Breaking News: Haiti hit by a 7.0 quake

[Broomstick]

Frankly, if I'm in charge of a large group of civilians and I feel we don't have adequate protection, I'm sorry, I am not going to leave them in a situation where they may come to harm.

OK, here's a hypothetical -

You're in charge of 60 people. One (or several) decide that, nevermind your orders and judgment, they want to stay with the patients overnight. Are you going to drag them kicking and screaming out of there, or tell them they can stay at their own risk?

Are you leading children, or adults who can make their own decisions?

Just because you're my boss or my leader or whatever does not mean I will follow you blindly. I am the first person responsible for my safety, I am the one responsible for my own decisions and actions. Deciding to go with the boss's decision, as I have said, may be perfectly valid and is probably correct in most circumstances, but not all.

Gijs made his decision. It was, of course, his call to make. He decided to pull his people out entirely. He also decided to pull out all the medical supplies even through he knew Gupta was staying. Yeah, I still have a problem with that. Sure, take most of it, but all of it? Just some basic IV equipment could mean life or death to someone bleeding either from an injury or an operation. Yes, I have a problem with that decision. Fortunately, it seems those supplies weren't needed after all. And no one attacked the aid station after all. And no one died. Really, I am truly very happy this all ended well for everyone. That doesn't mean this was the ideal way for events to play out.

They aren't military, they can't necessarily be expected to defend themselves.

Are they adults? Are they capable of making their own decisions and choices?

Gupta's group (camerperson, a few other CNN staff, maybe a handful of private security at the most) might be able to clear out in a couple of cars in a hurry if things start to go south fast.

What? You mean - with hardly any gas in the city, and the roads full of people, corpses, and debris? You sure fleeing on foot wouldn't be faster?

Gijs didn't have to leave his entire team - if one or two had volunteered (and we don't know if anyone would have or not) that might be enough to keep the patients alive overnight, and a small enough group to flee if necessary.

What's done is done, but there are alternative ways this could have played out.

[Simon_Jester]

If you aren't prepared to take risk then don't go in. Seriously. I've seen reports of people who flew down to Haiti, took one look, and turned around to scramble to get home. They had no business going in the first place, and took a seat a real rescuer or a stack of supplies could have used. Granted, you will always have a few people show up who can't hack it, that's unavoidable, but people really should be careful about charging in to help. That's why they keep saying "It's as horrible as it looks, in fact, it's WORSE."

The problem is one of level of risk. The act of setting up a field hospital during the day and trying to operate on people is not necessarily as risky as trying to stay there all night in the middle of huge crowds of wandering desperate people who might riot at any moment without adequate security protection.

The fact that they're there at all, that they were concretely helping and not just turning around and scrambling home, is significant. And they're not planning to leave, either. The problem was that their boss (or his boss, or his boss) decided that while the average, general level of risk in Haiti was low enough that keeping the team on the island was justified, the specific, higher level of risk of leaving the entire hospital staff out there in the midst of a riot waiting to happen was not.

The willingness to accept risk is not and should not be absolute for sane people. And people should not be condemned for cowardice on the grounds that they obeyed an order to pull away from a situation when their boss decided it was too risky.

[RedImperator]

You're in charge of 60 people. One (or several) decide that, nevermind your orders and judgment, they want to stay with the patients overnight. Are you going to drag them kicking and screaming out of there, or tell them they can stay at their own risk?

Are you leading children, or adults who can make their own decisions?

If they're adults, then they know if the boss says you have to go, you go. No kicking and screaming required. But if they did refuse to leave, yeah, I would try to drag them out of there, because in a situation like that, the boss is responsible for everyone's safety. You tell a doctor, "OK, stay at your own risk", and he gets hurt or killed overnight, nobody's going to say "Oh well, it was his decision".

[Paradoxical]

In related news, what's the first important issue that pops into your head during a humanitarian crisis?

I doubt it was this.

Marni Soupcoff: Earthquakes make bad laws

The devastation in Haiti is breaking the world’s heart. Politicians, media commentators and ordinary Canadians are all looking for ways to help the earthquake victims. The instinct is natural, good, commendable and wholesome — but it’s producing several bad ideas.

