- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Taking in foreign Ebola patients...
Posted on 10/29/14 at 1:58 pm to mmcgrath
Posted on 10/29/14 at 1:58 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
if we are a major contributor to fixing this thing in West Africa, with thousands of people successfully treated by the US, we will have a large vocal community to fight against the anti-American rhetoric that is slowly taking over the region.
That accolade can be accomplished just as easy over there as over here.
quote:
the US will be better prepared to handle any homegrown bio-terrorism and / or natural outbreak.
Until you can replace "will be" with "is" I'd think we would be better off to deal with it on their turf. This is one example of us being the home team is not a decided advantage at this point.
2
Posted on 10/29/14 at 2:01 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:Up vote for clearly reading and comprehending my post and providing valid arguments. Unfortunately a rarity at times.
Homesick Tiger
Posted on 10/29/14 at 2:05 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Up vote for clearly reading and comprehending my post and providing valid arguments.
I approve of this message.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 2:35 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
mmcgrath
this question....that you keep avoiding.
quote:
what reason, under the guidelines of the Constitution, does the US have to spend money to treat foreign nationals with a deadly infectious disease.
tia.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 2:36 pm to Homesick Tiger
yep, Fed govt will do this and conveniently NOT park them in D.C.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:27 pm to Jagd Tiger
quote:
yep, Fed govt will do this and conveniently NOT park them in D.C.
They should just put them in Bethesda. I'm sure the congressmen and WH folk won't mind going to their appointments alongside these poor, disadvantaged Ebola patients. It's the humanitarian thing to do.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:36 pm to Meauxjeaux
Guantanamo, Guantanamo, Guantanamo
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:36 pm to mauser
quote:
Guantanamo, Guantanamo, Guantanamo
It would be inhumane to the terrorists living there to expose them to Ebola.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:45 pm to CptBengal
quote:
what reason, under the guidelines of the Constitution, does the US have to spend money to treat foreign nationals with a deadly infectious disease.
tia.
Easy. National Security.
Did you actually read the Memo? Because if you didn't, you're showing your hackness. If you did, you're showing your inability to understand the English language. Let's review:
"Issue.... The greatest impediment to persuading other countries to send medical teams to the Ebola-afflicted countries in West Africa has been the lack of assured medical evacuation and treatment for responders who may be infected with Ebola virus."
So what that means is, other countries are hesitant to send health care professionals to West Africa without assurances that they will have proper medical evacuation and treatment should they become infected. They're not talking about people from West Africa being medical evacuated... they're talking about doctors and nurses sent there to help. Okk... you follow? Good...
"Germany is so far the only country to accept non-citizens for Ebola treatment; Norway has offered to accept EU citizens in addition to its own.... Since it is several hours closer to West Africa by air, Europe is also a preferable treatment destination for medical reasons. We are exploring other destinations as well, and establishment of the Monrovia.. Unit and Sierra Leone facility by the UK."
That part is self-explanatory.
Then it discusses "cases where the United States will be the logical treatment destination for non-citizens... employees and contractors of US agencies and programs, NGOs and private firms based in the US, UN staff permanently employed at the UN..."
That means non-citizens working for NGOs like the American Red Cross, Catholic Relief Services, Care USA, Doctors of the World, Episcopal Relief non-governmental organizations who send their people to help victims of Ebola.
The reasoning being we need to stop the spread of Ebola in West Africa and prevent it from spreading. The way to do that is send people there to build hospitals and care for them, teach them, hopefully cure them. If we cannot guarantee these organizations that their people will get evacuation and medical treatment, then fewer will go, more will get sick, more will die and more will be spread.
The memo doesn't discuss bringing in random sick people from Africa. I concerns getting evacuation and help to people who go there to help so that more will go.
National Security.
Very simple.
See.. that's not hard was it?
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:52 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
The greatest impediment to persuading other countries to send medical teams to the Ebola-afflicted countries in West Africa has been the lack of assured medical evacuation and treatment for responders who may be infected with Ebola virus."
why is it an issue if other countries take action or not?
quote:
other countries are hesitant to send health care professionals to West Africa without assurances that they will have proper medical evacuation and treatment should they become infected.
again, who cares?
quote:
That part is self-explanatory.
again, they can choose to do whatever they want. can you point me to the part in the CONSTITUTION where the actions or inactions of other countries in rendering aid to treat foreign nationals has any bearing on a US response?
tia.
quote:
cases where the United States will be the logical treatment destination for non-citizens... employees and contractors of US agencies and programs, NGOs and private firms based in the US, UN staff permanently employed at the UN..."
Why would be the logical treatment place for non US citizens? how is that even fricking reasonable?
Posted on 10/29/14 at 4:15 pm to CptBengal
quote:
how is that even fricking reasonable?
