Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If there is nothing being done, why is there no new outbreaks?To answer the original question:
NO effort is being made to contain Ebola. Left alone it's not all that much of a threat but unless the population can be convinced it's coming to get them then there's no hope of martial law and suspended elections.
Y'see, if you don't have an election then voters are impotent and can't "get you" for all your past blunders and the current manufactured crisis is of concern for that same "no election" reason.
So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?
Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?
I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.
I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.
Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.
Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.
Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?
It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?
...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.
So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?
Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?
I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.
Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.
Every single nurse, doctor, or other healthcare worker who gets the disease from treating an Ebola infected patient tha Obama brought over is on him, and they should sue him and the federal government for millions and millions.
That's it? A meme? So basically you have nothing to say.
So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?
Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?
I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.
I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.
Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.
Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.
Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?
I didn't know there was a vaccination for Ebola.
If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.
I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.
Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.
Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.
Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?
It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?
Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:
Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist
...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.
If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.
I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.
Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.
Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.
Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?
I didn't know there was a vaccination for Ebola.
Vaccines are being tested, and there are other antiviral drugs that are already being used. Treatment is the answer, not ill-treatment of the victims of this disease.
It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.
So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?
Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?
I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.
I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.
It isn't a pipe dream at all. Small pox was eradicated. The measles is all but a thing of the past. Vaccines are in the pipeline for Ebola. Fighting this disease at the source is the ONLY answer. But let's look at this idea of restricting travel. To who does it apply? France had a case. Let's stop all travel from France. Germany had a case. Shut them down. UK? Not yet. Stay tuned. Nigeria had it, but they've stopped it in its tracks. Never the less, they present a risk in your view, so they can't come either. That, of course, fucks up Chevron's American employees who work there and travel back and forth all the time (as well as many others). The simple fact is that it will never work, will never prevent someone with the disease from getting through, will not prevent someone with the disease from traveling to a country without such restriction and then traveling on to the U.S.: But it WILL kill business for Africans, for Americans, and for many others.
As of yet, there is no vaccine. And small pox was eradicated through vaccination. Also, small pox is still active in other countries who do not practice routine vaccination. And NO, it is not our responsibility to vaccinate the entire world. These countries' governments need to do it.
The only way we could mandate certain health codes in other countries would be to take over the government, so yes, your premise is quite ridiculous at best.
I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.
Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.
Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.
Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?
It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?
Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:
Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist
...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.
Meh, I'm not buying it. Just like I said, it's not different from your home. You wouldn't take the chance of having them over for dinner, sitting next to your children.
I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.
Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.
Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.
Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?
I didn't know there was a vaccination for Ebola.
Vaccines are being tested, and there are other antiviral drugs that are already being used. Treatment is the answer, not ill-treatment of the victims of this disease.
It's not ill treatment. It might not seem fair to some of the infected people, but that is how life goes. No one said it was going to be "fair." That's the problem with you liberals. You cannot accept reality.
So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?
Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?
I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.
I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.
It isn't a pipe dream at all. Small pox was eradicated. The measles is all but a thing of the past. Vaccines are in the pipeline for Ebola. Fighting this disease at the source is the ONLY answer. But let's look at this idea of restricting travel. To who does it apply? France had a case. Let's stop all travel from France. Germany had a case. Shut them down. UK? Not yet. Stay tuned. Nigeria had it, but they've stopped it in its tracks. Never the less, they present a risk in your view, so they can't come either. That, of course, fucks up Chevron's American employees who work there and travel back and forth all the time (as well as many others). The simple fact is that it will never work, will never prevent someone with the disease from getting through, will not prevent someone with the disease from traveling to a country without such restriction and then traveling on to the U.S.: But it WILL kill business for Africans, for Americans, and for many others.
As of yet, there is no vaccine. And small pox was eradicated through vaccination. Also, small pox is still active in other countries who do not practice routine vaccination. And NO, it is not our responsibility to vaccinate the entire world. These countries' governments need to do it.
The only way we could mandate certain health codes in other countries would be to take over the government, so yes, your premise is quite ridiculous at best.
