That's two...

bravenrace wrote: In reply to wvumtnbkr: Obviously, that doesn't make it right.

There isn't any right or wrong in the government, only haves and have nots.

yamaha wrote:

bravenrace wrote: In reply to wvumtnbkr: Obviously, that doesn't make it right.

There isn't any right or wrong in the government, only haves and have nots.

Personally, I think its about time our gov't gets more have not's than haves.

The WHO is acknowledging they dropped the ball...

http://time.com/3516785/ebola-who-outbreak/

The few Congressmen demanding that the CDC head step down are being idiots. What makes them think that will help in any way?

It's an awful position, but have you considered the alternative? If I were in Obama's or the CDC director's shoes, I don't know if I'd do things too differently. Let's say I impose the full lockdown and it causes roughly the calculated amount of economic damage - which you could reasonably call a recession. Recessions will damage the lives of most of the population and even people abroad, maybe even cause a few deaths by extension, and put the country at something of a disadvantage to others. Was that the right decision?

Governments gamble with many people's lives (as in hard life or death situations) all the time for practical/economic and even ideological reasons, so with that in mind, would this response seem proportionate? A single plane crash could easily kill more than Ebola ever could with the current procedures yet we take risks.

In any society with limited resources, these are the decisions you have to make. You have to place a value on human lives and do math with it. A country that values a life too highly could ruin itself trying to save people. Even a Star Trek society could ruin itself with people in trouble and too high a value on their heads.

It's the same reason whole countries aren't invaded to save a few hostages for example, or why nobody did anything about nearly 200,000 people being killed in Syria.

Could the WHO and the CDC handled things better? Sure. And hindsight does a great job of being able to blame people.

Seems like for now, we should be focusing on understanding and fixing the problems, and work on the blame game later on when things have been contained.

Crimeny- we are getting a lot of conflicting information.

Like one easy one- Ebola is not transmitted like the cold/flu is. The cold/flu virus is easy to understand, impossible to stop- it's in your saliva and mucus, and is more than happy to be in an aerosol from to move as much as it is to move via contact with sufraces. It also just needs contact with the areas of the body that exrete saliva/mucus to get in.

So easy thing to do for the cold is to avoid contact with anything that has been in contact with mucus or saliva.

Now with Ebola, previous outbreaks had it that it was not transmittable like that. And based on how quickly it was contained, the theory that only blood related fluids transmitted it makes sense.

We are still told that it does not tranmit like the cold/flu, but are now told to be aware of saliva and mucus. But IF A then B, right? So if I have to be aware of saliva and mucus, then it can be transmitted. One reply is that once it gets airborne, it looses it's power. If that's true, then we should figure out that way of stopping it.

Or- if saliva and mucus are that bad, how does the virus enter teh body? Same way as cold/flu? Skin contact? A cut?

Seeme like not as many people REALLY understand it as we hope. Experts are saying one thing and other experts are saying something else.

Anyway, the CDC are people too, and it seems like everyone is trying to figure this out this time. It appears to be not the same as before. And people seem to want overreaction vs. what appears to be rational.

Should be an interesting fall/winter of travel for us.

My dooms-day scenario is that someone with Ebola travels to South America.

Given the percent of the population that has it times the percent of the population that travels to South America times the percent of the maturation process where the individual is infectious without having conspicuous symptoms gives us the probability distribution…may well have already happened, perhaps multiple times.

The people in South America aren’t as superstitious but their medical infrastructure, hygiene, and population density are similar so the rate of spread could approximate what we’re seeing in Africa.

Obviously it’s a lot easier to get to the U.S. from South America than it is from Africa so we could see a real problem as opposed to what currently is primarily a psychological problem if this scenario plays out.

Think about the recent images we’ve seen of the thousands and thousands of illegal aliens we’ve huddled together in processing centers due to the huge influx. Think about the number of those children that will be placed in our public schools. Think about how our response will be shackled by ridicule and denial in the interest of political correctness.

I’m not predicting this will happen, I’m only saying it is a real possibility.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: Yeah, whats a few dozen deaths? Hell, let's let em die and save some money. What a stupid thing to say.

Are we discussing automotive company recall policy here?

I don't think it's an over reaction at all to have people that are coming from the hot zone quarantined past the incubation period before entering our country. I don't believe it's overreaction to not allow medical workers who have had direct contact with a victim to be allowed to get on planes or cruise ships or whatever until after the incubation period.

That is a reasonable step to prevent the spread of a virus that has neared a 70% mortality rate in my opinion.

Gah. Im gonna go work on my car in the garage. I am pretty sure only my bodily fluids are all over the place in there.

bravenrace wrote: You know, it's easy to make light of something like this, like I did. Then yesterday I find that the woman from Dallas that flew to Cleveland and back spent her time just a couple blocks away from my house and family. Suddenly it becomes real.

