Nations don't have friends; they have interests. The best motivation for a state to act if it is remote from an epidemic is if its own security is at risk.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
You can have an epidemic in a state. You can have it in a region. You can have it in a country where the critical level of disease passes a certain threshold, and we call that an 'epidemic threshold.'
Someone has said that nations have interests, they don't have friends, and you see that over and over in U.S. policy.
Without an adequate response, an epidemic can develop into a pandemic, which generally means it has spread to more than one continent.
No nation has friends only interests.
I am absolutely convinced there should be financial and political incentives for states to declare. You shouldn't be the pariah of the world if you say you have Ebola, but in reality this is what happens.
Infectious disease exists at this intersection between real science, medicine, public health, social policy, and human conflict. There's a tendency of people to try and make a group out of those who have the disease. It makes people who don't have the disease feel safer.
Governors normally have jurisdiction over public health emergencies, but a widespread biological attack would cross state boundaries.
In today's interdependent world, a threat to one becomes a menace to all. And no state can defeat these challenges and threats alone.
But which is the State's essential function, aggression or defence, few seem to know or care.
To be able to detect the outbreak of avian flu anywhere in the world is going to require a partnership of several countries that will share information and samples, but it is important to remember a threat anywhere is a threat everywhere.
No opposing quotes found.