bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 It's all good, they actually play in Arlington. Largest fan base is in Dallas....can't bomb them just for Ebola. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Largest fan base is in Dallas....can't bomb them just for Ebola. It's alright Dallas fans sell most of their tickets to fans of the road team anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 It's alright Dallas fans sell most of their tickets to fans of the road team anyway. They still gotta fly or drive into the Dallas-Ft Worth area...meals...lodging...services. The NFL is much more important than Ebola ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 The NFL is much more important than Ebola ! apparently so! It's a shame U.S. incompetence can't be held within its own borders... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Americans will decide what is most important to the U.S., not Ebola panicked Canadians ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Americans will decide what is most important to the U.S., not Ebola panicked Canadians ! panicked Canadians??? Of course... there's clearly no panic shyteStorm running through the U.S. politico and media right now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Gee...maybe if Canadians didn't travel so much to the U.S. for work and pleasure they wouldn't need to worry. How much is that cheaper air fare out of Buffalo or Detroit really worth ? How much is cheaper gas really worth ? Come and get the Ebola discount !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Gee...maybe if Canadians didn't travel so much to the U.S. for work and pleasure they wouldn't need to worry. How much is that cheaper air fare out of Buffalo or Detroit really worth ? How much is cheaper gas really worth ? Come and get the Ebola discount !! Not that much now that the Loonie is down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 The NFL is much more important than Ebola ! not according to the Jaguar's mascot! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Not that much now that the Loonie is down. If Ebola means we get $0.70 per litre gasoline, then bring on the Ebola !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 If Ebola means we get $0.70 per litre gasoline, then bring on the Ebola !! Dunno about that. Last time we saw prices like that here was in late 2008. Can't say the prices at that time translated to "Good" news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Gas prices are falling fast in the U.S., and if we get this Ebola panic into full swing, the economy will tank, eroding gas prices further. With an election just weeks away, the Democrats need to keep it together on Ebola just a little while longer. "Ebola ? What Ebola ?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 US develops Ebola resistant clipboard for those not important enough to rate a Hazmat suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 First, we failed to quarantine this Ebola outbreak in its source region. Not possible to do so. Next, Western health care workers, in their incompetence and callousness, spread this thing to additional African nations where it was not present otherwise. Cite? Source? Next, we failed to properly screen passengers coming from affected areas into the US and other Western nations. The Liberian who went to the US had no fever, so even if screened would have gone through. Next, we allowed patients with Ebola-like symptoms who had recently traveled to West Africa to linger on the streets even when they tried to go to hospitals, exposing many other people. Next, there was a failure to train or prepare hospital workers on how to safely care for Ebola patients, allowing the disease to spread to these workers. The CDCs requirements for protective gear wasn't very well-thought-out. Canadian hospitals use the same protective measures, btw. So if the patient had landed in Canada we likely also would have had health care workers infected. And, to top it all off, those health care workers who had been potentially exposed to Ebola have been allowed to fly on commercial flights, Yeah, that was pretty dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Not possible to do so. Not possible? Of course it is. Complete border closure, enforced by military, of the borders of affected areas. Do you want me to deconstruct the idiotic Forbes article that everyone refers to about why travel bans are a bad thing? Not likely? Sure. Cite? Source? Patrick Sawyer. American who knowingly flew from Liberia to Nigeria with Ebola, introducing the disease into that country and responsible for over a dozen deaths. Fortunately, unlike America, Nigeria apparently knows how to quarantine people. The Liberian who went to the US had no fever, so even if screened would have gone through. This is the kind of moronic logic the CDC uses. You don't freaking screen for Ebola by checking temperature, a symptom that only manifests itself up to 3 weeks after infection. You screen for Ebola by checking for Ebola... blood sample and careful analysis thereof, which of course can take significant time, during which the people in question must be kept quarantined. The CDCs requirements for protective gear wasn't very well-thought-out. Canadian hospitals use the same protective measures, btw. So if the patient had landed in Canada we likely also would have had health care workers infected. Notice that nothing in any of my posts made the claim that Canada would have done any better or differently. Yeah, that was pretty dumb. Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Enforced by Not possible? Of course it is. Complete border closure, enforced by military, of the borders of affected areas. Do you want me to deconstruct the idiotic Forbes article that everyone refers to about why travel bans are a bad thing? Not likely? Sure. Enforced by what military ? Who is going to pay for it ? Will violators be shot ? This is pure fantasy.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Enforced by what military ? Who is going to pay for it ? Will violators be shot ? This is pure fantasy.... Your military of course. The same military that enforces everything else. And yes, violators who attempted to escape quarantine despite abundant warnings would have to be contained by force. And yes, I agree that this is unrealistic, and was not overly critical about this point. My criticism lies in the later steps of the failure, where realistic action could very easily have been taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Source? Same guys that said the containment procedures at Presbyterian were adequate? Ebola can survive on dry surfaces, such as doorknobs, for several hours but is easily killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Your military of course. The same military that enforces everything else. And yes, violators who attempted to escape quarantine despite abundant warnings would have to be contained by force. And yes, I agree that this is unrealistic, and was not overly critical about this point. My criticism lies in the later steps of the failure, where realistic action could very easily have been taken. Then why even propose such a fantasy ? CDC defended their "steps" today and will not change it for now. Travel is not restricted. Quarantines are voluntary, as is testing. That panicked dog don't hunt (yet)..need a much higher body count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Ebola can survive on dry surfaces, such as doorknobs, for several hours but is easily killed. Ever notice how far from "dry" a public washroom doorknob usually tends to be? I can't even remember the last time I've seen a washroom doorknob that wasn't dripping. These are the kinds of assumptions that have led people to make serious mistakes with Ebola. Can only be spread by bodily fluids... no worries. Oh, wait, a sneeze or cough can send droplets of bodily fluids flying around the whole room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Ever notice how far from "dry" a public washroom doorknob usually tends to be? I can't even remember the last time I've seen a washroom doorknob that wasn't dripping. These are the kinds of assumptions that have led people to make serious mistakes with Ebola. Can only be spread by bodily fluids... no worries. Oh, wait, a sneeze or cough can send droplets of bodily fluids flying around the whole room. Good grief! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Then why even propose such a fantasy ? CDC defended their "steps" today and will not change it for now. Travel is not restricted. Quarantines are voluntary, as is testing. That panicked dog don't hunt (yet)..need a much higher body count. Well, as long as America keeps not taking Ebola seriously, we can count on that higher body count being reached. There is no such thing as a voluntary quarantine. Any quarantine that is not strictly enforced is not a quarantine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Well, as long as America keeps not taking Ebola seriously, we can count on that higher body count being reached. There is no such thing as a voluntary quarantine. Any quarantine that is not strictly enforced is not a quarantine. If you want to continue railing against the U.S, go for it. However, if you want to help, write to some philanthropists and encourage them to donate lots of cold hard cash so this virus can be contained at the source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) Well, as long as America keeps not taking Ebola seriously, we can count on that higher body count being reached. There is no such thing as a voluntary quarantine. Any quarantine that is not strictly enforced is not a quarantine. Nope....legal protocols for quarantine in the United States makes such a distinction, and it is very unusual for involuntary quarantines to be invoked or mandated. Higher body counts are necessary to get the kind of response that you assumed would be implemented. Edited to add: From the law's perspective, in order to require someone to be isolated, they would have to have a dangerous contagious disease that's easily transmissible person-to-person and, and this is important, be unable or unwilling to isolate themselves. Edited October 17, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.