Swine flu spurs Obama to advocate science over ideology

[bascule]

There's been a bit of an "I told you so" thing going on between Democrats and Republicans in regard to swine flu. Democrats originally included some $900 million in flu pandemic preparedness in the stimulus bill which Republicans successfully fought to remove as part of their newfound love of "fiscal responsibility". Democrats argument for including pandemic preparedness in the stimulus bill was simple: the effect of a flu pandemic on the economy would be disasterous and extremely damaging to economic recovery. Now the World Health Organization is telling us to brace for a potential flu pandemic. Perhaps this is a case where more spending would've been wise!

 

That said:

 

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/04/swine_flu_shows.html

 

Obama is now advocating massive expansions of science funding, amounting to 3% of the GDP. Obama argues that more science spending will strengthen our economy, and help us prepare for potential disasters like flu pandemics.

 

The speech also focused on how science took a backseat to ideology in the previous administration, specifically referring to the ban on embryonic stem cell research:

 

On March 9th, I signed an executive memorandum with a clear message: Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over. Our progress as a nation – and our values as a nation – are rooted in free and open inquiry. To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy.

 

What do you think?

[The Bear's Key]

Obama is now advocating massive expansions of science funding, amounting to 3% of the GDP.

........

What do you think?

I predict the science boards won't have much of a problem with that...(i.e. go freakin apeshit )

[iNow]

It's like when Kennedy asked to put a man on the moon, but better.

 

 

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/27/The-Necessity-of-Science/

Speaking at the National Academy of Sciences, the President paid due tribute to the wonder, history, and inspiration of science in America. But he also made the connection between science and the news being discussed all across America right now to make clear that science is no afterthought or hobby: <more at the link>

 

I believe it is not in our character, the American character, to follow. It's our character to lead. And it is time for us to lead once again. So I'm here today to set this goal: We will devote more than 3 percent of our GDP to research and development. We will not just meet, but we will exceed the level achieved at the height of the space race, through policies that invest in basic and applied research, create new incentives for private innovation, promote breakthroughs in energy and medicine, and improve education in math and science. (Applause.)

 

This represents the largest commitment to scientific research and innovation in American history.

 

Just think what this will allow us to accomplish: solar cells as cheap as paint; green buildings that produce all the energy they consume; learning software as effective as a personal tutor; prosthetics so advanced that you could play the piano again; an expansion of the frontiers of human knowledge about ourselves and world the around us. We can do this.

 

Yes, we can.

[Pangloss]

The stimulus package was supposed to contain stimulus spending, so that's a good thing that it was removed from the bill. Legitimate spending warrants legitimate debate, not emergency spending to circumvent debate.

 

I wholeheartedly support a massive increase in government spending on science, especially if it focuses a major portion on development of alternative energy sources. That's great to hear, and I look forward to that debate. That's a debate that this country has needed to have for some time now, and it needs to take place in the full light of day and with the full attention of the public.

[iNow]

I wholeheartedly support a massive increase in government spending on science, especially if it focuses a major portion on development of alternative energy sources. That's great to hear, and I look forward to that debate. That's a debate that this country has needed to have for some time now, and it needs to take place in the full light of day and with the full attention of the public.

Sounds like you're suggesting we have the judges on American Idol talk about it then, or paste it over a bunch of porn sites (that's the only way our mind-numbed zombie public will ever pay full attention, if you ask me). Interesting approach, but it might just work.

 

 

We should probably also include the information in a massive chain email campaign with the subject line, "Obama proven to be the secret muslim bastard child of Stalin." That way, we can be sure everyone is watching.

 

 

Oh dear... I've become so jaded and cynical as I've aged. I'm just poking you in the ribs a bit about your suggestion that the stimulus was too stealthy and based on back-room politics. The challenge I see is that, if we open the debate, the Republicans will just poke holes without offering any new or practical ideas of their own, and then they'll use Fox news to lambaste Obama about shaking hands with someone.

[bascule]

The stimulus package was supposed to contain stimulus spending, so that's a good thing that it was removed from the bill. Legitimate spending warrants legitimate debate, not emergency spending to circumvent debate.

 

So you think funding to prevent a flu pandemic from crippling the workforce isn't legitimate "stimulus spending"?

[The Bear's Key]

I agree with Pangloss, there should've been openness and debate. As it sets good precedent. And yes, even if they feared Republicans would make a big stink about it, even if Dems were right afterwards.

 

Obama just happened to get lucky....unless the pandemic doesn't occur.

