Why the fuck aren't we stopping all passengers from IBOLA infected regions?

[Mad_Cabbie]

Because we don't make policy decisions based on the irrational and uninformed panic of people who don't actually know what they're talking about.

No, we make policy decisions based on the egos and partisanship of those in power. Them we marginalize and ridicule those who actually know what they are talking about when they object.

Correct, although not quite the way you imagine....

My partisan hack response to a partisan hack post.

Doc is a bit partisan, but he absolutely is no kind of hack.

 

[PredFan]

Because we don't make policy decisions based on the irrational and uninformed panic of people who don't actually know what they're talking about.

No, we make policy decisions based on the egos and partisanship of those in power. Them we marginalize and ridicule those who actually know what they are talking about when they object.

Correct, although not quite the way you imagine....

My partisan hack response to a partisan hack post.

Doc is a bit partisan, but he absolutely is no kind of hack.

Please. Maybe he isn't normally but that was a partisan hack comment and it got the response it deserved.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, last but this is the largest outbreak ever and we were lucky before. Perhaps some of the other areas werre more isolated. think we are in uncharted territory right now with this disease. Lets just hope it stays last

I don't disagree. I just think it needs to be kept in perspective wrt the real killers in Africa, like HIV, malaria, and diarrhea.

Which would you rather have, Ebola or diarrhea?

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

 

[PredFan]

I don't disagree. I just think it needs to be kept in perspective wrt the real killers in Africa, like HIV, malaria, and diarrhea.

Which would you rather have, Ebola or diarrhea?

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, last but this is the largest outbreak ever and we were lucky before. Perhaps some of the other areas werre more isolated. think we are in uncharted territory right now with this disease. Lets just hope it stays last

I don't disagree. I just think it needs to be kept in perspective wrt the real killers in Africa, like HIV, malaria, and diarrhea.

Which would you rather have, Ebola or diarrhea?

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.

 

[bripat9643]

So many pathetic excuses for lack of containment by this administration.
You can shove thermometers up their ass till the cows come home,but it only takes ONE PERSON who doesn't yet have a fever but is a host to start something out of control.

You libs are just plain stupid.

Hmmm ... we are stupid because we understand that the sky is not falling?

You are stupid because you believe that the way to stop Ebola from coming here is to allow it to come here.

Thanks Doctor. Good thing you're on the job.

Thanks. When I put your medical advice into plain English, everyone can see how incredibly stupid it is.

 

[PredFan]

I don't disagree. I just think it needs to be kept in perspective wrt the real killers in Africa, like HIV, malaria, and diarrhea.

Which would you rather have, Ebola or diarrhea?

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.

Every single nurse, doctor, or other healthcare worker who gets the disease from treating an Ebola infected patient tha Obama brought over is on him, and they should sue him and the federal government for millions and millions.

 

[ChrisL]

It seems as if things with the disease are beginning to wind down (hopefully), so that's good news! Hopefully we don't have any more Ebola victims traveling around, infecting people.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm still disappointed that instead of just taking some common sense precautionary measures (like restricting travel), Obama had to go ahead and appointment an "Ebola team." Good grief! Just another waste of taxpayer monies!!! The hell do we need an Ebola team for?

 

[gallantwarrior]

We need an Ebola team to ensure that the proper spin is put on the situation. Why do you think they hired the guy they did? He has no medical background, no real administrative background. But he was apparently one helluva public relations guy!

 

[Desperado]

What's ibola?

Seems to be a simple typo
but here is a easy way to remember the correct spelling:
Enjoy
Barack
Obama's
Legacy
America

 

[ChrisL]

We need an Ebola team to ensure that the proper spin is put on the situation. Why do you think they hired the guy they did? He has no medical background, no real administrative background. But he was apparently one helluva public relations guy!

Such a waste of money.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't disagree. I just think it needs to be kept in perspective wrt the real killers in Africa, like HIV, malaria, and diarrhea.

Which would you rather have, Ebola or diarrhea?

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

It isn't a pipe dream at all. Small pox was eradicated. The measles is all but a thing of the past. Vaccines are in the pipeline for Ebola. Fighting this disease at the source is the ONLY answer. But let's look at this idea of restricting travel. To who does it apply? France had a case. Let's stop all travel from France. Germany had a case. Shut them down. UK? Not yet. Stay tuned. Nigeria had it, but they've stopped it in its tracks. Never the less, they present a risk in your view, so they can't come either. That, of course, fucks up Chevron's American employees who work there and travel back and forth all the time (as well as many others). The simple fact is that it will never work, will never prevent someone with the disease from getting through, will not prevent someone with the disease from traveling to a country without such restriction and then traveling on to the U.S.: But it WILL kill business for Africans, for Americans, and for many others.

 

[orogenicman]

Which would you rather have, Ebola or diarrhea?

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

 

[orogenicman]

I don't disagree. I just think it needs to be kept in perspective wrt the real killers in Africa, like HIV, malaria, and diarrhea.

Which would you rather have, Ebola or diarrhea?

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.

Okay, here is how your travel ban works. We send workers there to treat Ebola patients. Now our people can't get back. Who is going to agree to go there and not come back? To say nothing of the fact that travel bans are rather easily defeated. You simply buy a plane ticket to a country that doesn't have the travel ban and then buy a ticket in that country to the states. If you think the economic effects are bad now, wait until your travel ban takes effect.

 

[orogenicman]

Which would you rather have, Ebola or diarrhea?

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.

Every single nurse, doctor, or other healthcare worker who gets the disease from treating an Ebola infected patient tha Obama brought over is on him, and they should sue him and the federal government for millions and millions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Which would you rather have, Ebola or diarrhea?

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.

Okay, here is how your travel ban works. We send workers there to treat Ebola patients. Now our people can't get back. Who is going to agree to go there and not come back? To say nothing of the fact that travel bans are rather easily defeated. You simply buy a plane ticket to a country that doesn't have the travel ban and then buy a ticket in that country to the states. If you think the economic effects are bad now, wait until your travel ban takes effect.

Suspend the US visas for all west African.

Duh

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Moonglow]

Which would you rather have, Ebola or diarrhea?

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Next you will try to lie to us about foreign aid during GOP administrations...how they cut everyone off and give out zero dollars in aid...

 

[Moonglow]

What's ibola?

Seems to be a simple typo
but here is a easy way to remember the correct spelling:
Enjoy
Barack
Obama's
Legacy
America

I believe God is the more appropriate source for discourse on diseases...

 

[PredFan]

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?