# That Dallas ebola patient just took a turn for the worse. . .



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

http://news.yahoo.com/dallas-hospital-u-ebola-patient-now-critical-condition-182714039.html

His status has been changed now from serious to critical condition.

In further related news.....

_*"On Saturday, CDC officials dressed in biohazard suits escorted two passengers 
off a United Airlines jet that landed at Newark Liberty International Airport in
New Jersey because they were believed to be from Liberia and exhibiting signs
of illness during the flight, WABC-TV and the Record newspaper reported.*_
_* An airport official was quoted by the newspaper as saying CDC officials 
did not believe the pair, a man and his daughter, were sick with Ebola. 
The official added that all other passengers on the flight from Brussels 
were cleared to leave the plane."*_

http://news.yahoo.com/two-passengers-escorted-newark-flight-ebola-concern-report-182449988.html

_*"The sick passenger and his daughter were believed to be from Liberia, WABC-TV reported. 
It said they had transferred to the U.S.-bound flight in Brussels, a major hub for flights 
from western and central African countries.*_ _*The passenger, who was vomiting during 
the flight from Brussels to Newark Liberty International Airport, was escorted off the 
plane by officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and taken to 
University Hospital in Newark, accompanied by his daughter. **The plane's 251 other 
passengers and 14 crew members were held in temporary quarantine while health officials 
evaluated the situation, Erica Dumas, the Port Authority spokeswoman, said. 
She added that all were ultimately cleared and permitted to leave the plane."
*_

One ponders why the necessity for the biohazard suits, if CDC officials 
didn't believe the two passengers were possible ebola carriers? 
Were tests run immediately and if so, why isn't this mentioned
in the article and given as the reason for allowing the other passengers on
the plane to leave without restraint?:facepalm: Too many unanswered questions.

Apparently it only took 90 minutes to determine that this man didn't have ebola,
whereas with Duncan, it took 2 full days to make the diagnosis that he has it.

I guess that's 'progress'.....


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

The guy in Dallas was sent home with medication the first time he went to the hospital. I think it was 2 days later that he returned sicker than before and they admitted him. Huge mistake on the hospital's part and they are blaming it on a software glitch. Those 2 days of going untreated in the hospital may cost the guy his life and exposed who knows how many unnecessarily to Ebola.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

I pray he survives. The hospital missed it with his diagnosis. So sad.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

copperkid3 said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/dallas-hospital-u-ebola-patient-now-critical-condition-182714039.html
> 
> His status has been changed now from serious to critical condition.
> 
> ...


The biohazard suits were worn on entering the plane because they didn't know if the threat was legitimate. It would have been a bit more foolish to enter the plane unprotected only to find the people were infected. Sort of like putting on your safety glasses after the metal shard has flown into your eye. What this really highlights is the difficulty of stopping the spread of a disease that has up to a 21 day incubation period in a time when one can fly halfway around the globe in less than a day.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

I'm sad for Mr. Duncan, but I'm angry at the hospital turning him away. Had he received treatment immediately, he would have had a much better chance for survival.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> The biohazard suits were worn on entering the plane because they didn't know if the threat was legitimate. It would have been a bit more foolish to enter the plane unprotected only to find the people were infected. Sort of like putting on your safety glasses after the metal shard has flown into your eye. What this really highlights is the difficulty of stopping the spread of a disease that has up to a 21 day incubation period in a time when one can fly halfway around the globe in less than a day.


You ignored the problem. How is it they observed a guy from Liberia vomiting and ill for a little over an hour and determined he didn't have Ebola when the tests to confirm Ebola take at least 2 days? Apparently vomiting is a symptom since the guy in Texas was vomiting too.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> You ignored the problem. How is it they observed a guy from Liberia vomiting and ill for a little over an hour and determined he didn't have Ebola when the tests to confirm Ebola take at least 2 days? Apparently vomiting is a symptom since the guy in Texas was vomiting too.


Didn't ignore the problem. Can you show me where you found the information that the tests take two days? I found a news link to the ambulance driver and EMTs in Dallas having been tested Tuesday night and released after testing negative. The story was dated Oct. 1. This would indicate to me there are quicker tests than you presume.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Can anyone explain why banning people from entering the US who have recently been in any of the 3 African countries where ebola is most active is a bad thing to do?

I assume the US could set up exceptions on a case by case basis with proper testing for aid workers, etc.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Can anyone explain why banning people from entering the US who have recently been in any of the 3 African countries where ebola is most active is a bad thing to do?
> 
> I assume the US could set up exceptions on a case by case basis with proper testing for aid workers, etc.


 Don't have to ban them from entering the country, just have to quarantine them for three weeks before turning them loose.

In view of the threat of ebola, that seems prudent to me.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

poppy said:


> You ignored the problem. How is it they observed a guy from Liberia vomiting and ill for a little over an hour and determined he didn't have Ebola when the tests to confirm Ebola take at least 2 days? Apparently vomiting is a symptom since the guy in Texas was vomiting too.





mmoetc said:


> Didn't ignore the problem. Can you show me where you found the information that the tests take two days? I found a news link to the ambulance driver and EMTs in Dallas having been tested Tuesday night and released after testing negative. The story was dated Oct. 1. This would indicate to me there are quicker tests than you presume.


