Traditionally, public health practice looks at any epidemic in terms of levels of prevention: primary, secondary and tertiary prevention. For a successful battling of an epidemic all three types of prevention activities are needed, if possible. Primary prevention is the notion of an absolute prevention of new cases (reducing incidence), using whatever methodologies are available. A vaccination program - when vaccine exists- is one excellent example of primary prevention. Eliminating infected water or food sources is another tactic for food or water borne infections. Isolating or strictly localizing infected persons is yet another classic preventive approach, which aims at halting further spread of the disease.
Secondary prevention is treating actual, existing, known cases of the disease and conducting the treatment in such a manner as to prevent spread of the illness from the known cases of the illness to those around them, in contact with them: family, friends, caregivers, children. The aim here is to reduce the prevalence by reducing the numbers of sick by early treatment and intervention- and thereby eliminating spread of the disease to the extent possible.
Tertiary prevention is reducing the pools of disability and dysfunctions that may result in people who have recovered from the infectious stage of the illness, but who retain secondary damage, dysfunction or disability. It is commonly thought of as "rehabilitation" from secondary (non-infectious) disabling effects of an illness (such as paralysis in polio).
In all of its activities public health aims at keeping the public well and functioning. It is what is called a "population oriented approach" defining populations at risk and intervening in the ways noted above. It works for the greater good of the "at risk" population, and to do so it must have medical control over those who can cause contamination/infection of those who are potential victims of the epidemic.
This classic public health approach is at odds with the rampant, "I have a right", personal rights of the post-modern generation. Officials must minutely titrate risk/benefit so as to avoid offending politically. In the present Ebola epidemic there are larger, always latent political issues: the epidemic is in a "black African country" (watch out for the "race card"), there are national interests vs the liberal fear that we don't want to appear "nationalistic". We have elements in the country (US) that believes passionately in "diversity" and in the myth of "the international community". The liberal concern is "what will our neighbors think".
So public health becomes "political health" and our leaders try to cut things as close as possible to protect individualistic rights, feminist rights in the face of potential contagion. Is it better to exhibit "politically correct" 'bona fides' than to protect our huge population from death? Today's Portland Press Herald has multiple reportages, editorials, opinions about Ebola is a near perfect demo of the liberal interpretation of the issue and the problems for partisan political purposes. Since the epidemiology of Ebola, or any viral disease, is not a precise matter, the mantra of "only if you have contact with body fluids" gets repeated again and again. But viruses are prone to change genetically over the course of an epidemic, and human resistance/immunity is highly variable.
Does the Ebola virus know that the US President will only allow it to cause disease via body fluids? What about used Kleenexes, door knobs, cutlery, dinner plates, clothing wash basins, bath tubs, towels, face cloths? And ... which body fluids: spray from coughing and sneezing, sputum, sweat, feces?
The question for the US public is: How safe do we want to be? How much risk of medical danger can we tolerate? Is being scrupulously politically correct more important to everyone than getting a potentially deadly disease? Look what the military is recommending. Look at other countries.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Governor LePage Issues Statement About Healthcare Worker in Fort Kent Who Worked in West Africa
October 29, 2014
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Contact: Adrienne Bennett, Press Secretary (207) 287-2531
AUGUSTA – Governor Paul R. LePage issued a statement Wednesday morning about a healthcare worker who had been quarantined in New Jersey and is now in Fort Kent still under voluntary quarantine.
“We commend all healthcare workers for their humanitarian work in West Africa and other regions in the world, and we are proud that Americans are always ready to help others,” said Governor LePage. “However, the healthcare worker who is in Fort Kent has been unwilling to follow the protocols set forth by the Maine CDC and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control for medical workers who have been in contact with Ebola patients.”
“We hoped that the healthcare worker would voluntarily comply with these protocols, but this individual has stated publicly she will not abide by the protocols,” Governor LePage said. “We are very concerned about her safety and health and that of the community. We are exploring all of our options for protecting the health and well-being of the healthcare worker, anyone who comes in contact with her, the Fort Kent community and all of Maine. While we certainly respect the rights of one individual, we must be vigilant in protecting 1.3 million Mainers, as well as anyone who visits our great state.”
