E-Bola

Activist Judge is going to protect Dallas from the UN and their black helicpoters who want to socialize medicine in the US. [/#randpaul2016]

 

Yeah, they're coming to this country and dying in droves. It's all over the news.

 

"Judge" in this case isn't the same as "judge" in the usual usage.

http://www.dallascounty.org/department/comcrt/jenkins/judge.php

 

This is the dumbest fucking response to this topic ever. You keep making it, and you should really know better.

The flu kills a miniscule percentage of people who get it. The people who die from the flu are people who are mostly, elderly, very you, and/or already sick with something else.

If you or I get the flu, we'll be fine in a week.

If you or I get Ebola, and don't get diagnosed immediately, rushed to Emory, and are a match for a blood transfusion from Dr. Brantly, we'll likely be dead within a week.

That's a pretty big difference.

 

If you've been to Ebola lands in the past 2 months you are barred from entering the United States. Lets start with containment and then go on to treating.

It's clear though that capitistic medicine in the US sees more of a profit in Erectile Disfunction than in curing-treating communicable diseases like Ebola. Capitalism will, literally, kill you

 

NeutralCorner-
With all the answers you and Dr. MC have, why are you arguing with us panicky scamps and not working to solve the crisis? The world needs your steady hand right now.

 

Confused the heck out of me when I first moved to Texas.

 

No. Not until it's confirmed she is not infected.

If someone has been exposed to it, and they fly somewhere else and develop symptoms, you've added hundreds of people to the list of contacts you must now track down to ensure they don't have it. No one ever said you can't contract it on an airplane, but it doesn't spread differently or any more easily depending on location.

The key to isolating the disease is isolating anyone who has had even passing contact with an infected, sympomatic person.

Again, if people want this stopped, this is what disease containment looks like.

Again, this is very targeted travel limitation of people who were known to be exposed to the patient. Are we OK with assuming every person from Liberia has been exposed? It's a country of more than 4 million people. More careful screening would be acceptable, similar to how vaccine documentation is required for entry and exit from certain countries, but outright travel bans should be limited to known direct contacts and be temporary.

 

One fucking guy getting in from West Africa has cost us millions.

We've got schools closed in, and nurses on leave in Cleveland, where there are no cases of Ebola.

The Hospital in Dallas has been compromised, and exposed as woefully under prepared.

Just a few more cases will overwhelm our system, and inflict major damage on our economy. (Look at what's already happening with airline bookings, and airline stocks.)

(And, yes, it seems odd to say that the best healthcare system in the world could be overwhelmed by just a few cases, but it's specifically because we dedicate so many resources towards each case.)

How is it a better idea to restrict the travel of healthcare workers who we can monitor, than it is to restrict the travel of residents of Liberia, who we need to rely upon their being truthful to know what level of contact they have had with an infected person?

 

Confused me yesterday when watching the morning briefing. I just figured that Jenkins
was the de facto spokes person because he sounder coherent with sense of authority.

 

And now that one fucking guy's family is blaming the system for his death and even plays
the race card:

http://nypost.com/2014/10/16/ebola-victims-nephew-speaks-out-and-criticizes-hospital-system/

 

Why? They're not contagious if they're not symptomatic.

Should they be allowed to go to the movies, or to a restaurant? Should they be allowed their kids?