**************************************************
"facts" are somewhat lacking in the original story as to how long it takes 
to verify whether someone has ebola or not. Call it poor journalistic skills....or better yet, poor response at the intake hospital, who DIDN'T
do any testing UNTIL Duncan showed back up 2 days later and much worse off!!! It shouldn't take more than a simple blood draw and a high-powered
microscope to say yea or nay. If that takes longer than 60-90 minutes,
it's because they're being paid by the hour; not the job. And time is of the
essence in battling ANY pandemic based disease. That and shutting down ALL ingress and egress carriers and/or potential carriers.....something that
our gooberment has been loathe in doing. The question that needs to be asked of them, then, is "why is that?" Because all it may take, is another
Duncan to come into this country (or even a dozen of them) and it will be
a nightmare. Those in the health care field and the CDC may continue to try and soothe the nerves of the sheeple by claiming that there is little cause for concern; than we have the finest medical response teams/doctors/hospitals, etc. I find it paradoxical that Obama has banned flights to Israel for political reasons and yet has no qualms about continuing to allow West African flights to come and go into the U.S. daily...... perhaps he didn't want the jews to come down with ebola? Yeah....that's it! What else could it be? If some of you still are under the jaded belief that he loves America and all that it has stood for, you're still sadly mistaken. :yuck:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Jolly said:


> Don't have to ban them from entering the country, just have to quarantine them for three weeks before turning them loose.
> 
> In view of the threat of ebola, that seems prudent to me.


This is only good if they are quarantined BEFORE getting on a flight to come here-or anywhere.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Didn't ignore the problem. Can you show me where you found the information that the tests take two days? I found a news link to the ambulance driver and EMTs in Dallas having been tested Tuesday night and released after testing negative. The story was dated Oct. 1. This would indicate to me there are quicker tests than you presume.


Then why did the CDC say they wouldn't have the test results back on the one patient for 2 days? The news was following it and the next day said they would have the test results back sometime tomorrow afternoon.


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

Poppy Newark Liberty Airport has a CDC Quarantine station located in it. The station is there to detect and test pathogens at all of the NYC area ports of entry. You think they might have the necessary testing equipment to detect illness immediately?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Jolly said:


> Don't have to ban them from entering the country, just have to quarantine them for three weeks before turning them loose.
> 
> In view of the threat of ebola, that seems prudent to me.


Which costs least: Quarantining them for 3 weeks in US or not letting them in? 
Which has fewer risks of ebola getting into US: Quarantining them for 3 weeks in US or not letting them in?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> Then why did the CDC say they wouldn't have the test results back on the one patient for 2 days? The news was following it and the next day said they would have the test results back sometime tomorrow afternoon.


http://www.newsweek.com/how-hospitals-test-ebola-274898 This article says the testing can be done in three to four hours. I've seen other reports of under two hours for testing. The facility at the airport was set up for scenarios like this and can seemingly do the tests quickly on site. Something that was likely not able to be done in Houston where secure transport was likely needed to get the sample to an appropriate lab. Now maybe you can answer my question with facts about where you got the information that testing takes two days rather than making assumptions as to why it might.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

copperkid3 said:


> **************************************************
> "facts" are somewhat lacking in the original story as to how long it takes
> to verify whether someone has ebola or not. Call it poor journalistic skills....or better yet, poor response at the intake hospital, who DIDN'T
> do any testing UNTIL Duncan showed back up 2 days later and much worse off!!! It shouldn't take more than a simple blood draw and a high-powered
> ...


What you're essentially asking for is closing the US to all international travelers. The flight in question originated in Brussels. There's a lot more direct travel between Europe and Western Africa than there are directs flights to the US. Even if we shut down all direct flights to the US from Africa the chance still exists that travelers coming from Europe will come in contact with someone and transport the virus here again. Politics aside, travel bans might make you feel better but will have little practical effectiveness.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Which costs least: Quarantining them for 3 weeks in US or not letting them in?
> Which has fewer risks of ebola getting into US: Quarantining them for 3 weeks in US or not letting them in?


You'd have to quarantine every international traveler to eliminate the risk. The cost would seem prohibitive let alone what it would do to the economy.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> What you're essentially asking for is closing the US to all international travelers. The flight in question originated in Brussels. There's a lot more direct travel between Europe and Western Africa than there are directs flights to the US. Even if we shut down all direct flights to the US from Africa the chance still exists that travelers coming from Europe will come in contact with someone and transport the virus here again. Politics aside, travel bans might make you feel better but will have little practical effectiveness.


Check their visa. If it's stamped with a country on the exclude list, they don't get on the plane.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> You'd have to quarantine every international traveler to eliminate the risk. The cost would seem prohibitive let alone what it would do to the economy.


You can't eliminate the risk. That is a given.

What I am talking about is what is the least expensive and safest way to prevent the ebola virus from entering the US. 

What cost to the economy? The millions that have already been spent in Dallas? The cost of quarantining and monitoring potential ebola carriers after they have gotten into the US? The cost of an actual outbreak of ebola in the US?

I heard a good question on Hannity the other day. Would you want your son or daughter to be a flight attendant on a plane flying in/out of 1 of the 3 African countries with Ebola (changed slightly from original)?

I don't understand why we don't just check visas and stop anyone with a stamp from 1 of the 3 countries from boarding a plane to US.


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

Any arriving flight that's been outside of the US in the past week needs to be parked and all passengers and flight crews put into quarantine for a month or 28 days, whichever comes first. The federal government needs to give responsibility for this emergency response to the CDC. They're the so-called experts that insisted their lawyers' emergency plan for responding to the anthrax attacks years ago be adopted by each state and put into each state legislation covering response to public health safety. I have no respect for CDC and their WHO masters.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> You can't eliminate the risk. That is a given.
> 
> What I am talking about is what is the least expensive and safest way to prevent the ebola virus from entering the US.
> 
> ...


What you're talking about is an essentially unfeasable and unworkable idea with little real benefit that makes you feel good about something having been done. This outbreak has been going on for a while. People have been traveling in and out of the three countries to Europe and the US that entire time. Liberia and the other countries have been screening passengers for signs of disease and questioning them. Those countries have the most interest in stopping the spread and keeping their countries open. In all that time we've had one case of Ebola reaching our shores outside of emergency evacuations. The risk seems a little low to be disrupting all international travel. The hospital in this case failed in its duties. A better and more workable idea is to make sure that kind of failure doesn't happen again. We've had Marburg and other hemorrhagic viruses reach our country in the past. We dealt with them and we'll deal with the next case of Ebola that reaches us, as it inevitably will.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> ... In all that time we've had one case of Ebola reaching our shores outside of emergency evacuations. The risk seems a little low to be disrupting all international travel.


