We should have quarantined Africa 50 years ago


Wolf DeVoon

Recommended Posts

I understand that fact.

All flights lead to Rome.

We are a global village.

However, since the powers to be at the NSA, et. al. allegedly to monitor everything, we announce that as of 12:01 AM Thursday GMT, No flights that directly connect to the three (3) key countries will be permitted to land except at the following military bases in Africa for health processing exams.

And then you start it secretly 24 hrs before the announced time and date.

That's just for starters.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know if anyone's posted this vox link, or if the material there is accurate, but it is somewhat reassuring if accurate.

Ellen

Not knowing what a vox was, I did a little research. It's Ezra Klein, WaPo boy genius: "Maybe with a staff of 30, Ezra can start blogging intelligently, although as a Leftist, that's going to be hard to pull off. To put things into perspective, a US Army Brigade of somewhere in the vicinity of 4,000 personnel has a staff not quite as big as the staff Ezra would like. Just how many people does a blogger need when his only work is to wordsmith the latest DNC press release? ... he's founder of Journolist the propaganda group formed to help Obama win the White House via media manipulation." [comments at Business Insider]

Suppose the vox chart of African diseases is accurate. Cut ties with West Africa, get the hell out. That's the bottom line at Exxon.

Here's the WHO data that vox cutie Susannah Locke turned into eye candy. Her former claim to fame was editing popsci.com

Wikipedia on 2014 outbreak. CDC predicts up to 1.4 million cases by January 2015.

"The US should have banned travel from West Africa weeks ago. It's Disease Containment 101. If we can ban travel to Cuba for 60 years, we can do it for Liberia and Sierra Leone temporarily. It was inevitable that someone would fly here for free healthcare after exposure." [CNBC commenter, 15 up votes]

(since this is my last day on deck, I'm trying to do a good job)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand ancient Rome was a hot spot of disease because all roads led to it. Might be why its emperors frequently lived out of town.

--Brant

It's Africa and India at immediate great and gross risk, most other countries not, except the virus might mutate--the great danger is it getting into cities in Africa right now

(planning to move to the high desert of northern Chile: Save Yourselves!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can this CDC dude be impeached, or, tried for treason and shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President O'bama issues Executive Order that all Asian girls must wear his "Ebola Cloak."

7e6082f66bdc6e236c9da12ea28f3d90_970x.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sending 1000 American troops to Africa is INSANE! And everyone can assume it is Obamas idea because sane people (which includes our military) are advising that we impose a travel ban to Africa.

1000 possibly Ebola infected troops returning to America is radical Islams dream scenario.

Agreed.

Keep our troops away from that pesthole. Obama & Co. are free to volunteer to go...since it's their idea. I'd pay for some of the fuel.

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not so much insane as stupid. Troops should not be used that way. What's insane is screening passengers after they get here which is the least effective way to avoid a pandemic on American soil. (All the passengers get to be exposed.)

As far as I can tell, so far, if it hits African cities it will be beyond much hope and would hit India in a way we don't want to think about. And it's unlikely asymptomatic isn't actually contagious during some of the incubation period.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, if Obama & Co. would go then it's recommended they stay there. Now that's a thought.

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant wrote about sending U.S. servicemen to an Ebola infected area:

It's not so much insane as stupid. Troops should not be used that way.

end quote

I agree. Manning the borders would be better. President Obama! Secure our borders! As Las Vegas mentioned, perhaps our President should send himself and his family to Africa to fight the disease.

Which sounds like "World War Z", the Brad Pitt, zombie movie. The State Funeral and bonfire can held there. I hope Ebola does not make its way to South Africa, India, China, or the rest of the world. I guess it is here.

And "World War Z", reminds me of a pleasant surprise. Last night I saw the new Jack Ryan on a Netflix movie disc with the actor who now plays Captain Kirk too. It was quite good and comparable to Harrison Fords versions. I think I was up an hour later than usual because it got me agitated, as does a Daniel Craig James Bond flick.

They interviewed a Christian woman on TV yesterday and she is going to infected areas because that is what God wants her to do. What arrogance and narcissism. She talks to Zeus? And what does he tells her? Go to Africa? She cares little for her own family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys:

The really serious "bullets" are:

sperm-4-animated-gif400px.gif

Apparently, the virus stays potent for up to 120 days in the male sperm.

It also stays potent post mortem, however I have not seen any hard number on how long.

