Texas Health Care Worker Tests Positive for Ebola

Lursa said:

Of course it's in our national interest.

Click to expand...

Let's see what sort of case you make.

Our troops are there to protect our country. How well do you think our country could defend itself in a major epidemic from outside threats from Russia or China, for example? What would happen to our economy with even the *real* threat of an epidemic here? (btw, that is the greatest danger here IMO).

Click to expand...

I see no explanation for why dealing with ebola in four African countries is in our national interest. None. So far we completely agree. There is no national interest and therefore sending our troops there is a criminal act.

We 'fought terrorism over there so we wouldnt have to fight it here' and that is exactly what our involvement is over there.

Click to expand...

The vital national interest was the free flow of oil at market prices.

Helping to contain it. Helping them to prevent as much additional spread of the disease because the more that get infected, the greater the chance that it will become more virulent or even airborne.

Click to expand...

I see no argument yet for a vital national interest. By keeping those exposed to ebola out of our country it does not matter what happens with the virus there.

They do this by helping to build and protect infrastructure. Transport and protect medical supplies. Providing security for our medical personnel and medical supplies (these supplies are regularly stolen and sold on the black market).

Click to expand...

None of these are American vital national interests. Troops are not required. They should not have been sent.

And they can be quarantined before returning to the US on American transport planes.

Click to expand...

This is not a vital national interest either.

It's obvious you havent thought this through if you dont see how this serves vital American interests. Just a guess but I'd bet you havent thought about the economic issue at all.

Click to expand...

It is clear that one of us has not thought it through. Why don't you and jetboogie get together and see if you can wring a vital national interest out of the air.

Re: What is The One's strategy for defeating Ebola? Crickets...

Lursa said:

I know and I love how people just gloss this over and say, 'oh just dont let them on the planes there.'

It means stopping people coming in from any country. And depending on 100% accurate screening in those countries for the disease/early symptoms/fever. We cant even do that here.

The economic implications of this are very damaging. As are the civil rights issues for Americans trying to return.

Click to expand...

I do not believe you know how international travel works. People who want to come here have to ask. We can decline to let them if they have been in ebola country recently.

It will stop 150 people per day from arriving here from ebola country. There are essentially no economic consequences.

Northern Light said:

They just need to stop flights from coming from West Africa. Failing that, people should be thoroughly screened before being allowed to set foot on the plane in Africa. We spend billions worldwide on disease control and epidemic quarantine protocols, how hard is it?

It's not surprising that at least one person in contact with patient zero contracted ebola. U.S. hospitals are in an abysmal state, many are in third world conditions. If ebola hits any of our under-resourced medical facilities, it will spread like crazy.

Click to expand...

You cant tell if someone's infected till they show symptoms, up to three weeks later.

Misterveritis said:

I see no explanation for why dealing with ebola in four African countries is in our national interest. None. So far we completely agree. There is no national interest and therefore sending our troops there is a criminal act.

Click to expand...

You're missing step one of a rational analysis of this, so no wonder you're missing the rest. It won't BE just four African countries unless it's contained. It will be all of Africa, which will inevitably bleed over into the ME, then to S. Europe, etc. Unless we isolate all of the U.S. from all international trade and international travel (impossible) that means it comes here. So the "national interest" is to contain the spread, which will require lots of outside help, and that means travel, flights, etc to that area have to continue, both from here and from Europe, etc.

Re: What is The One's strategy for defeating Ebola? Crickets...

JasperL said:

I won't bother addressing all your points.

Click to expand...

Nor I yours.

The fact is travel bans to be effective will cause massive logistical problems for the aid workers, and those getting supplies and people into the area.

Click to expand...

Big ****ing deal. They can go there all they want. They just cannot come back until after they have been in quarantine for three weeks.

If someone wants to make a serious proposal,

Click to expand...

I already have. Do not let people who have recently been in ebola country come into the US. Period.

such as setting up the kind of charter flights that can coordinate across dozens of countries, and hundreds of suppliers to get the needed manpower and supplies there, and then arrange for the in-region quarantines or deal with the quarantines back here in the U.S. for soldiers and volunteers and paid workers with the NGOs and the rest, and we budget the money to pay for all that, then that's fine, but it will require a massive cooperative effort. If you're suggesting that the Obama administration should start that, OK, fine. Then you've got a serious position.

But don't pretend that there's no "logical" point to objecting to knee-jerk travel bans.

Click to expand...

There is no logical reason to allow people who may have been exposed to ebola come to the US.

