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.

 

Watchdog: Obama to bring non-American Ebola victims to U.S. for treatment

page: 3
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: RAY1990

i'll answer that. in a outbreak one of the main objectives is to isolate the pathogen in place.
not transport it all over the world.



Sounds plausible, but they are not carrying it all over the world are they?

William Pooley was taken to the USA to donate his blood for Ebola victims, by a lot of threads I've read on ATS he apparently still had Ebola whether it was in his testicles or not.

Ya'll are just being moronically paranoid, your battlefield medics can stop a man from dying who has lost all his limbs yet the notion that Ebola victims can be transported without spreading said virus is absurd. If Ebola patients were brought back to US soil do you not think they'll be in quarantine?




posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

figure of speech, point is you don't transport the disease.
you isolate it where it is.

stopping the bleeding is much easier than fighting something that can not be seen.

and as far as i concerned they shouldn't have brought the doctors or the nurse home.
they should have been treated over there.

and everyone of the care giver in africa were in bio suits , they still caught it. just cause your in bio suits or some one is in quarantine doesn't mean it can't get out.




edit on 18-10-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: RAY1990

Those were not questions based on the OP or anything I said. How they make me feel is of no issue.

It is against every protocol to bring infection into an area that is infection free. You isolate it. Use quarantine. Yet they're flying people intentionally around the world as if they want to spread it. It's total BS.


I figured they were relevant questions.

If they were to do this do you honestly think these infected people will be allowed to walk among the population?

They would be isolated and quarantined.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: RAY1990

figure of speech, point is you don't transport the disease.
you isolate it where it is.



Well your,my and everyone else's nation have screwed up already on that haven't they.

I actually agree with you on this but it's almost a non issue now that everyone and his dog shows signs of Ebola. MSM hyped this whole thing up and now that a truly humanitarian idea has came forth (far too late) the idea is hog-washed. We first world nations should have isolated this at 500 deaths.

We could have and should have done much more.

ADDED:

If Ebola can escape hazmat type suits and a biological containment area then why is the same issue not raised when it comes to biological weapons or research done in multiple places across the USA, I asked a similar question to Lucidity because I think it is relevant. Surely the US should have had a major outbreak of a weaponized biological entity by now.
edit on 18-10-2014 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

yep, should have had the UN and WHO declare it and and resolution passed and joint forces enforce it.
another one that people in the U.S. need to pay attention to, is the Enteroviruses. it's already killed more in the U.S. than ebola, and seems to be spreading.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

the way i understand it from all the news sources, is mainly failure to observe procedure when they clean up or the way that they were dressed.

one of the complaints from nurse in dallas was that they were not fully covered. they say that their necks were exposed. and that they may have come into contact then wiped their neck during decontamination.

mainly i think that is the main reason.
ETA:
when it comes to biological weapons or research across the USA, it is mainly repetition, they do the same thing day in and day out. also a lot of them are militarily and procedure is drill into them. not to say that it couldn't or hasn't happened. probably has and we haven't been informed about it.



edit on 18-10-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: squittles

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Wonder what the cost would be (since it will be our tax dollars paying for it).

Would it be cheaper to send the people and supplies there, and treat people there?

Or is it cheaper to instead fly each one here, treat them here, those that survive have to be flown back. Those that do not survive (dying far from home and their families) the cost of having to dispose of their bodies.


And what makes you think we'd fly them back home? It's not like we send any other uh, "visitors" back home.

We'd probably fly in their families as well, for "moral support", find them a place to live, some food stamps, Medicaid, etc.

Why not? We do it for everyone else. Well, unless you're an actual citizen ...


Ulp!

Ya got me there!

Still: normal protocol for disease is containment to keep it from spreading. Transporting people always runs the risk of a disease propagating.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: RAY1990

Those were not questions based on the OP or anything I said. How they make me feel is of no issue.

It is against every protocol to bring infection into an area that is infection free. You isolate it. Use quarantine. Yet they're flying people intentionally around the world as if they want to spread it. It's total BS.