The risk of Ebola reaching Western countries increases dramatically every month because of air traffic.



> But the risks change every day the epidemic continues, said Alex Vespignani, a professor at the Laboratory for the Modeling of Biological and Socio-Technical Systems at Northeastern University in Boston who led the research.
> 
> "This is not a deterministic list, it's about probabilities - but those probabilities are growing for everyone," Vespignani said in a telephone interview. "It's just a matter of who gets lucky and who gets unlucky."
> The latest calculations used data from October 1.
> ...


http://news.yahoo.com/high-risk-ebola-could-reach-france-uk-end-113015476.html


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

I like a visual so here's a current view of the Global Alert Map. Pay attention to all the red flags in the US. Click and read the summary or description for each marker:
http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> The risk of Ebola reaching Western countries increases dramatically every month because of air traffic.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/high-risk-ebola-could-reach-france-uk-end-113015476.html


I assume you read the entire article including the part about Nigeria, right next to the outbreak, containing its own cases and likely to be declared ebola free shortly. Or the part about the confidence in health systems in the developed world to handle the problem. An isolated case here and there ,which is what the risk is, can be readily contained without shutting down international travel.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> What you're essentially asking for is closing the US to all international travelers. The flight in question originated in Brussels. There's a lot more direct travel between Europe and Western Africa than there are directs flights to the US. Even if we shut down all direct flights to the US from Africa the chance still exists that travelers coming from Europe will come in contact with someone and transport the virus here again. Politics aside, travel bans might make you feel better but will have little practical effectiveness.


******************
but there's this little booklet called a "passport/visa", which each 
& every traveler *MUST *have when going abroad. Amazingly, someone 
has figured out that those visiting others countries, will have such facts
stamped into their booklet and then others can check and see where
they've been. All it would take (or so it seems), would be for someone
at the various points of exit/entry, to check out these booklets and 
determine where the traveler(s) have been in the last month or so. 
But then, that would make *TOO MUCH SENSE *in a 'regressive' world, now wouldn't? :facepalm:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

copperkid3 said:


> ******************
> but there's this little booklet called a "passport/visa", which each
> & every traveler *MUST *have when going abroad. Amazingly, someone
> has figured out that those visiting others countries, will have such facts
> ...


It could be very easily done if every country bought into it. But as long as one flight leaves Monrovia and is allowed to land elsewhere the problem persists. It's fairly easy for any country to deny entry of a plane or even an individual from that plane. It's more difficult to prevent that passenger from boarding or preventing that plane taking off abroad. The real question is why the panic over what is, in reality, a very small risk? I don't hear a broad outcry for closing all schools and daycares because of the enterovirus outbreak in this country. One child had already died and thousands more have become ill. Surely drastic measures should be taken, right?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> It could be very easily done if every country bought into it. But as long as one flight leaves Monrovia and is allowed to land elsewhere the problem persists. It's fairly easy for any country to deny entry of a plane or even an individual from that plane. It's more difficult to prevent that passenger from boarding or preventing that plane taking off abroad. The real question is why the panic over what is, in reality, a very small risk? I don't hear a broad outcry for closing all schools and daycares because of the enterovirus outbreak in this country. One child had already died and thousands more have become ill. Surely drastic measures should be taken, right?


Possibly.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Possibly.


And yet, I've seen no outcry from you or others. Why?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Here's a fairly recent story about last year's flu epidemic. 36,000 deaths. Any travel bans proposed?http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...s-rise-above-epidemic-levels-in-the-u-s-.html


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> And yet, I've seen no outcry from you or others. Why?


Because we need more information on the paralysis it seems to be causing. Children die from lung related diseases all the time, so having 1 child die is statistically insignificant. Having a cluster of children suffering paralysis is a different story. The press and government seem awful quiet about it.

I still think it is suspect this happened shortly after the illegal alien children were spread around the US. Correlation doesn't necessarily indicate cause, but it is worthy of analysis.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Here's a fairly recent story about last year's flu epidemic. 36,000 deaths. Any travel bans proposed?http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...s-rise-above-epidemic-levels-in-the-u-s-.html


How about Avian flu?


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

This is the *ONLY* link that hasn't been scrubbed, that states that Duncan finally died.

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/report-thomas-duncan-has-died-first-us.html


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Because we need more information on the paralysis it seems to be causing. Children die from lung related diseases all the time, so having 1 child die is statistically insignificant. Having a cluster of children suffering paralysis is a different story. The press and government seem awful quiet about it.
> 
> I still think it is suspect this happened shortly after the illegal alien children were spread around the US. Correlation doesn't necessarily indicate cause, but it is worthy of analysis.


None of that has anything to do with why you're not advocating for closing schools to stop the spread. The same theory holds, any child or adult who came in contact with one of these sick kids or was even the school they went to should be quarantined, right. It's all about stopping the potential spread in the easiest and cheapest way according to you.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> How about Avian flu?


 I don't recall all flights from Southeast Asia having been cancelled in the past or thousands of passengers quarantined. Refresh my memory.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> None of that has anything to do with why you're not advocating for closing schools to stop the spread.


I didn't advocate closing schools. I replied possibly to your setup post.

If I had a child in a school in which 10 or more children came down with the virus, I would keep my child out of school. This appears to be a polio like virus and until they understand it better, know how to treat it, and know the effects of the disease, why take chances? Why is the virus so widespread and have more serious effects than in the past?

Under those circumstances, I think a school should seriously consider closing.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I didn't advocate closing schools. I replied possibly to your setup post.
> 
> If I had a child in a school in which 10 or more children came down with the virus, I would keep my child out of school. This appears to be a polio like virus and until they understand it better, know how to treat it, and know the effects of the disease, why take chances? Why is the virus so widespread and have more serious effects than in the past?
> 
> Under those circumstances, I think a school should seriously consider closing.