So can a mass grave be an incubator for this virus to mutate in an incredibly viable "petri dish?"

As to Brant's fear of an India diaspora of this virus, you are looking at loosing close to half the population

of 1.3 billion of our fellow global citizens:

"People gather water from a huge well in the village of Natwarghad in the western Indian state of Gujarat. More than 1 billion people still lack access to clean drinking water. [2003]"
b9a36c7ae938b7523ce62966effa6d93_970x.jp

I can't even imagine the carnage as natural defensive lines solidify and society collapses.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's insane is screening passengers after they get here which is the least effective way to avoid a pandemic on American soil. (All the passengers get to be exposed.)

I don't understand this. To inspect passengers arriving from Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia -- how is this insane?

I guess there is an alternative or alternatives: do nothing; do nothing; don't do anything; screen for Ebola symptoms at the originating airport; don't do anything; don't do anything.

To my eyes -- given the actual extent of international responses to the outbreak -- to screen arriving passengers is most sane.

(in an entirely Objectivish earth, there would of course be no state public health authorities charged with prevention or control of disease outbreaks. Presumably current institutions would be either privatized or dismantled. In that perfect world, Ebola would scourge who it wanted, travel where it wanted, hitch rides on who it came in contact with. Without the devilish World Health Organization, without the demonic CDC, private enterprise would somehow 'regulate' disease without regulating human beings.

Thus ... if an outbreak of a nasty disease begins to spread outside its main centres of infection ... what?)

Here's a bit of news from the UK, where screening measures have been instituted. From the Independent.

Enhanced screening for Ebola will be introduced at Heathrow and Gatwick airports and Eurostar terminals following advice from the Chief Medical Officer, Downing Street has said.

The screening will be introduced for passengers travelling from the affected regions - Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea - to give the UK an additional level of protection from the deadly virus.

The tests will involve assessing passengers' recent travel history, who they have been in contact with and onward travel arrangements as well as a possible medical assessment conducted by trained medical personnel.

A Downing Street spokeswoman added that screenings had already been in place in the West African nations impacted by the disease, and measures going beyond enhanced screening will be "kept under review."

I understand that by Objectivist principles it can be argued that nations (like the USA) owe sweet fuck all to any other nation. In this case, any 'altruistic' outlay of American resources or personnel is disgusting and wrong.

What about the real world? It occurs to me that all the zany 'close our borders' antics reveal a poor estimation of risk and reward, cost and benefit. It's as if some of us here are unable to do anything but panic ... and call for the most extreme Government responses imaginable.

Is that the best, most reasonable position to take? I think it is just fantasies taking hold.

Here's a link to the White House briefing that lays out the entire US response to the crisis in Africa,

FACT SHEET: U.S. Response to the Ebola Epidemic in West Africa\

Now, I understand how tempting it is to issue coulda, shoulda, oughta policies. But I think it is a good idea to be accurate about what actually is being done. It's a massive effort.

Just a sample of the White House document:

  • U.S. Africa Command will set up a Joint Force Command headquartered in Monrovia, Liberia, to provide regional command and control support to U.S. military activities and facilitate coordination with U.S. government and international relief efforts. A general from U.S. Army Africa, the Army component of U.S. Africa Command, will lead this effort, which will involve an estimated 3,000 U.S. forces.
  • U.S. Africa Command will establish a regional intermediate staging base (ISB) to facilitate and expedite the transportation of equipment, supplies and personnel. Of the U.S. forces taking part in this response, many will be stationed at the ISB.
  • Command engineers will build additional Ebola Treatment Units in affected areas, and the U.S. Government will help recruit and organize medical personnel to staff them.
  • Additionally, the Command will establish a site to train up to 500 health care providers per week, enabling healthcare workers to safely provide direct medical care to patients.
  • The United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is preparing to deploy 65 Commissioned Corps officers to Liberia to manage and staff a previously announced Department of Defense (DoD) hospital to care for healthcare workers who become ill. The deployment roster will consist of administrators, clinicians, and support staff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sending 1000 American troops to Africa is INSANE! And everyone can assume it is Obamas idea because sane people (which includes our military) are advising that we impose a travel ban to Africa.

1000 possibly Ebola infected troops returning to America is radical Islams dream scenario.

Do you know what those troops normally do, how they are trained, what their mission is, which precautions are customary and required?