Canada’s government is suggesting that significantly relaxing requirements (family-reunification requirements, in particular) for Haitians to come here as immigrants and refugees would be a good way for us to lend a hand. They should know better. For reasons obvious to anyone familiar with the Mariel boatlift (in which Fidel Castro emptied his jails, and the U.S. was suddenly flooded with a host of Cuban refugees who... well, just see Scarface), issuing a blanket welcome to all citizens of another country is a dangerous proposition.

But even if some of the Haitians who’d be granted status here would be criminals, and we’d strain to fund the extensive health care, housing and social assistance they would need, it would still be a good deal for the wretched of the Earth, right?

Not necessarily: The move would be tantamount to a lottery — one that ignores the massive problems faced by all the other millions of human beings the world over who suffer in equally perilous and excruciating circumstances.

Why would we choose to embrace a crushed, suffering individual from Haiti over a crushed, suffering individual from Darfur, where hundreds of thousands have died? Or Congo, where millions have perished? Because the pictures from Haiti are more graphic and top of mind? Because on a gut level we’re more sympathetic to the casualties of natural disasters than we are to the casualties of man-made conflicts?

Our immigration system is supposed to reflect our priorities and choices about who gets to come to, and stay in, Canada. The system includes refugee provisions to protect people who are at risk of political persecution in their home countries. The victims of Haiti’s earthquake don’t fall into this category. In fact, there is no legal provision in Canada, or any other nation I know of, that systematically admits foreigners simply on the basis that their nation is poor, dysfunctional and afflicted by tragedy. If there were such a provision, literally billions of people from all over sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia would be entitled to enter Canada tomorrow.

If we admit thousands of Haitian immigrants now, we’ll feel good about ourselves for a few months, and help some people. But what happens the next time there is an earthquake — or a war, typhoon, tsunami, or drought? What happens when those victims come knocking? On what basis do we say no?

Hard cases make bad laws, as they say. The same principle applies to natural disasters: Horrible calamities lead to misguided policies.

In the short term, we should do everything we can to bring life-saving food and medical care to Haiti. But changing our immigration system’s rules — or creating massive, on-the-fly loopholes to existing rules — isn’t something that should be done while images of the dead still appear on our front pages. Instead, our lawmakers should think carefully about whether, in light of this tragedy and others like it, our system needs changing. Any changes we do make should be rules of general application — applying to the victims of this and future crises in equal measure.

Our reaction to the Haitians’ plight is a reminder that we care. The best way to put that care to good use is to ensure our immigration system truly reflects our values.

That's right, we shouldn't let those people into this country because they remind her of Scarface.

As usual the readers comments section should be enough to put you in a deep coma too.

[Broomstick]

You're in charge of 60 people. One (or several) decide that, nevermind your orders and judgment, they want to stay with the patients overnight. Are you going to drag them kicking and screaming out of there, or tell them they can stay at their own risk?

Are you leading children, or adults who can make their own decisions?

If they're adults, then they know if the boss says you have to go, you go. No kicking and screaming required. But if they did refuse to leave, yeah, I would try to drag them out of there, because in a situation like that, the boss is responsible for everyone's safety. You tell a doctor, "OK, stay at your own risk", and he gets hurt or killed overnight, nobody's going to say "Oh well, it was his decision".

Nope, sorry - like I said, it's usually best to follow the boss, but not always. I don't believe blind obedience is an absolute good or an absolute mandate. Leaders are not infallible.

But we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Broomstick, have you not realised that money is useless in Haiti and with what is the team leader supposed to barter with to get local security? Medical supplies?

[Broomstick]

In related news, what's the first important issue that pops into your head during a humanitarian crisis?

I doubt it was this.

Marni Soupcoff: Earthquakes make bad laws

There are proposals to swing wide the doors to the US as well. While I understand the empathic motives I question the methods.

