In article <hasse-2601961920200001 at hasse.dialup.access.net>,
Hans Andersson <hasse at panix.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
OK, I think I now understand your argument, and I'm pretty sure I
understand where, and why, we differ. Your argument is that as far as
emerging diseases go, Ebola is a potential danger. You further argue
that the CDC should be monitoring Ebola carefully.
I agree. I've never disagreed with that. But here's where, I think, we
differ: You seem to feel that emerging diseases are *more important
than*, or *as important as*, already emerged diseases; and with that I
Look again at your post (the one to which I'm replying). You are citing
the CDC in its scenarios, and members of the CDC in their ideas of
important roles for the CDC. The CDC is _there to monitor emerging
diseases_. What you're doing is looking at the CDC in the context of
emerging diseases. What I want you to do is look at the CDC in the
context of diseases in general.
Obviously, the CDC would be negligent if they didn't set up worst-case
scenarios, and they would be dumb if they didn't consider Ebola a priority
- and I certainly don't think the CDC is negligent or dumb. But that's a
priority *in the context of emerging diseases*. It's not necessarily a
priority *in the context of diseases in general.*
Your post shifted the playing field. I say, "Baseball affects more people
than ping pong," and you replied with a solidly documented post explaining
the importance of paddle selection in ping pong.
I repeat, as I've already said, that I think the CDC should have more
funding. But I don't think that Ebola is as important as tuberculosis, I
don't think it will ever be as important as tuberculosis is today, and I
don't think that Ebola monitoring should be done at the expense of
tuberculosis treatment or polio vaccination.
Ian York (iayork at panix.com)
I can find no instance in which insects cannot be replaced with
little packages of condiments to produce a superior environment. -Max Natzet