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.
raconteurreport.blogspot.com...
In Crybaby's case, that means her normal gig isn't caring for anyone; she performs a clerical function for the .gov during outbreak data collection. She is thus about as vital to the actual treatment of disease in that role as teats on a bull. Which also explains her tenuous attachment to the common sense realities of outbreak nursing. She's what military people refer to as a clipboard commando. Whether she did that, or actual patient care nursing in Africa is an open question. So she's not some poor, down-trodden oppressed worker whose "civil rights" have been violated. She's a federal government employee, who knows precisely the impact of the state directives and oversight she's challenging, with the help and support of long-time government operatives, and doubtless the direction and assistance of the White House. Which explains why Pres. Obola, unlike his photo op hug of recovered nurse Nina Pham, has no plans to come within a country mile of Nurse Crybaby: someone might ask about the direct connection, since he's ultimately her boss.
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
originally posted by: blargo
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
CNN's headline are a bit wonky at the moment. And you wonder why people are confused....
That is because the same judge has lifted his order from Thursday night. She is no longer under any quarantine.
Maine Judge Rejects Ebola Quarantine for Nurse Kaci Hickox
No. The breaking headline is wrong. She is under CDC "some risk" quarantine.
A judge in Maine ruled Friday that Kaci Hickox, the nurse who treated Ebola patients and is defying a state-imposed quarantine, can come and go as she pleases, as long as she is monitored for symptoms and lets health officials know where she’s going.
originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: Mikeultra
Whatever.
Fearbola has caused reason and logic to fly far away from ATS.
I've tried. Confirmation bias here is impossible to overcome.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: kaylaluv
The thing is, guns don't just meander from person to person on their own like a virus does.
So no, that would be a bad argument to make.
But using a gun can kill someone. So it only makes sense that stopping someone from using a gun, or making it harder for someone to use a gun will save someone. And saving people is all that matters.
originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
originally posted by: Mikeultra
If the MSM mentioned that she works for the CDC, it wouldn't cause suspicion as much as not mentioning it does. Does that make sense to you?
No. Makes no sense. Lots of medical professionals, especially in the field of microbiology and epidemiology have worked for/with the CDC at one point in their careers. It's not uncommon.
The historical perspective helps with understanding the extent to which panic, connected with social stigma and prejudice, frustrated public health efforts to control the spread of disease. During outbreaks of plague and cholera, the fear of discrimination and mandatory quarantine and isolation led the weakest social groups and minorities to escape affected areas and, thus, contribute to spreading the disease farther and faster, as occurred regularly in towns affected by deadly disease outbreak. But in the globalized world, fear, alarm, and panic, augmented by global media, can spread farther and faster and, thus, play a larger role than in the past. Furthermore, in this setting, entire populations or segments of populations, not just persons or minority groups, are at risk of being stigmatized. In the face of new challenges posed in the twenty-first century by the increasing risk for the emergence and rapid spread of infectious diseases, quarantine and other public health tools remain central to public health preparedness. But these measures, by their nature, require vigilant attention to avoid causing prejudice and intolerance. Public trust must be gained through regular, transparent, and comprehensive communications that balance the risks and benefits of public health interventions. Successful responses to public health emergencies must heed the valuable lessons of the past