[iNow]

Yet bascule raises a point I hadn't considered, and I think it has merit. The stimulus package was to help the economy. Large percentages of the work force being sick impacts production, and hence negatively impacts the economy. Spending money to prevent/minimize a significant spreadable illness IS a way to help the economy (and that's without even considering the extra lab techs involved in synthesizing the meds).

 

Open debate is great, but the stimulus package was time-critical, and it's now been demonstrated that prevention of flu pandemics does positively impact our economy. I see arguments against using some of the stimulus funds for flu vaccines as lacking, and based ENTIRELY on personal opinion and framing of the circumstances with blinders on. Take opinion out, and look objectively... Preventing flu (and taking steps to minimize flu risk) has a huge impact on the economy (for the positive).

[cameron marical]

obama is now advocating massive expansions of science funding, amounting to 3% of the gdp. Obama argues that more science spending will strengthen our economy, and help us prepare for potential disasters like flu pandemics.

 

The speech also focused on how science took a backseat to ideology in the previous administration, specifically referring to the ban on embryonic stem cell research:

 

Originally posted by obama

on march 9th, i signed an executive memorandum with a clear message: Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over. Our progress as a nation – and our values as a nation – are rooted in free and open inquiry. To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy.

What do you think?

 

yesssss!!!!! Screw you bush!!! Science is coming back!!!

[The Bear's Key]

I see arguments against using some of the stimulus funds for flu vaccines as lacking, and based ENTIRELY on personal opinion and framing of the circumstances with blinders on.

Definitely. That's the point, however. The use of stimulus for preparedness has merit, but if one tries enough, the same argument for *precautions* can be stretched to fit lots of things.

 

It doesn't mean Obama did wrong, it's just he might've done better the open way. Though you have a point about the time critical situation: he might've just acted the way a leader's supposed to, take charge and field questions as you go -- without pulling the neoconic stall-n'-forget maneuver: "we can discuss this later, after the crises" -- knowing full well that'd never happen. (i.e. Katrina response). A leader in our nation is expected to be accountable.

 

Yet let's be careful on giving such leverage -- to anyone. Remember how Bush/Rove/neocons liked to masquerade deceptively worded and hurried policies as *taking charge*.

[Pangloss]

So you think funding to prevent a flu pandemic from crippling the workforce isn't legitimate "stimulus spending"?

 

That's correct, that's my opinion. Come to think on it, the health sector is economically thriving -- it doesn't need stimulus help, and we shouldn't give it any until we've resolved the larger health care issue in this country. Anyway, I realize not everyone feels that way, and I don't mean to drag up the science-stimulus issue again; I'm a compromise kind of guy, it's just not what I would have done.

 

iNow, a large percentage of the population is not sick with swine flu. It's not even a small percentage of the population. I understand your point, you're talking about over-reactions spurred by the news media. But why don't we solve that problem instead? You don't like feeding trolls, right? Well the 24-hour cable networks are the biggest trolls on the planet. If I could issue them infractions for trolling they'd be off the air in ten minutes.

 

Hey there's an idea. Why don't we hire civilian news moderators? STIMULUS, BABY!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

BTW, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to spending some stimulus money on Tamiflu IFF the patent was withdrawn first. Roche made 11 billion dollars last year, a billion of it from Tamiflu alone. They don't need your stimulus check. Take away the patent and make it domestically with newly employed workers and THEN we're talking about stimulus.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[The Bear's Key]

Well the 24-hour cable networks are the biggest trolls on the planet. If I could issue them infractions for trolling they'd be off the air in ten minutes.

 

Hey there's an idea. Why don't we hire civilian news moderators?

Funny you say that. I was just pondering a related solution earlier. The media has privileged Constitutional rights of freedom. But a Press that's unable or afraid to report on its conglomerate owners/subsidiaries is no longer free. Plus, the amount of people misquoted, and the blatant inaccuracies ("science" reports) means the Press isn't functioning as intended.

 

So maybe require them to print/broadcast any challenges made by victims of distortion from an interview or highlight of events -- unedited. The victim would get space/time alloted for their challenge equal to the length of the relevant bit(s) -- or two minutes/paragraphs (whichever longer).

 

That might put a quick end to playing loose with facts and recount of events/interviews. And the 24-hour news channels have plenty of time availability for it.

[bascule]

That's correct, that's my opinion. Come to think on it, the health sector is economically thriving -- it doesn't need stimulus help, and we shouldn't give it any until we've resolved the larger health care issue in this country. Anyway, I realize not everyone feels that way, and I don't mean to drag up the science-stimulus issue again; I'm a compromise kind of guy, it's just not what I would have done.

