President Obama's school age daughters have not been vaccinated against the H1N1 flu virus. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says the vaccine is not available to them based on their risk.
The Centers for Disease Control recommend that children ages 6 months through 18 years of age receive a vaccination against the H1N1 flu virus. At this time only children with chronic medical conditions are receiving the vaccination because their immune system is not strong enough to fight off the strain. The CDC also says a regular seasonal flu shot does not protect against the virus.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Judge blocks N.Y. H1N1 vaccine mandate
A judge Friday barred New York State from requiring all healthcare workers to be vaccinated for the H1N1 virus until he holds a full hearing on the issue.
Acting Justice Thomas McNamara ruled after three nurses at the Albany Medical Center filed a lawsuit against the mandate, The New York Times reported. He scheduled a hearing Oct. 30 in the Albany Supreme Court, the district level court in the state.
Dr. Richard Daines, the state health commissioner, ordered all healthcare workers to get vaccinations against the H1N1 strain, also called the swine flu. He said health workers faced fines if they missed a Nov. 30 deadline.
Experts say the vaccine is safe and that patients who cannot get the vaccine are protected from infection when healthcare workers are vaccinated. Historically, when vaccines for healthcare workers are voluntary, the rate of compliance is half or less.
The H1N1 vaccine has encountered resistance from high-profile critics of all political persuasions. Terence Kindlon, the nurses' lawyer, said they are in the middle.
"These are not libertarians, they are not lefties, they are not right-wing lunatics," Kindlon told the Times. "They are healthcare professionals, and they think the vaccination is not going to be good for them."
Acting Justice Thomas McNamara ruled after three nurses at the Albany Medical Center filed a lawsuit against the mandate, The New York Times reported. He scheduled a hearing Oct. 30 in the Albany Supreme Court, the district level court in the state.
Dr. Richard Daines, the state health commissioner, ordered all healthcare workers to get vaccinations against the H1N1 strain, also called the swine flu. He said health workers faced fines if they missed a Nov. 30 deadline.
Experts say the vaccine is safe and that patients who cannot get the vaccine are protected from infection when healthcare workers are vaccinated. Historically, when vaccines for healthcare workers are voluntary, the rate of compliance is half or less.
The H1N1 vaccine has encountered resistance from high-profile critics of all political persuasions. Terence Kindlon, the nurses' lawyer, said they are in the middle.
"These are not libertarians, they are not lefties, they are not right-wing lunatics," Kindlon told the Times. "They are healthcare professionals, and they think the vaccination is not going to be good for them."
Friday, October 9, 2009
Bombs and Bribes
Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk--
What if tomorrow morning you woke up to headlines that yet another Chinese drone bombing on US soil killed several dozen ranchers in a rural community while they were sleeping? That a drone aircraft had come across the Canadian border in the middle of the night and carried out the latest of many attacks? What if it was claimed that many of the victims harbored anti-Chinese sentiments, but most of the dead were innocent women and children? And what if the Chinese administration, in an effort to improve its public image in the US, had approved an aid package to send funds to help with American roads and schools and promote Chinese values here?
Most Americans would not stand for it. Yet the above hypothetical events are similar to what our government is doing in Pakistan. Last week, Congress did approve an aid package for Pakistan for the stated purposes of improving our image and promoting democracy. I again made the point on the floor of the House that still no one seems to hear: What if this happened on US soil? What if innocent Americans were being killed in repeated drone attacks carried out by some foreign force who was trying to fix our problems for us? Would sending money help their image? If another nation committed this type of violence and destruction on our homeland, would we be at all interested in adopting their values?
Sadly, one thing that has entirely escaped modern American foreign policy is empathy. Without much humility or regard for human life, our foreign policy has been reduced to alternately bribing and bombing other nations, all with the stated goal of “promoting democracy”. But if a country democratically elects a leader who is not sufficiently pro-American, our government will refuse to recognize them, will impose sanctions on them, and will possibly even support covert efforts to remove them. Democracy is obviously not what we are interested in. It is more likely that our government is interested in imposing its will on other governments. This policy of endless intervention in the affairs of others is very damaging to American liberty and security.
If we were really interested in democracy, peace, prosperity and safety, we would pursue more free trade with other countries. Free and abundant trade is much more conducive to peace because it is generally bad business to kill your customers. When one’s livelihood is on the line, and the business agreements are mutually beneficial, it is in everyone’s best interests to maintain cooperative and friendly relations and not kill each other. But instead, to force other countries to bend to our will, we impose trade barriers and sanctions. If our government really wanted to promote freedom, Americans would be free to travel and trade with whoever they wished. And, if we would simply look at our own policies around the world through the eyes of others, we would understand how these actions make us more targeted and therefore less safe from terrorism. The only answer is get back to free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. It is our bombs and sanctions and condescending aid packages that isolate us.
What if tomorrow morning you woke up to headlines that yet another Chinese drone bombing on US soil killed several dozen ranchers in a rural community while they were sleeping? That a drone aircraft had come across the Canadian border in the middle of the night and carried out the latest of many attacks? What if it was claimed that many of the victims harbored anti-Chinese sentiments, but most of the dead were innocent women and children? And what if the Chinese administration, in an effort to improve its public image in the US, had approved an aid package to send funds to help with American roads and schools and promote Chinese values here?
Most Americans would not stand for it. Yet the above hypothetical events are similar to what our government is doing in Pakistan. Last week, Congress did approve an aid package for Pakistan for the stated purposes of improving our image and promoting democracy. I again made the point on the floor of the House that still no one seems to hear: What if this happened on US soil? What if innocent Americans were being killed in repeated drone attacks carried out by some foreign force who was trying to fix our problems for us? Would sending money help their image? If another nation committed this type of violence and destruction on our homeland, would we be at all interested in adopting their values?
Sadly, one thing that has entirely escaped modern American foreign policy is empathy. Without much humility or regard for human life, our foreign policy has been reduced to alternately bribing and bombing other nations, all with the stated goal of “promoting democracy”. But if a country democratically elects a leader who is not sufficiently pro-American, our government will refuse to recognize them, will impose sanctions on them, and will possibly even support covert efforts to remove them. Democracy is obviously not what we are interested in. It is more likely that our government is interested in imposing its will on other governments. This policy of endless intervention in the affairs of others is very damaging to American liberty and security.
If we were really interested in democracy, peace, prosperity and safety, we would pursue more free trade with other countries. Free and abundant trade is much more conducive to peace because it is generally bad business to kill your customers. When one’s livelihood is on the line, and the business agreements are mutually beneficial, it is in everyone’s best interests to maintain cooperative and friendly relations and not kill each other. But instead, to force other countries to bend to our will, we impose trade barriers and sanctions. If our government really wanted to promote freedom, Americans would be free to travel and trade with whoever they wished. And, if we would simply look at our own policies around the world through the eyes of others, we would understand how these actions make us more targeted and therefore less safe from terrorism. The only answer is get back to free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. It is our bombs and sanctions and condescending aid packages that isolate us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
Sixburgh
