US to assign 3,000 from US military to fight Ebola

[dew]

the_miano said:

At this point, the United States should close the borders.

...

You know what? Do it. Fucking do it and see what happens, you numbnut. Maybe then you'll realize what the words "close the borders" mean. The consequences would never be the same.

[GreyGhost]

the_miano said:

At this point, the United States should close the borders.

As an attempt to contain the virus within your borders? I suppose it's worth a try.

[geekmarine]

Can we be done with Ebola now? It's finally crossed the ocean, and even in the face of mind-numbingly stupid medical decisions, it's still been contained and is highly unlikely to spread. In the face of modern medical treatment and proper quarantine procedures, Ebola just doesn't even have a chance in this country.

I mean, my God, the man was showing early symptoms of the disease AND had recently traveled from an area where the disease had been spreading, and he was sent home!? It blows my mind how incompetent the doctor had to be to not consider Ebola to be a possibility, but of course, he's a doctor, so his job is safe and secure. But that does reinforce my point - dude went back home with Ebola and stayed there for three more days, and it's still unlikely to have spread to anyone. Kinda drives home the point of how unlikely this is to become a serious outbreak in the States.

[Maes]

THE BEST SOLUTION EVAR: Treat all those suspected of Ebola infection as terrorists and a threat to the homeland, and send them to the Guantanamo concentration camp. If they are really infected, they will help wipe out those damn terrorist "humanely", by "natural causes". If not...well...I'm sure the U.S. of A. can live with yet another innocent sod getting unjustly buggered, amirite?

[dg93]

Maes said:

THE BEST SOLUTION EVAR: Treat all those suspected of Ebola infection as terrorists and a threat to the homeland, and send them to the Guantanamo concentration camp. If they are really infected, they will help wipe out those damn terrorist "humanely", by "natural causes". If not...well...I'm sure the U.S. of A. can live with yet another innocent sod getting unjustly buggered, amirite?

Or you can just close the damn borders and not have any flights coming in and out of Africa. Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of other countries have already closed their borders by not allowing any aircraft from Africa landing on their grounds in efforts to prevent Ebola from entering their country.

But the dems in the U.S of A believe in having an open border policy...

[dew]

Not even your precious GoP, or even the insane Rand clowns would "close down the border", because your economy would a massive, ridiculous hit. What exactly is your idea of a closed border anyways? Shooting Canadians who smuggle foreign goods to your country, because you stopped all the goddamn trade? You literally have an American flag for brain, as in there's nothing in your skull except a rag.

[Maes]

the_miano said:

Or you can just close the damn borders and not have any flights coming in and out of Africa. Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of other countries have already closed their borders by not allowing any aircraft from Africa landing on their grounds in efforts to prevent Ebola from entering their country.

Which country has imposed a total and unconditional "closed borders" policy against Africa? Even Saudi Arabia only imposed restrictions to pilgrims coming from specific African countries, like Sierra Leone. "Africa" is such a broad term, and encompasses everything from Egypt and Morrocco, all the way down to South Africa, plus everything in between. Seriously? 1 billion people are considered potentially affected? Then all the Middle East and Southern Europe should be considered no-go, too.

the_miano said:

But the dems in the U.S of A believe in having an open border policy...

An unconditional closed border policy in this day and age would be extremely counterproductive even without the danger of an epidemic. Plus, the actual danger might come from unsuspectable sources, e.g. a citizen of an infected country which however boards a flight coming from the pure, clean & 100% Aryan Copenhagen. What do you do then? Do you trust the rest of the world to implement your blanket policies, too, or you start blocking the entry of anyone who looks black or has an "african" name?

[dg93]

dew said:

You know what? Do it. Fucking do it and see what happens, you numbnut. Maybe then you'll realize what the words "close the borders" mean. The consequences would never be the same.

Not even your precious GoP, or even the insane Rand clowns would "close down the border", because your economy would a massive, ridiculous hit. What exactly is your idea of a closed border anyways? Shooting Canadians who smuggle foreign goods to your country, because you stopped all the goddamn trade? You literally have an American flag for brain, as in there's nothing in your skull except a rag.

Nice fallacies dew. I'm talking about immigration policy from international airports not cancelling economic trade between Canada and Mexico. Preventing travel back and forth from counties with an enormous ebola outbreak is a safe precaution that can prevent people who are infected (and may or may not know it) from infecting others in the United States.

Countries like Liberia that do their screening process of people who have either been in contact with ebola before traveling to the U.S. isn't 100% guaranteed to prevent infected people from entering the U.S. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/02/liberia-ebola-patient-thomas-duncan-airport-screening/16591753/

[Maes]

the_miano said:

Nice fallacies dew. I'm talking about immigration policy from international airports not cancelling economic trade between Canada and Mexico.