 

Isn't preparing for a flu pandemic something the health sector doesn't ordinarily do of its own volition?

[ParanoiA]

I fail to see how any pandemic funding should come from a stimulus bill. It ought to come from the "gee, we don't wanna' die" bill.

 

You mean to tell me we didn't have the cash for a pandemic, already?? After the freaking plague, for crying out loud?

 

I agree with Pangloss, it should not be part of any stimulus bill. However, it should have been part of every spending bill until fully funded (if there's such a thing as 'fully funded'). That's the basic job of government.

[Severian]

You could make that argument for any spending. I would hope that the spending in the stimulus bill went on things that were at least partly useful, and if they were useful you could argue that they should have had their own bill.

 

I suppose you could maintain that the things in the stimulus package were things that wouldn't have been funded under normal circumstances (that is, extra spending) but then you are throwing out the pandemic preparedness because it was too useful. That seems a little bizarre.

 

I wish the UK had a decent leader like Obama, who saw the benefit of science research.

[bascule]

That's correct, that's my opinion. Come to think on it, the health sector is economically thriving -- it doesn't need stimulus help, and we shouldn't give it any until we've resolved the larger health care issue in this country.

 

I fail to see how any pandemic funding should come from a stimulus bill. It ought to come from the "gee, we don't wanna' die" bill.

 

Well, to reiterate why pandemic preparedness belongs in the stimulus bill:

 

Swine flu casts shadow over global economy

 

Yes, it would seem there is a direct connection between influenza pandemics and the economy: when an influenza pandemic is happening, the economy slows down.

 

Shouldn't the stimulus bill include things to prevent or help abate anticipated economic downturns?

[ParanoiA]

Last I checked terrorism is bad for the economy. How much of that is in the stimulus bill? How about earthquakes? Those are horrible for the economy too. How about post-asteroid impact relief efforts? Asteroids will really take it to a struggling economy.

 

So, anyway, everyone feel free to chime in with their own list of stuff that "could effect the economy negatively" so we can make believe that's part of any "responsible" stimulus bill.

 

And then maybe someone could tell me what a regular spending bill does. I can only guess a regular spending bill doesn't effect the economy, since anything that does, apparently belongs in a "stimulus" one now. One wonders about the need for a term, "stimulus" - oh wait, that's right, we're in fear mongering mode to justify spending the american people would normally not tolerate.

 

Never mind. Be sure to add fishing line entanglement studies to the stimulus bill, as any decrease in fishing will be detrimental to the economy.

[iNow]

Since it's Mexico, it's not directly related to our stimulus package in the US, however, it does support the argument made by Bascule (and supported by me) above.

 

Due to swine flu, businesses in Mexico are losing 100,000,000 dollars (one hundred million) per day. (source NPR)

 

 

Also, speaking of the economic impact of this swine flu:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/04/27/2009-04-27_swine_impact_tourism_could_be_big_loser.html

New York businesses worried Sunday that scary headlines about swine flu could keep tourists away - and hurt their bottom line.

 

And they have reason to worry: Italy, Poland, Venezuela and Hong Kong already have advised citizens not to travel to the United States.

 

"If it spreads, and I think it will, we'll lose 30% of our revenues," said Dave Schulter, 49, of Dyker Heights, Brooklyn,

 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=a830b4JNMPMw&refer=latin_america

Mexico is more likely to draw on a $47 billion credit line from the International Monetary Fund after the deadly swine flu outbreak sparked the peso’s biggest tumble in six months, according to Barclays Capital Inc.

 

The spreading disease “raises the odds of tapping the facility,” Eduardo Levy-Yeyati, head of emerging-market strategy at Barclays in New York and a former economist at the IMF, said in an interview. “The flu increases growth risks and currency pressures.”

 

The peso sank 5.1 percent yesterday, the biggest decline among all currencies tracked by Bloomberg, and was little changed in London trading today at 14.0363 as of 8:50 a.m. Flu- related deaths climbed to 149 in Mexico, though the number directly connected to swine flue hasn’t been confirmed. The benchmark stock index lost 3.3 percent and bonds dropped.

 

The sell-off began just as investor confidence in Mexico was starting to recover because of the IMF’s April 17 decision to extend the country a credit line. The currency, which had plunged 32 percent in the six months through March 9 as Latin America’s second-largest economy slipped into a recession and drug violence increased, surged 12 percent in the six weeks before the government first reported the swine flu cases on April 23.

