Brian Rogers (
subplotkudzu) wrote2006-09-12 06:36 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
Oh, come on people!
I had always intended this journal to be primarily gaming related with some (hopefully) amusing life anecdotes, but I feel the need to rant for a moment. This quote is from an Explainer article in yesterday's Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2149359/)
3%?
3 goddamn percent?!?
This five years after people were banging on the doors of the blood rives insisting it was their moral and religious duty to donate? Speaking as arrogant git who just got his 5 gallon pin, I'm trying to figure out what the problem is here. I know the article I'm quoting from is focusing on the cost factors of blood donation and transfer, but I can't be the only on to find this depressing. Surely we can do better than this.
(The centers in Iowa, for example, are able to collect from 12 percent of the population, compared to a national average of 3 percent.)
3%?
3 goddamn percent?!?
This five years after people were banging on the doors of the blood rives insisting it was their moral and religious duty to donate? Speaking as arrogant git who just got his 5 gallon pin, I'm trying to figure out what the problem is here. I know the article I'm quoting from is focusing on the cost factors of blood donation and transfer, but I can't be the only on to find this depressing. Surely we can do better than this.
no subject
no subject
Although, a month or so ago when I fist heard about the shortage, I went looking for a place to donate and I couldn't find one anywhere in CT on my day off.
no subject
The rest of the problem is the lack of infrastructure and cultural buy in for this. We all know we need blood supplies - anyone who has watched an episode of ER has figured that out. But we don't realize the cost involved for getting that blood collected, stored and distributed to the places that need it, which is almost as bad as not getting around to donating it.
I think part of my earlier rantage was a 9/11 anniversary aftershock. Suddenly people who had never donated before felt the need to do so, to do something. Such people also donated huge amounts of money to the Red Cross. Then, when the Red Cross tried to use some of that money for infrastructure improvements so they'd be better prepared for the next disaster (one that might have survivors where they'd be more equipped to assist) they were attacked for it. Infrastructure be damned, all of that money had to go to this event's survivors.
I certainly don't have anything against the 9/11 survivors, but that was a bad policy - there were a lot of other organizations stepping up to help them, while only the Red Cross can do what the Red Cross does. And when the next big crisis hit (hell, it wasn't even Katrina, it was the triple threat hurricane season in Florida, but Katrina sure stands out too) the Red Cross was again attacked, this time for not doing as much as they could have. Ya'see, their infrastructure hadn't been improved.
Yes, all of us have to give a little more of themselves (in the case of blood donation, literally), but we also have to start preparing for the next problem when the opportunity presents itself. And when it comes to an emergency management agency, there is always a next problem. It comes every month when blood supplies run low because we don't have the funds or the people in place to collect, transport and store it, and it comes every time something really bad happens. This isn't a pessimistic preparation for some possible doom, but an acknowledgment of what we need to do and have done.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject