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.

 

Ebola in Baltimore? Patient quarantined at Maryland hospital

page: 3
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AnonymousCitizen

So 2 cases (neither of which have died from the disease) equals a lack of leadership? So you are saying that a few mistakes happen (that may have been the fault of the nurses themselves) and we can blame the entirety of government for their mistakes? WOW!

For reference: 1918 flu pandemic


The 1918 flu pandemic (January 1918 – December 1920) was an unusually deadly influenza pandemic, the first of the two pandemics involving H1N1 influenza virus.[1] It infected 500 million[2] people across the world, including remote Pacific islands and the Arctic, and killed 50 to 100 million of them—three to five percent of the world's population[3]—making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history.[2][4][5][6]


You can count yourself LUCKY that the above isn't happening. Fearing Ebola, LOL! You people just LOOK for things to be scared of so you can be pissed at the government.
edit on 28-10-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UnBreakable



How about explaining how the Obama administration can issue a squelch order on ALL hospitals in the United States in regards to new Ebola patients, while letting 2 slip through the cracks. Because your tale of lies and deceit isn't adding up. Is Obama employing a secret army of CDC informants stationed in every hospital so that new cases don't go public or something?



Last I checked, hospitals don't report directly to the Executive branch of the government. Heck many are private hospitals and only report to their shareholders. So I REALLY want to know how the Obama admin would be able to keep a lid on all these unreported cases you are inferring about. You know, sometimes a duck really IS a duck.



If you read my post, I say possibly, not definitely. My main point was I'm not buying anything coming from this admin. Since you brought up the Executive branch, your man Obama said any Ebola outbreak was only a remote possibility. Now we have two reported cases.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AnonymousCitizen

So 2 cases (neither of which have died from the disease) equals a lack of leadership? So you are saying that a few mistakes happen (that may have been the fault of the nurses themselves) and we can blame the entirety of government for their mistakes? WOW!

For reference: 1918 flu pandemic


The 1918 flu pandemic (January 1918 – December 1920) was an unusually deadly influenza pandemic, the first of the two pandemics involving H1N1 influenza virus.[1] It infected 500 million[2] people across the world, including remote Pacific islands and the Arctic, and killed 50 to 100 million of them—three to five percent of the world's population[3]—making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history.[2][4][5][6]


You can count yourself LUCKY that the above isn't happening. Fearing Ebola, LOL! You people just LOOK for things to be scared of so you can be pissed at the government.


I think you're missing my point. That's fine, let me try again.

It's not just a few mistakes. It's bad policy and bad procedures across the board. The fact that there have only been a couple cases is extraordinary given the ineptitude of the response.

The comparison to the 1918 outbreak? We now know (or should know) better how virii spread.

I'm angry about this, not trying to take it out on you, but denying the incompetence at this point is not helpful.


And, really? You're LOL'ing this? Good God, what is wrong with you?
edit on 10/28/14 by AnonymousCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable
If you read my post, I say possibly, not definitely. My main point was I'm not buying anything coming from this admin. Since you brought up the Executive branch, your man Obama said any Ebola outbreak was only a remote possibility. Now we have two reported cases.


My man Obama? Why do you assume I am an Obama supporter? Have I said anything of the sort? No, I just questioned your irrational fears about Ebola and doubts about the government's actions regarding it. Stop assuming things about my beliefs and just address my points. If you want to know what my beliefs are, read my post history.

Yes, Obama said remote possibility. Do you not know what that means? It means the chances aren't 0%. Therefore getting 2 cases is definitely within the realm of "remote possibility". In fact, with a population of 316 million people, 2 people getting Ebola is 6*10^-9%. I'd say that is a pretty remote percentage.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AnonymousCitizen

Yes. LOL. This fear is beyond dumb. Despite the ineptitude, there have been 2 cases of Ebola. Also, to expect that ineptitude wouldn't exist with the federal government is silly. Of course there will be ineptitude, it just comes part and parcel with bureaucracy. Until we have some sort of national emergency, I think I can let a bit of ineptitude slide here. Nothing and no one is perfect and to act surprised when people make mistakes (even when dealing with a deadly disease) is just laughably dumb and irrational.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Just so people know, the Woman is Ebola Negative
EBOLA NEGATIVE LINKY




top topics
 
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join