But you keep giving reasons for closing schools. You're "why take chances" logic is the exact same logic you use to advocate for quarantining all travelers from the affected ebola countries. Why the panic over something that, as of yet, hasn't infected one person in this country and none over something that has infected thousands and killed one?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> But you keep giving reasons for closing schools. You're "why take chances" logic is the exact same logic you use to advocate for quarantining all travelers from the affected ebola countries. Why the panic over something that, as of yet, hasn't infected one person in this country and none over something that has infected thousands and killed one?


You seem determined to put words in my mouth.

The current policy is based on political correctness, not sound public health practices.



> There was a time when an outbreak of a deadly disease overseas would bring virtually unanimous agreement that our top priority should be to keep it overseas. Yet Barack Obama has refused to bar entry to the United States by people from countries where the Ebola epidemic rages, as Britain has done.
> The reason? Refusing to let people with Ebola enter the United States would conflict with the goal of fighting the disease. In other words, the safety of the American people takes second place to the goal of helping people overseas.
> As if to emphasize his priorities, President Obama has ordered thousands of American troops to go into Ebola-stricken Liberia, disregarding the dangers to those troops and to other Americans when the troops return.


http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/obamas-priority-not-protecting-americans/



> On Monday on HLN, CNN medical reporter Elizabeth Cohen said she was aghast at the lax screening procedures at airports for passengers who might have been exposed to Ebola. She said that even after she told agents she was coming back from Liberia and had been covering the Ebola epidemic, the screening agents did not seem to care and could not even tell her what symptoms were Ebola warning signs.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...g-Agents-Didn-t-Even-Know-Ebola-Warning-Signs



> Enterovirus D68, which has hospitalized hundreds of children in almost every state and been linked to at least four deaths, may also have caused unexplained paralysis in cases from Boston to San Diego, doctors said. Researchers said they fear EV-D68 could be this generation&#8217;s version of polio, said Ben Greenberg, a Dallas-based neurologist.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...irus-as-link-to-solve-polio-like-illness.html

So I certainly don't think that keeping people possibly infected with the Ebola virus out of the country and possibly closing schools if the Entrovirus D68 becomes a threat is an overreaction, but good public health policy as has been practiced in this country for at least the last 100 years.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> You seem determined to put words in my mouth.
> 
> The current policy is based on political correctness, not sound public health practices.


Every public health expert I've heard or read has spoken out against travel bans and quarantines as being counterproductive to stopping this outbreak. They all speak of better public health practices in West Africa and battling the epidemic there as the best course. They talk about the low danger of the epidemic spreading to western countries. The only people I have heard advocating for travel bans and quarantines and drumming up fear are politicians and talking heads and those who listen to them. I don't believe I have put words in your mouth. I have asked why your response is different in the case of an actual public health problem in this country as opposed to the ebola outbreak in Africa.


----------



## CraftyLady (Jul 18, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> Which costs least: Quarantining them for 3 weeks in US or not letting them in?
> Which has fewer risks of ebola getting into US: Quarantining them for 3 weeks in US or not letting them in?


From what I've read - The problem isn't letting "them in" it's letting anyone in. 

That is *everyone * who flies from out of the country could have come in contact with or come from a country with infection. 

So, do we, USA, insist that everyone who is flying into this country wait 21 days to fly? 
Do we confine all individuals who land in this country to isolate in confinement zones for 21 days? 
What about people who have been on Cruise Ships? Container vessels? Military Personel? 

So, I think it's impossible to travel ban or stop air traffic. Unless we want to quarantine all of the above to.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> You seem determined to put words in my mouth.
> 
> The current policy is based on political correctness, not sound public health practices.
> 
> ...


So how many cases of Enterovirus and how many deaths before you consider it a threat?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

CraftyLady said:


> From what I've read - The problem isn't letting "them in" it's letting anyone in.
> 
> That is *everyone * who flies from out of the country could have come in contact with or come from a country with infection.
> 
> ...


At the present time, it is only necessary to stop people who have been in the 3 African countries where Ebola is most prevalent. The Spanish nurse is the only person who has gotten Ebola outside of Africa and she got it from the Priest who did contact it in Africa.


----------



## CraftyLady (Jul 18, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> *At the present time,* it is only necessary to stop people who have been in the 3 African countries where Ebola is most prevalent. The Spanish nurse is the only person who has gotten Ebola outside of Africa and she got it from the Priest who did contact it in Africa.


Agreed, we only have the nurse from Spain. That was my point exactly. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear enough.
We Can't close borders with other nations.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

CraftyLady said:


> Agreed, we only have the nurse from Spain. That was my point exactly. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear enough.
> We Can't close borders with other nations.


We Can, the question is "should we".

We can keep out people who have been in any of the 3 African nations. The alternative is people that think they have been exposed will rush to Europe or the US.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

CraftyLady said:


> Agreed, we only have the nurse from Spain. That was my point exactly. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear enough.
> We Can't close borders with other nations.


***********************************
Better answer would be: "We can and we should!"

Why *EXACTLY* can't we......it's been done in the past.
It could (emphasis on the 'could') be closed, if we really 
wanted it to be; apparently, much like the Viet Nam war 
and all those thereafter, we don't want to offend anyone's 
sensibilities, so we *NEVER* try to win or do anything that 
might not be the particular p.c. flavor of the week.


----------



## kycountry (Jan 26, 2012)

copperkid3 said:


> ***********************************
> Better answer would be: "We can and we should!"
> 
> Why *EXACTLY* can't we......it's been done in the past.
> ...


Because closing the borders would cause C.D.C., along with other government agencies to look incompetent.. even though they are doing a good job of that on their own...


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Close the borders? If you did that you'd have to close them to all incoming and that would include international trade shipping as well. It would be like the country quarantining itself against the rest of the world and sustaining itself on what it produces domestically. 

