A Way To Stop Ebola Discovered!

a reply to: Phage

So if we we can't stop 100% then we allow 100% to run around and spread ebola?

Come on.
We import 4500 potential cases of ebola every month intentionally as opposed to a few who find a way to sneak in?

Is that a debating point or do you really think it's better to intentionally import 50 thousand potential cases of ebola over the next year ?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

If a ship from Africa makes a several week voyage, there will be obvious sick people on board and it can be quarantined.

Several weeks? Are you talking about sailboats?
It takes maybe a week to get from Liberia to North Africa on a boat and about a day (with layovers) on a plane from there to New York.

People who are completely asymptomatic, reaching New York. And that "stops ebola."

Naval blockade

It's what navies do.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Right. By who's navy? Under what authority?

Maybe nuking 'em is the best bet.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Right.
Maybe nuking 'em is the best bet.

No, you are trying to turn the argument into a joke.

A naval blockade would work, when the disease in the quarantined country runs its course the blockade ends.

edit, you added by who's authority.
By the US, we have ebola in our country from there.
Obama thinks he is President of Africa worrying about a travel ban effecting their economy, it is time he becomes President of the US.

a reply to: badgerprints

Good for you!
Stick to your logic.

a reply to: intrptr

That would be too intelligent
and logical.
Anything that makes perfect sense
seems to be avoided these days.

a reply to: badgerprints

So if we we can't stop 100% then we allow 100% to run around and spread ebola?

No.

We import 4500 potential cases of ebola every month intentionally as opposed to a few who find a way to sneak in?

All it takes is one undetected case, right? Isn't that what your point is? The whole "elders" thing?

Is that a debating point or do you really think it's better to intentionally import 50 thousand potential cases of ebola over the next year ?

Hyperbole? Or do you think everyone who gets on a plane is infected?

Travel from the region cannot be prevented. Prohibiting air travel will encourage clandestine travel. Clandestine travelers would not be screened or monitored to any degree. Stopping air travel from the region will not "stop ebola."

a reply to: TinfoilTP

No, you are trying to turn the argument into a joke.

That was a reference to an earlier post which was in response to a suggestion that we "crater" their runways.

edit, you added by who's authority. By the US, we have ebola in our country from there.

Now you want to completely isolate the entire region from shipping?
No. There is no legal authority for a naval blockade.

a reply to: Phage

Yes, in fact that was tried in the middle ages.
It actually worked quite well ...
until infected bodies were catapulted
over the walls.

The modern version would be airlines
trains, cruise ships and autos.
Much more effective than catapults or trebuchets.
Especially when depopulation and economic disaster
is the name of the game.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

edit, you added by who's authority. By the US, we have ebola in our country from there.

Now you want to completely isolate the entire region from shipping?
No. There is no legal authority for a naval blockade.

When we do it who is going to sink our ships? Legal is what Congress declares.

a reply to: Phage

That is just a completely stupid comparison.
Do you have your head up your ass this evening
or what?

You are much smarter than that.
maybe it was a minor brain fart on your behalf.

We all expel those out once in a while.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: badgerprints

Obama isn't in charge. Its not up to him.

Yeah. He's too sissy to make other people angry even when it involves doing what is right. Typical liberal.

a reply to: intrptr

Excellent!
Second Line.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

When we do it who is going to sink our ships? Legal is what Congress declares.

Sure. We're 'merica and we can do whatever the hell we want. Besides the fact that Congress can't find its ass with both hands it is still bound by international law.

So you really want to starve the region as well as let them die from the disease? Just because you're paranoid about a disease?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: badgerprints

So if we we can't stop 100% then we allow 100% to run around and spread ebola?

No.

We import 4500 potential cases of ebola every month intentionally as opposed to a few who find a way to sneak in?

All it takes is one undetected case, right? Isn't that what your point is? The whole "elders" thing?

Is that a debating point or do you really think it's better to intentionally import 50 thousand potential cases of ebola over the next year ?

Hyperbole? Or do you think everyone who gets on a plane is infected?

Travel from the region cannot be prevented. Prohibiting air travel will encourage clandestine travel. Clandestine travelers would not be screened or monitored to any degree. Stopping air travel from the region will not "stop ebola."

Wow.
You really don't get it.
It's about preventing EVERY VECTOR POSSIBLE from getting in and KILLING YOU.
Since you fail to actually understand the concept of survival, I will leave you to your own devices.


By the way, if you see anybody with ebola vomiting blood on the street, don't go up and give them a hug.
You take care now buddy.

If we're going to ban travel, which we should, it needs to be a continental effort.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

When we do it who is going to sink our ships? Legal is what Congress declares.

Sure. We're 'merica and we can do whatever the hell we want. Besides the fact that Congress can't find its ass with both hands it is still bound by international law.

So you really want to starve the region as well as let them die from the disease? Just because you're paranoid about a disease?

It is not paranoia, it is reality. The disease is here and in a lot of other countries now.
A naval blockade is a complex operation and can allow for shipping. Unless your next argument is for stowaways sneaking onboard giant shipping container vessels I don't see how a blockade would not stop passenger ships from leaving Liberia.

a reply to: badgerprints

You really don't get it. It's about preventing EVERY VECTOR POSSIBLE from getting in and KILLING YOU.

Oh, I get it.
I get that there is no way of "preventing EVERY VECTOR POSSIBLE from getting in."

I get that the fact that Thomas Duncan did get in is not "KILLING ME."

I get that the best way to protect us is to "stop ebola" is by doing everything possible to control the epidemic at its source.

a reply to: Phage

Great.
Just remember, don't hug the ebola victims.
You have a nice day.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Unless your next argument is for stowaways sneaking onboard giant shipping container vessels I don't see how a blockade would not stop passenger ships from leaving Liberia.

You think people don't stowaway on freighters? Are you going also police the activities of the seaman while they are in port? Ensure that they don't go ashore? Do you really think you are talking practically? And again, under what authority? The navy is going to set up shop in Freeport because they say so?

www.captainmcd.com...