Seriously, Reopen the Government or a Pandemic Could Kill Us All

Like the military, the CDC protects us from outside threats. So why is it so severely furloughed?

What would happen if a H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic occured during the shutdown?
National Journal
Brian Resnick
Oct. 15, 2013, 7:31 a.m.

When Re­pub­lic­ans were talk­ing about re­open­ing the gov­ern­ment piece by piece, cer­tain very vis­ible or emo­tion­ally charged pro­grams rose to the top. Es­pe­cially emo­tion­al was a dis­cus­sion about re­open­ing the na­tion­al parks and me­mori­als. Many con­ser­vat­ives, who came out in full force this last week­end, said that the met­al bar­ri­cades dis­honored the dead. Sim­il­arly, the week be­fore, there were cries to re­fund the Na­tion­al In­sti­tutes of Health to en­sure that young can­cer pa­tients were put on ex­per­i­ment­al treat­ments.

What was left out of the dis­cus­sions was the Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion.

“To me, the CDC and in­fec­tious-dis­ease mon­it­or­ing is to the mil­it­ary what a hos­tile en­emy threat is,” Gregory Po­land, an in­fec­tious-dis­ease ex­pert at the Mayo Clin­ic. “We don’t fur­lough our mil­it­ary and say, ‘Well, we won’t just have any na­tion­al se­cur­ity un­til the Con­gress gets its act to­geth­er.’ But why aren’t we will­ing to save something that could cost just as many lives?”

When it comes to data, we already have a na­tion­al­ized health care sys­tem. The CDC provides dis­ease-track­ing ser­vices that no oth­er agency or private en­tity does. The CDC is the agency that makes the judge­ment call about what flu vac­cines to dis­trib­ute across the na­tion. Without the CDC, we have no real-time track­ing of dis­ease out­breaks. It mon­it­ors high-se­cur­ity labs that do tests on deadly patho­gens like an­thrax. It col­lab­or­ates across in­ter­na­tion­al bor­ders to stop out­breaks.

“That’s what CDC does, and we have no oth­er agency to do it,” Po­land says.

So while the clos­ing of the WWII me­mori­al of­fends, the clos­ing of the CDC could kill.

Po­land fur­ther ex­plains the con­sequences, in this lightly ed­ited in­ter­view.

How is the coun­try’s pro­tec­tion against dis­ease out­breaks di­min­ished dur­ing the shut­down?

The is­sue isn’t really only for flu, but for a vari­ety of in­fec­tious dis­eases, we don’t have real-time sur­veil­lance. Hence, we lose a situ­ation­al aware­ness, or in­tel­li­gence about what’s hap­pen­ing. Re­mem­ber, CDC has [fur­loughed] 9,000 work­ers; they’ve got about 4,000 left. Ima­gine try­ing to do your job with two-thirds less re­sources.

They are re­spons­ible for put­ting to­geth­er the in­form­a­tion they get from in­di­vidu­al states in­to a co­hes­ive pic­ture. We don’t have that abil­ity. They are re­spons­ible for mon­it­or­ing what’s hap­pen­ing in­ter­na­tion­ally and what could be im­por­ted in­to the U.S. We don’t have that cap­ab­il­ity. We can’t fol­low flu out­breaks, we can’t se­quence vir­uses.

[The shut­down] really does put us at risk. In terms of in­flu­enza, it puts us at risk from sev­er­al points of view. No. 1, we don’t know what’s hap­pen­ing na­tion­ally. All we can do is de­pend on what in­di­vidu­al states re­port. Many of the state-level pub­lic health de­part­ments are un­der­fun­ded and un­der­staffed. We don’t have the abil­ity to se­quence vir­uses and real­ize — whoops — sud­denly a nov­el vir­us, like a new pan­dem­ic vir­us has popped up. We would have delayed-re­cog­ni­tion of that. We might not have the abil­ity to de­term­ine wheth­er any of the vir­uses cir­cu­lat­ing are res­ist­ant to any of the an­ti­vir­als we have. That in­form­a­tion is im­port­ant to get out to phys­i­cians, so they can treat — let’s say you have a young child or a preg­nant wo­man on a vent­il­at­or due to com­plic­a­tions of in­flu­enza.

