Obama - no quarantine of ebola HC workers

a reply to: beezzer

Puts things in perspective.

Yes. It does.
The flu is more highly transmissible than ebola. If that were not the case ebola would far more widespread than it is.
Because the flu is easier to contract, it has the potential of affecting (and killing) far more people than ebola.

a reply to: Phage

As a healthcare professional, I disagree. If they are not scared off by the risk of catching ebola, they will not be scared off by a short quarantine.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: beezzer

Puts things in perspective.

Yes. It does.
The flu is more highly transmissible than ebola. If that were not the case ebola would far more widespread than it is.
Because the flu is easier to contract, it has the potential of affecting (and killing) far more people than ebola.

Wow. Now this is the kind of reasoning and lack of real logic that blows me away. Ebola compared to the flu. I'll take the flu any day all day long. Have had it many times and guess what!? My guts didn't rot and ooze blood not one time.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: beezzer

Puts things in perspective.

Yes. It does.
The flu is more highly transmissible than ebola. If that were not the case ebola would far more widespread than it is.
Because the flu is easier to contract, it has the potential of affecting (and killing) far more people than ebola.

What, pray tell, is the fatality rate between the two?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: butcherguy

This disease is really hard to catch.

Unless you are exposed to the vomit, blood, and diarrhea of patients.

How do you explain the pics of the head of the cdc in full gear while visiting africa then coming on tv telling us everyone is trained and has the correct protective gear then we find out that the nurses working on duncan had skin exposed and had not had much training at all. The head of the cdc sounded very intent that what he was saying was true but he was just parroting what he was told to say. How are you so comfortable that everything we are even discussing about the virus is fact this time around. Is it not clear to you that the cdc is really controlling panic and not a virus?

originally posted by: beezzer


Puts things in perspective.

I'll give you some perspective.
The people in charge are worried about elections. They will risk more cases to secure those seats.
The people who have brought this virus here were over in West Africa to help but, have demonstrated that they don't care if they spread it in the US.
A few people are concerned. All of them are apparently bat crap crazy...myself included.
The rest all consider it a non issue.

The virus is smarter than the whole bunch of us combined.
It will find it's way here and get a foothold in due time.
We won't do anything to stop it for obvious reasons.

Why?
Doesn't really matter does it?
Conspiracy, government program, depopulation, vaccine sales, plummeting IQ's....
The outcome will be the same.

Relax. Don't sweat it.
Enjoy the ride.

Depopulation lotto.
You got a 3 in 10 chance of winning.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: beezzer

Puts things in perspective.

Yes. It does.

The flu is more highly transmissible than ebola. If that were not the case ebola would far more widespread than it is.

Because the flu is easier to contract, it has the potential of affecting (and killing) far more people than ebola.

more bs
the flu has been around much longer and is airborne
if ebola becomes airborne then it will be case closed
when looking at africa has the flue spread as fast and had the death rate as ebola?

most people that die from flu have existing problems and with ebola it has no problem killing the strong.

a reply to: Phage

Ebola is a level 4 pathogen, and should be dealt with as such inside the lab and out.

People that have been exposed, and are at risk of infection should be isolated, under a quarantine.

Until the epidemic is contained completely this is the logical way to deal with those who may have been exposed, or are at risk of infection.

It's insane to put political correctness ahead of common sense.

a reply to: deadeyedick

How do you explain the pics of the head of the cdc in full gear while visiting africa then coming on tv telling us everyone is trained and has the correct protective gear then we find out that the nurses working on duncan had skin exposed and had not had much training at all.

I can't even understand what that run-on sentence means much less explain whatever it is you are trying to ask.

Is it not clear to you that the cdc is really controlling panic and not a virus?

An controlling panic is bad, why? You think panic is a good response to a problem? In any case, what the CDC has been doing seems to be working. No spread of the disease. No one who has contracted it in North America has died of it. In fact, only one person has died of it in North America.

a reply to: ausername

It's insane to put political correctness ahead of common sense.

What political correctness are you talking about?

a reply to: deadeyedick

the flu has been around much longer and is airborne

Yes, that it infects more people more easily.

if ebola becomes airborne then it will be case closed

If my uncle was woman he would be my aunt. So what?

when looking at africa has the flue spread as fast and had the death rate as ebola?