We're already the World's Police, why not be the Worlds EMT's?
What makes no sense is the memo states that we will treat Non-Citizens who would not be able to receive proper medical care in their own country. If their country is so poor, how are they going to be able to afford to pay the 500k per transported/treated individual?
Posted on 10/29/14 at 10:49 pm to lsu13lsu
None. I know people make the case it can be treated better here, but really prefer an alternative than even going this route.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 7:23 am to Al Dante
quote:
What I don't get is why this woman would not want to quarantine herself? It's 21 fricking days. As a volunteer at a hospital for Katrina evacuees I got TB. I was under a medical quarantine for two weeks once. I was assured I wouldn't be able to pass my illness to anyone because I had no cough, fever, etc, but they wanted to be safe. It was no problem for me. Why the hell would I want to walk around even if there was a remote chance I could infect someone? I had to go to a state clinic every day for 1 1/2 years to have antibiotics administered under supervision. I never once thought my civil rights were violated.
We had no problem quarantining astronauts returning from the moon and argue against quarantining health care workers returning from disease infested areas.
Times have changed. What was once widely accepted as a scientifically sound medical decision has now become a controversial political issue. It's a disturbing reflection of our political system IMO.
This post was edited on 10/30/14 at 7:46 am
Posted on 10/30/14 at 7:33 am to CptBengal
This is progressivism taken to its most extreme and unreasonable end. We can't close travel to the Ebola Mecca of West Africa because it would be unjust, we can't quarantine health care workers returning from directly dealing with Ebola patients, because then other countries may not want to send their health care workers to West Africa. It is the theory that the U.S. must decline to take any reasonable steps to insulate itself from the Ebola virus because of what may or may not happen to West Africa.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 7:45 am to Porky
quote:We quarantined them until we figured out that there was no need to, then we stopped. We know how Ebola spreads and therefore we know we don't need a quarantine.
We had no problem quarantining astronauts returning from the moon and argue against quarantining health care workers returning from disease infested areas.
Times have changed. What was once accepted as a scientifically sound medical decision has now become a controversial political issue. It's disturbing.
Way back when we used to do a lot of things that were based on superstition and not science. You would think we had gotten past all of that, but some politicians have found superstition and phobias to be very useful.
This post was edited on 10/30/14 at 7:46 am
Posted on 10/30/14 at 7:55 am to mmcgrath
quote:
Way back when we used to do a lot of things that were based on superstition and not science. You would think we had gotten past all of that, but some politicians have found superstition and phobias to be very useful.
Deadly contagious diseases are not superstition. Look up the Flu epidemic of 1918. It was spread to the U.S. by soldiers returning from WWI. It brought our economy and country to a standstill at the time and the only way it was stopped was through quarantine on a massive scale. It killed several of my ancestors, and by some estimates, as many as 50,000,000 people worldwide.
Infectious diseases are nothing to take lightly.
This post was edited on 10/30/14 at 8:01 am
Posted on 10/30/14 at 8:07 am to Porky
quote:
Deadly contagious diseases are not superstition. Look up the Flu epidemic of 1918. It was spread to the U.S. by soldiers returning from WWI. It brought our economy and country to a standstill at the time and the only way it was stopped was through quarantine on a massive scale. It killed my maternal grandmother.
Infectious diseases are nothing to take lightly
Quarantines didn't stop it. In fact putting all the suspected sick people together made it worse.
The lessons learned from these early pandemics is that we need our health system prepared to quickly identify and properly respond to deadly diseases, not make panicked decisions.
This post was edited on 10/30/14 at 8:26 am
Posted on 10/30/14 at 8:28 am to mmcgrath
quote:
Quarantines didn't stop it. In fact putting all the suspected sick people together made it worse.
Call it whatever you want but churches, schools, and most public facilities were closed. Many public restrictions were imposed at the time and attempts were made to isolate those infected.
LINK
quote:
Schools, theaters, churches and dance halls in cities across the country were closed. Kansas City banned weddings and funerals if more than 20 people were to be in attendance. New York mandated staggered shifts at factories to reduce rush hour commuter traffic. Seattle’s mayor ordered his constituents to wear face masks. The first study found a clear correlation between the number of interventions applied and the resulting peak death rate seen. Perhaps more importantly, both studies showed that while interventions effectively mitigated the transmission of influenza virus in 1918, a critical factor in how much death rates were reduced was how soon the measures were put in place.
This post was edited on 10/30/14 at 8:37 am
Posted on 10/30/14 at 8:36 am to mmcgrath
quote:
Quarantines
President says it not needed. So what happens? DOD says troops coming back from the humanity construction detail will be quarantined.
Go figure. As John Q. Citizen, interpreting mixed signals makes it a little hard to accept any signals this admin is putting out.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News