Are there no private agen­cies do­ing sim­il­ar re­search as the CDC?

Let me try to give you an ana­logy. In terms of any, in­stead of in­fec­tious dis­ease let’s say a crime threat. You prob­ably have a pretty good idea about what’s hap­pen­ing in your neigh­bor­hood. You have no idea of what’s hap­pen­ing a hun­dred miles away in the next-biggest city. And you don’t have any idea what’s hap­pen­ing in the state next to you.

The only way you would have that pic­ture of what’s hap­pen­ing, what the threat is, is be­cause some en­tity re­spons­ible for piecing to­geth­er all of those pieces would be do­ing their job. That’s what CDC does, and we have no oth­er agency to do it. We only have state pub­lic health labs. And they are simply not staffed and don’t, es­pe­cially the small ones, have the ex­pert­ise to do this. They don’t have any real way to share in­form­a­tion across states. CDC is that co­ordin­at­ing body.

To me, the CDC and in­fec­tious-dis­ease mon­it­or­ing is to the mil­it­ary what a hos­tile en­emy threat is. We don’t fur­lough our mil­it­ary and say, “Well, we won’t just have any na­tion­al se­cur­ity un­til the Con­gress gets its act to­geth­er.’ But why aren’t we will­ing to save something that could cost just as many lives? Why are we will­ing to do that for in­fec­tious dis­ease threats?

How does the shut­down im­pact your op­er­a­tions at the Mayo Clin­ic?

It prob­ably has the same im­pact for us as it does any med­ic­al cen­ter, and that is, we’re not go­ing to be get­ting na­tion­al in­tel­li­gence about what’s go­ing on. We’ll know what’s go­ing on in our area. But we serve a na­tion­al and in­ter­na­tion­al pop­u­la­tion and we won’t have up to the minute data.

We’re talk­ing in dra­mat­ic terms. Is any of this over­stated?

Let me take you back to Feb­ru­ary 2009. Out of nowhere, a few un­usu­al res­pir­at­ory ill­nesses in a rur­al part of Mex­ico, and then a few of those cases in Texas, and then a bunch of those cases in the North­east states. With­in a couple of weeks, CDC in­vest­ig­ates, se­quences the vir­uses and pushes the but­ton. “Na­tion: We’ve got a nov­el pan­dem­ic vir­us.” What would hap­pen if that happened now? There would be delayed re­cog­ni­tion, thou­sands more would get ill, would die. we would be fly­ing blind. It would be delayed de­vel­op­ment of a vac­cine to cov­er it, we wouldn’t know what an­ti­vir­als to use.

The oth­er thing could hap­pen too. The sea­son just kind of ped­als along — no new vir­uses no sur­prises, no new vir­uses or in­fec­tious dis­ease threats any­where in the world. And the shut­down re­solves and we’re a little be­hind on next year’s vac­cines. We’re some­where in that spec­trum.

How is the country's protection against disease outbreaks diminished during the shutdown?

The is­sue isn’t really only for flu, but for a vari­ety of in­fec­tious dis­eases, we don’t have real-time sur­veil­lance. Hence, we lose a situ­ation­al aware­ness, or in­tel­li­gence about what’s hap­pen­ing. Re­mem­ber, CDC has [fur­loughed] 9,000 work­ers; they’ve got about 4,000 left. Ima­gine try­ing to do your job with two-thirds less re­sources.

They are re­spons­ible for put­ting to­geth­er the in­form­a­tion they get from in­di­vidu­al states in­to a co­hes­ive pic­ture. We don’t have that abil­ity. They are re­spons­ible for mon­it­or­ing what’s hap­pen­ing in­ter­na­tion­ally and what could be im­por­ted in­to the U.S. We don’t have that cap­ab­il­ity. We can’t fol­low flu out­breaks, we can’t se­quence vir­uses.