I guess it could be done but the disease could still cross the border unless you can also close the borders to illegals sneaking in, and wild animals and migratory birds too.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Fennick said:


> Close the borders? If you did that you'd have to close them to all incoming and that would include international trade shipping as well. It would be like the country quarantining itself against the rest of the world and sustaining itself on what it produces domestically.
> 
> I guess it could be done but the disease could still cross the border unless you can also close the borders to illegals sneaking in, and wild animals and migratory birds too.


************************
for a minimum of 21 to 30 days?:umno:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

copperkid3 said:


> ***********************************
> Better answer would be: "We can and we should!"
> 
> Why *EXACTLY* can't we......it's been done in the past.
> ...


Exactly when in the recent past have we closed our country to international travel? Tell me exactly how you would accomplish this. It's not about not offending people, it's about taking realistic action. 

Here are some numbers from JFK for July of this year. http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/JUL2014_JFK.pdf

16,000 international flights. 2,800,000 international travelers. That's one airport, one month. How do you shut that off without economic disaster? I'll point out again, there have been exactly zero cases of ebola contracted in this country. Why the panic when there are real public health concerns?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

copperkid3 said:


> ************************
> for a minimum of 21 to 30 days?:umno:


It would have to be for the length of time it took for there to be a guarantee that there are no longer any ebola problems in the rest of the world. Or for the length of time it takes to create a 100% cure and/or vaccine and manufacture enough of it to suffice for the nations' populations. 

That could take many months or many years.


----------



## kycountry (Jan 26, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Exactly when in the recent past have we closed our country to international travel? Tell me exactly how you would accomplish this. It's not about not offending people, it's about taking realistic action.
> 
> Here are some numbers from JFK for July of this year. http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/JUL2014_JFK.pdf
> 
> 16,000 international flights. 2,800,000 international travelers. That's one airport, one month. How do you shut that off without economic disaster? I'll point out again, there have been exactly zero cases of ebola contracted in this country. Why the panic when there are real public health concerns?


Sept 11th, 2001.. all planes were grounded, rerouted and/or escorted by fighter jets... 

Drastic measures that didn't last long, but was done..


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Exactly when in the recent past have we closed our country to international travel?
> Tell me exactly how you would accomplish this. It's not about not offending people, it's about taking realistic action.
> 
> Here are some numbers from JFK for July of this year. http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/JUL2014_JFK.pdf
> ...


*******************
this country has any long term plans in place in case,
this or other potentially lethal pandemics are unleashed 
on the world. Apparently, we're supposed to continue as
if nothing is out of norm and when your neighbors don't wave
at you next Sunday like they've always done in the past, the
only thing to be done, is to contact the local authorities to have
someone come by and torch the place with their bodies inside,
to contain the disease? Well....at least that's_* A PLAN*_.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kycountry said:


> Sept 11th, 2001.. all planes were grounded, rerouted and/or escorted by fighter jets...
> 
> Drastic measures that didn't last long, but was done..


Measures put in place to respond to an immediate threat. We could have guaranteed that no plane would ever fly into a building again by keeping all planes grounded until terrorism ended. But we got them flying as soon as we could. And remember the effect even that had on the economy and the disruptions it caused. Now, extend that out indefinitely. Need a part to repair a critical piece of machinery that was built in Europe? Oops, everybody go home until the crisis is over, whenever that may be. 

Ebola will inevitably get here again. Likely more than once from more than one source. It will be a tragedy for those affected but it won't become epidemic in this country. We face more real public health dangers every day yet we don't run around with our hair on fire. Again, why is this case so special?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Fennick said:


> Close the borders? If you did that you'd have to close them to all incoming and that would include international trade shipping as well. It would be like the country quarantining itself against the rest of the world and sustaining itself on what it produces domestically.
> 
> I guess it could be done but the disease could still cross the border unless you can also close the borders to illegals sneaking in, and wild animals and migratory birds too.


You simply check their visas.


----------



## kycountry (Jan 26, 2012)

Fennick said:


> Close the borders? If you did that you'd have to close them to all incoming and that would include international trade shipping as well. It would be like the country quarantining itself against the rest of the world and sustaining itself on what it produces domestically.
> 
> I guess it could be done but the disease could still cross the border unless you can also close the borders to illegals sneaking in, and wild animals and migratory birds too.


I'm not sure your helping the argument by that first paragraph... we are on a homesteading forum.. and on a smaller scale, isn't that what homesteading is about? 

And on your second topic, if we had 'the boys' home from over seas, we'd have plenty of resources to secure the border..


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

soulsurvivor said:


> I like a visual so here's a current view of the Global Alert Map. Pay attention to all the red flags in the US. Click and read the summary or description for each marker:
> http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php


Crazy the difference a day makes, but all the red flags plastering the US yesterday are pretty much gone today. Because of how this news story is being controlled, we're in a wait and see time of adjustment. That's ok with me unless it puts me and mine in jeopardy for having a lack of information to use when deciding to travel and go about daily life. 

As the lull continues I'm trying to supplement some of the food stock here in case there is a mandated in home quarantine at some future point for whatever reason. While there's enough to feed me and mine, I certainly don't have enough food stored to feed the community. I hope there's never a reason for a quarantine in place order.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Exactly when in the recent past have we closed our country to international travel? Tell me exactly how you would accomplish this. It's not about not offending people, it's about taking realistic action.
> 
> Here are some numbers from JFK for July of this year. http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/JUL2014_JFK.pdf
> 
> 16,000 international flights. 2,800,000 international travelers. That's one airport, one month. How do you shut that off without economic disaster? I'll point out again, there have been exactly zero cases of ebola contracted in this country. Why the panic when there are real public health concerns?


Economic disaster? So if this disease does become an epidemic, what will that do to the economy?

A 22 day quarantine on all incoming travelers will not cause the economy to completely collapse but an epidemic will. Those are realistic actions.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> You simply check their visas.


That's not a guarantee of keeping the virus out of U.S.

