Is it a good idea for the containment of diseases like Ebola to handled at the state level?
The handling of this contagion could have global ramifications.
Why does Texas (whose governor, Rick Perry, is notoriously anti-science and thinks, for example, that prayer is the best way to cure drought) get to decide for the country and the world how this quarantine and cleanup should be managed?
Do Americans – particularly Americans in other states – really think that this is a good idea? Or should this be a federal responsibility?
This question is not meant to feed any Ebola hysteria. It may be “difficult” to spread the disease as long as containment is being handled properly – but there are some rather obvious errors being committed in Texas, which makes it harder to predict how well it can be contained.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
9 Answers
It shouldn’t be handled at a state level or even a country level it is a world problem that needs international action.
Bring out your dead. Bring out your dead.
Leave it to the free market.
I’m pretty sure a federal agency can call for a quarantine if the state does not act as expected. WHO and CDC would be on top of it. The main confict is large quarantine costs the economy a lot of turmoil. Closing an airport for instance can put an airline out of business. Especially if all planes coming and going in the US are stopped. When that happened after 9/11 Midway airlines that hubbed in Raleigh, NC, where I was living at the time, went out of business. The government tried to help it and it came back for a short while after, but then finally went under.
Having people stay home means lower retail sales, slower real estate sales, it can be catastrophic. Because of this, governments are very reluctant to issue large quarantines. You have to hope the medical experts will prevail. After seeing how Reagan handled AIDS and favored the Christian right to the Surgeon Generals recommendations, it is a little scary I agree. However, I think with wildly contagious diseases government officials would be afraid enough for their own life and family to do the right thing. The problem with AIDS was the people in charge thought it had nothing to do with them or their families.
The media blows these stories out of proportion often, Which isn’t helpful either in my opinion. Although, I like when people get a little more nervous about infectious disease and become more prudent. More prudent, not hysterical. Everyone should exercise reasonable practices to avoid contagious disease and to prevent from giving people their illness when they are sick themselves. I’m so tired of people being proud they dragged themselves into work with a fever and cough.
I agree with @JLeslie
I think if the situation merits the feds will step in and trump the state.
Somehow I don;t think praying to the Ebola God will help. lol
Sure, in this time of international business and travel, it makes perfect sense. And forest and brush fires should be handled by local fire departments, and hurricanes should be handled by municipalities. And every town and city should have their own currency. I’m sure in his world, this makes perfect sense.~
I would also imagine that the CDC would be involved once the case was diagnosed.
I know from our former Infectious Disease doctor jelly that the CDC is in fact involved in TX. He happens to work there. Not the particular hospital, but nearby and they have had meetings briefing them, and making sure everyone is on the same page with what to do just in case.
Given the situation today (June 2020) this question is right on point.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