For the US, one proposal has been to bring here the very young, the maimed, and the elderly. Of those three groups only the young and healthy have any realistic chance to become self-supporting. Well, OK, maybe we shouldn't make that a requirement -- but in the US medical care is tied to employment and the employment prospect of full citizens fluent in English is rather precarious right now, someone with minimal education, a disability, and speaking only Kreyol are exceedingly dim. On top of that, the aid rendered to the destitute here is very, very thin, and thinner yet for those who are not citizens. I fear that it would be trading misery in Haiti for misery in the US. Arguably, poverty in the US is more comfortable than poverty in Haiti, but it's not really a solution except in the short term. If people are willing to take US poverty over Haitian poverty more power to them, and I wouldn't deny them their choice, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking everyone will have a happy ending.

For Canada, their medical system would take on the care of these refugees, and let's be generous and assume that it would be able to. Again, there is the problem of refugees who don't know the language, who may well be disabled, and Canada has fewer people among whom to spread the burden. It would be likely the Haitians would gravitate towards Quebec, which is predominantly French-language as they would either have some acquaintance with French or it would be easier to learn than English since Kreyol is closer to French than English is. That will really be a strain on Quebec I think - in the US there isn't the incentive to gravitate to just one state as English is the de facto language everywhere in the US. A decade ago I would have predicted that a massive wave of incoming Haitians would have gone to New Orleans due to historical and language links, but I just don't think that still-recovering city could handle such an influx

Valid points are made about the possibility of not-so-nice people immigrating under such a program.

I am very happy that many countries are speeding up visas for Haitian children adopted by foreigners - such children are going to people who have already committed to raising them as their own. Haitian-born US citizens are being brought back to the US as rapidly as possible. I am behind the idea of bringing their relatives, as they will be going to a situation where they have family who (presumably) are already familiar with the US and (I hope) working and able to help the newcomers.

But the point of picking and choosing among the downtrodden and oppressed is very true. It's not that the Haitians aren't worth helping - it's that everyone everywhere else is equally deserving of help. How are you picking and choosing?

The US absorbs a LOT of refugees. Hundreds of thousands from some ethnic groups (the Hmong, for instance, number 250,000-300,000 in the US). Experience has shown that even with the best of intentions immigration doesn't always have a happy ending.

There are already 600,000 Haitians living in the US legally (quite a few of them naturalized citizens, others legal residents). We've already announed that an additional 100,000-200,000 here illegally will not be deported during the emergency under tempoary protected status. Any US citizen living in Haiti, about 45,000 people, gets a ticket back to the US. Haitian orphans with adoptive US parents are having their visas expedited. That's already pushing nearly a million people, and those are mostly healthy folks able to work right now (children excepted).

Bringing in substantial numbers of Haitians to the US during an economic downtown, while entirely laudable from a human compassion standpoint, presents real logistical problems. How many Haitian refugees are we talking about? The US could probably take in a half a million (based on the Hmong situation) particularly with the support of already resident Haitian communities, but how many will want to come? A half million? A million? More?.

But let's praise Senegal - they're offering land to any Haitian who wants to come. God bless 'em, I hope they don't regret it. They do have more room than Haiti, but 1/3 of their citizens are under the international poverty line right now. An advantage is that Senegal also uses French as an official language, and immigrating Haitians may avoid skin color prejudice (which doesn't mean there aren't other forms of discrimination to worry about). Able-bodied Haitians might well make a go of it in such a place if given half a chance, but the disabled? There are tens of thousands of people who will survive this disaster but will be maimed, including amputations. What are the prospects of such people in Senegal? What are their prospects in Haiti?

Ideally, I'd like to see a LOT of countries take in Haitians and actually care for them... but forgive me for being skeptical about this happening in the US where we don't even care for our own unfortunates very well.

[Broomstick]

Broomstick, have you not realised that money is useless in Haiti and with what is the team leader supposed to barter with to get local security? Medical supplies?

Food and water. Isn't that obvious? What else is of value in Haiti right now? Well yes, medical supplies, too, but everyone needs food and water, not just the injured.

That's assuming the team in question brought sufficient food and water with them for their needs, and have re-supply capability.

[FSTargetDrone]

Gijs made his decision. It was, of course, his call to make. He decided to pull his people out entirely. He also decided to pull out all the medical supplies even through he knew Gupta was staying. Yeah, I still have a problem with that.

I agree, conditionally. I would have preferred that the supplies were left behind, assuming there was no good reason to remove them.

What? You mean - with hardly any gas in the city, and the roads full of people, corpses, and debris? You sure fleeing on foot wouldn't be faster?