You gonna check wild animal visas too? Like the animals that stow away on passenger and freight ships and inside shipping containers then disembark when the ship is being unloaded at ports of call? The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission. It would be easy for infected animals to cross the Atlantic in freight then get off freight being unloaded in countries in South America, and Mexico or Canada. Then have the virus get into the animal and human populations in those countries and it would spread across the borders from there.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

copperkid3 said:


> *******************
> No panic . . . (yet), but *I'd like to see exactly WHERE *
> *this country has any long term plans in place in case,*
> *this or other potentially lethal pandemics are unleashed *
> ...


You can do an online search for the "_USA National Preparedness Strategy for Pandemic Implementation PLan_." I know there's pandemic preparedness strategies for things like influenzas and other communicable diseases so there's probably similar strategies for things like an ebola pandemic.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Fennick said:


> That's not a guarantee of keeping the virus out of U.S.
> 
> You gonna check wild animal visas too? Like the animals that stow away on passenger and freight ships and inside shipping containers then disembark when the ship is being unloaded at ports of call? The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission. It would be easy for infected animals to cross the Atlantic in freight then get off freight being unloaded in countries in South America, and Mexico or Canada. Then have the virus get into the animal and human populations in those countries and it would spread across the borders from there.


You're right. It's hopeless. We shouldn't do anything.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Economic disaster? So if this disease does become an epidemic, what will that do to the economy?
> 
> A 22 day quarantine on all incoming travelers will not cause the economy to completely collapse but an epidemic will. Those are realistic actions.


And when it doesn't? There's a difference to reacting to a collapse and directly causing one. How do you enforce the quarantine and on who? I'll ask again, why is no one here calling for the closing of schools and anywhere else a child can contract the enterovirus? It's already here, has affected thousands, killed one, cost millions and yet life goes on as normal. No panic, just wash your hands more.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> You're right. It's hopeless. We shouldn't do anything.


Actually increased screening, better preparedness and training by hospital personnel and emergency responders and fighting the outbreak on the ground in Africa are things we should be doing. Running around in panic and calling for shutting down all international travel are things we shouldn't.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> And when it doesn't? There's a difference to reacting to a collapse and directly causing one. How do you enforce the quarantine and on who? I'll ask again, why is no one here calling for the closing of schools and anywhere else a child can contract the enterovirus? It's already here, has affected thousands, killed one, cost millions and yet life goes on as normal. No panic, just wash your hands more.


I don't know how many times I have to answer your question.

Try this. What is the death rate for Ebola as compared to the death rate for Enterovirus D68? It would be stupid to have the same public health approach for both of them.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I don't know how many times I have to answer your question.
> 
> Try this. What is the death rate for Ebola as compared to the death rate for Enterovirus D68? It would be stupid to have the same public health approach for both of them.


Once would be enough. You haven't told me how many deaths or cases it would take for enterovirus to be a threat in your world. We do know how many cases it takes originating here to cause you deem ebola such a threat as to wish to close borders and severely disrupt, if not completely halt, international travel. The ebola outbreak has been rampant in Africa for months. Thousands of people have traveled to and from the infected areas to Europe, the US and the rest of the world. Not one case of anyone, other than a health care worker who appears not to have taken proper precautions, from the millions of interactions these travelers have had with people across the globe from contracting the disease. What threat, exactly, are you worried about that makes you advocate for such drastic, unprecedented measures of disease control. I'm still waiting for the pictures or accounts of grounded jets from Southeast Asia during the last avian flu outbreak, by the way.


----------



## kycountry (Jan 26, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Actually increased screening, better preparedness and training by hospital personnel and emergency responders and fighting the outbreak on the ground in Africa are things we should be doing. Running around in panic and calling for shutting down all international travel are things we shouldn't.


What's this we stuff? You got a mouse in your pocket? 

It's easy to say we this, we that, but in reality, we're sitting at home reading a forum.. would you think any different if it was your son or daughter included in the 4000 troops heading to combat this in Africa?? How about if it was you that had contact with patient 'zero'? 

I'm sure the 100+ people that had potential contact with him would have done ANYTHING to have relived that week differently.

We also have 2 patients in care that cost $1000 an hour... Now, you can say that 'we' are footing the bill.. but the only ones I hear saying we should is our government..


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Once would be enough. You haven't told me how many deaths or cases it would take for enterovirus to be a threat in your world.


I would appreciate it if you would at least quote me correctly. It's hard to have a discussion when you keep making up things I never posted.

This is what I previously posted in response to you the 1st time you asked.


> If I had a child in a school in which 10 or more children came down with the virus, I would keep my child out of school.





mmoetc said:


> ... you deem ebola such a threat as to wish to close borders and severely disrupt, if not completely halt, international travel.


Again, you are making things up. I never recommended closing borders. I recommended checking visas and preventing anyone who has recently been in any of the 3 African countries that are the Ebola hotspots from entering the US.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I would appreciate it if you would at least quote me correctly. It's hard to have a discussion when you keep making up things I never posted.
> 
> This is what I previously posted in response to you the 1st time you asked.
> 
> Again, you are making things up. I never recommended closing borders. I recommended checking visas and preventing anyone who has recently been in any of the 3 African countries that are the Ebola hotspots from entering the US.


You can go back to post # 37 and read for yourself what you said about closing schools if the threat from enterovirus was large enough. When is the threat going to be large enough and why is threat of ebola exponentially larger in your mind?

Checking visas and denying them entry happens when people deboard planes. By that time they have already been locked up in a tube, maybe many tubes, for countless hours contacting countless people. The only way to enforce a quarantine such as you propose is to restrict all travel.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Found this 'interesting' video in which the speaker probably voices a lot of the 
concerns of those responding on here. Makes for good conversation over breakfast. . .

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcD-omMspFQ[/ame]


----------



## kycountry (Jan 26, 2012)

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/eb...s-ebola-patient-dies-hospital-reports-n221141



> Dallas Ebola Patient Dies, Hospital Reports
> Thomas Eric Duncan, the first person diagnosed with Ebola in the United States, has died, Texas Health Resources said Tuesday.