I have to tell you I use the commonsense approach to everything and this just totally defies any commonsense approach to safety. Why they don't have medical ships set up for this and shuttle them off the coast of Africa is beyond me, any American with the slightest question of contamination should be quarantined off the coast on a Navy medical ship to see which way it goes. We can't fix the world we have decades of failure at that, why continue with a potential nationwide life altering event? You are absolutely right keep the infection out first and foremost.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
The fact is that we did not have an ebola problem in the us until they brought the infected here and gave hope to others that if they were to get here they would live. Many knew this would happen and any logical team of people deciding at the time would have at least brought the thought to the table if they were really weighing the pros and cons.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
The "green shirts" are the latest radical religion.

Saul Aliksky's "Rules for Radicals" tells us that the ends justify the means. Stay alert, informed, and vigilant. Oh...and guard your 2A as if it were your life (because it is).



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: RAY1990

figure of speech, point is you don't transport the disease.
you isolate it where it is.



Well your,my and everyone else's nation have screwed up already on that haven't they.

I actually agree with you on this but it's almost a non issue now that everyone and his dog shows signs of Ebola. MSM hyped this whole thing up and now that a truly humanitarian idea has came forth (far too late) the idea is hog-washed. We first world nations should have isolated this at 500 deaths.

We could have and should have done much more.

ADDED:

If Ebola can escape hazmat type suits and a biological containment area then why is the same issue not raised when it comes to biological weapons or research done in multiple places across the USA, I asked a similar question to Lucidity because I think it is relevant. Surely the US should have had a major outbreak of a weaponized biological entity by now.


I think you are answering your own question the military isolates before handling, they are not the ran by or controlled by the CDC who at this point is a total failure. All of this type of weaponized bacteria is handled in containment rooms, in multi layered buildings. They don't test the weapon and then transport it to another facility for additional testing. Wouldn't that be a disaster. One traffic accident could wipe out a city, which begs the question of Obama. What's his ultimate goal bringing more infected people here? It can't be a magnanimous gesture or certainly he would have done more for refugee's from ISIS.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: RAY1990

Those were not questions based on the OP or anything I said. How they make me feel is of no issue.

It is against every protocol to bring infection into an area that is infection free. You isolate it. Use quarantine. Yet they're flying people intentionally around the world as if they want to spread it. It's total BS.


I figured they were relevant questions.

If they were to do this do you honestly think these infected people will be allowed to walk among the population?

They would be isolated and quarantined.


Isn't that the point, they already have been allow to walk among the population. You now have a cruise ship problem, and airplane problem, we are now tracking people all over the US to name a few. Why are we taking chances with it unnecessarily. No one seems to be using commonsense.
edit on 18-10-2014 by MarlinGrace because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
no source in msm, how long until they parrot it, so something is up two days and no other sources.

usually that means its unvettable, or they wont touch it for other reasons.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: RAY1990

i'll answer that. in a outbreak one of the main objectives is to isolate the pathogen in place.
not transport it all over the world.




Ya'll are just being moronically paranoid, your battlefield medics can stop a man from dying who has lost all his limbs yet the notion that Ebola victims can be transported without spreading said virus is absurd. If Ebola patients were brought back to US soil do you not think they'll be in quarantine?


You realize how many BSL-4 hospital beds we have, right? 19.

And how many of those airborne isolation chambers do you think we have? 1?

You do know what the symptoms of a full-blown Ebola case is, right? Projectile vomiting, uncontrollable bloody and explosive diarrhea, coughing up and vomiting blood, partial liquefaction of organs, and hemorrages and bleeding from the eyes and mucous membranes - can you imagine that happening in an aircraft, how unutterably contaminated that would become?

No, you treat it in-place as much as possible, because every person and thing they encounter on their travel becomes a new potential vector for infection.

Comparing it to medics on the battlefield is so entirely inappropriate I don't think you have any notion whatsoever about the lethality of this virus, and how dangerous it is.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join