Upon learning the healthcare worker intends to defy the protocols, the Office of the Governor has been working collaboratively with the State health officials within the Department of Health and Human Services to seek legal authority to enforce the quarantine.
Governor LePage and the Maine CDC have been following the care and movements of the healthcare worker since Monday. The Maine State Police will monitor the residence in Fort Kent where the healthcare worker is staying, for both her protection and the health of the community.
To protect privacy and security, neither this person’s identity nor the location of quarantine will be released by the state.
The original press release may be found by following this link: Governor Paul LePage
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Lawyers, Divorce Industry Like Mike - Should You?
Several years ago I went through a divorce which involved a Guardian ad litem (GAL). At the time I believed in the court system and had not reason to mistrust a GAL. As the divorce went from weeks to months it became apparent that this "officer of the court" was nothing more than an unmonitored GOD allowed to do an say and do anything they wanted. The very idea of a GAL in itself violates the rights that we have as citizens. Aside from the Guardian ad litem the whole process in Family Court has been and continues to be very revealing. It is a corrupt system that is in a slow state of decay.
Why is this important to you - A Republican, Independent or Democrat?
Three years ago I started to become politically active - being motivated by the corruption and decay I was seeing with Guardians ad litem and our Family Courts. There were few politicians that would give me the time of day - most brushing me aside as being sour grapes because of a divorce gone wrong.
Slowly though that has changed. In three years a grass roots group of like minded people have come together and managed to have legislation enacted (LD 872) which was signed by Gov. Paul LePage (July 2013). Since then there has been numerous pieces of correspondence with him regarding the issues in Family Court. This from myself and the many others who have been abused by the system. It has taken years to educate Gov. Paul LePage but he gets it and as a result the governor is clearly a Politician Putting Kids First.
The Governor has earned the wrath of many over the years. In the past few months he has been in the sights of the Judicial Branch (which has silently endorsed Mike Michaud), lawyers (with Mike Asen publicly stating that he and other lawyers do not want another 4 years of LePage), Guardians ad litem (which like the Judicial Branch has silently been endorsing Mike Michaud) and many who make their living off of divorcing families (the Divorce Industry) going through the Family Court system.
As a parent who has gone through or is going through a divorce and is considering a vote for Mike Michaud because of the values he may bring to the table, or the fact that he may be more polished than our current governor. I would ask this of you:
Why is it that the Judicial Branch, Family Court lawyers, GALs and the Divorce Industry like Mike so much? Why is it that they are raising money for Mike as if it were going out of style? Do you think they have your interest at heart?
If Mike is elected will he listen to your voice as a concerned parent or the voice of the Divorce Industry which has supported him financially?
We are asking you with this election to vote for anyone other than Mike Michaud. A vote for Mike in our eyes is a vote for the Divorce Industry and the status quo.
Some of the lawyers who like Mike:
Michael Asen Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped fundraise for Mike on several occasions - 07/25/2014; 08/11/2014; 08/14/2014;
Michael Asen Esq has also been quoted by the Portland Press Herald as saying “My highest priority is making sure we don’t have another four years of this governor.” in an August 12, 2014 posting and referring to Gov. Paul LePage. Remember Gov. Paul LePage signed the Dutremble bill LD 872 "An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine" which the Judicial Branch hated as did lawyers and Guardians ad litem. Michael Asen Esq is also the chair of fund raising for Maine lawyers who like "Mike".
Diane Dusini Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped raise money for Mike on at least one occasion - 08/11/2014. It should be noted that is also the President of the Maine Bar.
Stephanie Cotsirilos - former Wall Street Lawyer - has helped raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Robert Gips Esq (DrummondWoodsun) has helped raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Neil Jamieson Esq (Prescott Jamieson Nelson & Murphy) has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 07/21/2014; 08/11/2014.
Brett D. Baber Esq (Lanham Blackwell & Baber) has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Janis B. Cohen Esq. has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Elizabeth Scheffee Esq. (Givertz Scheffee & Lavoie, PA) has helped raised money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Richard S. Berne Esq. (Law Office of Richard Berne) - is helping Mike Michaud with campaign contributions - 08/11/2014.
