It's relevant because it indicates the Mexico government to have a level of courage and political maturity not seen in, say, China during the SARS outbreak. It's relevant because it indicates the United States can have confidence that Mexico will continue to do what it can in terms of containing and mitigating this influenza outbreak. It's relevant because it means that the US is under less pressure to interdict travel to and from Mexico, which eases the burdens on the US. It's relevant because disease outbreaks of this nature are a public health crisis, will tax any nation's public health infrastructure, and can easily aggravate stresses on a nation's government. It's relevant because it means that, as bad as the narco-violence in Northern Mexico is, the government still has the political capital to take command of this public health crisis and address it in a responsible fashion. It's relevant because not all of the cases are in Mexico City--cases have been reported as far north as Mexicali, which is not only near the US border but also has been a prime battleground between the drug cartels.
Yes I agree on most of this, however again what does the narko war have to do with why "Swine flu is worse in Mexico?" I mean you seem to believe that Mexico is a failed state or on the verge of a failed state since you have stated so much, but what relevance does that have at all to why "Swine flu is worse in Mexico?"
But the funny part is that if Mexico was a failed state (or going there) as you seem to believe, do you think that it could react in the way it has? So if we focus on the failed state bit, does their reaction not basicly prove they are not and not heading towards a failed state status.. and again what does it have to do with with why swine flue is worse in Mexico... which is the title of the thread. Narko terrorists using swine flu as a bio weapon against the US or something?
As my profile shows, I live in Houston, Texas. A good many people in this city, including a number of those with whom I do business, have various ties and relationships within Mexico, both business and personal.
And I live in Spain, the gate way to the rest of the Europe for most latin countries including Mexico, and of course the former colonial master. Dont you think I am worried too? We have our first confirmed case here. But I still dont say that Mexico is a "failed state" and worry about Mexico's responsiveness because of some drug war. Does that mean that if there is a drug war going on in a US state (which there probaly is to some extent) that then said state is a failed state too? Does it mean if a gang war breaks out in a major US city, that said city is a failed city? I know there is a gang war going on in my home country, does that mean it is a failed state or moving to failed state status? Of course not and it bears zero relevance to any epidemic.
When a contagious disease such as influenza erupts, it will spread along those ties and through those relationships--that is how bubonic plague spread through Europe in the Middle Ages, how the Ebola virus rampages through African communities now and again, how smallpox erupted in colonial North America and again in the United States in 1837-1838. Such is the nature of disease.
Yep and we have a flu epidemic every 10 years or so, costing thousands of lives. There was one in the 50s, one in the 60s and so on.
How Mexico responds to this influenza outbreak has immediate relevance to me; had the disease erupted first in Quebec, Canada and I lived in, say, upstate New York or Michigan, Canada's responses would be of equal relevance, and Canada's lingering internal tensions arising from Francophone Quebec could easily impact how well that nation responded to such a crisis--and might prove surprisingly problematic, given Canada's seemingly endless flirtation with its own dissolution.
LOL give me a break. A country that is not only democratic, but has a somewhat semi stable democratic history, is suddenly going to be a "failed state" just because of problems internal? Does that mean that the US is a failed state because of the political troubles between the Democrats and Republicans? Or it is a failed state because some in Texas want to cede from the Union?
Of course any and all aspects of Mexican life has an influence on how they react to such things, but a freaking drug war and a hypothetical pipedream by the American right about a possible failed state in a country that they have issues with, is not one the major factors that need be mentioned when discussing why "Swine flu is worse in Mexico", which is the intent of this discussion.. or did you miss-right the title of the thread?
The correct things are things like population density, social aspects and traditional aspects, pollution, and so on. Mabye after number of albino patients in the area we can start discussing the narko war, but surely not before the most logical reasons.
China's handling--or rather, mishandling--of SARS in 2003 allowed that contagion to spread farther and claim more lives than might have otherwise been the case. By ignoring that crisis, China added to every nation's burden in protecting their own populations.
I agree, but does that mean that China is a failed state? Or there are social and traditional and political issues that resulted in this mishandling? Things like pride, arrogance, corruption, population density, social aspects, traditions.. how important are they compared to the failed state arguments? There is after all an insurgency in areas of China against Chinese rule.
Zimbabwe's recent cholera epidemic is a grim example of what can happen when government lacks the will and/or the infrastructure to address epidemic disease.
At least here we could agree that it was a failed state, yet you did not mention it...
So, just as I draw real concern from Mexico's narco-violence and what impact it has on Texas
As you should, but again what does it have to do with why "swine flu is worse in Mexico"?
I draw real comfort from Mexico's response to this influenza outbreak, and what impact that has on Texas.
It is the same response as any other nation is expected to have done that do not have self serving morons ruling it. Flu is a season thing and can pop up everywhere, so containing it is damn hard.
If that to you represents hatred of Latinos, then you are sadly and greatly deluded.
Again, what does the narko war have to do with "Swine flu is worse in Mexico"? Are the narko people sending infected people across the border or something?
Now you might not have intentionally wanted to go that way, but you have to admit that it is a poor title if you in fact wanted to discuss the narko war vs swine flu angle...
Let me remind you... Mexico City.. population 26 million people is the centre of the breakout. That is why it is worse in Mexico.