It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conjecture.....At what point do the powers that be decide to start killing off carriers to prevent t

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Ok, Don't go nuts.
I'm not advocating shooting ebola carriers.
This is just a thread to discuss what governments might do in extreme cases.

And maybe what you or I might do.

Canada is already telling people to come home. It won't be long before the rest of the world considers isolating west africa.
At what point do they blockade borders and hold the refugees at gunpoint to prevent the spread of the disease.

Scared people will eventually flee en-masse and might end up being killed to prevent them from overrunning quarantine troops.
Would it be better to shoot and try to save the world or just let em go?

Also, is there precedent?
There probably is but I haven't found it yet.

It was bound to come up.
I thought it might be better as a discussion than as a random rant once things get really bad.


edit on 12-10-2014 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
We'd have to be looking at a complete collapse of civilisation scenario I think, before orders went out to shoot sick people.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Well there isn't a precedent for shooting and killing the infected out in the open as far as what we have been told.

However, look how long Tuskegee Experiment went on, when the US government knowingly and willingly committed medical apartheid on 200 black men, who in turn spread Syphllis to a large plethora of their community and in some cases their offspring.

If they can do that, they can do anything. AIDS also comes to mind, a "plague" of sorts that first killed only white guys (strain 1) and then "morphed" into killing people of color by latching on to their Delta gene.

And this Ebola is a US government co-op disease (see they hold the patent and the strain killing folks belongs to them).



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
" Also, is there precedent? "

They will justify it by claiming assault or attempted murder using Ebola as a bio-weapon.

My guess anyways.

Peace



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: badgerprints

Really and being just totally honest , if it got much more out of hand I'd hope sooner than later. Or easier we just stop allowing international flights in today like we should havewhen it hit Africa , no one has to be killed then. Not by tptb anyways.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: badgerprints

It'll be done for your safety and security.

Also, please don't forget, it's for the children.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Apocalyptically speaking, it could come down to person vs. person, neighborhood vs. neighborhood, community vs
community or nation vs. nation. Societal breakdown doesn't really have limits when people are starving, thirsting or dying



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Well here is the thing. Lets say there is a crisis and Ebola, or any other contagion, starts getting out of control. Hospitals are overcrowded with the infected, business and trade slows to a halt, martial law is declared. Death rate of the ill becomes 75% and the total population infected just hit 30%, 100 million Americans.

It might not seem reasonable or moral but at what point do you, the commander in chief, say it is time to begin phase 2 and commence preventive measures? How late is too late?



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: badgerprints

I personally think ebola isn't a bad thing. Lets say it kills 50% of the entire world..3=4 billion....that leaves 3 to 4 billion survivors who are probably healthier now. The human race would become much stronger and lets face it....we need a good kick in the ass and "do over" ...hopefully we get it right the next time.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I guess a more focused question might clarify.

Say, the ebola virus had infected half of the people in a given location...like a city or small country.

The powers that be have surrounded the city with military and law enforcement...maybe even armed civilians.
The point is to prevent tens of thousands of people from leaving the city and guaranteeing a worldwide pandemic.

The occupants of this city decide to swarm the perimeter and try to escape, infected and uninfected alike rush the barriers by the tens of thousands.

Do you shoot to save the world or do you let them go out and infect the rest of the planet?



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
It's easy to speculate from the safety of your arm-chair assuming you are going to be safe and protected from an outbreak.

What I find amusing about this line of thought is the complete lack of realism I'm reading.

When it comes to protecting, lets say, your family from your neighbors and friends that may be infected, are you just going to shoot them and leave them to die in your doorway. Just leave the body there for dogs and other animals and birds to eat. How are you going to get out without being infected?? to get food or water - if there is any to be had.

What if, with all your proctections someone within your family group gets infected? What will you do? Throw them out? You might become infected by them?

Here's what one woman did and is teaching others to do without fear without killing but with care and helping:

touch.latimes.com.../-1/article/p2p-81593863/



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: badgerprints

Have you ever read world war z by any chance.? the book not the movie..

I don't want to give any spoilers but there is a part that talks about it. You might find the book interesting.

I think I myself could never give the green light on something like that unless...the fatality rate was like 100% and it was gonna kill us all. If I had to make an ignorant wager id say the modern world has a greater than 50% chance of beating ebola.

But Id bet anything there are generals somewhere in the back ground weighing those options...not because they want to but because they are practical and think like that.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

Yeah,
Read WWZ a while back.
I don't remember the specifics but will likely read it again.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

What I find amusing about this line of thought is the complete lack of realism I'm reading.




Look into the politics of a cold war and look at the numbers both sides were willing to lose in order to gain a victory.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, to win a war faster and avoid an invasion.

Governments have built enough biological agents to kill the world hundreds of times over.

You don't think people would take out an entire group to get the infected?

Maybe you should become more acquainted with reality.

Not amusing at all when you really look at the world we live in.




edit on 12-10-2014 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
There was a chat show on this morning on BBC 1 in UK. Doctor on that said we really need to put things into perspective that hundreds of thousands die of flu and measles each year. They seemed to think this was being blown out of proportion just like AIDS was initially and swine flu and SARS since. Unlikely to spread as in Africa due to west having better sanitation. The one thing that was slightly worrying is that we only have two beds on standby in UK.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
IF true: Ebola dies in contact with the sun's rays. Then why not take a clear tube or I.V so that your blood in the tube can absorb the sun's light,then be fed back into you and your cured. Your body in turn will create antibodies against the ebola. IF TRUE. EBOLA CURE:



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
if one wanted to speculate, there is a executive order in place that allows the detention/quarantine of suspected and infected persons.

would be that hard to think that they wouldn't terminate carriers if the numbers got to high. i mean they would have a captive group.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
if one wanted to speculate, there is a executive order in place that allows the detention/quarantine of suspected and infected persons.

would be that hard to think that they wouldn't terminate carriers if the numbers got to high. i mean they would have a captive group.


Was that EO preceding or following--->un-immunized children crossing southern border recently?



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
if one wanted to speculate, there is a executive order in place that allows the detention/quarantine of suspected and infected persons.



would be that hard to think that they wouldn't terminate carriers if the numbers got to high. i mean they would have a captive group.



YOU say they wouldn't terminate carriers? How would they know if said person was a carrier?



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: badgerprints

As far as the U.S. is concerned, the answer depends on who is really in charge.

Things are going to get much, much worse. Many things will be tested.

Outcome is uncertain at this point.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join