Add to this list the fact that Senate President Justin Alfond has reportedly told Senators in his caucus - enough with GAL and Family Court reform……….
Why is this important to you - A Republican, Independent or Democrat?
Three years ago I started to become politically active - being motivated by the corruption and decay I was seeing with Guardians ad litem and our Family Courts. There were few politicians that would give me the time of day - most brushing me aside as being sour grapes because of a divorce gone wrong.
Slowly though that has changed. In three years a grass roots group of like minded people have come together and managed to have legislation enacted (LD 872) which was signed by Gov. Paul LePage (July 2013). Since then there has been numerous pieces of correspondence with him regarding the issues in Family Court. This from myself and the many others who have been abused by the system. It has taken years to educate Gov. Paul LePage but he gets it and as a result the governor is clearly a Politician Putting Kids First.
The Governor has earned the wrath of many over the years. In the past few months he has been in the sights of the Judicial Branch (which has silently endorsed Mike Michaud), lawyers (with Mike Asen publicly stating that he and other lawyers do not want another 4 years of LePage), Guardians ad litem (which like the Judicial Branch has silently been endorsing Mike Michaud) and many who make their living off of divorcing families (the Divorce Industry) going through the Family Court system.
As a parent who has gone through or is going through a divorce and is considering a vote for Mike Michaud because of the values he may bring to the table, or the fact that he may be more polished than our current governor. I would ask this of you:
Why is it that the Judicial Branch, Family Court lawyers, GALs and the Divorce Industry like Mike so much? Why is it that they are raising money for Mike as if it were going out of style? Do you think they have your interest at heart?
If Mike is elected will he listen to your voice as a concerned parent or the voice of the Divorce Industry which has supported him financially?
We are asking you with this election to vote for anyone other than Mike Michaud. A vote for Mike in our eyes is a vote for the Divorce Industry and the status quo.
Some of the lawyers who like Mike:
Michael Asen Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped fundraise for Mike on several occasions - 07/25/2014; 08/11/2014; 08/14/2014;
Michael Asen Esq has also been quoted by the Portland Press Herald as saying “My highest priority is making sure we don’t have another four years of this governor.” in an August 12, 2014 posting and referring to Gov. Paul LePage. Remember Gov. Paul LePage signed the Dutremble bill LD 872 "An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine" which the Judicial Branch hated as did lawyers and Guardians ad litem. Michael Asen Esq is also the chair of fund raising for Maine lawyers who like "Mike".
Diane Dusini Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped raise money for Mike on at least one occasion - 08/11/2014. It should be noted that is also the President of the Maine Bar.
Stephanie Cotsirilos - former Wall Street Lawyer - has helped raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Robert Gips Esq (DrummondWoodsun) has helped raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Neil Jamieson Esq (Prescott Jamieson Nelson & Murphy) has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 07/21/2014; 08/11/2014.
Brett D. Baber Esq (Lanham Blackwell & Baber) has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Janis B. Cohen Esq. has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Elizabeth Scheffee Esq. (Givertz Scheffee & Lavoie, PA) has helped raised money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Richard S. Berne Esq. (Law Office of Richard Berne) - is helping Mike Michaud with campaign contributions - 08/11/2014.
Add to this list the fact that Senate President Justin Alfond has reportedly told Senators in his caucus - enough with GAL and Family Court reform……….
Monday, October 27, 2014
In the Home Stretch - Help Gov. Paul LePage Retain the Blaine House
Governor LePage needs your help! We need volunteers to help get out the
vote in this last week before the election to make sure we can continue
the common sense reforms and keep the pro-job growth environment that
the Governor has created in his first term. If you are available to help
please call our office 621-6720 and ask for Kevin, or send us a message
here on Facebook. Even an hour can make a big difference on election
day! "If it is to be, it is up to us!"
Sunday, October 19, 2014
An open letter to Andy O'Brien of the Free Press on his article of District 12 Candidate
A recent article published in the Free Press is more an opinion of the writer than it is a piece educating the readers of where these two candidates stand. The piece "Knox County Senate Race - Miramant and Sutton Disagree on Role of Gov't, Existence of Climate Change" written with a heavy slant favoring Dave Miramant and mis-quotes Paula Sutton painting the candidate as someone who is uncaring or mis-guided on many issues.