[The shut­down] really does put us at risk. In terms of in­flu­enza, it puts us at risk from sev­er­al points of view. No. 1, we don’t know what’s hap­pen­ing na­tion­ally. All we can do is de­pend on what in­di­vidu­al states re­port. Many of the state-level pub­lic health de­part­ments are un­der­fun­ded and un­der­staffed. We don’t have the abil­ity to se­quence vir­uses and real­ize — whoops — sud­denly a nov­el vir­us, like a new pan­dem­ic vir­us has popped up. We would have delayed-re­cog­ni­tion of that. We might not have the abil­ity to de­term­ine wheth­er any of the vir­uses cir­cu­lat­ing are res­ist­ant to any of the an­ti­vir­als we have. That in­form­a­tion is im­port­ant to get out to phys­i­cians, so they can treat — let’s say you have a young child or a preg­nant wo­man on a vent­il­at­or due to com­plic­a­tions of in­flu­enza.

Are there no private agencies doing similar research as the CDC?

Let me try to give you an ana­logy. In terms of any, in­stead of in­fec­tious dis­ease let’s say a crime threat. You prob­ably have a pretty good idea about what’s hap­pen­ing in your neigh­bor­hood. You have no idea of what’s hap­pen­ing a hun­dred miles away in the next-biggest city. And you don’t have any idea what’s hap­pen­ing in the state next to you.

The only way you would have that pic­ture of what’s hap­pen­ing, what the threat is, is be­cause some en­tity re­spons­ible for piecing to­geth­er all of those pieces would be do­ing their job. That’s what CDC does, and we have no oth­er agency to do it. We only have state pub­lic health labs. And they are simply not staffed and don’t, es­pe­cially the small ones, have the ex­pert­ise to do this. They don’t have any real way to share in­form­a­tion across states. CDC is that co­ordin­at­ing body.

To me, the CDC and in­fec­tious-dis­ease mon­it­or­ing is to the mil­it­ary what a hos­tile en­emy threat is. We don’t fur­lough our mil­it­ary and say, “Well, we won’t just have any na­tion­al se­cur­ity un­til the Con­gress gets its act to­geth­er.’ But why aren’t we will­ing to save something that could cost just as many lives? Why are we will­ing to do that for in­fec­tious dis­ease threats?

How does the shutdown impact your operations at the Mayo Clinic?

It prob­ably has the same im­pact for us as it does any med­ic­al cen­ter, and that is, we’re not go­ing to be get­ting na­tion­al in­tel­li­gence about what’s go­ing on. We’ll know what’s go­ing on in our area. But we serve a na­tion­al and in­ter­na­tion­al pop­u­la­tion and we won’t have up to the minute data.

We're talking in dramatic terms. Is any of this overstated?

Let me take you back to Feb­ru­ary 2009. Out of nowhere, a few un­usu­al res­pir­at­ory ill­nesses in a rur­al part of Mex­ico, and then a few of those cases in Texas, and then a bunch of those cases in the North­east states. With­in a couple of weeks, CDC in­vest­ig­ates, se­quences the vir­uses and pushes the but­ton. “Na­tion: We’ve got a nov­el pan­dem­ic vir­us.” What would hap­pen if that happened now? There would be delayed re­cog­ni­tion, thou­sands more would get ill, would die. we would be fly­ing blind. It would be delayed de­vel­op­ment of a vac­cine to cov­er it, we wouldn’t know what an­ti­vir­als to use.

The oth­er thing could hap­pen too. The sea­son just kind of ped­als along — no new vir­uses no sur­prises, no new vir­uses or in­fec­tious dis­ease threats any­where in the world. And the shut­down re­solves and we’re a little be­hind on next year’s vac­cines. We’re some­where in that spec­trum.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×