I doubt it, so it is merely panic that suggests a thousand returning infected troops. It is unclear to me how stupid you think the troops are. Do you really think that the troops are without adequate Ebola protections? If so, then that particular false belief can lead to further false beliefs -- that the troops will be not be able to protect themselves.

They aren't sending 3000 Special Forces Aidmen, either. Maybe a few. I dunno.

--Brant

if the troops get Ebola they won't have to bring it back for their mothers to go bat-shit angry insane over President Zero and it would segue over to all military mothers and military personnel and military vets--but it's the mothers, brother!

As you say, you "dunno." Which suggests you can get knickers in a twist contemplating a false scenario. As with Peter Taylor's whack notion. As if the troops are going in naked without protection. As if it isn't known how to take adequate prophylactic measures ...

Scary. It might get into African cities and India. It might become as infamous as the Black Death and the post-WWI flu epidemic. If you live in North America or Europe there won't be much to fear as any outbreak would be immediately contained. All these sick people need blood serum from the infected survivors and IV vitamin C.

It "might" get into African cities? Jeezus, Brant, it already is in the African city Conakry. It's a frightening crisis for the three nations it is impacting.

Can this CDC dude be impeached, or, tried for treason and shot?

Whack. What CDC dude? What treason?

For those who are interested, here is yesterday's briefing from the US military, Pentagon Briefing on DoD Response to Ebola with General Rodriguez

Video here: http://static.dvidshub.net/media/video/1410/DOD_102019766/DOD_102019766.mp4

Q: General, will any U.S. military personnel be involved in the direct treatment of any Ebola patients or in the training that health care givers -- will they be -- come into contact with any Ebola patients?

GEN. RODRIGUEZ: No. Now, the mobile labs are different. But no for the majority of the force. The mobile labs are testing people, OK? And some of them will have the Ebola virus. Now, those are trained at the highest level of something like nuclear, biological and chemical. So they're all trained at a very, very high level. And they've been -- the one from Walter Reed has been operating there for many years, for example. And the two that we just deployed meet those standards of training.

Q: Do you have any numbers of those who will be involved in the lab operations? And what kind of protections or what kind of protocol will they observe? And if any U.S. military personnel should contract Ebola, what is the protocol there? What happens?

GEN. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. First, on the -- the numbers in the labs, they're between a three- and a four-person team. We have three labs deployed right now. We will probably deploy several others. So it'll add -- one lab adds three to four additional people.

And, again, those people are trained to the very highest level of operating in a nuclear, biological, and chemical arena, and they are tested continually, and they are the ones who are testing all the people. They will be the primary ones that come in contact with anybody.

On the second point, if somebody does contract Ebola and becomes symptomatic, they will be handled in -- just like you've seen on the recent ones who came back on an aircraft that was specially designed to bring them back, and they'll go back to one of the centers that is specially designed to handle the Ebola patients right now.

Q: So they'll be returned to the U.S.?

GEN. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, they will. Yes.

Q: Will U.S. armed forces personnel be working side-by-side with Liberian troops as they build these emergency treatment units? I thought we had been told that they would be separate from the Liberian forces. Is there a risk of contamination by working closely with the partner nation's troops? First question.

And are you -- do you have enough of the personal protective equipment that you need? Or is there a shortage of that? And have you stockpiled any of this ZMapp, the treatment that was given to the two missionaries that had been proven in case troops are exposed to the virus?

GEN. RODRIGUEZ: We are -- we have people that will be working with and observing the other people who are building the ETUs [Ebola treatment unit], whether it be the Armed Forces of Liberia or contractors, to ensure that they're meeting the standards and oversight.

All the people who are doing that are tested and meet all the medical protocols to ensure that they do not have the disease. And then the continual daily checks are also a part of it. So all the people that we're working with go through that -- those medical protocols.

On the last point, on the virus, we do not have that stockpiled. And right now, that is -- you'll have to get the expert opinion of the CDC, but that's still to be determined whether it's effective or not, and they have a date in the future when it -- they may be able to tell whether it's effective or not, so we are not stockpiling that.

And last, we have sufficient personal protective equipment for ourselves, and we will continue to make sure that that's the way throughout the process.

Q: Can you tell us a little bit about where these 3,000 or 4,000 service members will be housed? And can you give us a little bit more information about what kind of personal protective gear are we talking about? What kind of hygiene protocols are we talking about? And what kind of monitoring is going to be done on a daily basis?