There was obviously vehicle transport--it's in the video, at least 2 large trucks full of blue-helmeted UN personnel and the medical people driving away. That said, I do not know for certain that Gupta's group did indeed arrived in a car or two itself. That's an assumption on my part and will concede I may have erred. However, considering they have been lugging camera and other gear around, it may be that they arrived in some off-camera vehicles.

Gijs didn't have to leave his entire team - if one or two had volunteered (and we don't know if anyone would have or not) that might be enough to keep the patients alive overnight, and a small enough group to flee if necessary.

I think it's safe to say that some or many would have stayed. Again, Gupta himself said he thought some wanted to stay. But Gijs is in charge, he is presumably experienced and made the decision he thought best for the group. If members of his team decided to stay where they were, despite his advice, I don't know what he could do other than to get his UN escorts to physically remove them and I very much doubt he wanted things to escalate that far. We don't know what he said to them, and yes following orders isn't always the right or moral thing to do. But, in general, if people start ignoring his instructions, then things will not go well. I am not about to call him cowardly (as some other have) for pulling out because I wasn't there and do not have all of the facts at hand. I'm just going by what the article says. For all I know he would have preferred to stay. Someone in a leadership position such as his has to make difficult decisions. He has to answer for his doctors' and nurses' well-being. He evidently felt it was unsafe to stay without security and came to the best decision possible.

So, the only real criticism I have of the situation at the moment, given the information in the story, is that more supplies were not left behind. Perhaps Gijs had a very good reason to pack everything out. I don't know. There simply isn't enough information.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Broomstick, have you not realised that money is useless in Haiti and with what is the team leader supposed to barter with to get local security? Medical supplies?

Food and water. Isn't that obvious? What else is of value in Haiti right now? Well yes, medical supplies, too, but everyone needs food and water, not just the injured.

That's assuming the team in question brought sufficient food and water with them for their needs, and have re-supply capability.

Isn't that the point? You honestly think they would have enough of that to feed themselves, 60 person in all, and at the same time feed God knows how many security guards and their families, assuming also that they don't just run away with payment?

[Broomstick]

Yeah, OK, I was getting pretty emotional over this, but I guess I'm just to soft-hearted.

The first wave of deaths were people who died immediately.

The next wave of deaths were those with unsurvivable but not immediately fatal wounds, along with wounds that, in another place, are survivable but not in such a disaster area simply because there isn't enough medicine to go around.

Now infection and Rhabdomyolysis are claiming lives. Outside of disaster area, particularly in developed countries, that would not happen in these numbers. IF doctors can get to these people in time they might save their lives by performing amputations. Unfortunately, there is little in the way of anesthesia. They're amputating limbs without anesthesia in order to try to save peoples' lives. Rhabdomyolysis can be treated with initially with IV fluids (undoubtedly in short supply in Haiti right now, though clearly there are some such supplies being used) and then dialysis if necessary... but does anyone think there is a working dialysis in Port-au-Prince right now? And if there is... who gets to use it?

Oh, that reminds me - anyone who was using dialysis, who needed daily insulin, or required any other daily medication as a life-or-death issue is probably already dead, and if not, currently dying.

Anyone with HIV is no longer getting treatment even if they were fortunate enough to get it before. Quite a bit of human blood being splashed around, too. Other chronic disease, such as tuberculosis, hepatitis, parasitic worms.... none of that is being treated anymore.

Human waste is going to start spreading disease.

What happens if a flu outbreak occurs among stressed, starving, people in the streets and parks of Port-au-Prince?

What happens during the hurricane season?

There are going to be more deaths, actual waves of death, across Haiti for months to come.

Truly, a million deaths is a statistic, but part of me can't block out that these are real human beings really suffering, really dying, really losing their limbs in agony in a desperate attempt to save their lives. I can't just callously shrug and dispassionately dismiss all that.

[Broomstick]

Food and water. Isn't that obvious? What else is of value in Haiti right now? Well yes, medical supplies, too, but everyone needs food and water, not just the injured.

That's assuming the team in question brought sufficient food and water with them for their needs, and have re-supply capability.