There is at a minimum the serious requirement that we weigh the harm,

Click to expand...

There are no benefits to the nation for allowing people who may have been exposed to ebola to come here. None.

and cost and incredible difficulty of an EFFECTIVE travel ban

Click to expand...

There is essentially no cost to telling people who may have been exposed to ebola that they cannot come here. It becomes effective as soon as the One on the golf course tells his worthless state department to stop letting people who have recently been to ebola country come here.

and the harm such a ban would cause to getting needed help there in the region with the benefits of preventing some people from coming here already infected, including workers and volunteers.

Click to expand...

You may go there anytime you wish. And I wish you would. You may not return until after you have been in quarantine or have been elsewhere for at least 21 days after you have left there.

You're pretending it's a one way, no downside but inconvenience proposition. That's just naive.

Click to expand...

One of us is naive. It is not me.

JasperL said:

You're missing step one of a rational analysis of this, so no wonder you're missing the rest.

Click to expand...

Uh-huh.

It won't BE just four African countries unless it's contained.

Click to expand...

We can add to our list of people those who come from ebola country no matter how many countries that eventually includes. For now it is four countries. Whether it spreads or not is not our problem. It is the problem of those countries who do not stop it at their borders.

It will be all of Africa,

Click to expand...

If it was going to be all of Africa why wouldn't it already be all of Africa?

If it has not sread to the entire world since 1976 why do you believe it will spread to the entire world this time?

which will inevitably bleed over into the ME, then to S. Europe, etc. Unless we isolate all of the U.S. from all international trade and international travel (impossible) that means it comes here. So the "national interest" is to contain the spread, which will require lots of outside help, and that means travel, flights, etc to that area have to continue, both from here and from Europe, etc.

Click to expand...

After we have stopped ebola-exposed people from coming here get back to me in a year or so and let's discuss it again. Meanwhile try not to hyperventilate while you imagine that we should not protect Americans with a simple "No" to the ebola-exposed.

Misterveritis said:

Uh-huh.


We can add to our list of people those who come from ebola country no matter how many countries that eventually includes. For now it is four countries. Whether it spreads or not is not our problem. It is the problem of those countries who do not stop it at their borders.

If it was going to be all of Africa why wouldn't it already be all of Africa?

EVD was first identified in an area of Sudan that is now part of South Sudan, as well as in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo). The disease typically occurs in outbreaks in tropical regions of sub-Saharan Africa.[1] From 1976 (when it was first identified) through 2013, the World Health Organization reported a total of 1,716 cases.[1][4] The largest outbreak to date is the ongoing 2014 West African Ebola outbreak, which is currently affecting Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Nigeria.[5][6] As of 10 October 2014, 8,376 suspected cases resulting in the deaths of 4,024 have been reported.​

If it has not sread to the entire world since 1976 why do you believe it will spread to the entire world this time?


After we have stopped ebola-exposed people from coming here get back to me in a year or so and let's discuss it again. Meanwhile try not to hyperventilate while you imagine that we should not protect Americans with a simple "No" to the ebola-exposed.

Click to expand...

It makes no sense that a few people coming HERE is a dire threat, but that you're confident it won't spread beyond a few countries in Africa, and so we can pull up the ladders and ignore it and use "hope" as our strategy for dealing with it.

But I guess we can agree to disagree. It seems obvious containing the disease to those four countries is a more pressing national security issue by orders of magnitude than the trillions we've spent fighting 'terrorism.'

JasperL said:

It makes no sense that a few people coming HERE is a dire threat, but that you're confident it won't spread beyond a few countries in Africa, and so we can pull up the ladders and ignore it and use "hope" as our strategy for dealing with it.

But I guess we can agree to disagree. It seems obvious containing the disease to those four countries is a more pressing national security issue by orders of magnitude than the trillions we've spent fighting 'terrorism.'

Click to expand...

The very first question one must ask before committing troops is, are you ready for it, what is our vital national interest?

You cannot provide even a national interest much less one that makes it worth our while to use our precious military. We have no national interest and yet you cannot wait for thousands of troops to be exposed.

The second question is why won't the American-hating One on the golf course take the immediate logical step of telling people who are potentially ebola-exposed that they may no longer come here.

Someone just spend a half million dollars to give Duncan a place to die. We do not need any more Duncans. Let them die inexpensively in their own countries.

Re: What is The One's strategy for defeating Ebola? Crickets...

JasperL said:

I won't bother addressing all your points.