You're using "immigration" in a very broad way here. If I now come to visit the USA as a tourist with my Greaser passport and all (assuming I am able to get the visa for that), I won't be technically considered an "immigrant", but a tourist. Of course, if one is actually infected, this distinction doesn't matter much.

[dg93]

Maes said:

You're using "immigration" in a very broad way here. If I now come to visit the USA as a tourist with my Greaser passport and all (assuming I am able to get the visa for that), I won't be technically considered an "immigrant", but a tourist. Of course, if one is actually infected, this distinction doesn't matter much.

You're right, I should have specified tourism better.

Ebola is a very dangerous virus. The consequences would be horrific if it spreads all throughout the North American continent, especially in populated regions like cities. Nobody wants that to happen. That is why travel in and out of countries with ebola outbreaks should be heavily restricted.

[Kontra Kommando]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-officials-meet-flight-passenger-shows-ebola-symptoms/story?id=25965383

Well, this airport is only 13 miles from where I live.

Just close the boarders to countries experiencing high-cases of Ebola until they're able to contain the epidemic, or find a cure. But of course the government will not do that.

Its really not an OUTRAGEOUS idea.

[dg93]

Kontra Kommando said:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-officials-meet-flight-passenger-shows-ebola-symptoms/story?id=25965383

Well, this airport is only a few miles from where I live.

Just close the boarders to civilians in countries in West Africa until they're able to contain the epidemic, or find a cure. But of course the government will not do that.

Its really not an OUTRAGEOUS idea.

Thank you for your input Kontra Kommando

[Graf Zahl]

Maes said:

...or you start blocking the entry of anyone who looks black or has an "african" name?

I think our two token retarded 'conservative' numbnuts would - but what about some unsuspecting white person who never was in Africa and got infected somewhere else?

As always in such crisis situations, passive countermeasures are never going to work, if you lock the front door the problem will sneak in through the back door sooner or later.

[dew]

the_miano said:

Nice fallacies dew. I'm talking about immigration policy from international airports not cancelling economic trade between Canada and Mexico. Preventing travel back and forth from counties with an enormous ebola outbreak is a safe precaution that can prevent people who are infected (and may or may not know it) from infecting others in the United States.

Countries like Liberia that do their screening process of people who have either been in contact with ebola before traveling to the U.S. isn't 100% guaranteed to prevent infected people from entering the U.S. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/02/liberia-ebola-patient-thomas-duncan-airport-screening/16591753/

Oh oh oh, fallacies? I brought up a valid concern (that you are stupid, but also the other one). Immigration? Yeah, fuck off. You were talking about closing off borders because of Ebola, but then you got called out on your bullshit and suddenly tourism is okay? Rich countries are also okay? Trade is okay? Then your border is leaking and Ebola is going to get you, guy.

And let's not forget, anyone can bypass your country ban by travelling via a third (say, European) country and unless you're pushing an agenda against black immigrants coming for your Obamaphones or something, you can't just blindly refuse people by filtering race. That Liberian could be a long-term student in France coming to visit his relatives in USA or whatever, so just being Liberian can't mean he's high-risk. There could be Europeans who'd bypass your block easily, too. Think before you post.

[geekmarine]

I made this point already, but I'll reiterate - Ebola is hardly a threat to the States, even if it gets here. Honestly, it's deadliness is compounded with the lack of medical facilities - survival rate is much higher with access to proper modern medical care, and it's extremely difficult to spread with proper quarantine procedures.

But whatever, go ahead and get all hysterical over nothing.

[Kontra Kommando]

Graf Zahl said:

I think our two token retarded 'conservative' numbnuts would - but what about some unsuspecting white person who never was in Africa and got infected somewhere else?

As always in such crisis situations, passive countermeasures are never going to work, if you lock the front door the problem will sneak in through the back door sooner or later.

Okay, so anyone you disagree with is retarded, and a numbnuts. I could just call you a retarded "pinko" numbnuts as well; but that would not be very nice. Further, I don't reduce myself to personal attacks when I'm in disagreement with someone. When you see a presidential debate, you don't see the two candidates cursing each other out, because that would make them appear foolish.

We're in agreement that passive countermeasures wouldn't work. But at the very least closing the boarders to these countries would at least reduce the probability of ebola infected people entering the country. Obviously it won't solve the issue, but its a step towards preventing mass infections. Now tell me why that's a bad idea.

This has nothing to do with a person being black or white. Anyone that is sick, or shows symptoms should be prevented entry. Don't shoehorn some kind of racial bullshit on me.

[doomgargoyle]

Im kinda worried, since the dude that has ebola is in the state where i unfortunately am currently. Couldnt he had waited until i left the usa before bringing ebola here? But, otoh, if ebola is indeed contagious only through the methods described everywhere then it is easily containable. I sure hope it is.