Isn't that the point? You honestly think they would have enough of that to feed themselves, 60 person in all, and at the same time feed God knows how many security guards and their families, assuming also that they don't just run away with payment?

I have gone a week without food. It sucks, but it won't kill you. I am willing to trade 1 day of food for me for someone to stand guard over another human being to give them a chance of living the night.

I offered it as a possibility. Whether or not it would have worked is a different issue dependent on a lot of variables. It is even conceivable that some of the locals would have done such a thing simply out of the goodness of their own hearts. Or maybe not.

[Losonti Tokash]

Broomstick, here's how I see it:

Just about anyone who is trained to deal with emergency medicine in a potentially dangerous area (e.g. all of Haiti) has one thing hammered into them over and over again throughout said training. Your priorities are, in order of importance:

1) Yourself
2) Your partner(s)
3) Your patient(s)

I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Belgians, as they of course were the ones that were actually there and made the decision to leave. At the same time, I don't think it diminishes the bravery or persistence shown by Gupta. I think it would have been preferable for them to leave supplies behind for him and his make-shift staff, but that might not have been practical. It's hard to tell, obviously.

I have gone a week without food. It sucks, but it won't kill you. I am willing to trade 1 day of food for me for someone to stand guard over another human being to give them a chance of living the night.

It's possible, but the last people you can compromise the health of are the medical personnel, really. You might be able to get that whole night out of them but it's going to be even more murder on their physical and mental health than their work already is. You might help a few more people that day but it's going to kill even more in the long run.

[Edward Yee]

If anyone has a solution for this problem (other than human porters) it will be the military.

They could drop supplies out of cargo planes. Haven't they done that before?

Possibly. However, prior drops were done into open fields. Right now, what few open spaces exist in Port-au-Prince are full of people. If you drop stuff out of an aircraft you risk hitting people and injuring or killing them.

A Time online report has already mentioned the lack of open space; in fact, the growing "tent cities, sprouting up like blue-tarpaulin clusters 
amid the capital's ocean of gray dust and debris, were themselves taking 
up most open spaces, from soccer fields to parking lots, making the flyers' 
jobs trickier if not riskier." In the case of the reporter's first ride into Port-au-Prince (I believe aboard a USN helo?) an Air Force officer was looking for possible touchdown or drop sites; on the reporter's second flight though, the Blackhawk crew ended up dropping the supplies from the air -- apparently the risk of this was less than the chance of the refugees being injured by the rotor blades. (This I found darkly amusing though: "Like the 
good nervous civilian I am, I started helping the crew throw MRE boxes out 
myself so we could ascend again as quickly as possible.")

[CaptainChewbacca]

One thing I've heard being talked about, and that I'd like to hear your opinions on, is the pros and cons of attaching conditions to aid. I'm not talking about the immediate humanitarian aid, but if the world (largely the US) is going to try and rebuild Haiti's infrastructure, do we have the right to demand they change their nation? Their form of government (or lack thereof) clearly isn't working, and their economy is some sort of socialist mess mutated by extreme corruption.

Should the US simply annex Haiti for rebuilding? COULD it do such a thing if it wanted? How can we keep from spending $2- or $5- or $10-billion and then having Haiti end up in the same situation three years from now when a Category 5 hits?

[Alyeska]

Protectorate nation?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Protectorate nation?

Does America even DO that anymore?

[wautd]

One thing I've heard being talked about, and that I'd like to hear your opinions on, is the pros and cons of attaching conditions to aid. I'm not talking about the immediate humanitarian aid, but if the world (largely the US) is going to try and rebuild Haiti's infrastructure, do we have the right to demand they change their nation? Their form of government (or lack thereof) clearly isn't working, and their economy is some sort of socialist mess mutated by extreme corruption.

Now is the chance to start over with a clean slate anyway. Not only most governmental buildings are destroyed, but a large fraction on what could have been called government officials is now dead as well. In a way it's kind of Germany/Japan left at the mercy of the victors of WW2 right now.

[Bounty]

The leader of the Belgian team was just interviewed as he and his people were scavenging drugs from a collapsed infirmary. They're running low on everything and with no extra equipment coming in they are using anything they can find in the rubble. If you think it's bad, it's actually a shitload worse.