Click to expand...

BINGO, because you CAN'T.
Admitted Preface to another Deflection.

Jasper said:

The fact is travel bans to be effective will cause massive logistical problems for the aid workers, and those getting supplies and people into the area. If someone wants to make a serious proposal, such as setting up the kind of charter flights that can coordinate across dozens of countries, and hundreds of suppliers to get the needed manpower and supplies there, and then arrange for the in-region quarantines or deal with the quarantines back here in the U.S. for soldiers and volunteers and paid workers with the NGOs and the rest, and we budget the money to pay for all that, then that's fine, but it will require a massive cooperative effort. If you're suggesting that the Obama administration should start that, OK, fine. Then you've got a serious position

Click to expand...

I've ALREADY Specified "Special Charter flights" (Only) in my posts, including my last.

Jasper said:

But don't pretend that there's no "logical" point to objecting to knee-jerk travel bans. There is at a minimum the serious requirement that we weigh the harm, and cost and incredible difficulty of an EFFECTIVE travel ban and the harm such a ban would cause to getting needed help there in the region with the benefits of preventing some people from coming here already infected, including workers and volunteers. You're pretending it's a one way, no downside but inconvenience proposition. That's just naive.

Click to expand...

A Travel ban to those 3 Tiny countries is beyond Easy.
Another Whiff.

Letting this virus Travel has already cost the economy Tens of BILLIONS of dollars.
Not just the tiny Duncan Treatment but UNTOLD Delay in Airports and Hospitals and extra Training.

The world's Stock markets have been Hammered by this as well. It may take a point off world GDP due to fear and travel diminishing.
Mostly ISOLATING it with a Travel Ban would help immensely.

Your posts are all deflections.
At least backhandedly ADMITTING in this one, my Charter flights of Med personnel Only, IS a good position.
Game Over.

Misterveritis said:

The very first question one must ask before committing troops is, are you ready for it, what is our vital national interest?

You cannot provide even a national interest much less one that makes it worth our while to use our precious military. We have no national interest and yet you cannot wait for thousands of troops to be exposed.

Click to expand...

I've stated the national interest, you just won't accept it. If the ebola outbreak reaches a critical mass, it COULD/WILL SPREAD TO EUROPE, ASIA, THE ME, INDIA, CHINA, and HERE. If you can't see how a worldwide ebola outbreak threatens our national interest, there isn't any use in having a discussion.

The second question is why won't the American-hating One on the golf course take the immediate logical step of telling people who are potentially ebola-exposed that they may no longer come here.

Someone just spend a half million dollars to give Duncan a place to die. We do not need any more Duncans. Let them die inexpensively in their own countries.

Click to expand...

Maybe we could use our military to bomb the affected villages, then burn the victims? That might work.

JasperL said:

I've stated the national interest, you just won't accept it.

Click to expand...

In your opinion what is our national interest? You claim you have given a national interest. I have not seen one.

If the ebola outbreak reaches a critical mass, it COULD/WILL SPREAD TO EUROPE, ASIA, THE ME, INDIA, CHINA, and HERE. If you can't see how a worldwide ebola outbreak threatens our national interest, there isn't any use in having a discussion.

Click to expand...

Has ebola, which we have been aware of since the 1970s, behaved this way? Preventing hyperventilation is not a vital national interest.

The best way to prevent your scarey scenario is for every country to do as I believe we should. Why do you fight against such a low cost, effective solution? My believe is that you are black, a liberal or both. For you this is not about a virus. It is about politics or skin color.

Maybe we could use our military to bomb the affected villages, then burn the victims? That might work.

Click to expand...

It is not our problem to solve. We should stop assaulting our military.

This nurse, in order to not sound racist, today endorsed the idea of continuing to bring in thousands of West Africans every week. 'Even if I die it will be well worth it........and my small contribution to diversity', she said.

northwinds said:

This nurse, in order to not sound racist, today endorsed the idea of continuing to bring in thousands of West Africans every week. 'Even if I die it will be well worth it........and my small contribution to diversity', she said.

Click to expand...

Our strength lies in our perversity.

She is dying to be diverse. What a waste of a young life.

Roadvirus said:

But Obama and his CDC lackey still think everything is fine!

Click to expand...

I dont get that impression from the hearings I watched on CSpan or any other news I've been watching (I dont watch Fox News).

Fenton said:

If she doesn't recover its going to ugly.

People dont trust this administration and or the CDC anyway.