Erm, what? There hasn't been a smallpox infection anywhere on the planet in decades, dude. As for an Ebola vaccine:
Questions and Answers on Experimental Treatments and Vaccines for Ebola Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever CDC
As for your suggestion that we leave others to fend for themselves while we wall ourselves off to the rest of the world, well, dude, the Chinese tried that thousands of years ago. And while it makes for a great tourist attraction, it didn't actually solve anything. But hey, these silly GOP rants make me laugh out loud so by all mean let's have some more.
Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.
Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.
Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?
I didn't know there was a vaccination for Ebola.
Vaccines are being tested, and there are other antiviral drugs that are already being used. Treatment is the answer, not ill-treatment of the victims of this disease.
It's not ill treatment. It might not seem fair to some of the infected people, but that is how life goes. No one said it was going to be "fair." That's the problem with you liberals. You cannot accept reality.
Right, every man for himself. Fuck everyone else. Grow up, dude.
You should get used to it. It is going to treat you terribly, and then you will die. Lol!
It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.
So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?
Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?
I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.
Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.
Okay, here is how your travel ban works. We send workers there to treat Ebola patients. Now our people can't get back. Who is going to agree to go there and not come back? To say nothing of the fact that travel bans are rather easily defeated. You simply buy a plane ticket to a country that doesn't have the travel ban and then buy a ticket in that country to the states. If you think the economic effects are bad now, wait until your travel ban takes effect.
It would be a temporary travel ban from hot spots. Not permanent. Good grief!!!
Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.
Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.
Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?
It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?
Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:
Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist
...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.
Meh, I'm not buying it. Just like I said, it's not different from your home. You wouldn't take the chance of having them over for dinner, sitting next to your children.
Non-sequitur. But then, you knew that.
Then you can feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like you're doing something grand.
So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?
Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?
I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.
Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.
Okay, here is how your travel ban works. We send workers there to treat Ebola patients. Now our people can't get back. Who is going to agree to go there and not come back? To say nothing of the fact that travel bans are rather easily defeated. You simply buy a plane ticket to a country that doesn't have the travel ban and then buy a ticket in that country to the states. If you think the economic effects are bad now, wait until your travel ban takes effect.
It would be a temporary travel ban from hot spots. Not permanent. Good grief!!!
Right. So a guy got exposed, and cannot travel to the states. So what? He travels to Belgium or some country that doesn't impose the travel ban, and then catches a connecting flight to the states. His problem is solved. A travel ban is ridiculous, and will NEVER work. But hey, maybe if you wrapped yourself with cellophane, you won't catch any disease, and will save the rest of us a lot of money.
If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.
I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.
It isn't a pipe dream at all. Small pox was eradicated. The measles is all but a thing of the past. Vaccines are in the pipeline for Ebola. Fighting this disease at the source is the ONLY answer. But let's look at this idea of restricting travel. To who does it apply? France had a case. Let's stop all travel from France. Germany had a case. Shut them down. UK? Not yet. Stay tuned. Nigeria had it, but they've stopped it in its tracks. Never the less, they present a risk in your view, so they can't come either. That, of course, fucks up Chevron's American employees who work there and travel back and forth all the time (as well as many others). The simple fact is that it will never work, will never prevent someone with the disease from getting through, will not prevent someone with the disease from traveling to a country without such restriction and then traveling on to the U.S.: But it WILL kill business for Africans, for Americans, and for many others.
As of yet, there is no vaccine. And small pox was eradicated through vaccination. Also, small pox is still active in other countries who do not practice routine vaccination. And NO, it is not our responsibility to vaccinate the entire world. These countries' governments need to do it.
The only way we could mandate certain health codes in other countries would be to take over the government, so yes, your premise is quite ridiculous at best.