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124088220190062043.html

The virus threat comes as the world tries to dig itself out of a crippling financial crisis. In the U.S. in recent weeks, signs had started to emerge that the economy’s pace of decline was slowing. But a global flu pandemic would likely impede recovery from the recession, especially for emerging economies dependent on trade and tourism.

 

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20090428_Swine_flu_latest_threat_to_airline_industry.html

Airlines have weathered high oil prices, collapsing financial markets, a recession, slumps in business travel and cargo trade.

 

And now comes the swine-flu health scare.

 

Airline stocks took a beating yesterday, down 13 to 17 percent, on investor worry that consumers already staying home because of the economy will have another reason not to travel.

 

Major carriers with connections to Mexico said they have waived change fees for travel to and from Mexico, allowing passengers to delay flights or buy tickets to a different destination.

 

At Philadelphia International Airport, only US Airways and USA3000, an affiliate of Apple Vacations, fly to Mexico. Cancun is the only Mexico destination out of Philadelphia.

 

US Airways has three daily flights to Cancun. USA3000 has four flights a week to Cancun.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/28views.html

The financial crisis in the United States has reverberated around the world. Now the country faces a new challenge to its economic health — fallout from the swine flu crisis. It’s not yet clear, but the repercussions for the global economy could be severe.

 

…..But with the economy already suffering — and bringing the rest of the globe down with it — the last thing it can withstand is a serious epidemic. The last time the world faced anything similar was the 2003 bout of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, which spread from China’s Guangdong province to three dozen countries.

 

The human toll from SARS, about 900 deaths, though tragic, was a pinprick compared with the Spanish influenza at the end of World War I, when as many as 100 million died. But the resulting panic caused many travel-related businesses in the hardest-hit areas to suffer severely. The World Health Organization estimated that international travel to areas like Hong Kong, Beijing and Toronto fell by more than half, and hotel occupancy dropped 60 percent.

 

<...>

 

The financial crisis and resultant economic contraction is already taking heavy casualties on the businesses and economies most dependent on trade, transportation, tourism and lodging, which are most susceptible to the flu bug.

 

Moreover, governments are managerially challenged, with bank bailouts and huge stimulus packages to finance. A severe flu epidemic would open another front. After SARS, much was learned about epidemic control. For the sake of the global economy, this had better be a flu that can be easily contained.

 

 

It seems pretty obvious to me which of the arguments in this thread has more traction, and that anyone who continues their attempts to mock or marginalize the economic impact are severely divorced from reality on this topic.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Re-reading my post, I don't think I accurately reflected the arguments of others. Most are saying that it's good to spend money on flu prevention and preparedness, but it should not have been in a stimulus package. Pangloss also made a great point that much of the economic impact is due to the news outlets freaking out about it. That is incredibly accurate, and I couldn't agree more.

 

With that said, though, I feel this has come down to picking nits. Bascule is ALSO right, in that flu hurts the economy, and so a reasonable argument can be made that including prevention money as a "protective measure" in the stimulus package is not an ignorant thing to do. Flu is MUCH more likely than terrorist attack, or fishing line entanglements. It happens every year, and it costs us boat loads of cash in lost productivity and other costs. That's why so many employers provide all employees with annual flu shots. They recognize (and have data to support) that a smaller up front cost on preparedness can save a lot more money on the back-end, improving productivity and revenues to a significant degree.

 

Why should the stimulus package be any different? If I'm supposed to take the idea of "flu prevention/preparedness should be in a spending bill, not a stimulus bill" seriously, first tell me how big of a percentage of the stimulus the proposal of flu preparedness (which didn't pass anyway) composed? Are we quibbling over less than 1%, and over something which WASN'T included in the final stimulus anyway?

Edited April 29, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

Mexico is also universally being seen as vastly less prepared for this event than the US, as exhibited by the relative number of deaths, which is receiving endless comment in the media. But I've already agreed that the US is also underprepared.

 

We all apparently want more science spending. I guess the difference between ParanoiA and I, and iNow, bascule, and Severian, is that we want all spending fully and fairly debated, and you want it hidden from the religious zealots and snuck in by the back door. Science spending at all costs, and shove the naysayers aside if that's what it takes.

 

Hey, more power to you, I guess. But don't ever post anything about the need for transparency in government ever again.