If a young healthy woman, who is recieving immediate care in America doesn't survive, people are going to lose it and demand all travel be stopped immediately from West Africa.

Click to expand...

I dont see anything wrong with that but it wont fix it. We'd have to do the same to flights from other countries as those travelling from W. Africa could just come thru those countries (altho some countries are restricting those flights too).

Fenton said:

It would be nice to get the truth from the CDC.

Click to expand...

Do you think they are lying? If so, what and why?

Samhain said:

Incorrect. It can be transmitted through your mouth, as well as your eye, a mucus membrane(nose) or via a wound.

Basically if it enters your body in any manner, you are probably going to contract it.

So a possible scenario would be: guy sneezes on your protective suit, you take it off, accidentally touch the phlegm, then hours later you wipe your mouth, you have ebola.

Some variation of the above is most likely how the nurse contracted it, unless there is a new means of transmission that has yet to be discovered with this strain

Click to expand...

No...if it goes into your stomach (thru your mouth) it does not survive stomach acids. I mentioned eye. I mentioned wound. Yes, pick your nose and you could transmit it.

It's not likely....it's very unlikely.They believe the nurse got it thru improper procedures with her gear. It's still pretty much 'contact.'

Our troops are in less danger than they are in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Misterveritis said:

Let's see what sort of case you make.

I see no explanation for why dealing with ebola in four African countries is in our national interest. None. So far we completely agree. There is no national interest and therefore sending our troops there is a criminal act.

The vital national interest was the free flow of oil at market prices.


I see no argument yet for a vital national interest. By keeping those exposed to ebola out of our country it does not matter what happens with the virus there.


None of these are American vital national interests. Troops are not required. They should not have been sent.

This is not a vital national interest either.

It is clear that one of us has not thought it through. Why don't you and jetboogie get together and see if you can wring a vital national interest out of the air.

Click to expand...

LOLOLOLOL

I see you need it spelled out. It's not like no one else hasnt written this or discussed it in the media.

The more people Ebola infects, the more chances it has of mutating to become more virulent or airborne. If the disease becomes more dangerous, esp. more easily transmissable, then it will become much more difficult to control....meaning keeping it out of the US.

We know about the flu every year. We CANNOT keep it from crossing borders and infecting people all over America.

Scaling back from the realities of the disease itself, the more we restrict air travel, the more we harm the economy. The more people in this country that fear Ebola, the fewer people go out and spend money. The more cases actually on the ground? The more people stop going to work. Infrastructure suffers, people dont make $ and they dont spend $. This is not rocket science. A true quarantine of communities would be a nightmare, not just economically but it would end up failing and crime and disease would spread. Will our troops fire on our own people? Will the police stay on the job? Will hospital staff? Look at what has just happened. All public servants will go home to try and protect their families.

I've been reading about this...in science, epidemiology texts, and fiction...for 40 yrs. So far your perspective is limited to a pinhole.

Misterveritis said:

In your opinion what is our national interest? You claim you have given a national interest. I have not seen one.

Has ebola, which we have been aware of since the 1970s, behaved this way? Preventing hyperventilation is not a vital national interest.

Click to expand...

So, the thinking conservative believes that because ebola hasn't yet reached a critical mass, it cannot or will not do so in the future because......why? I'm missing that last bit. It must be because I'm black or a liberal, and you'll explain the rock solid logic behind that nonsensical conclusion.

The best way to prevent your scarey scenario is for every country to do as I believe we should. Why do you fight against such a low cost, effective solution? My believe is that you are black, a liberal or both. For you this is not about a virus. It is about politics or skin color.

Click to expand...

LMAO..... :doh:lamo

You do realize that Obama CAN NOT close the border, block people from coming. It's goes contrary to his policy of inclusiveness, everyone can benefit from us tax dollars, and closing off the borders, well, that would require bringing back most us troops from abroad because there's a lot of border to patrol.

Also, technically, it's the NAU, and the border is the common border between us, Canada and Mexico, but that's not really very well known yet.

A medically trained nurse got Ebola. She was probably using an air mask, rubber gloves, and other preventive gear. If all that still fails to prevent the spread, then we're dealing with something that is well above our understanding as far as how we view infectious diseases. STOP ALL AIR TRAVEL FROM WEST AFRICA NOW!

If we don't stop air travel from west Africa, it will likely be the areas with heavy concentrations of African Americans that will be hit hardest, due to the fact that African immigrants tend to settle in African American communities. Obama should at least feel some obligation to protect the people who directly elected him.

