Governors normally have jurisdiction over public health emergencies, but a widespread biological attack would cross state boundaries.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The governor has a role in terms of declaring a state of emergency.
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.'
State and local law enforcement are the primary protectors of the health, safety, and welfare of the people in the individual states.
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.
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.
War zones are dangerous, protests can be violent, also, natural disasters are difficult to cover, so there are going to be risks.
Most anyplace one lives is essentially dangerous. There are floods in the Midwest, and tornadoes. There are hurricanes along the Gulf. In New York, you get mugged.
The danger in our system is that the general government, which represents the interests of the whole, may encroach on the states, which represent the peculiar and local interests, or that the latter may encroach on the former.
The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster.
Government is a health hazard. Governments have killed many more people than cigarettes or unbuckled seat belts ever have.
No opposing quotes found.