- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
- Messages
- 6,769
- Reaction score
- 1,936
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
No, it was most assuredly not tongue-in-cheek (which is why I included the word "truly" in my first sentence).Greetings, Ontologuy. :2wave:
I hope your post was tongue-in-cheek because shutting hospitals down is unthinkable. We can't just let people die! The health care experts are doing their best with a disease that currently has no cure, and some victims are surviving - I just wish it was better than 50%! The fatality rate in Africa is 70% or higher, with entire villages succumbing to the disease, so there is hope that we might yet find a cure. The health care experts we recently sent to Africa are setting up labs, etc - any news on how they're doing?
I presented the reasonable concerns in my first post in this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/206720-texas-health-care-worker-tests-positive-ebola-7.html#post1063857761
A proper shut-down and quarantine does not put people at risk of dying because they can't get in -- they're simply directed to other nearby hospitals.
I know it appears Draconian.
But it's a far sight better than the likely alternative of an epidemic.
Hospitals have been permanently shut down for other reasons.
This would be a temporary shut down until the hospital is truly safe again, a shut down to new patients and people who've never set foot in the hospital, with practitioners remaining in and screened as they continue to help the sick.
This healthcare worker was spreading the virus around the hospital facility and staff 24 hours before she "felt" symptomatic.
Knowing that, who would want an ambulance to transport them there or would want to knowingly walk through the front door.
Better extra-effort safe than epidemic sorry.