5 ms·

What? US state and federal emergency responders have plans and tools for locking down a city, too.

by cjslep 7y ago

zozbot234 7y ago
Yup. Specifically, many people have speculated that FEMA has contingency plans where they would even be able to set up internment camps for as many people as needed, if required to quarantine an epidemic or other national emergency. Not too far from what's going on in Wuhan.
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  Which people have speculated, and on what grounds? Anyone can speculate anything about FEMA's disaster plans to make internment of arbitrarily large numbers of people sound like a totally normal thing.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    Look, there's a lot of material on this already, I'm not making up anything. Just google FEMA internment camps.
    - netsharc 7y ago
      If you google that, you get right wing propaganda, the kind of sites which also claim Obama is a Kenyan-Muslim-time-travelling-terrorist. But maybe you are one of them, now you're going to jump and down telling us FEMA is the Waffen-SS.
raxxorrax 7y ago
I seriously doubt a quarantine on that scale would be effective and accepted by citizens in cases like this. If they did it may be the last time they had these privileges. They can lock down some roads or a building and maybe the air space, but anything on a larger scale is unrealistic. If someone did this in a western democracy, you can be sure those responsible would be on their last term after the initial hysteria waned.
- cjslep 7y ago
  I think you're copy-pasting China's literal response into some hypothetical other culture that isn't being clearly explained, which isn't useful for those of us that can't read your mind. Concretely, the US CDC for example prefers setting up physically separate internment camps and moving infected populations there for quarantine. And they can easily get the backing of federal military resources or, in the case of a state governor declaring a state of emergency, the state's National Guard to enforce this. It could get ugly, but only for a few zealots. Modern history (20th century til now) shows that a majority of Americans are generally willing to give up civil liberties in emergencies that relate to "national security" or "think of the children" causes. Edit: And of course curfew laws can be directed by a state government during a state of emergency, or federally during a state of emergency from the Public Health Service Act, and enforced by military forces.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Modern history also tells me that they never locked down a city. Certainly because the consequences are predictable. And especially not in cases like this where the hysteria is beginning to be as much of a concern than the virus itself. As I said, I don't think you could lock down a city. Military support or not. Even with a real threat, you can be sure people responsible would step down afterwards and quarantine be breached widely.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

What? US state and federal emergency responders have plans and tools for locking down a city, too.

by cjslep 7y ago

What? US state and federal emergency responders have plans and tools for locking down a city, too.

Yup. Specifically, many people have speculated that FEMA has contingency plans where they would even be able to set up internment camps for as many people as needed, if required to quarantine an epidemic or other national emergency. Not too far from what's going on in Wuhan.

EForEndeavour 7y ago
Which people have speculated, and on what grounds? Anyone can speculate anything about FEMA's disaster plans to make internment of arbitrarily large numbers of people sound like a totally normal thing.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Look, there's a lot of material on this already, I'm not making up anything. Just google FEMA internment camps.
  - netsharc 7y ago
    If you google that, you get right wing propaganda, the kind of sites which also claim Obama is a Kenyan-Muslim-time-travelling-terrorist. But maybe you are one of them, now you're going to jump and down telling us FEMA is the Waffen-SS.

raxxorrax 7y ago

I seriously doubt a quarantine on that scale would be effective and accepted by citizens in cases like this. If they did it may be the last time they had these privileges. They can lock down some roads or a building and maybe the air space, but anything on a larger scale is unrealistic. If someone did this in a western democracy, you can be sure those responsible would be on their last term after the initial hysteria waned.

cjslep 7y ago
I think you're copy-pasting China's literal response into some hypothetical other culture that isn't being clearly explained, which isn't useful for those of us that can't read your mind. Concretely, the US CDC for example prefers setting up physically separate internment camps and moving infected populations there for quarantine. And they can easily get the backing of federal military resources or, in the case of a state governor declaring a state of emergency, the state's National Guard to enforce this. It could get ugly, but only for a few zealots. Modern history (20th century til now) shows that a majority of Americans are generally willing to give up civil liberties in emergencies that relate to "national security" or "think of the children" causes. Edit: And of course curfew laws can be directed by a state government during a state of emergency, or federally during a state of emergency from the Public Health Service Act, and enforced by military forces.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Modern history also tells me that they never locked down a city. Certainly because the consequences are predictable. And especially not in cases like this where the hysteria is beginning to be as much of a concern than the virus itself. As I said, I don't think you could lock down a city. Military support or not. Even with a real threat, you can be sure people responsible would step down afterwards and quarantine be breached widely.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]