Erm, what? There hasn't been a smallpox infection anywhere on the planet in decades, dude. As for an Ebola vaccine:
Questions and Answers on Experimental Treatments and Vaccines for Ebola Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever CDC
As for your suggestion that we leave others to fend for themselves while we wall ourselves off to the rest of the world, well, dude, the Chinese tried that thousands of years ago. And while it makes for a great tourist attraction, it didn't actually solve anything. But hey, these silly GOP rants make me laugh out loud so by all mean let's have some more.
Well, dude, there could always be another outbreak of any disease. That is stupid, and shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
Besides, there is currently NO vaccine for Ebola, and even if there was, it's not our responsibility, and we cannot afford the burden of your silly suggestions.
Diseases once thought eradicated reappear in the U.S. PBS NewsHour
Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?
It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?
Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:
Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist
...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.
Meh, I'm not buying it. Just like I said, it's not different from your home. You wouldn't take the chance of having them over for dinner, sitting next to your children.
Non-sequitur. But then, you knew that.
Not at all. I don't buy it. End of story. I'm sure you know that it's just common sense to not invite people into your country who are diseased, but you're a dumb arse, and would probably just die. We call that "culling the herd." Perhaps you should go hug an Ebola victim today.
I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.
It isn't a pipe dream at all. Small pox was eradicated. The measles is all but a thing of the past. Vaccines are in the pipeline for Ebola. Fighting this disease at the source is the ONLY answer. But let's look at this idea of restricting travel. To who does it apply? France had a case. Let's stop all travel from France. Germany had a case. Shut them down. UK? Not yet. Stay tuned. Nigeria had it, but they've stopped it in its tracks. Never the less, they present a risk in your view, so they can't come either. That, of course, fucks up Chevron's American employees who work there and travel back and forth all the time (as well as many others). The simple fact is that it will never work, will never prevent someone with the disease from getting through, will not prevent someone with the disease from traveling to a country without such restriction and then traveling on to the U.S.: But it WILL kill business for Africans, for Americans, and for many others.
As of yet, there is no vaccine. And small pox was eradicated through vaccination. Also, small pox is still active in other countries who do not practice routine vaccination. And NO, it is not our responsibility to vaccinate the entire world. These countries' governments need to do it.
The only way we could mandate certain health codes in other countries would be to take over the government, so yes, your premise is quite ridiculous at best.
Erm, what? There hasn't been a smallpox infection anywhere on the planet in decades, dude. As for an Ebola vaccine:
Questions and Answers on Experimental Treatments and Vaccines for Ebola Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever CDC
As for your suggestion that we leave others to fend for themselves while we wall ourselves off to the rest of the world, well, dude, the Chinese tried that thousands of years ago. And while it makes for a great tourist attraction, it didn't actually solve anything. But hey, these silly GOP rants make me laugh out loud so by all mean let's have some more.
Well, dude, there could always be another outbreak of any disease. That is stupid, and shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
Besides, there is currently NO vaccine for Ebola, and even if there was, it's not our responsibility, and we cannot afford the burden of your silly suggestions.
Diseases once thought eradicated reappear in the U.S. PBS NewsHour
The ONLY way smallpox is going to reappear is if someone gets hold of the two stocks known anywhere in the world and deliberately releases it. In the wild, it is extinct.
If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.
Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.
Okay, here is how your travel ban works. We send workers there to treat Ebola patients. Now our people can't get back. Who is going to agree to go there and not come back? To say nothing of the fact that travel bans are rather easily defeated. You simply buy a plane ticket to a country that doesn't have the travel ban and then buy a ticket in that country to the states. If you think the economic effects are bad now, wait until your travel ban takes effect.
It would be a temporary travel ban from hot spots. Not permanent. Good grief!!!
Right. So a guy got exposed, and cannot travel to the states. So what? He travels to Belgium or some country that doesn't impose the travel ban, and then catches a connecting flight to the states. His problem is solved. A travel ban is ridiculous, and will NEVER work. But hey, maybe if you wrapped yourself with cellophane, you won't catch any disease, and will save the rest of us a lot of money.
So what? It still cuts down on possible infection to restrict travel from HOT spots.
