re: Blood on Obama's hands? Child dies. Infected by illegals?

quote:

---

Actually, he's bound by law.

---

Is that the same law he purposefully ignored at the beginning of the Great LatinAmerican Red Carpet policy?

quote:

---

I would not have stood in the White House with a bullhorn saying "Come on over! We're not enforcing our laws and won't deport you if you get here!!!"

---

Wow. Your perception of reality is clearly distorted... just a touch.

quote:

---

Thus the kid problem would have remained a trickle rather than a dam break.

---

So you admit you wouldn't handle the kids any differently then. Gotcha.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Did the R's propose an alternative?

---

You may not remember this, but the POTUS was just slightly less than forthcoming as to how many illegal immigrants were flooding across our borders. He was less than forthright as to where children immigrants were being held, or under what circumstances. Perhaps you remember children being housed at Lackland AFB, and the military's threats to journalists trying to get a peek at what was going on with them? Perhaps you remember kids being shipped surreptitiously to various waystations across the country, and the Administration refusing to acknowledge doing so?

No?

---

What an amazing deflection to a very simple question.

quote:

---

Actually, he's bound by law.

---

so is the IRS, so is the Justice Dept,, see how well that worked out?

I guess the theory with the progleft crowd is that since Bush lied people died and some of those people were mideast children, it's only fair for Obumma to turn the tables and kill some American children in response. I'm sure that would make sense to them.

quote:

---

You may not remember this, but the POTUS was just slightly less than forthcoming as to how many illegal immigrants were flooding across our borders. He was less than forthright as to where children immigrants were being held, or under what circumstances. Perhaps you remember children being housed at Lackland AFB, and the military's threats to journalists trying to get a peek at what was going on with them? Perhaps you remember kids being shipped surreptitiously to various waystations across the country, and the Administration refusing to acknowledge doing so?

---

there seem to be many who like perpetuating the myth that the govt simply "looked the other way", this is not the case. Those children did't enter with out the GOVT making it happen. The Mexicans control THERE south border very well, they don't let things just happen, it was orchestrated by our govt and theirs. That's for the ones who came by land, we can bet many were actually flown in by Uncle Sam on our dime.

quote:

---

Do you really think that bringing people here with Ebola in a controlled environment poses any risk to the general public?

---

First, you cannot say with certainty that this action would pose no risk. You'd be engaging in dishonest speculation. There would have to be SOME risk created.

Second, I hope that the US electorate has now reached the point that they don't trust the Obama Admin to manage even MINIMAL risk scenarios.

Obama's track record on competence, reliability, trustworthiness and the like is quite poor. I hope that the US electorate realizes that it's a bad idea to trust he or his people to handle anything that requires management of risk of harm to us.

quote:

---

The fact that you would lie to achieve it is disgusting.

---

This quote applies to just about everything the Obama administration says or does.

quote:

---

No. I think that we can be certain that bringing patients here under controlled circumstances wouldn't increase risk to the general public.

---

As long as NOTHING goes wrong...No mistakes...no human or mechanical errors.

Based on what I have seen from those health care workers who have been exposed and told to self-quaranteen I'd say we've been fairly fortunate.

quote:

---

Look, you can certainly defend your personal political opinions, or questionable policies of your leftist cronies. You'll fair better though if you refrain from attempts to drape those preferences in the guise of "science". It is a fool's errand, at least on this site.

---

I'm sorry that you don't understand the concepts I'm explaining, but nothing I've said is scientifically inaccurate. I'm aware that it's a bit of an uphill battle getting most of y'all to listen to things like scientific consensus or epidemiological theory, but it's still worth the try.

quote:

---

s far as "blaming Obama", of course he is responsible for incompetent immigration policy. At this stage he is nearly solely responsible for it. He owns it. He built it. He's had the CDC carry his water in the WestAfrican-Ebola-immigration equation. Sadly, Frieden and CDC administrators agreed. Like you, they then attempted to cloak bad policy in science. Dumb stuff!

---

Not sure that's relevant to the example you quoted, which has nothing to do with immigration policy.

quote:

---

Now we have EV-D68 likely sourced from Central America.

---

At the moment, that's untrue. As I've shown through actual published studies. Whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you.

quote:

---

How long would it take the CDC to prove or disprove that thesis? Less than a week? But that particular epidemiologic work, the type work the CDC is actually supposed to be doing, would likely demonstrate the President's immigration program came at cost of American lives. American children's lives. So where is the CDC's genetic confirmation that EV-D68 did or did not originate from Central American migrants? What is CDC's culpability in the EV-D68 enterovirus equation?

---

Probably longer than a week. They would need a confirmed sample ready for typing, and also a sample from an EV-D68 from one of the Central American countries you're claiming 'caused' the outbreak (is it Guatemala?). Even then, they would need to show that the particular strain wasn't circulating in the community before the introduction of any immigrants. Not quite like getting a blood CBC.

quote:

---

More important, because it screwed the pooch with both Ebola and with EV-D68, what is it's culpability with the next foreign born US multi-indexed epidemic?

---

We have vastly different opinions of the definition of 'screwed the pooch,' and I think yours is misinformed.

quote:

---

Don't be stupid.
How about this: You post a peer-reviewed study claiming effective isolation does not quell viral spread. Do that.

---

Translation: I'm either not smart enough to search google scholar, or I know I'm full of shite and can't post what doesn't exist.

In response to your question, here: Science!

It took about 5 minutes of literature review to find. This is a study in PLOS One from 2011 which talks about efforts to prevent the H1N1 pandemic from turning into a pandemic. The relevant quote, from the abstract (you're welcome to read the whole thing if you like, but we both know you won't):

"It is quite impressive to notice that the 40% drop in travel flows observed in reality only led to an average delay in the arrival of the infection in other countries (i.e. the first imported case) of less than 3 days."

"Even given the unlikely assumption of a 90% travel reduction, the resulting delay would be on the order of 2 weeks, confirming results from previous studies [4], [5], [8], [9]. " I'll include the other references for you, so you can't claim I just cherry-picked one study:

4. Cooper BS, Pitman RJ, Edmunds WJ, Gay N (2006) Delaying the international spread of pandemic influenza. PloS Med 3: e12.

5. Hollingsworth TD, Ferguson NM, Anderson RM (2006) Will travel restrictions control the international spread of pandemic influenza? Nature Med 12: 497–499.

8. Colizza V, Barrat A, Barthélemy M, Valleron A-J, Vespignani A (2007) Modeling the worldwide spread of pandemic influenza: baseline case and containment interventions. PLoS Med 4: e13.

9. Epstein JM, Goedecke M, Yu F, Morris RJ, Wagener DK, et al. (2007) Controlling pandemic flu: the value of international air travel restrictions. PLoS ONE 2: e401.




So you want to cut 3-5 countries off from aid to delay this by 2 weeks, when some estimates claim we may have a million infected individuals by January? And you want to limit the ability of the international aid community to treat those individuals why exactly?

I appreciate that you have some experience in the medical field, or at least a good knack at finding jargon words, but this isn't your field. You're incorrect on both the facts and the logic you use to get there.

quote:

---

First, you cannot say with certainty that this action would pose no risk. You'd be engaging in dishonest speculation. There would have to be SOME risk created.

---

Given the proven records of our facilities (minus the one unprepared one in Dallas) to deal with these individuals, it's pretty clear that the risk to the general population would be nil, and the risk to healthcare workers minimal, if in need of tight controls.

The problem is you're stuck thinking it's a red vs blue political problem, when it's a public health / infection control issue. Look past your hatred for the current administration and you'll see the light.