[Broomstick]

They could drop supplies out of cargo planes. Haven't they done that before?

Possibly. However, prior drops were done into open fields. Right now, what few open spaces exist in Port-au-Prince are full of people. If you drop stuff out of an aircraft you risk hitting people and injuring or killing them.

A Time online report has already mentioned the lack of open space; in fact, the growing "tent cities, sprouting up like blue-tarpaulin clusters 
amid the capital's ocean of gray dust and debris, were themselves taking 
up most open spaces, from soccer fields to parking lots, making the flyers' 
jobs trickier if not riskier." In the case of the reporter's first ride into Port-au-Prince (I believe aboard a USN helo?) an Air Force officer was looking for possible touchdown or drop sites; on the reporter's second flight though, the Blackhawk crew ended up dropping the supplies from the air -- apparently the risk of this was less than the chance of the refugees being injured by the rotor blades. (This I found darkly amusing though: "Like the 
good nervous civilian I am, I started helping the crew throw MRE boxes out 
myself so we could ascend again as quickly as possible.")

Dropping supplies out of choppers is potentially less hazardous because choppers can hover stationary relative to the ground and at low altitude, allowing more precise placement of supplies with less force built up during the fall. You could even have a situation where people in the chopper can simply hand stuff to someone standing on the ground. As noted, there is a risk from the rotor blades, but that can be managed. Another downside is that choppers burn much more fuel per pound of cargo than airplanes do. Dropping supplies out of an airplane will always have to be done at a higher speed, otherwise the airplane stops flying and you have even more problems on your hand.

[Broomstick]

Should the US simply annex Haiti for rebuilding? COULD it do such a thing if it wanted?

We did that between 1915 and 1934. If anyone tries that again I hope the positive effects are more lasting.

[Broomstick]

The leader of the Belgian team was just interviewed as he and his people were scavenging drugs from a collapsed infirmary. They're running low on everything and with no extra equipment coming in they are using anything they can find in the rubble. If you think it's bad, it's actually a shitload worse.

Do you have a source on-line where I could read about their side in this? English or French would work, text or video, I haven't been able to find anything on my own.

[Bounty]

The leader of the Belgian team was just interviewed as he and his people were scavenging drugs from a collapsed infirmary. They're running low on everything and with no extra equipment coming in they are using anything they can find in the rubble. If you think it's bad, it's actually a shitload worse.

Do you have a source on-line where I could read about their side in this? English or French would work, text or video, I haven't been able to find anything on my own.

http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.e ... n/1.695992

This is from Friday.

http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.e ... n/1.696565

The search & rescue team getting recalled (note: this is separate from the medical staff, who are still on-site).

[[R_H]]

I read a report that people are looting toothpaste because the stench of the corpses is getting so bad.

[K. A. Pital]

Their form of government (or lack thereof) clearly isn't working, and their economy is some sort of socialist mess mutated by extreme corruption.

Haiti being socialist is the most amusing thing I have heard this day. I mean Haiti is not socialist (very not), and Cuba is hearby (strangely enough, it also has a life level far higher than Haiti).

Duvalier was just one pebble in the string of ugly spawn brought forth as "bulwark against Communism" by the USA, who accepted his anti-Communist position in hopes of preventing Haiti from going red. Duvalier was an anti-socialist. The only left-wing force they had, Fanmi Lavalas, is actually banned from power. It's leader was once overthrown in a coup (not that he was much of a socialist anyway). Just what the fuck are you talking about, Chewbacca?

Look: during all the time from 1950s onwards Haiti has not actually had a single left-wing administration. It's also the lowest line in this little chart which quite neatly explains the economic evolution of Carribean nations:

Or, maybe it's the TV which says Haiti is socialist? I mean, they are so poor, they must be, right? Being so poor while having a market economy is impossible! *brain explode* Verily, it's the eye of the beholder.

It's especially fun to hear that "their" government isn't working from the nation that meddled in Haiti's affairs more than any other state and directly controlled it for several decades (the results were not stellar, Haiti did NOT become a Puerto Rico), as well as sometimes deposing it's government (though not the Duvaliers, nay nay, can't hurt em glorious bulwarks against the reds).