Lursa said:

I dont see anything wrong with that but it wont fix it. We'd have to do the same to flights from other countries as those travelling from W. Africa could just come thru those countries (altho some countries are restricting those flights too).

Click to expand...

Who cares about the places? Deny access to people who have recently been to ebola country.

"Let's see what sort of case you make.

I see no explanation for why dealing with ebola in four African countries is in our national interest. None. So far we completely agree. There is no national interest and therefore sending our troops there is a criminal act.

The vital national interest was the free flow of oil at market prices.


I see no argument yet for a vital national interest. By keeping those exposed to ebola out of our country it does not matter what happens with the virus there.


None of these are American vital national interests. Troops are not required. They should not have been sent.

This is not a vital national interest either.

It is clear that one of us has not thought it through. Why don't you and jetboogie get together and see if you can wring a vital national interest out of the air."

Lursa said:

LOLOLOLOL

I see you need it spelled out. It's not like no one else hasnt written this or discussed it in the media.

The more people Ebola infects, the more chances it has of mutating to become more virulent or airborne. If the disease becomes more dangerous, esp. more easily transmissable, then it will become much more difficult to control....meaning keeping it out of the US.

Click to expand...

Is there a vital national interest hidden in this manure that compels The One to send American military to ebola country? I do not see it. What mission will the troops accomplish that advances our strategy to achieve our political goals?

We know about the flu every year. We CANNOT keep it from crossing borders and infecting people all over America.

Click to expand...

So where should we send our troops to combat the flu?

Are you seriously trying to make an argument that because one disease is already here we should not stop a far worse one from being introduced for political reasons?

Scaling back from the realities of the disease itself, the more we restrict air travel, the more we harm the economy.

Click to expand...

I see. So if we prevent 150 people per day from coming to the nation from ebola country our economy is doomed?

The more people in this country that fear Ebola, the fewer people go out and spend money. The more cases actually on the ground? The more people stop going to work. Infrastructure suffers, people dont make $ and they dont spend $. This is not rocket science.

Click to expand...

That is okay. I can tell that you are no rocket scientist. In your opinion does allowing 150 additional potential ebola carriers into the country every day increase fears or decrease fears. Ponder that for a few moments. Will our bridges collapse and the roads crumble if we do not let an additional 150 potential ebola carriers into the country every day? Will sending 4,000 of our American military to be exposed to ebola increase fears or diminish them?

A true quarantine of communities would be a nightmare, not just economically but it would end up failing and crime and disease would spread.

Click to expand...

And magically, you go off the rails into fantasy land...I wonder why?

Will our troops fire on our own people? Will the police stay on the job? Will hospital staff? Look at what has just happened. All public servants will go home to try and protect their families.

Click to expand...

Having failed to accomplish your mission of describing the vital national interest that compels the Golfer to send American troops to ebola country you have lapsed into a strange fantasy of your own design. Bravo. Bravo, I say!

I've been reading about this...in science, epidemiology texts, and fiction...for 40 yrs.

Click to expand...

What did you learn?

So far your perspective is limited to a pinhole.

Click to expand...

And yet, despite making it perfectly clear that you know there is a vital national interest in sending American troops to ebola country where they will be exposed to the virus, you are unable to make a case.

JasperL said:

So, the thinking conservative believes that because ebola hasn't yet reached a critical mass, it cannot or will not do so in the future because......why? I'm missing that last bit. It must be because I'm black or a liberal, and you'll explain the rock solid logic behind that nonsensical conclusion.

Click to expand...

If the vital national interest that compels The One to pause his golf game long enough to send American troops to ebola country will you come to grips with it and share it?

Ebola has not spread worldwide in the past. Is your fantasy that it might do it this time? If so is it more likely to be spread if we allow 150 potential ebola infected people into the US every day, or less likely?

Why not just admit that you have no argument for why this is in our national interest? Why not just admit that the Golfer sent American troops because he does not like American troops? Why not just admit that the Anti-American knows that sending a brigade to Africa will lower our ability to use the military for what it is actually for?

Why not just admit that you like Obama's politic?

SheWolf said:

It's hard to believe that somebody ill enough to be diagnosed with ebola would feel like flying to the US, then go to the hospital and accept the hospital sending him home. You think he would have insisted they treat him for a deadly disease he knew he had.

Click to expand...

He wasn't ill when he came here and wasn't ill on the plane. Remember it takes up to 21 days to exhibit symptoms.