01-30-2016, 12:33 AM
I wonder how the Zika virus will affect the election.
The Zika virus is generally no worse than the flu but recently the outbreak in Brazil has demonstrated how devastating it can be for pregnant women with many giving birth to microcephalic babies (where the skull doesn't expand and compresses the growing brain causing serious disabilities). It also appears it might cause Guillain-Barré syndrome in which the immune system attacks one's own nerves causing muscle weakness and even paralysis.
This will cause havoc in the upcoming Rio Olympics. Female Australian athletes have been warned against going if they may be pregnant.
It will also cause panic soon in the US if the virus arrives in the US as feared. Texas has conditions which are particularly conducive to the spread of the virus.
As we know from the Tampa incident and 9/11, some events can turn elections. Already, the ISIS-related massacres in Paris have propelled national security to the forefront in the current campaign. But how will the Zika virus affect it?
The lunatic Christian extremists might see such a plague as divine retribution against immoral governments which tolerate homosexuality and abortion. The Westboro Church rejoiced when the Tsunami killed thousands in Thailand for this reason. But generally such an outbreak would hurt the Republicans. Popular sentiment might have it that the Republicans are better at national security but the Democrats are seen as better managers of public health issues.
The spotlight would also be turned on issues which wouldn't suit the Republicans: abortion rights, climate change, the need for federal health funding and expertise, and vaccinations.
Texas has been leading attempts by Republican States to undermine the right to abortions. It has sought to dramatically stiffen regulations applying to abortion centres to put them out of business and has tried to close down Planned Parenthood in the wake of some taped conversations which were deceptively edited to prove that the organisation was selling "baby parts". How will it react if pregnant women demand abortions if they contract the Zika virus, particularly if there are women who want late-term abortions? What will the Republican candidate say about this?
Will scientists suggest that climate change has left the US at the mercy of tropical diseases? If the argument moves from the fate of polar ice caps and polar bears to the health and safety of US citizens, the Republican candidate might not be able to dismiss climate change so easily.
The Republican candidate also wouldn't be crazy about having to pledge an increase in the size of the health budget and the federal government's health apparatus. He (Carly Fiorini being an also-ran) would prefer to leave health issues to the States and the private sector but a Zika outbreak would be a national health issue which would demand Federal intervention.
If a vaccination can be found for the Zika virus, this will undercut the Libertarian viewpoint that vaccinations may cause harm and so each person should be able to decide whether to submit to a vaccination. Refusing to vaccinate and leaving pregnant women at risk of having severely disabled babies or miscarriages wouldn't be easy to defend.
The Zika virus is generally no worse than the flu but recently the outbreak in Brazil has demonstrated how devastating it can be for pregnant women with many giving birth to microcephalic babies (where the skull doesn't expand and compresses the growing brain causing serious disabilities). It also appears it might cause Guillain-Barré syndrome in which the immune system attacks one's own nerves causing muscle weakness and even paralysis.
This will cause havoc in the upcoming Rio Olympics. Female Australian athletes have been warned against going if they may be pregnant.
It will also cause panic soon in the US if the virus arrives in the US as feared. Texas has conditions which are particularly conducive to the spread of the virus.
As we know from the Tampa incident and 9/11, some events can turn elections. Already, the ISIS-related massacres in Paris have propelled national security to the forefront in the current campaign. But how will the Zika virus affect it?
The lunatic Christian extremists might see such a plague as divine retribution against immoral governments which tolerate homosexuality and abortion. The Westboro Church rejoiced when the Tsunami killed thousands in Thailand for this reason. But generally such an outbreak would hurt the Republicans. Popular sentiment might have it that the Republicans are better at national security but the Democrats are seen as better managers of public health issues.
The spotlight would also be turned on issues which wouldn't suit the Republicans: abortion rights, climate change, the need for federal health funding and expertise, and vaccinations.
Texas has been leading attempts by Republican States to undermine the right to abortions. It has sought to dramatically stiffen regulations applying to abortion centres to put them out of business and has tried to close down Planned Parenthood in the wake of some taped conversations which were deceptively edited to prove that the organisation was selling "baby parts". How will it react if pregnant women demand abortions if they contract the Zika virus, particularly if there are women who want late-term abortions? What will the Republican candidate say about this?
Will scientists suggest that climate change has left the US at the mercy of tropical diseases? If the argument moves from the fate of polar ice caps and polar bears to the health and safety of US citizens, the Republican candidate might not be able to dismiss climate change so easily.
The Republican candidate also wouldn't be crazy about having to pledge an increase in the size of the health budget and the federal government's health apparatus. He (Carly Fiorini being an also-ran) would prefer to leave health issues to the States and the private sector but a Zika outbreak would be a national health issue which would demand Federal intervention.
If a vaccination can be found for the Zika virus, this will undercut the Libertarian viewpoint that vaccinations may cause harm and so each person should be able to decide whether to submit to a vaccination. Refusing to vaccinate and leaving pregnant women at risk of having severely disabled babies or miscarriages wouldn't be easy to defend.