View Single Post
Old September 7, 2009, 07:10 PM   #8
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
I agree with 44 AMP that the government can, in the event of some catastrophic plague, take some actions that may later be called unconstitutional. The difference, of course, is that the Constitution does not take into account the extraordinary circumstances of a fast moving disease.

With that said... the H1N1 "swine flu" virus ain't it. The latest info I heard on the 1918 "spanish flue" outbreak is that a good many of "healthy young men" who died also had early stages of Turberculosis (TB) - probably exposed here or abroad during WW-I.¹ TB was more common at that time.

The hard question will be deciding when such actions are truely warranted.

People worried about the spread of the H1N1 in Mexico. But it turned out to be relatively harmless. The other danger is a deliberate infection with a virus used as a pretext for seizing more control. That may sound a little far fetched, but it's less wild than the Bush/WTC implosion theories.


¹ A study in the last 10 years revealed the presence of TB in a high percentage of cases, using samples of lung tissues taken from bodies exhumed with family or military permission.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03079 seconds with 8 queries