GEN. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, for the -- for the majority of the people, they will be in places, like the Ministry of Defense, or some of the military posts that are out there. Some will be over at the airfields and the locations where people will be flowing in personnel and equipment. We will have trainers that are in a training facility. And most of these places that are in and around Monrovia are actually in buildings.

The people will either live in the Ministry of Defense areas or they will live in tent city-type procedures, where everything will be taken care of for them, to include their food and water and those things, because you have to watch all that, obviously, at these points.

And then on the -- the protocols that occur in a daily monitoring, mainly, it's built around the multiple washings that you have to do with your hands and feet and everything else. I mean, when you go in one of these Ebola treatment units, you're going to wash your hands and feet multiple times. You're going to get your temperature taken in and out. And then there is a checklist of things to ask each personnel based on the -- the virus or any other sickness, quite frankly, that could be coming up. OK, it's just like a self-questionnaire and a checklist.

Q: And the personal protective gear?

GEN. RODRIGUEZ: The personal protective gear, the majority of the people will just deploy with personal protective gear that includes gloves and masks and things like that. They don't need the whole suit, as such, because they're not going to be in contact with any of the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys:

The really serious "bullets" are:

Apparently, the virus stays potent for up to 120 days in the male sperm.

Not exacly. It's not the sperm, but the seminal fluid -- semen. Along with blood, serum, urine, respiratory and throat secretions, (according to tne Public Health Agency here in Canada).

I can't even imagine the carnage as natural defensive lines solidify and society collapses.

I can't imagine what you recommend for India. It has not yet emerged in that country, and there is no reason to assume Indians are especially suspect. Ebola is harboured in the human being, in its organs and secretions -- not in water resources -- so your scary photo is not particularly apt.

By the way, where did you get the sperm information in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys:

The really serious "bullets" are:

Apparently, the virus stays potent for up to 120 days in the male sperm.

Not exacly. It's not the sperm, but the seminal fluid -- semen. Along with blood, serum, urine, respiratory and throat secretions, (according to tne Public Health Agency here in Canada).

I can't even imagine the carnage as natural defensive lines solidify and society collapses.

I can't imagine what you recommend for India. It has not yet emerged in that country, and there is no reason to assume Indians are especially suspect. Ebola is harboured in the human being, in its organs and secretions -- not in water resources -- so your scary photo is not particularly apt.

By the way, where did you get the sperm information in the first place?

William, I was commenting about Brant's comment about Ebola taking root in India.

Yes, you are correct it is the semen...however, William...Sperm Sells. It has a "personality." And it is cute, like a tadpole...

As to your proper question about our friendly Ebola ridden seminal fluid...

The World Health Organization (WHO) Ebola virus disease factsheet notes that ebolaviruses may be transmitted via the semen of a male who is getting over an ebolavirus infection, for a period of 7-weeks (~49-days).[1]

Ebola Virus Disease

SEM revealed some of the ultrastructural morphologic features displayed by the Ebola virus/CDC

The European fact sheet for health professionals and a Public Health Agency of Canada Pathogen Safety Data Sheet both note the 7-week figure, the latter also adds a 61-day figure.[2,3]

The United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) Medical Managements of Biological Casualties Handbook (7th edition) notes a 3-month (~80-days) period, during which one should probably avoid sexual relations so as not to deliver virus directly to a mucosal surface.[4]

Semen is therefore listed as one of the body fluids from which Ebola virus disease may be contracted.

While convalescent patients seem to be discharged before 7-weeks have elapsed, I presume the men are made very aware of this risk. This was specifically noted in one of the studies below. [8]
But I find it hard to just accept things.

As a scientist I’m used to looking for the little bracketed or superscripted numbers or perhaps “(Scientist et al)”, at the end of sentences. Then I can check out the information source for myself. So here, I thought I’d try and add those and pt it altogether in one place here – and you can do your own checking out if you feel the need.

Here are the research papers I’ve found for EBOV so far (there are also Marburg virus studies) – by all means send me any others I’ve missed and I’ll add them.

Bausch and colleagues [5] were able to isolate, in cell culture in the laboratory,infectious Ebola virus (EBOV) from the semen of 1 of 2 samples from a single recovering patient who had EVD.

The samples was collected 40-days after disease onset; at 45-days he was no longer positive for EBOV

No acute phase (active infections) samples were tested.

1 of 2 samples were also positive for EBOV RNA by RT-PCR (detecting a portion of the virus’s RNA genome)

Rodriguez and colleagues [6] could isolate infectious EBOV from seminal fluid 82 days after disease (also RT-PCR positive then) and at 51-days after onset from a 27-year old male.

