It was at least $500MM: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/27/gop-stripped-flu-pandemic_n_191732.html "We had $870 million in the committee-reported stimulus bill for buying anti-virals, vaccines, planning, etc. It was dropped in Collins-Nelson because it was 'not stimulative,'" said a Senate leadership aide. "We did put over $500 million in the omnibus, and HHS/DHS are fairly well-supplied, but it was an opportunity lost for being appropriately prepared." So this was for money to buy anti-virals (which take 8-months to produce) for a CDC that's already has plenty of supply. It simply wasn't stimulus for a bad economy. By the time any of this money would have been beneficial from a health perspective, everyone expects the economy to be in better shape.
what does plenty of supply mean? how many courses of tamiflu do we have? for comparison sake: hong kong has 20 million for a population of about 7. what are our stockpiles?
The Budget process is deliberately obtuse and spin is rampant, so I'll assume you're doing your best. However, the $500 billion in appropriations was not related to the $900 billion requested under the Stimulus. Different pots of money, different objectives. Vaccines are one thing, providing the infrastructure to administer them is another. From February... Regarding anti-virals, you're also a little off base. Here's another blurb from February...
Rimocker I don't understand, if I'm reading the previous post, $700MM was spent for pandemic spending including $425MM for vaccine production. This is from the normal appropriations bill. But this article criticizes no money for state and local funding. What does that mean? Then from the post before that $1BB from the stimulus bill goes to public health including $650MM for community disease prevention. This articles you're posting are saying money is being spent on public health, except the $900MM wanted for pandemic infrastructure. What is this infrastructure
So, again, the Budget is obtuse. Here's what I can piece together... The 2009 Omnibus Budget Bill focused on national level stuff. What was in the Stimulus bill was state and local preparedness money. Two different things. So, when Collins gets criticized for pushing the preparedness money out of the Stimulus and then says that the Budget bill took care of it, she's lying. When anonymous sources say that there was $500 million included in the Omnibus Budget and says that the Fed response has not been hampered, what they are saying is technically true, but they are deliberately confusing the issue... probably more to stem the panic of the current flu situation as much as anything. The money proposed in the Stimulus was to beef up the capacity of local health agencies and hospitals to deal with a pandemic. It's great that we have an anti-viral stockpile, but if you can't deliver it to people or if you have to go to a hospital that can't manage the infectious diseases that patients bring in, then what's the point? CDC and the PHS can coordinate a public health response but they cannot effectively implement it. They need lots of help in every community in the country. We had a shot before this thing hit to be better prepared. We're not. Fact is, the stuff in the stimulus bill was aimed at preserving and creating jobs and came with huge additional benefits. Was it as stimulative as some other things? No. But you cannot argue that it was not stimulative and you can't argue that it was in the best interest of the country and you can't argue that the issue was resolved by the Budget bill.
be thankful, that although Schumer insisted on eliminating the "porky bits" that included the Pandemic funding, W was on the ball. [rquoter]How Bush Prepared for the Outbreak Tools developed in the last few years will help the Obama administration fight back. By TEVI TROY Swine flu has presented the Obama administration with its first major public-health crisis. Fortunately for the Obama team, the Bush administration developed new tools that will prove critical in meeting this challenge. Under President Bush, the federal government worked with manufacturers to accelerate vaccine development, stockpiled crucial antivirals like Tamiflu, war-gamed pandemic scenarios with senior officials, and increased the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) sample identification capabilities. These activities are bearing fruit today. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has already deployed 12.5 million courses of antivirals -- out of a total of 50 million -- to states and local agencies. In addition, CDC's new capacities have allowed Mexican officials to send flu samples to CDC for quick identification, a capability that did not exist a few years ago. Collaboration between the government and the private sector on vaccines -- which Mr. Bush and his HHS team actively encouraged -- could potentially allow manufacturers to shepherd a vaccine to market within four months of identifying the strain and getting the go-ahead from CDC or the World Health Organization. But new tools aside, top health officials must answer difficult questions about response efforts. One is when and where to deploy antivirals. The Bush administration considered a "forest fire" approach