, so why did the British have a reason, you both worked on the same information, didn't you?

America's only other supplier, Aventis, may have upped supplies if they had been asked in advance - say last August - said an Aventis spokesman. But no one from the US approached them on this matter, not till after Oct 5.
That really sums things up. Two governments were working with the same information -- that there were potential problems with the flu vaccine supply. One government handled it well, while the Bush administration displayed incompetence. As they have done on the Iraq quagmire, you can see the Bush administration refusing to take responsibility for this, blaming everybody but themselves for the choices made by the Bush adminstration. As flu season approaches, we can only hope seniors and children won't die because of this administration's poor judgment.
politics
25,058 views 61 replies
Reply #51 from PolMach Forums Top
Sorry for taking this off the origianal post but:

If Chaney said something like that before the debates, I would have said a statement like that is way across the line, but now no.

Kerry did publicly say that he would give Iran nuclear material.

With Kerry's threat of giving nuclear material to a coutry known for supporting terrorism, I would have to believe Chaney and agree with him.

You don't here Bush talking about giving Iran tech.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hi Lee1776

Right, I think Bush has increased the flu threat, and you think Kerry would increase the chance that American cities will get nuked.

My point was that it was unfair to focus specifically on Kerry's words regarding the flu vaccine shortage, when the very same day Cheney was warning that a Kerry victory would make it more likely that cities would get nuked.

In my humble opinion, both candidates are using scare tactics -- they're drawing out exaggerated possible outcomes from real differences in policy views.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
Granted, both candidates are using scare tactics. What would an election be without them. Although, there does appear to be much more at stake in this particular election.
While we're on the subject of scare tactics.....
If the Bush administration was able to warn us of a possible terrorist attack on Sept 10, 2001, how would the left have received that? I'm guessing........no I'm quite sure they would have spun it into right wing scare tactics.
The Bush administration came out with the color coded threat levels making public more of the threat data they process every day. Of course, more scare tactics but we all want to know what they know exactly when they know it - even if most of the intel they wade thru is less than credible.
Heres my threat assessment:
Dammit Bush - you blew it on the flu vaccine. Guess I'll need another box of Alka Seltzer Plus.
Holy Crap Kerry - you'll give the Iranians nuclear materal for their "power plants" *cough* weapons plants *cough*. Wheres my 2 million SPF sun block.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
Flus are worse than nukes.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
If flus are worse than nukes . . . are flukes the worst of all?

*that was lame, wasn't it?*
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #54 By: Messy Buu - 10/24/2004 12:01:35 AM
Flus are worse than nukes


How so? The flu *may kill* a couple of thousand people (which ain't cool). A nuke will *kill* a couple of hundred thousand (REALLY not cool.).
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler
I'm guessing Messy was attempting the art of humor. If not, lets put it to the test. We'll take a bout of the flu and Messy a good dose of radiation. Who's more likely to be around next week.

 texas - "flukes" LOL
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
Scare tactics don't bother me, from either side, and their use is not disqualifying. I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I should be afraid of. In this case, a rampant flu epidemic is low on my list of fears.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
"How so? The flu *may kill* a couple of thousand people (which ain't cool). A nuke will *kill* a couple of hundred thousand (REALLY not cool.). "

Since the first terrorist attack on American territory, in 1993, nearly 3000 people Americans have died from terrorism. That's an awful loss. I live a mile or two from the World Trade Center site, and lived in Washington when we had to flee downtown DC because of the 9/11 attack.

According to the General Accounting Office, an average of 36,000 people die every year from flu, or complications coming from having the flu. That means that the flu has killed over four hundred thousand people since that first terrorist attack in 1993. For every man and woman who died on 9/11, twelve people die every year from flu.

The flu matters. When Bush ignores three and half years of warnings from his own government, that matters. Bush needs to stop passing the buck.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #59 By: blogic - 10/24/2004 3:08:47 PM
"How so? The flu *may kill* a couple of thousand people (which ain't cool). A nuke will *kill* a couple of hundred thousand (REALLY not cool.). "

Since the first terrorist attack on American territory, in 1993, nearly 3000 people Americans have died from terrorism. That's an awful loss. I live a mile or two from the World Trade Center site, and lived in Washington when we had to flee downtown DC because of the 9/11 attack.

According to the General Accounting Office, an average of 36,000 people die every year from flu, or complications coming from having the flu. That means that the flu has killed over four hundred thousand people since that first terrorist attack in 1993. For every man and woman who died on 9/11, twelve people die every year from flu.

The flu matters. When Bush ignores three and half years of warnings from his own government, that matters. Bush needs to stop passing the buck.


If you bothered to take notice, I never said that the flu didn't matter. Now did I? No, I said (and truthfully) that a nuclear device would kill alot more! By you own statement you say 400,000 in 11 years killed by the flu. One nuke could very easily do twice that numer in less than 60 seconds. Please don't try to rationalize this, you can't! No matter how you slice this up, a nuke is far more dangerous than the flu. At least with the flu you might survive. Care to try the same experiment with a nuke?
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
The flu matters. When Bush ignores three and half years of warnings from his own government, that matters. Bush needs to stop passing the buck.


And you need to move on, blogic (pardon the pun). This is so old & lame by now. I can't believe you're still coming back to this. Your statistics, by the way, are for years when plenty of flu vaccine was available, not the incremental number which may or may not die as a result of the flu vaccine shortage this year.

Cheers,
Daiwa