GuidoWorld

Joe Biden’s Error?

May 1, 2009 on 1:14 pm | In General |

Okay, here’s what Joe actually said.

We quote: “I would tell members of my family - and I have - I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now. It’s not going to Mexico, it’s you’re in a confined aircraft when one person sneezes it goes all the way through the aircraft. That’s me. I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway. So from my perspective, what it relates to is mitigation.

“If you’re out in the middle of a field and someone sneezes, that’s one thing. If you’re in a closed aircraft or a closed container, a closed car, a closed classroom, it’s a different thing.”

Less than 12 hours earlier President Obama urged caution along with hand-washing and covering the mouth when coughing. After Joe’s comments Mr. Obama felt it necessary to add that one should feel free to travel unless they themselves are coughing or feeling sick.

While the President’s words regarding pubic safety were welcomed Mr. Biden’s were viewed as foolish and a possible cause of social panic.

In both remarks the president and the vice-president were expressing typical public health truisms. The president urged the public safety by asking citizens to wash their hands and to cover their mouth. The vice-president urged people not to take unnecessary risks by not putting themselves in confined environments where shared breathed air is conducive to the spread of socially transmitted diseases.

From a public health perspective both are extremely similar. The president focused on individuals taking actions which limited the spread of germs while the vice-president urged people to avoid potentially harmful environments. It really is the same message one is personal responsibility and other is being cautious.

After the outrage over the vice-president’s comments, the president felt it necessary to state that only people who appear sick should avoid putting themselves in confined spaces. The president’s follow up comments were a bit weak on two levels. First, the vice-presidents comments were about personal caution and not putting oneself unnecessarily in harm’s way. Not about endangering others. And second, it is not necessarily true that only people who are actively coughing or visibly sick are contagious. Another public health truism is that often times people are most contagious before they start to exhibit symptoms.

So, why are Joe’s comments considered to be so over the top and alarmist. All he is saying is that if one has a choice right now they should not put themselves in harm’s way. He said we would urge a family member to find alternative forms of transportation to one’s which involve a whole bunch of people being packed into a cramped area to help reduce the odds of being around an infected person.

How is that crazy? How is that extreme, or fear mongering?

If through everyone’s caution, even if a little unnecessary, the pandemic were to be averted isn’t that a good thing? Wouldn’t they be able to go back to the subway or the plane once the WHO and local public health officials give the green light? Even if unnecessary where’s the harm?

On the other hand if people just assumed that there was no danger and their actions actually helped with the spread of a disease with a high kill rate how can that be defended? Even if this turns out to be a more normal flu what’s wrong with a little caution?

I’ll tell you what the media found wrong. The real fear is about money. It is another example of how human life is less important than commerce and insuring the fiscal interests of the wealthiest of individuals.

Joe’s comments asked the “consumer”, in the name of public safety, to ease up a little on a specific form of consumption (mass transportation). Actually he suggested people find alternative transportation rather than tell them to stay home.

Currently Mexico, who is our number one trading partner for much of our short term needs, is actively restricting the social and commercial flow of the nation. The Mexican population seems to be willing to make some commercial sacrifices to help control the spread of a potentially lethal disease.

In the US a few isolated communities have closed schools and canceled densely populated social events such as sporting events  to try and avoid the very situation which the vice-president was alluding to. Such communities are trying to eliminate the cramped and dense social situations which, like mass transportation, help foster disease transmission.

Yet, the US in general is avoiding placing any restrictions on either commerce or social gatherings. In essence the fear is the negative impact any restrictions would have on commerce and the economy.

Call me old fashion, but I still place a higher value on health and quality of life over monetary gain.

Mr. Obama talks and appears to be a compassionate, sensitive person who is concerned about the plight of the common man. Yet, the people he’s chosen to surround himself with, his actions including the bailouts and his international policies are showing his priorities lie with the status quo. His recent comments attempting to modify Mr. Biden’s comments show once again that the interests of big money is still more important than human life, especially the lives of the common man.

Hopefully, our lack of response and desire to keep our society running at full steam will not result in assisting the spread of a sizable pandemic.  It may be true that we can neither cause nor prevent a pandemic, but we do know we can take actions which can reduce its severity and impact.

Taking precautionary measures is not the same thing as being an alarmist. The alarmist seem to be the one’s who think being cautious is dangerous or crazy.

I guess I’m in the rather safe than sorry camp. Even if I was in the money and consumption is our first priority camp I can’t see how fanning the flames of a pandemic is good for the economy.

I’m not sure if putting commerce first is more short sighted or short hearted.

Jim Guido