Well, we already knew this.. but official like now..


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

From AP News, the Dallas Hospital had announced that the poor fellow has died.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kycountry said:


> http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/eb...s-ebola-patient-dies-hospital-reports-n221141
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we already knew this.. but official like now..


I feel sympathy for him and his loved ones. I can't decide if he was the smartest man in Liberia for fleeing here when he thought he may have been infected or the stupidest for not immediately seeking treatment.


----------



## kycountry (Jan 26, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I feel sympathy for him and his loved ones. I can't decide if he was the smartest man in Liberia for fleeing here when he thought he may have been infected or the stupidest for not immediately seeking treatment.


I wasn't pointing out that we knew he would die, and I feel sorry for anyone contracting this disease or the family that is affected.. 

I was simply pointing out this was reported Sunday by Reuters, then simply disappeared from their site..


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Indications are that he was not treated as aggressively as other Ebola patients in the US have been, in that they delayed the use of experimental drugs and didn't use blood products. I'll be interested to know why.


----------



## kycountry (Jan 26, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Indications are that he was not treated as aggressively as other Ebola patients in the US have been, in that they delayed the use of experimental drugs and didn't use blood products. I'll be interested to know why.


I have a theory.. but we'll see what the official word is..

Now, how do you stop the concept of 'go to America, they can save you'?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kycountry said:


> I wasn't pointing out that we knew he would die, and I feel sorry for anyone contracting this disease or the family that is affected..
> 
> I was simply pointing out this was reported Sunday by Reuters, then simply disappeared from their site..


Wasn't criticizing you . Just expressing a thought that's been floating around in my head for a while.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kycountry said:


> I have a theory.. but we'll see what the official word is..
> 
> Now, how do you stop the concept of 'go to America, they can save you'?


It's a thought that crossed my mind, too, but I tend to be very skeptical of conspiracies.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kycountry said:


> Now, how do you stop the concept of 'go to America, they can save you'?


Show them our healthcare stats. That should slow them down. If the millions of uninsured don't scare them off, our life expectancy and infant mortality rate will. They're a lot better off going to Europe.


----------



## CraftyLady (Jul 18, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> We Can, the question is "should we".
> 
> We can keep out people who have been in any of the 3 African nations. The alternative is people that think they have been exposed will rush to Europe or the US.


Yes, you're right we can close the borders to 3 African Nations and I would include Spain now. 
Will We? No, I don't think so. At least not until it's too late.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Indications are that he was not treated as aggressively
> as other Ebola patients in the US have been, in that they delayed the use of
> experimental drugs and didn't use blood products. I'll be interested to know why.


*************************
*WHAT OTHER POSSIBILITY COULD IT BE?!!!*


Although there was a mention that they didn't have anymore of that one
experimental drug; that it takes up to 8 months to make a batch ......

Naw......they would_* NEVER*_ lie about something like that.


Of course, it's remotely possible, that by the time they actually got him back
and checked into the hospital, he was at the stage where there was little more
that could be done for him......too far gone. Which may also indicate why the 
news media seemed to have an imposed 'gag' on getting that info out that he had
already expired? Who knows anymore.....

What I do know with almost certainty, is that since Jesse Jackson arrived on
the scene and spoke with his 'people', that the hospital and/or the first attending
health care workers who turned the man away with a handful of antibiotics, will
be sued for (fill in the reason that appears most likely to gain a juries sympathies)
and (fill the amount that seems most appropriate to satisfy them for their loss).....
minus whatever Mr. Jackson's cut might be for pointing them "in the right direction".


----------



## CraftyLady (Jul 18, 2014)

copperkid3 said:


> ************************
> for a minimum of 21 to 30 days?:umno:


It would be much longer than 21 to 30 days. The Ebola fire has to be out in all of the other countries too.


----------



## CraftyLady (Jul 18, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> You simply check their visas.


I know a few areas of the Canadian border that you can cross w/o going through a checkpoint. And I believe - I could be wrong - there are quite a few places on the Mexican border you can also cross w/o being checked. :lonergr:


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

CraftyLady said:


> It would be much longer than 21 to 30 days. The Ebola fire has to be out in all of the other countries too.


******************************
I 'just' threw those numbers out as a means to see if it would be
economically feasible to shut-down entry for that small a time period.

Apparently the consensus is that it's not; hence let it run it's course.


----------



## CraftyLady (Jul 18, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> You're right. It's hopeless. We shouldn't do anything.


I realize that's sarcasm speaking. And I feel somewhat the same way.

Serenity Prayer comes to mind. 

"And change the things you can" 

We could change the mind of our leaders. That will take time. And motivation. 
We can prepare our homes and families. That's what I'm doing and I'm sure most of you are too. 

Any other ideas that can be accomplished in time?


----------



## WildernesFamily (Mar 11, 2006)

Say the tables were turned and *you* needed to "flee" to Liberia.

You'd need to go through a few steps before boarding the plane.



*Get a passport.* If you've never traveled internationally, you'd first need to get a passport. A passport is a book that shows your country of citizenship and allows you to re-enter your country after you have left. Each time you enter or leave a foreign country, that country stamps one of your passport pages with their name and the date of your arrival/exit. Your passport will cost you $110 and (provided you have all the necessary photos and documentation to procure the passport) it will take about 4 - 6 weeks for you to receive after applying. If you don't have the documentation required it will take a bit longer while you get those documents in order. For $60 more, you could require the expedited service and get your passport in 3 weeks. Your passport will stay valid for 10 years.
*Get a Liberian Visa.* As a U.S. Citizen traveling to Liberia you would first need to get a visa so they would allow you into their country. The Liberian Visa would be permanently placed on one of the pages of your Passport. For a single tourist visa (1 - 3 months), it will cost you $131 and you have to mail in your application unless you live in Washington DC or NY. Processing time for the visa will be 7 days, but before you can send in your application, you will need to have a Valid International Certificate of Immunization and two more passport type photos. So you'd need a visit to a doctor who could supply that, and you'd also need to get a Yellow Fever immunization before applying. So it would take some time to get your visa. Of course if you live in D.C. you could do a "walk in" and get your visa much more quickly, that will set you back a another $75 for same day service, or an extra $50 for next day service.
So... how quickly would *you* be able to flee to Liberia starting today? Of course say you had already planned to take a trip to Liberia and had gone through all the above already, then fleeing would be a lot quicker.