EBOV RNA in 3 other convalescent cases (33, 29 and 25-years of age) at times ranging from 57 to 101-days after disease onset.

Rowe and colleagues [7] could detect EBOV RNA by RT-PCR from 4 convalescent cases (27, 25, 29 and 33-years of age) at times ranging from 47 to91-days after disease onset

No infectious virus could be isolated and no viral antigens were found

Emond and colleagues [8] were able to isolate infectious EBOV from seminal fluid collected 39 and 61 days after disease onset

No EBOV was isolated 76, 92 or 110-days later

So if you are a man who has been diagnosed with an Ebola virus infection and survived, please, seriously, take extra care to practice safe sex. Use a condom. Or, even safer, just wait.

References…

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopics/ebola_marburg_fevers/factsheet-for-health-professionals/Pages/factsheet_health_professionals.aspx

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php

http://www.usamriid.army.mil/education/bluebookpdf/USAMRIID%20BlueBook%207th%20Edition%20-%20Sep%202011.pdf

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/196/Supplement_2/S142.full

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_1/S170.long

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9988162

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/890413

Dr. Ian Mackay, PhD is a virologist with The University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. See more of Dr Mackay’s blogging at Virology Down Under

http://outbreaknewstoday.com/ebola-virus-in-semen-is-the-real-deal-52101/

This article was Aug, 21 2014 - I have "heard" numbers between 60 and 120 days...

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William, I was commenting about Brant's comment about Ebola taking root in India.

Yes, you are correct it is the semen...however, William...Sperm Sells. It has a "personality." And it is cute, like a tadpole...

Okay, fair enough.

I thought this was the money quote from WHO ...

Emond and colleagues [8] were able to isolate infectious EBOV from seminal fluid collected 39 and 61 days after disease onset

So if you are a man who has been diagnosed with an Ebola virus infection and survived, please, seriously, take extra care to practice safe sex. Use a condom. Or, even safer, just wait.

I realize that I haven't commented on the original post in this thread. I found it just disheartening enough in its title to not read what I imagined were the arguments. "We shoulda kept a race-based drawbridge up in 1964. Negroes from Africa shoulda been kept out, and every bad disease we have faced since woulda been kept where it belonged, on the Dark Continent."

In reality the low tide was still to come, with Vegas's 'pesthole.' The kind of generalization that sets my teeth on edge. And Wolf's careful rendering of African failure as a whole to live up to the mark (in statistics). That was of no purpose but to dehumanize, to my eye ...

How little empathy and 'emergency thinking' has been on display here? How much rational, practical discussion, and how much unalloyed bigotry?

Maybe Jerry's head-in-sand attitude is better. It avoids fear and loathing of Dark Ebola Blood Coming to Your Town Now, and it avoids demonizing a continent and counselling a cruel disconnection from a broad humanity. But Jerry's head in the sand is no better than panic quarantine cull. It fails to engage with reality as she really is.

On a personal, gut level, I feel that the West should do its best to help. In my thoughts picked clean of emotion, I don't think ignoring/quarantining/disengaging is smart for America or smart for Europe or smart for Canada (or India). At this point in the outbreak, abandoning Africa and international aid efforts will pay no good dividends. I believe it is separately in our own national interests to institute real emergency response -- including Western military. I hope our government does more.

Pestilential thoughts though these may be, it's what I come up with on balance.

Derek, I am with you on the Whiskey Tango Foxtrot about 'pesthole.' I don't like it.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how did the situation get so horribly out of control?

The virus easily outran the plodding response. The WHO, an arm of the United Nations, is responsible for coordinating international action in a crisis like this, but it has suffered budget cuts, has lost many of its brightest minds and was slow to sound a global alarm on Ebola. Not until Aug. 8, 4 1 ⁄ 2 months into the epidemic, did the organization declare a global emergency. Its Africa office, which oversees the region, initially did not welcome a robust role by the CDC in the response to the outbreak.

Previous Ebola outbreaks had been quickly throttled, but that experience proved misleading and officials did not grasp the potential scale of the disaster. Their imaginations were unequal to the virulence of the pathogen.

"In retrospect, we could have responded faster. Some of the criticism is appropriate," acknowledged Richard Brennan, director of the WHO's Department of Emergency Risk Management and Humanitarian Response. But he added, "While some of the criticism we accept, I think we also have to get things in perspective that this outbreak has a dynamic that's unlike everything we've ever seen before and, I think, has caught everyone unawares."

