re: Taking in foreign Ebola patients...

quote:

---

One must distort and stretch the meaning of the phrase "national security" to provide any coherence into your argument.

---

Actually I'm quoting Republicans. They're the ones who have said this.

quote:

---

I read the memo carefully and the "holding" of the memo that the USA "needs" to do something in order to try to persuade foreign doctors and nursed to travel to Liberia is totally conclusory and utterly without evidentiary support. It's not a legal document, nor is it in any way a legal argument establishing a "national security" reason to do this.

---

I'm glad you read the memo, now read my post. I never said it was a legal memo nor did I say it was a judicial case thus can have no holding.

However, just as Republicans have said that quarantine is a matter of national security because the health of our citizens are at issue, for those of us intelligent enough to think past our noses and do not operate out of fear and emotion, the idea that we should close off our country from people of west Africa and should not send troops to build hospitals and not do as much as possible to help charity organizations get to West Africa and stem the tide of this epidemic is about as stupid as it gets.

Today it's 10,000 in Africa with this disease. One day that was the number of people infected with HIV there. Then it was 100,000. Then it was in the millions. By that time, 1987, Reagan got off his arse and actually mentioned the disease for the first time. By then 7500 Americans were dead.

Both Republicans and Democrats have said this is a matter of national security. The difference is Republicans (and some Democrats) are too stupid to understand that if you don't contain Ebola today in West Africa, in three years you'll wake up like Reagan did in 1987.

quote:

---

Both Republicans and Democrats have said this is a matter of national security. The difference is Republicans (and some Democrats) are too stupid to understand that if you don't contain Ebola today in West Africa, in three years you'll wake up like Reagan did in 1987.

---

I'm OK with fighting AQ in foreign countries as well but it would be plain stupid to bring AQ to the U.S. because it's more conducive to voluntary fighting and we're better equipped to contain the situation at home.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Funny how you mention quarantines yet they aren't listed with the effective preventative measures in your quote. With regards to a pandemic situation obviously quarantines are useless.

With regards to small outbreaks quarantines can be used to isolate individuals but really the isolation can be anything from a quarantine to taking a temperature twice a day, depending upon the risk to the public. In the case of a person with Ebola exposure the risk is zero until symptoms show up, and appear to be extremely low (perhaps nearly zero) during the early onset (first hours, perhaps first day) of symptoms.

Bottom line: Quarantines are needed when the person is clearly infected and the chance of infecting others is high.

quote:

---

1. 30 at a time

---

Why only 30? More than that are dying in Africa at a time. Why not 100? 1000?

quote:

---

2. Early diagnosed victims reporting to one of US Army built treatment centers.

---

But we will accept ALL Africans with Ebola, correct?

quote:

---

2a. Doctors at treatment centers using guidelines (how sick, age, general health).

---

Who sets those guidelines? The CDC? Their track record has been pretty terrible as of late, in regards to Ebola.

quote:

---

3. We do.

---

Why are we responsible, financially, for all disease victims in AFrica? Better yet, why are we stopping at Ebola? Surely africans are dying of other diseases. And why are we just stopping at diseases? Why aren't we feeding and clothing ALL AFRICANS? Seems pretty callous that only Ebola victims get preferential treatment. And why only Africa? Why aren't we solving the ENTIRE WORLD'S problems at our expense?

quote:

---

4. Zero. We have NIH and CDC doctors along with volunteer doctors like Doctors Without Borders. What is better for the volunteers is that they work in a very controlled environment in the US as opposed to West Africa so volunteers are more available.

---

Wait, so we hold zero liability when the administration mandates we treat foreign diseased individuals, and our healthcare workers are infected? That is not living in the real world. You know, for a fact, that we will be liable to treat our own. But you say we don't have to? So we must treat foreigners and ignore our own citizens? Great thinking chief.

quote:

---

5. Zero. We don't forcibly quarantine doctors who work in the US even if they work with infectious diseases.

---

And if they spread the disease to other people? Just let them go about too? ARe you really that stupid? You are advocating we accept and quarantine, at the taxpayers expense, every human in Africa with Ebola, yet you don't want us to treat our own population, and you are advocating the countrywide spread of Ebola, because you are afraid of inconveniencing someone?

quote:

---

mmcgrath

---

I would like your response to my counterpoints. Something tells me you won't give it, though.

quote:

---

I would like your response to my counterpoints. Something tells me you won't give it, though.

---

Why should I offer counter points to someone who is intentionally misinterpreting half of what I write? Why don't you just offer your own views backed up by reasoning? That should be a hoot.

Case in point:

quote:

---

And if they spread the disease to other people? Just let them go about too? ARe you really that stupid? You are advocating we accept and quarantine, at the taxpayers expense, every human in Africa with Ebola, yet you don't want us to treat our own population, and you are advocating the countrywide spread of Ebola, because you are afraid of inconveniencing someone?

---

Absolutely NOT what I wrote.

quote:

---

Comparing Ebola to AQ has to be one of the worst comparisons anyone can make.

---

My point is that there's no good reason to bring Ebola infected patients from West Africa to the U.S. for treatment when it would be much safer and cost effective for them to receive medical care at home.

quote:

---

My point is that there's no good reason to bring Ebola infected patients from West Africa to the U.S. for treatment when it would be much safer and cost effective for them to receive medical care at home.

---

Then that's your argument. Just say that. No reason to jump off the pier comparing Ebola to AQ.

Now on those points we can argue whether it's safer and more cost effective seperately. I have made an argument that if they are brought over in a controlled environment it is safer for the doctors treating them than to do it in West Africa where doctors can be exposed when they aren't suited up. I would also argue that it could be more cost effective in the short term because we could treat more cases which would lower the counts exponentially in the future.

But your arguments are valid and we haven't gotten into the details of costs or exposures, so I will give you an up vote on this post.

PS: BugAC gets a downvote for general intellectual dishonesty.

quote:

---

IF she were to come down with the symptoms and full blown sickness between now and Nov 10, would you still stand by your opinion of not quarantining returnees since they show no immediate symptoms upon returning?

---

Yes. If she is infected then she would get sick in or out of quarantine. Her chances are probably much better if she is picked up from home as she would likely be flown to Emory or NIH instead of getting treated in a tent in Jersey City.

quote:

---

And BTW, it is almost a mathematical impossibility that it will evolve through transmissions in the US..

---

transmission of a virus is not evolution. It is the natural way of the virus spreading. The only way it would be "mathematically impossible" for the virus to spread here, is if Americans were immune to the virus or if all infected were banned from coming here.