We know that ebola has a higher death rate. The flu spreads much faster and over a wider area. The flu poses a much higher risk than ebola.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ausername

It's insane to put political correctness ahead of common sense.

What political correctness are you talking about?

Your position on this is rather odd to say the least.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: deadeyedick

How do you explain the pics of the head of the cdc in full gear while visiting africa then coming on tv telling us everyone is trained and has the correct protective gear then we find out that the nurses working on duncan had skin exposed and had not had much training at all.

I can't even understand what that run-on sentence means much less explain whatever it is you are trying to ask.

Is it not clear to you that the cdc is really controlling panic and not a virus?

An controlling panic is bad, why? You think panic is a good response to a problem? In any case, what the CDC has been doing seems to be working. No spread of the disease. No one who has contracted it in North America has died of it. In fact, only one person has died of it in North America.

the fact that you can not understand that sentence only highlights the fact that there is a gap in your understanding of what the real issues are here. specifically the real dangers that this virus poses to a nation that gets lied to by a group of control mongers that love lullabye's

a reply to: Bilk22

Yes, I imagine that appealing to rationality and fact rather than fear and speculation might seem unusual to some.

originally posted by: beezzer

The Department of Homeland Security has sent out an alert to health care providers outlining how BATF, FBI, and U.S. Marshals will be called upon to impose mandatory quarantines in the event of a widespread swine flu outbreak in the U.S.

From; Homeland Security Issues Alert On Mandatory Quarantine Procedures
April 30, 2009

So the flu (swine flu) merits a quarantine, but Ebola doesn't.

Okay.

Puts things in perspective.

Ah yes.

April 2009.

Obama in office for only a short time.

That was one of his first exhibitions of authoritarianism.

His "Staff" was real green at the time.

Hmmm.

a reply to: Phage

and droplets from coughs sneazeing, just because somethings is undocumented does not mean it can't or hasn't happened.
just means that it is undocumented.

What if a sick person’s wet sneeze hits your hand and then you absentmindedly rub your eyes? Asked about such scenarios recently, Dr. Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, allowed that, theoretically, “it would not be impossible” to catch the virus that way. But it’s considered highly unlikely. No such case has been documented.
University knocks down tweet that Ebola is airborne, airborne vs. direct transmission

and from the WHO

Theoretically, wet and bigger droplets from a heavily infected individual, who has respiratory symptoms caused by other conditions or who vomits violently, could transmit the virus – over a short distance – to another nearby person. This could happen when virus-laden heavy droplets are directly propelled, by coughing or sneezing (which does not mean airborne transmission) onto the mucus membranes or skin with cuts or abrasions of another person. WHO is not aware of any studies that actually document this mode of transmission. On the contrary, good quality studies from previous Ebola outbreaks show that all cases were infected by direct close contact with symptomatic patients.
What we know about transmission of the Ebola virus among humans

remember in science theory is fact, that is unless it doesn't agree with the main stream. then it's just hokum.
and if you notice they are constantly trying to quantify the statements.

a reply to: beezzer

As you get no answer, 1918 Spanish flue mortality rate was 2%, current Ebola epidemic 70% according to WHO

www.nejm.org...

a reply to: beezzer

Yes, Ebola's mortality rate is much greater than the flu but it's vector also makes it much harder to spread. Looking at the numbers the flu is much scarier. In an average year the flu can kill up to 49,000 people in the US alone. So already an average flu year will kill way more people than this current Ebola outbreak. If we want to start looking at outliers it's believed that the Spanish flu killed 25 million people in 25 weeks and ended up killing up to 100 million people by the time it burned itself out.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

and droplets from coughs sneazeing, just because somethings is undocumented does not mean it can't or hasn't happened. just means that it is undocumented.

And the rate of spread of the disease also indicates that it doesn't happen. But hey, go ahead and add getting sneezed on by a symptomatic ebola patient is also not a good idea.

and it you notice they are constantly trying to quantify the statements.

I don't know what you mean. Yes, they say they can't rule out the possibility. It would not be scientifically sound to do so, however to point out that there are more factors that say it doesn't happen than say it does is a valid statement.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

If you can absolutely guarantee that Ebola will never mutate, then I will offer my most humble apologies and be on my way.