[Maes]

geekmarine said:

Ebola is hardly a threat to the States, even if it gets here. Honestly, it's deadliness is compounded with the lack of medical facilities - survival rate is much higher with access to proper modern medical care, and it's extremely difficult to spread with proper quarantine procedures

BUT GEEKMARINE, L0L, IN THE YOO ASS OF EY, IF SOME HOBO INFECTED WITH EBOLA GOES TO EMERGENCY, AT MOST HE'LL BE GIVEN AN ASPIRIN AND A SPOONFUL OF SYROUP FOR THE COUGHING AND BE SENT ON HIS MERRY WAY, CUZ HE DOESN'T HAVE THE $$$ TO PERFORM MORE EXPENSIVE TESTS, LET ALONE PAY FOR THE HOSPITALIZATION LOLOLOLOL DERPDERPDERP.


...and that's the story of how the USA was defeated by its very own capitalist healthcare values, and denying them to the "unworthy" ;-)

Seriously, if I wanted to troll the USA healthcare system, I'd infect every poor sod and hobo with Ebola and then force the healthcare system to act. Probably they'd rather shoot and cremate every last one of them, than attempt a costly cure and hospitalization, and claim that this is the most "patriotic" thing to do, too ;-)

[GreyGhost]

Kontra Kommando said:

When you see a presidential debate, you don't see the two candidates cursing each other out, because that would make them appear foolish.

Yep - you don't win a debate that way. Though if you can undermine your opponent's credibility by paying a third-party to run attack ads on TV, that's part of the battle won.

Anyone that is sick, or shows symptoms should be prevented entry.

Which leaves you facing an interesting dilemma. While you can bar entry to infected people, you're still stuck with them until they're no longer a threat to public health, since shoving them on to the first plane back to where they came from (or to some third country) would be highly irresponsible.

BTW - Thomas Duncan entered the US several days before the first symptoms showed.

[Fulgrim]

GreyGhost said:

BTW - Thomas Duncan entered the US several days before the first symptoms showed.

From what I understand, it takes a few days to start showing symptoms and becomes contagious once the symptoms start.

[GreyGhost]

According to Wikipedia, it's 8-10 days on average but can be as long as 3 weeks, by which time an individual could have passed through several countries to enter the US from somewhere that's considered safe (as dew already suggested).

[Maes]

GreyGhost said:

According to Wikipedia, it's 8-10 days on average but can be as long as 3 weeks, by which time an individual could have passed through several countries to enter the US from somewhere that's considered safe (as dew already suggested).

Well, then the solution is obvious: quarantine everybody entering the USA. Private contractors who'll build the required concentration camps are standing by for this new and exciting business opportunity.

[dew]

Maes said:

Well, then the solution is obvious: quarantine everybody entering the USA. Private contractors who'll build the required concentration camps are standing by for this new and exciting business opportunity.

Aw yeah, I can already imagine a good action movie based around this idea. You know, gangs immediatelly start grooming regulard people and killing them off just before the quarantine deadline, then selling their papers to rich folks who want to bypass the waiting in gen pop...

[Maes]

dew said:

Aw yeah, I can already imagine a good action movie based around this idea. You know, gangs immediatelly start grooming regulard people and killing them off just before the quarantine deadline, then selling their papers to rich folks who want to bypass the waiting in gen pop...

And don't forget the business you can do with the internees themselves -plenty of opportunities to rip them off, as they won't have access to the outside world. Hell, might be a good idea to further strengthen the USA's prison-industrial complex.

So, oh out Great Neoliberal Overlords, where's my honoris causa Green Card for having such a thorough knowledge of how "business works, so that I can chase my American Dream? (Oh, and no camps for me, ofc :-p )

[GreyGhost]

Maes said:

Well, then the solution is obvious: quarantine everybody entering the USA. Private contractors who'll build the required concentration camps are standing by for this new and exciting business opportunity.

Of course they'll need to be quarantined, but is there any need to build new facilities when hundreds of FEMA death internment camps are sitting idle? :P

[geekmarine]

All I can say is, thank God this first Ebola case happened in Texas, where doctors are well-protected from being sued for gross incompetence. Any other state, and that doctor would be looking at a huge lawsuit right now for missing obvious warning signs to check for Ebola before sending him home the first time. Fortunately, down here in Texas, we don't believe in that liberal "hold doctors accountable for their actions" bullshit and so have made it virtually impossible to file lawsuits for malpractice. And believe me, there is absolutely no excuse for the doctor to have missed the potential Ebola diagnosis (I believe the latest claim is that he was unaware the patient had been to Liberia, which means that he didn't even bother looking at the patient's chart when he was admitted). But you know, doctors are wealthier than most of us, and that means they're just all around better people, and it would be a crime for a lowly commoner to accuse a doctor of doing anything wrong.

[Kontra Kommando]

GreyGhost said:

Yep - you don't win a debate that way. Though if you can undermine your opponent's credibility by paying a third-party to run attack ads on TV, that's part of the battle won.