If that's directed at me, I apologize.

I'm in the same camp as you are, there was one known case and they didn't control it. Instead "they" told a person; who had been in close contact with that only person, who had a low grade fever "eh, no biggie we got this go ahead and fly" when what they should have been doing was locking the place down.

I was not making light, I was pointing out that they focused on one piece of the puzzle and dumped the rest of the box in the trash.

Nick_Comstock wrote: I don't think it's an over reaction at all to have people that are coming from the hot zone quarantined past the incubation period before entering our country. I don't believe it's overreaction to not allow medical workers who have had direct contact with a victim to be allowed to get on planes or cruise ships or whatever until after the incubation period. That is a reasonable step to prevent the spread of a virus that has neared a 70% mortality rate in my opinion.

You realize that the first step is practically a travel ban - how many people would put up with that? - except that you also need to build the facilities for people to stay in for that incubation period.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

And I think that is exactly what needs to happen.

How many people are flying in from sierra Leon, Liberia and that area on a daily basis? Keep em there until they're cleared. Nigeria has a travel ban and they are getting ready to be declared Ebola free. What a coincidence.

My 4 week old is in a hospital in Seattle... Just went in last night. Not fun.

Until they know what is wrong with him(he had a fever).. they were in gowns and masks.. noone allowed in the room. We were treated like we had the plague..

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:

Sorry to hear that, when mine was a baby he was in the hospital alot. He would get a fever and quit taking fluids. We had several overnight stays while they got him rehydrated. It certainly wasn't fun then.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Nick_Comstock wrote: I don't think it's an over reaction at all to have people that are coming from the hot zone quarantined past the incubation period before entering our country. I don't believe it's overreaction to not allow medical workers who have had direct contact with a victim to be allowed to get on planes or cruise ships or whatever until after the incubation period. That is a reasonable step to prevent the spread of a virus that has neared a 70% mortality rate in my opinion.

You realize that the first step is practically a travel ban - how many people would put up with that? - except that you also need to build the facilities for people to stay in for that incubation period.

Seems to be pretty easy to interrupt someone ELSE'S life, isn't it?

They are people, too. And putting someone in a container for 21 days just for the sake of safety isn't as straight forward as it seems.

As wrong as it sounds Gameboy is right. The government can't spend money to cure everything and save everyone. They could have thrown a E36 M3ton of money at curing Ebola and the people on the right would say Obama's stealing my money and giving it to Africans and the people on the left would say the Republicans are sending you money to African oil countries instead of spending it here on our sick and homeless so until it showed up here there was no reason to do anything.

Now that it's here like every other emergency it will have to be primarily handled by local city and state agencies. The Feds never act fast or as well as good local governments. The police chief a few pages back was saying something that plays out time and again after hurricanes tornados ect.

In reply to alfadriver:

So the alternative is to just let them come and go as they please? And after a couple weeks when they get sick spend countless man hours frantically chasing down anyone who came in contact with them so they can be monitored? Then chasing down anyone those people came in contact with to watch them too?

Yeah, that makes perfect sense Those people are choosing to come here from there. Absolutely interrupt their lives.

In reply to Nick_Comstock:

That's why a travel ban makes more sense than locking them up for 3 weeks.....granted, that is pretty much what happened at Ellis Island.

And IIRC, its been said roughly 150 people from the effected area travel to or from that area daily. Which is very few considering how many people come and go.

And it would be a LOT cheaper to nip this in the bud than it will be if it gets out of hand. The saving money thing just doesn't float, IMO. More importantly, it would be the right thing to do. But since when does the government do the right thing...

Nick_Comstock wrote: In reply to alfadriver: So the alternative is to just let them come and go as they please? And after a couple weeks when they get sick spend countless man hours frantically chasing down anyone who came in contact with them so they can be monitored? Then chasing down anyone those people came in contact with to watch them too? Yeah, that makes perfect sense Those people are choosing to come here from there. Absolutely interrupt their lives.

So a group of tech's who had no actual contact with the paitent but to just securely process a sample should get a 21 day vacation in a box?

The second nurse now seems obvious, but when you do everything apparently correct, one expects to be able to have a normal life.

Just banning flights is only part of what you are demanding.

In reply to alfadriver:

Not unless it's determined that the virus is more communicable than they think it is now.

Everything should be fine now. We're getting an Ebola Czar so this thing should be sorted out in no time.

In reply to Wally:

whew, glad that's over

So according to cbslocal.com, new Ebola Czar "Klain does not have a medical or a health care background."

Cue the NWO conspiracy theorists in 3....2....1..........

PS -- the guy was Biden's former chief of staff

Cue the Biden jokes in 3....2....1...........

In reply to orphancars:

He was also Gore's COS. Did you hear the one about Biden's son?...