The piece has prompted an open letter to the Free Press and writer Andy O'Brien response to the piece by Andy O'Brien which you can read below.
An open letter to Andy O'Brien of the Free Press On His Paula Sutton/Dave Miramant article
I read with interest your article outlining the positions held by the State Senate candidates Paula Sutton and Dave Miramant.
While most of the piece contains some facts I couldn't help but notice comments such as "Her campaign is also focused on opposing government funded safety-net programs for the needy, arguing that programs should be be volunteer based not funded with tax money." This statement is a half truth. Paula Sutton believes the truly needy including the handicapped and elderly are deserving of taxpayer help. There are limited funds to go around. So for you to say her campaign is "focused" on opposing government funded safety-net programs for the needy is not so. Paula Sutton is concerned as most taxpayers should be that welfare money goes to those most deserving of assistance.
The statement immediately before that saying that Paula is not employed or involved in a business is again, a half truth. Paula is now a consultant for the business she and her husband own but is taking a hiatus from working full time for their small business to run for the Maine State Senate.
Your paragraph on The Existence of Climate Change is an interesting one. The wording "Sutton is skeptical of the benefits of renewable energy." is also worded poorly. Paula Sutton realizes that renewable energy is fine but years away from society being able to utilize it as one would oil, propane and natural gas. Renewable energy trying to expand too quickly has accounted for money that was wasted. Solyndra was a solar company that received over $500 million dollars from taxpayers and it went bankrupt. That was not a good financial move and was a waste of taxpayer money. You also seem to put your personal spin on this, quoting reports that seem to say that climate change is a fact. What happened to the Al Gore choruses of global warming? There has been a "pause" in "global warming" a big "pause" of over 17 years!
There is a lot of money to be had in the "global warming" myth. Money that if the lie is repeated enough and believed enough by some people, the average consumer will be paying much more for utilities, cars, food and most everything.
Another paragraph and your bias continues to show, with a direct slam on Paula Sutton with the statement "Sutton said, incorrectly, that the gas tax is not dedicated to roads but dumped into the state's general fund." States are allotting a growing share of the funds they raise from gas taxes to debt service and spending unrelated to roads and bridges, making them more reliant on federal assistance to pay for new infrastructure.
Healthcare can be done on a grand and expensive scale (think and feel Obamacare) or done in smaller more cost effective ways like with the Knox County Health Clinic. Several doctors I have spoken with have told me if some relief could be forthcoming with student loans being reduced or partially forgiven for doctors and if medical malpractice insurance could be reduced to where only proven negligence were to account for most of the expense of malpractice insurance reducing its cost, that would free up a financial burden placed on doctors and allow for more time to dedicate to volunteering.
Your article does a disservice to the voting public. Label it the way it should have been labeled, an editorial.
David Miramant wants to raise our cost of living by raising taxes in a state that can't afford it.
We know from what you have written that you are a Democrat voting for Dave Miramant and Paula Sutton is a Republican with Conservative values and that bothers you, which showed in this piece.
To read the original article published in the Free Press click on this link.
The piece has prompted an open letter to the Free Press and writer Andy O'Brien response to the piece by Andy O'Brien which you can read below.
An open letter to Andy O'Brien of the Free Press On His Paula Sutton/Dave Miramant article
I read with interest your article outlining the positions held by the State Senate candidates Paula Sutton and Dave Miramant.
While most of the piece contains some facts I couldn't help but notice comments such as "Her campaign is also focused on opposing government funded safety-net programs for the needy, arguing that programs should be be volunteer based not funded with tax money." This statement is a half truth. Paula Sutton believes the truly needy including the handicapped and elderly are deserving of taxpayer help. There are limited funds to go around. So for you to say her campaign is "focused" on opposing government funded safety-net programs for the needy is not so. Paula Sutton is concerned as most taxpayers should be that welfare money goes to those most deserving of assistance.
The statement immediately before that saying that Paula is not employed or involved in a business is again, a half truth. Paula is now a consultant for the business she and her husband own but is taking a hiatus from working full time for their small business to run for the Maine State Senate.