This is a failure of politics, and part of what makes our political process inefficient.

GreyGhost said:
Which leaves you facing an interesting dilemma. While you can bar entry to infected people, you're still stuck with them until they're no longer a threat to public health, since shoving them on to the first plane back to where they came from (or to some third country) would be highly irresponsible.

BTW - Thomas Duncan entered the US several days before the first symptoms showed. [/B]

I agree, you can't just send them back to where they came from, it would be irresponsible like you said. They need to be quarantined and treated. But all I'm saying is that they should be vigilant in screening people that may appear to have symptoms.

If not outright closing the boarders to these west African nations, they should be thoroughly screened for the Ebola virus. Though outright closing these boarders; while sending aid to these nations in helping to combat the virus I think would be more responsible. From that point, officials can divert resources to screening other travelers. There is absolutely no doubt that it would at the very least reduce the possibility of spreading the infection.

It really has nothing to do with the fact that they are black, or some conservative conspiracy to racially filter Africans out of immigration to the US. We shouldn't be prevented from exploring pragmatic solutions, just because its perceived to violate the beliefs of liberal ideologues. Its racist within and of itself, to suggest that just because they are African, we must avoid taking such measures. If a European country was consumed by the epidemic, I would suggest closing the boarders, or heavily screening them as well. There's absolutely nothing ideological about what I am saying here. It is merely a suggestion to an issue we are facing. I agree that in order to have a civilized global community, you must allow people to freely travel between nations (under normal circumstances)

Nevertheless, I guess whatever fits the narrative of the anti-American, and far-left clichés is what some people will want to believe.

[Maes]

Kontra Kommando said:

If not outright closing the boarders to these west African nations, they should be thoroughly screened for the Ebola virus.

This pretty much means quarantining everybody and wait for any symptoms to show up, or, at best have people queue up as you take blood samples (!) and test them one by one, which with a round-the-clock virus lab staff processing passengers, can mean 3-4 hours per passenger -at best.

Why everybody? Think about it: if someone suspected of infection was on a flight, shouldn't you be checking the other 300-odd people (more, on international flights) that flew with him for several hours in a closed environment, too? If you let them go off the airport while focusing on that one poor sod, goodnight. Deciding to quarantine/thoroughly checking just some rather than everybody is quite risky. I can't imagine what "quick diagnose" or "high risk" criteria they will use to speed up screening, but none of them will be 100% safe from false positives and false negatives.

OK, I can see how this would be an awesome employment opportunity for nurses, paramedics, and lab assistants (somebody has to stick needles in people's arms, process the blood vials, keep track of whose blood goes where, etc.), but even if they recruit all local hospitals, university medicine students, etc. it will be a monumental task. And for how long should this be kept up? Weeks? Months, maybe? The disruption and panic to the world travel -and even local economy and healthcare will be unpredictable.

And I didn't even mention how this would be received by the passengers -not everybody likes compulsory needle-sticking, and the delays may be way more than 3-4 hours per passenger. Where are the passengers going to be kept while they wait for their analyses' results? In a pre-quarantine camp or something?

[dew]

Kontra Kommando said:

If a European country was consumed by the epidemic, I would suggest closing the boarders, or heavily screening them as well. There's absolutely nothing ideological about what I am saying here.

Uhh, have you heard of the Schengen Area? It's pretty much impossible to quarantine just one European nation. Imagine quarantining people from, say, Pennsylvania and everyone who passed through during the outbreak. How would you even start? Would you check even Pennsylvanians out of the state, temporarily or long-term? How would you monitor everyone who travelled through and how would you enforce the quarantine?

You may say this is not your business, because you'll just screen people on flights to America, but the Schengen Agreement will make that literally impossible for you. In comparison, African nations are easily blocked due to low population density and relatively scarce border traffic, yet even the self-quarantined areas are leaky. It would be a losing battle from the beginning, you'd have to employ Draconian policies (possibly shooting trespassers on sight) and in the end economy would suffer from it.

[geekmarine]

Can you even test people before they're symptomatic? With many diseases, even doing a blood test won't do any good if they're not even showing symptoms. And since Ebola can take up to 20 days from infection before even initial symptoms start showing, what are you going to do? Detain everyone for three weeks?

But again, and I repeat, I don't understand the hysteria. It's a disease that's easily contained with modern sanitation practices. Don't allow exposure to an infected person's blood, and you should be fine. I'm reminded of how back in the 80s and into the early 90s how people were losing their shit over AIDS. And while AIDS was and still remains a serious disease, the problem was people panicking and thinking it was far more contagious than it actually was. Obviously you don't want to have unprotected sex with someone with AIDS before swapping dirty needles and then licking open sores, but someone coughing on a subway train isn't going to magically give you AIDS - basically it's the same with Ebola.