Some tribes (Navajo Nation included) are still receiving direct health care. There's a huge hospital in Gallup, NM, as well as another in Shiprock. Health care is supplied by the federal Indian Health Services (of HHS). In no way should this be construed as "far below" most US Standards.
Other tribes have opted out of direct health care preferring to receive Title 638 funds to administer for their health care. These tribes' health care naturally varies with the way the individual tribes administer their programs.
The Navajo Nation is larger than the state of West Virginia, so the analogy of town-level government wouldn't seem to apply.
We lived on the line of Leech Lake Reservation (near Cass Lake, MN) but except for that and the Crow Reservation, the rest of our reservation experiences were in the southwest.
(IHS hospital/clinics)
Yes, they're all different; laws, customs, landscape, tribal government, etc; more than most people might imagine.
Having lived on reservations, Navajo Nation being one of them, I'd opine that the co-morbidities are the main contributing factor. The diabetes rates on the rez are many times that of the US population as are the rates of alcoholism.
Also households are very often multi-generational and more crowded than in the US.
Yes, they do have their own lockdown policies. On a drive in western NC this past month, we had to turn around as the Qualla Boundary was blocked by tribal police.
I grew up in Farmington, this was my first thought, but also the rate of homelessness off the rez has always been very high (also with the same comorbidities), throw in the drop in oil price over the last 5 years, you have an area with additional economic depression.
In the US, the right to travel is one of the most basic. The right to work comes along somewhere close to that. I couldn't have imagined Americans would ever stand for such a thing, but current attitudes seem poised to easily fall over to that.
There are 19th century legal cases backing up travel restrictions to prevent disease spread. It’s not something we’re used to after the mid-20th-century eradication of most major diseases from the USA but there is ample precedent in our constitution and laws for it.
For instance, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/186/380/ “ That from an early day the power of the states to enact and enforce quarantine laws for the safety and the protection of the health of their inhabitants has been recognized by Congress is beyond question. That until Congress has exercised its power on the subject, such state quarantine laws and state laws for the purpose of preventing, eradicating, or controlling the spread of contagious or infectious diseases, are not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States although their operation affects interstate or foreign commerce is not an open question. The doctrine was elaborately examined and stated in Morgan Steamship Company v. Louisiana Board of Health, 118 U. S. 455”
Interstate travel is being shut down in certain us regions like you aren’t being allowed to travel from Louisiana to Florida or New York to Florida so it’s possible
Basically, it's a "license" for freedom. What a convoluted and contradictory concept. Given the past, and Germany's "Never Again" sentiment, I'm surprised this can even be considered.
I find your answer rather convoluted and contradictory. Throwing a pragmatic pandemic response action into the same bucket as the Holocaust is preposterous at best and disrespectful at worst.
The virus does obviously not descriminate against any human being in terms of spreading and so neither does a certificate of immunity. Having people go out and move and freely exercise their civil rights as much and quick as possible without compromising the health of other parts of society while doing it sounds pretty ideal to me.
It's not the rate that matters. It's the actual number of deaths.
SO FAR, this flu season, the CDC attributes 20,000 to 52,000 deaths to the flu in the US alone. Coronavirus has killed a tenth of that worldwide. So, no. Coronavirus is NOT anywhere near as bad as the regular flu.
The flu also did not face the same interventions as covid. No one has been isolated because of the flu, so it has reached far wider. What would the death rate look like without the quarantines, preventative testing of contacts and medical interventions?
Also the proportion of people hospitalised is far higher, with 10% or so needing oxygen. You don't get those numbers with the flu...
The one thing that should be obvious at this point is that developing countries are not reporting their real numbers.
China didn't report until international cases arose. Same with Iran. if you look at the map of infected countries, there are several that mysteriously are between infected countries and somehow have zero cases.
Assume a pandemic. In other words, assume you are going to get it and maximize chance of surviving.
From what we know so far, many have very mild cases, some have severe to very severe. Some die from disease directly (e.g. loss of ling function due to a viral pneumonia), others from follow on complications (e.g. septic shock, secondary bacterial infection).
Based on published data it appears to kill about 1 in 500 of those under 50, assume 80% of cases are mild and that becomes in in 2,000; assume 95% of cases are mild (e.g. another cold or flu) for those under 50 and that's 1 in 10,000. So you risk if you are under 50 is likely somewhere between 1 in 2,000 and 1 in 10,000.
Above 50 those odds get worse rapidly, more so if you are a smoker or live in an area with bad air pollution.
The average cost of tuition at public universities in 1970 was $470. In 2017, it was $9,970.
Health spending was $355 per person in 1970 ($1,797 if you adjust to 2017 dollars). In 2017 it was $10,735.
The median price of a home in 1970 was $23,600, and last april it was $339,000.
We have less than half the number of pensions in the US than we did then. Contributions to retirement plans have grown by more than 10x and we have a lot less financial security now despite this.
1,000% is a fantasy. We're well above that on many aspects.
I think that's a common problem when discussing things with one's parents. "You make twice the amount I did at that age!", "Yes, but tuition is twenty times as high!".
Fun comparisons around a $1.60 minimum wage in 1968:
- An hour of labor would buy ~4.7 gallons of gasoline. If minimum wage had kept pace, it would be $12.32.
- Average home could be bought with ~15k hours of minimum-wage labor (around 8 years). Had minimum wage kept pace, it would be $14.96.
- Average car price was $2,822. Using this as the sole deflator would put an equivalent minimum wage at $20.89 today.
- The average public university tuition + room & board cost $1,143, which could be earned in 714 hours at minimum wage (this could be physically accomplished in a summer of hard work). If minimum wage had kept pace with these fees, it would be $27.28 per hour. (There are not enough clock hours in a summer break, assuming no sleep, to earn enough at minimum wage to pay for a year of the average public university.)