Your paragraph on The Existence of Climate Change is an interesting one. The wording "Sutton is skeptical of the benefits of renewable energy." is also worded poorly. Paula Sutton realizes that renewable energy is fine but years away from society being able to utilize it as one would oil, propane and natural gas. Renewable energy trying to expand too quickly has accounted for money that was wasted. Solyndra was a solar company that received over $500 million dollars from taxpayers and it went bankrupt. That was not a good financial move and was a waste of taxpayer money. You also seem to put your personal spin on this, quoting reports that seem to say that climate change is a fact. What happened to the Al Gore choruses of global warming? There has been a "pause" in "global warming" a big "pause" of over 17 years!
There is a lot of money to be had in the "global warming" myth. Money that if the lie is repeated enough and believed enough by some people, the average consumer will be paying much more for utilities, cars, food and most everything.
Another paragraph and your bias continues to show, with a direct slam on Paula Sutton with the statement "Sutton said, incorrectly, that the gas tax is not dedicated to roads but dumped into the state's general fund." States are allotting a growing share of the funds they raise from gas taxes to debt service and spending unrelated to roads and bridges, making them more reliant on federal assistance to pay for new infrastructure.
Healthcare can be done on a grand and expensive scale (think and feel Obamacare) or done in smaller more cost effective ways like with the Knox County Health Clinic. Several doctors I have spoken with have told me if some relief could be forthcoming with student loans being reduced or partially forgiven for doctors and if medical malpractice insurance could be reduced to where only proven negligence were to account for most of the expense of malpractice insurance reducing its cost, that would free up a financial burden placed on doctors and allow for more time to dedicate to volunteering.
Your article does a disservice to the voting public. Label it the way it should have been labeled, an editorial.
David Miramant wants to raise our cost of living by raising taxes in a state that can't afford it.
We know from what you have written that you are a Democrat voting for Dave Miramant and Paula Sutton is a Republican with Conservative values and that bothers you, which showed in this piece.
To read the original article published in the Free Press click on this link.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Why welfare, minimum wage make it harder for poor Americans to succeed
Foxnews.com
By John Stossel
Published October 08, 2014
Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson declared “War on Poverty.” It sounded great to me.
I was taught at Princeton, “We’re a rich country. All we have to do is tax the rich, and then use that money to create programs that will lift the poor out of poverty.” Government created job-training programs for the strong and expanded social security for the weak.
It seemed to work. The poverty rate dropped from 17 percent to 12 percent in the programs’ first decade. Unfortunately, few people noticed that during the half-decade before the “War,” the rate dropped from 22 percent to 17 percent. Without big government, Americans were already lifting themselves out of poverty!
Johnson’s War brought further progress, but progress then stopped. It stopped because government is not good at making a distinction between needy and lazy. It taught moms not to marry the father of their kids because that would reduce their welfare benefits. Welfare invited people to be dependent. Some people started to say, “Entry-level jobs are for suckers.” Many could live almost as well without the hassle of work.
Despite spending an astonishing $22 trillion dollars, despite 92 different government welfare programs, poverty stopped declining. Government’s answer? Spend more!
Full story: Foxnews.com
By John Stossel
Published October 08, 2014
Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson declared “War on Poverty.” It sounded great to me.
I was taught at Princeton, “We’re a rich country. All we have to do is tax the rich, and then use that money to create programs that will lift the poor out of poverty.” Government created job-training programs for the strong and expanded social security for the weak.
It seemed to work. The poverty rate dropped from 17 percent to 12 percent in the programs’ first decade. Unfortunately, few people noticed that during the half-decade before the “War,” the rate dropped from 22 percent to 17 percent. Without big government, Americans were already lifting themselves out of poverty!
Johnson’s War brought further progress, but progress then stopped. It stopped because government is not good at making a distinction between needy and lazy. It taught moms not to marry the father of their kids because that would reduce their welfare benefits. Welfare invited people to be dependent. Some people started to say, “Entry-level jobs are for suckers.” Many could live almost as well without the hassle of work.
Despite spending an astonishing $22 trillion dollars, despite 92 different government welfare programs, poverty stopped declining. Government’s answer? Spend more!
Full story: Foxnews.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)