The epidemic has exposed a disconnect between the aspirations of global health officials and the reality of infectious disease control. Officials hold faraway strategy sessions about fighting emerging diseases and bioterrorism even as front-line doctors and nurses don't have enough latex gloves, protective gowns, rehydrating fluid or workers to carry bodies to the morgue.

"We cannot wait for those high-level meetings to convene and discuss over cocktails and petits fours what they're going to do," exclaimed Joanne Liu, international head of Doctors Without Borders, when she heard about another U.N. initiative. Her group was among the first to respond to the viral conflagration, and it kept its staff in West Africa throughout the crisis.

West Africa was ill-equipped for an Ebola disaster because civil war and chronic poverty had undermined local health systems and there were few doctors and nurses. Health workers in the region had never experienced an Ebola outbreak and didn't know what they were seeing in those first critical months. In the spring the outbreak seemed to fade, making officials overconfident. And then the virus made the leap from rural villages to crowded cities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/10/04/how-ebola-sped-out-of-control/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The epidemic has exposed a disconnect between the aspirations of global health officials and the reality of infectious disease control. Officials hold faraway strategy sessions about fighting emerging diseases and bioterrorism even as front-line doctors and nurses don't have enough latex gloves, protective gowns, rehydrating fluid or workers to carry bodies to the morgue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/10/04/how-ebola-sped-out-of-control/

The disconnect - the global planners in their plush offices contrasted with the people in the trenches, who don't have supplies. And don't have needed electricity. Why not? Maybe something to do with climate alarmism and keeping Africa from developing.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine what you recommend for India. It has not yet emerged in that country, and there is no reason to assume Indians are especially suspect. Ebola is harboured in the human being, in its organs and secretions -- not in water resources -- so your scary photo is not particularly apt.

Re India: population density, bad sanitation and innumerable Indians working in these African cities.

--Brant

I read the links

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One benefit people may also have overlooked in allowing them to come to the US is people that have Ebola and survive are our best chance at getting the antibodies needed to create a viable vaccine and be in a better position to win this battle. If Africa is quarantined perhaps people looking to fly out may as an extreme precaution be put into isolation for 10 days before flying (or the minimum amount of time for the virus to be able to be tested for. I do not believe outright banning of flights to or from Africa is at all the answer as well as being extrordinary cruel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One benefit people may also have overlooked in allowing them to come to the US is people that have Ebola and survive are our best chance at getting the antibodies needed to create a viable vaccine and be in a better position to win this battle. If Africa is quarantined perhaps people looking to fly out may as an extreme precaution be put into isolation for 10 days before flying (or the minimum amount of time for the virus to be able to be tested for. I do not believe outright banning of flights to or from Africa is at all the answer as well as being extrordinary cruel.

Excellent points which is why I would recommend:

1) Banning all direct flights from Africa to the continental US;

2) Direct flights from Africa will be permitted after the quarantine period that you mentioned above is completed on that side of the flight;

3) Those approved flights will land at one of the non-continental US bases, for a secondary incubation period and vetting;

4) there will be other procedures which are classified.

A...

Might want to telemute from Tripoli...just head North East from West Africa and make a left at the dead US Ambassador in Benghazi and follow the shore line to Tripoli...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pseudo philosopher, William Scherk wrote:

If so, then that particular false belief can lead to further false beliefs -- that the troops will be not be able to protect themselves.

end quote

Oh, right. I forgot about the four hour lecture the troops were going to listen to. And I am sure not one trooper will catch Ebola. Or fire his weapon into a mob of Zombies which will cause more riots and reprisals. We arent talking about Scifi as in the Andromeda Strain, thank goodness.

Gen Rodriguez articulately answered a question about the danger:

No. Now, the mobile labs are different. But no for the majority of the force . . . . And, again, those people are trained to the very highest level of operating in a nuclear, biological, and chemical arena, and they are tested continually, and they are the ones who are testing all the people. They will be the primary ones that come in contact with anybody.

end quote

The troops will have individual residences too, unlike the cramped quarters when I was in the Army. They will probably evict the Ebola infected natives and be billeted in their huts and there should not be ANY chance of infection there. The health care officials in their silly orange suits are so clumsy but American soldiers are fastidious and cautious. And remember: Obama is in charge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now