[iNow]

We all apparently want more science spending. I guess the difference between ParanoiA and I, and iNow, bascule, and Severian, is that we want all spending fully and fairly debated, and you want it hidden from the religious zealots and snuck in by the back door. Science spending at all costs, and shove the naysayers aside if that's what it takes.

 

Hey, more power to you, I guess. But don't ever post anything about the need for transparency in government ever again.

 

I'm taken aback by the extreme nature and tone you chose to use in your post. You're putting a lot of baggage into our positions which doesn't seem warranted.

 

However, if I were to accept your point, then I'll just point out how effectively Singapore was able to deal with their SARS issue in 2003 due to their dictatorial nature. There's certainly something to be said about the efficiency with which a strong arming government can deal with a crisis, instead of the more common "death by consensus and bureaucracy" process we use here. I'm not saying that I dislike our system, nor am I saying that I want something else... I'm just pointing out that the ability to shove naysayers aside is not always bad. Certainly, this depends on the situation and circumstance, though, and is not some absolute maxim.

 

 

With that said, in further support of the argument being made about spending money in a stimulus package for flu prevention...

 

Imagine just how vastly different news coverage right now would be (and therefore economic impact) if the journalists/commentators/reporters could instead state, "Swine flu has flared up in a few places, but fortunately our lawmakers had the foresight to put money aside for just such an event. The risk of spread is minimal as steps toward preparedness were taken well in advance in conjunction with the stimulus package, despite Republican opposition to the idea. Now, on to other news..."

[bascule]

Last I checked terrorism is bad for the economy. How much of that is in the stimulus bill?

 

Quite a bit... looks like billions of dollars:

 

http://www.dhs.gov/xopnbiz/recovery.shtm

 

How about earthquakes? Those are horrible for the economy too.

 

Yes those are also in the stimulus bill:

 

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/us-to-boost-quake-detection-with-stimulus-plan

 

How about post-asteroid impact relief efforts? Asteroids will really take it to a struggling economy.

 

What is the probability of a near-term asteroid impact?

 

So, anyway, everyone feel free to chime in with their own list of stuff that "could effect the economy negatively" so we can make believe that's part of any "responsible" stimulus bill.

 

Any events which have a high probability of negatively impacting the economy in the near future seem like responsible items to include in the stimulus bill.

 

Never mind. Be sure to add fishing line entanglement studies to the stimulus bill, as any decrease in fishing will be detrimental to the economy.

 

The money was originally included because there was a high probability we'd see a widespread influenza outbreak. The WHO is saying this could be a pandemic (maybe). That would be very bad for the economy.

 

As it turns out, it's starting to happen. And it's predicted to have a negative impact on the economy.

 

I guess we'll see how this plays out, but I'm kind of surprised how vehemently people are defending what was in 20/20 hindsight a terrible decision. I can understand a little "I can see the Republicans point of view at the time" but in 20/20 hindsight there's no excuse.

[Pangloss]

What does "prepared" look like when it comes to global pandemic? I stated before (which was ignored) that we're clearly more prepared than Mexico was, at least judging by the number of deaths. If we spent another billion dollars on it, would that make us prepared? What about two billion? Three?

 

How many lives are saved per billion dollars? How long before anybody who even suggests that we carefully consider what we can afford is instantly demonized as someone who cares more about money than lives? Gosh, no, we shouldn't care about the budget, not when there are lives at stake! How evil!

 

I think this is a great example of why our budget is about to expand to include the full weight of the stimulus package on a permanent basis. We're not prepared for something, that's for sure, but the concept of global pandemic is trivial compared with the real danger that we're not prepared for -- our inability to avoid falling to the media-driven, fear-based hysteria of the moment.

 

(Anybody wanna review the NIH budget and rank how much they spend against which diseases actually kill the most people? It's been a few years since John Stossel's book, why, I'm sure everything's changed by now!)

[iNow]

Nothing but smoke and mirrors. I notice you've failed to address any specific arguments.

[Pangloss]

That might have something to do with the fact that I haven't argued against either science or pandemic preparedness spending.

[iNow]

That might have something to do with the fact that I haven't argued against either science or pandemic preparedness spending.

 

But, in fact, you have, except you chose to frame your argument in context of the stimulus bill. You very clearly stated that preparedness (more vaccine, more detection, whatever) was not something which should be included in a stimulus package designed to help the economy. You very clearly argued that this should be part of a regular spending bill, not part of an economic stimulus, and in so doing you disregarded the stimulating effect of preventing economic distress caused by preventable illness... an illness, the effects of which, can very easily be contained with a bit of up front effort, attention, and resources.