It's baaaack Ebola - American Doctor in Nebraska

a reply to: Chadwickus

The immigrants that got caught by the border patrol have been found to have diseases that people thought you couldn't get anymore. If the wall doesn't get built sooner and the immigrants keep rushing in illegally, we could already be in trouble.

a reply to: sylVestere

The immigrants that got caught by the border patrol have been found to have diseases that people thought you couldn't get anymore.

Prove it.

a reply to: Phage

No. Youre the one who mentioned 2014.

a reply to: KingJames

Yes. Because that was when the prior ebola panic occurred.
What does it have to do with who...

Never mind. Not interested in your game. Let me know when you have something to offer in the way of discussion.

a reply to: Phage

I thought you were the big game player here. Maybe i was misinformed, but ... I doubt it.

la de da da daaaa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JAGStorm

Yet, as in, if she gets sick. Probably for three weeks after exposure.

Do we really have to go though that stupid, ignorant ebola panic again?

Maybe. I guess. Good distraction. I suppose.

Apparently we do because the only thing learned the first go around was for the government to appoint an "ebola czar" to control the information and coverup how woefully ill prepared they'd be in the face of a real pandemic. While, yes, most sensible people knew ebola wasn't going to sweep across the nation from sea to sea and kill us all -- the episode did expose that a lot of the CDC's precious protocols would mean f--- all in the face of a real threat.

Practice makes perfect.

Or is practice makes psychosis?

All I know is that when the big one finally hits I'm going full on Alan Krumwiede.

a reply to: sooth

Practice makes better. No such thing as perfect.
But a single person who may have been exposed is not a severe risk.

a reply to: Phage

Hardly. The less that is done to contain an outbreak at its source the more dangerous it becomes. Reducing incentive to help, doesn't help.

That's very poetic, you should consider writing greeting cards. But I think actual containment should take precedent over your etheral "incentive to help". I think you're grasping here and I think you know it.

Nope. Just considering what is known about the transmission of the disease and history. Facts, not blind fear.

I think in the face of something like Ebola, a little fear and respect is appropriate, much more appropriate than blind arrogance.


I'm very understanding about the shortcomings of science; perhaps more accurate to say "scientists", when the risks are low. Sure I went without eggs for years, only to find out that wasn't neccesary, I really like eggs, but I'm not bitter, they were afterall making decisions based on the facts/observations they had in hand. Doesn't change the fact that they were wrong, though.

But in the case of Ebola, the stakes are just too high.

a reply to: imwilliam

Are you related to the owner?

Just curious.

I like your style.

a reply to: imwilliam

But in the case of Ebola, the stakes are just too high.

But the risks not so much, in a modern medical environment.

a reply to: Phage


If you want a whole list here| In 2009, the EDN system notified U.S. state and local health departments of 104,954 newly arriving refugees and immigrants, of whom 78,899 (75.2%) were refugees (with or without medical conditions), 19,358 (18.4%) were immigrants with medical conditions, and 6,697 (6.4%) were persons with other visa types. Of the 78,899 refugees, 21,319 (27%) had a medical condition. The majority (93.4%) of immigrants with medical conditions had tuberculosis classifications (i.e., either had evidence of latent tuberculosis infection or chest radiograph findings interpreted by the overseas panel physician as consistent with tuberculosis. and the national reporting rate for tuberculosis follow-up was 75.4% within 30 days of arrival.

Just by reading half of it, you get the point.
If the immigrants had diseases back then, then theirs a high chance they still have it now.
It would be great if I could should you the photos of the immigrants that have diseases, but I cannot find them right now.
When I find them I will be glad to show you.

a reply to: sylVestere
You said:

The immigrants that got caught by the border patrol have been found to have diseases that people thought you couldn't get anymore.

You know that people in the US contract TB, right?

a reply to: Phage

No.

Why would it not be wise to remember who ran America in 2014?

I said it 'Would' be wise.

a reply to: Phage

People contract Liberalism too. And?

a reply to: Phage


In response to my statement:

But in the case of Ebola, the stakes are just too high.

You wrote:

But the risks not so much, in a modern medical environment.

There is a difference between the potential benefits/costs, what I referred to as "stakes," and the risk. I'm not arguing that the "risk" or "odds" of a breach in contaiment are high. I'm agruing that the potential severity of a breach is so high that there must be some seriously compelling reason to take any risk. I'm not seeing anything so compelling that's it's worth taking any risk.

Hence my Russian Roulette illustration. It's not enough to know the odds, the benefits and costs have to be taken into account in any sound decision making process.

ten times five.

a reply to: imwilliam

It's not enough to know the odds, the benefits and costs have to be taken into account in any sound decision making process.

What costs then? Who has died in the US? All you are talking about is risk, which is very low, not costs.

a reply to: Phage

Yes I do, but that wasn't my only point that they have TB.
The pictures I wanted to show proved that the illegal immigrants has small pox and other diseases.
The only thing I could find right now was about them having TB.
But their is much more.

a reply to: sylVestere

The pictures I wanted to show proved that the illegal immigrants has small pox and other diseases.

Hopefully those pictures will have some credible provenance.