to pandemic outbreaks abroad. This strategy calls for sharing some of our precious supply of antivirals with a foreign country in order to stop a small flame from becoming a forest fire. The risk is that we have only a limited number of courses, and the use of antivirals increases the odds that the flu strain in question will become resistant to that antiviral. With 37.5 million courses remaining in the federal stockpile, the administration needs to think very carefully about how to use them. Another issue: Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2006, the government has the authority to issue "Prep Act Declarations" granting liability protection to manufacturers whose products were used in public-health emergencies. This helps encourage manufacturers to develop countermeasures. The government issued a series of such declarations in 2007 and 2008. They protected the development and use of influenza vaccines and pandemic antivirals, as well as anthrax, smallpox and botulism products. The Obama administration should consider granting more of them -- if appropriate -- in the weeks ahead. A third policy question has to do with how to stop the spread of the disease both across borders and within countries. The administration has so far initiated "passive surveillance": Border guards are assessing if people entering the U.S. seem sick, but aren't actively stopping anyone. If things get worse, they may have to intensify border security. The Bush administration examined the question of closing the borders in certain circumstances but determined that it would probably be ineffective. Worse, it could lead other nations to retaliate by closing their own borders, which could hurt Americans traveling abroad. Another strategy, already in use to some degree in Mexico, is social distancing -- asking citizens to refrain from large social gatherings. During the 1918 influenza pandemic, St. Louis embraced such measures while Philadelphia eschewed them, and Philadelphia suffered a much higher death rate as a result. We are probably not yet at the point where such drastic measures are necessary, but senior officials had better start thinking about how they would address these questions. Most importantly, the federal government must figure out how to reassure a nervous public. It doesn't help that none of the 20 top officials at HHS has been confirmed. Some of them, like FDA commissioner-designate Dr. Margaret Hamburg, are experts in biopreparedness and could help reassure Americans. Alas, she and her potential future colleagues, including the new secretary of HHS, are still in limbo. They need to be in place and on the job. Mr. Troy, deputy secretary of Health and Human Services from 2007 to 2009, is a visiting senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.[/rquoter]
Spare me. If W. hadn't had his own flu scare, he would have continued to do nothing, just like the first four years of his tenure.
So, we could have already had the bulk of this appropriated and about a 75 day head start in spending it. Thank you Republicans for obstructing. Thank you Dems for caving.
I don't think this is worth a new thread so I'm putting it here. Michelle Bachman weighs in. http://kstp.com/news/stories/S903424.shtml?cat=1 BACHMANN: Dem connection to swine flu 'interesting' WASHINGTON (AP) - Rep. Michele Bachmann says she finds it an "interesting coincidence" that the last swine flu outbreak in the U.S. occurred under a Democratic president - though her claim is historically inaccurate. The last major outbreak of swine flu occurred in 1976, when Republican Gerald Ford was president. The outbreak started when an army private died and four others were hospitalized at Fort Dix in New Jersey. Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican, made her comments to conservative media outlet Pajamas TV on Monday. She says she's not "blaming this on President Obama" but found it an interesting coincidence that a Democrat was running the country at the time of the outbreak. President Jimmy Carter, who succeeded Ford, did continue swine flu vaccinations when he took office. A call to Bachmann's office Tuesday seeking comment wasn't immediately returned. (Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
4 years of planning. hmmmm, who was president for most of those 4 years? [rquoter]In flu crisis, US has planned for the worst By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and EILEEN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writers Tue Apr 28, 12:55 pm ET WASHINGTON – If the Mexico swine flu becomes a global pandemic, the routines and comforts of daily life would vanish in the blink of an eye. Small towns and big cities alike would go into a protective crouch. The worst case scenario, according to U.S. government planners: Two million dead. Hospitals overwhelmed. Schools closed. Swaths of empty seats at baseball stadiums and houses of worship. An economic recovery snuffed out. We're nowhere close to that. But government leaders at all levels, and major employers, have spent nearly four years planning for the worst in a series of exercises. Their reports, as well as interviews with policymakers, paint a grim picture of what could happen if the swine flu gets severely out of control. A full-scale pandemic — like the 1918 Spanish flu — would sicken 90 million Americans, or about 30 percent of the population. It could claim the lives of about 2 percent of those infected, about 2 million people, according to government experts. To put that in perspective, the regular flu causes about 30,000 deaths each year. "This may or may not be the killer flu," said Kim Elliott, deputy director of the Trust for America's Health, and independent public health group. "But it certainly does seem to have that potential, because it's a novel virus." A pandemic moves with explosive speed and comes in successive waves. That's why planners start with the worst case. If a pandemic strikes, the government estimates that nearly 10 million patients would have to be admitted to the hospital, and nearly 1.5 million would need intensive care. About 750,000 would need the help of mechanical ventilators to keep breathing. No one would be immune from the consequences, even those who don't get sick, according to worst-case exercises run by local and national agencies. Schools would be closed to try to block the spread of illness, for example, but school buses might be used to take flu victims to alternative clinics rather than overcrowded hospitals. A 2006 report on the Washington region found both Maryland and Virginia would run out of hospital beds within two weeks of a moderate outbreak. People who got sick would be isolated, and their relatives could be quarantined. But even if families weren't required to stay home, many would do so to take care of sick relatives, or because they were afraid of getting sick themselves. Hotels, restaurants and airlines would face loss of business as business travel and meetings would be replaced by teleconferences. In the cities, commuters who do go to work might drive, bike or walk instead of using mass transit. On the subway, people would be asked to wear protective masks. Movie buffs would avoid theaters and rent DVDs instead. In 1918, authorities even called on churches to cancel services, to the chagrin of some pastors. As entire societies turn inwardly, the global economy would take a direct hit. Trust for America's Health estimated in 2007 that a severe pandemic would shrink U.S. output by about 5.5 percent. "It could be a real blow to any type of recovery," said Elliott. "The whole idea of a just-in-time economy means we depend on each other globally." But wait a minute. Catch your breath. Even if the new swine flu from Mexico turns out to be especially aggressive, the worst consequences could be averted. The nation has made strides in stockpiling antiviral medicines, speeding the production of vaccines and laying down basic public health guidelines. The government got serious about worst-case planning during the 2005 bird flu scare, as the lessons of Hurricane Katrina loomed large. "We have a playbook that was developed and is being followed," said Michael Leavitt, who as secretary of Health and Human Services oversaw pandemic planning for President George W. Bush. "It's a substantially better picture than what we faced three years ago." There are gaps. Some states have not stockpiled their full allocation of antiviral medicines, critical in treating and preventing diseases during the early stages of a pandemic, before a vaccine has been developed. And Elliott said the federal government has not fulfilled some elements of its own plan, such as purchasing preventive doses of antivirals that would be reserved for medical personnel and first responders. So far, antiviral medicines are proving effective against the Mexico flu. Dr. Jeff Runge, former chief medical officer for Homeland Security, said it's clearly not a pandemic yet, but it's too early to tell. The next week or two will be critical. Runge seemed confident. "We've come a long ways since we've been doing this pandemic flu planning," he said.[/rquoter]
Just stop it. If there hadn't been a flu scare during the 2005, W's administration would have done nothing of significance. As it were, the big jumps happened over the last two years at the behest of the Dem Congress. From your article...
Couldn't have Stimulus money going to things like this. Best to wait on the 2010 budget so we don't soil the pristine stimulus bill with stuff that might preserve jobs and help the country. That way, our capacity to respond to a pandemic will continue to diminish... Thank you Senator Collins and special kudos to those who defended the purity of the Stimulus bill. Idiots.
Hindsight is always 20-20 and while now it seems like a bad idea that it was cut out of the stimulus I'm sure there were many other things that were too related to preventing disasters. We happen to be facing the possibility of a pandemic now but what if we had an earthquake happen on the New Madrid fault would we be saying that it was a mistake that we didn't put more money into earthquake monitoring in Missouri? There are always going to be potential problems and we can't fund everything in a stimulus package. Its bad luck that it happens that we are now faced with one of the situations that wasn't funded but given all of the possibilities I still don't think a retroactive criticism is deserved or does anything to address the current situation.