That's for you, an American citizen in a first world country where things happen pretty quickly. Now imagine how much harder it would be for a Liberian trying to fly to America? Just the passport alone takes an estimated 3 months... the American visa can also take a few months and is *much* harder for them to obtain than what a Liberian visa is for you to obtain.



Of course, if they already have a valid passport and visa...


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

CraftyLady said:


> I know a few areas of the Canadian border that you can cross w/o going through a checkpoint. And I believe - I could be wrong - there are quite a few places on the Mexican border you can also cross w/o being checked. :lonergr:


No plan is foolproof, but how many potential Ebola carriers have the finances and know how to fly into Canada and then hire someone to smuggle them across the border?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> And when it doesn't? There's a difference to reacting to a collapse and directly causing one. How do you enforce the quarantine and on who? I'll ask again, why is no one here calling for the closing of schools and anywhere else a child can contract the enterovirus? It's already here, has affected thousands, killed one, cost millions and yet life goes on as normal. No panic, just wash your hands more.


Mortality rate is the difference.

I don't believe it is the job of the govt to make decisions to potentially sacrifice half of those infected by a disease for the sake of the economy. Exactly where does the Constitution allow protection of citizens be trumped the economy? Also, how many must die before you would begin taking measures to protect OUR citizens?


----------



## CraftyLady (Jul 18, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> No plan is foolproof, but how many potential Ebola carriers have the finances and know how to fly into Canada and then hire someone to smuggle them across the border?


That's assuming they are all African Indigenous people. What of those that have American Citizen Ship? Those that have traveled freely to the US and other countries. People with $$ and work in the govenment of these countries? 

Yes, I would imagine we're talking about just 1000's of people in those three countries. Just 1000's.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NTSU9w6uNc[/ame]


----------



## WildernesFamily (Mar 11, 2006)

CraftyLady said:


> Yes, you're right we can close the borders to 3 African Nations and I would include Spain now.
> Will We? No, I don't think so. At least not until it's too late.


If we're including Spain, shouldn't the rest of the world close off their borders to the U.S.? If not, why not?


----------



## CraftyLady (Jul 18, 2014)

WildernesFamily said:


> If we're including Spain, shouldn't the rest of the world close off their borders to the U.S.? If not, why not?



Yes, that would be the standard practice. Close the countries of the world off from each other. 

Ha! Reminds me of the article I read about a haunted side street in a Irish City. Story was that those people were infected with plague. The city just bricked the doorways shut. All of the people inside were left to die, sick or not.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

CraftyLady said:


> Yes, I would imagine we're talking about just 1000's of people in those three countries. Just 1000's.


But they don't all have Ebola.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

He died a little while ago. So sad that he didn't received treatment right away but had to wait four days from symptoms to treatment. My prayers are for his family.


----------



## Litlbits (Jan 6, 2014)

British Airways has already suspended flights to Sierra Leone and Liberia as of a week or two ago and plan to continue suspension until March 2015. Also burial teams in Sierra Leone have gone on strike because they have not been paid in the last month. Liberia burial teams are also threatening to strike. Meanwhile the bodies are piling up. Seems things will escalate in both countries considering a person is most contaminated when they die.


----------



## CraftyLady (Jul 18, 2014)

MoonRiver


> No plan is foolproof, but how many potential Ebola carriers have the finances and know how to fly into Canada and then hire someone to smuggle them across the border?





> I Said - That's assuming they are all African Indigenous people. What of those that have American Citizen Ship? Those that have traveled freely to the US and other countries. People with $$ and work in the govenment of these countries?
> 
> Yes, I would imagine we're talking about just 1000's of people in those three countries. Just 1000's.


In Case you Missed It. - That's assuming they are all African Indigenous people. What of those that have American Citizen Ship? Those that have traveled freely to the US and other countries.

Don't think they will need to be smuggled. Show your passport please. Citizen of USA yes, fever? no - (not yet) 

So, closing borders will be close to, impossible.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

CraftyLady said:


> MoonRiver
> 
> 
> 
> ...


US citizen, fabulous! No fever, outstanding! Here is the key to your FEMA TRAILER. After 22 days, if you have no symptoms, you may proceed.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

nchobbyfarm said:


> US citizen, fabulous! No fever, outstanding! Here is the key to your FEMA TRAILER. After 22 days, if you have no symptoms, you may proceed.


Let's make it 30 days just to be extra safe.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Uh Oh. They are transporting the 2nd person right now-he had contact with Duncan.


----------



## CraftyLady (Jul 18, 2014)

https://translate.google.com/transla...?m=1&sandbox=1

Quote:
the victim, a 43-year-old who enters the same country, from Dallas, Texas, the county in which just yesterday the presence of this deadly virus was confirmed.
Article says Mexico is thinking about closing the border with USA.


And I found this. Good luck with closing the border.


----------



## CraftyLady (Jul 18, 2014)

You have got to read this - Can't possibly be real tweets can it? 

Kill everyone with Ebola, says former SC GOP head
http://americablog.com/2014/10/kill-...Ablog+News+)


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

CraftyLady said:


> You have got to read this - Can't possibly be real tweets can it?
> 
> Kill everyone with Ebola, says former SC GOP head
> http://americablog.com/2014/10/kill-...Ablog+News+%29


They could easily be real tweets. Freedom of expression, right? That's some pretty horrible stuff he's saying if those are really his tweets. In most other circumstances he can say what he wants ... but .... advocating and inciting genocide is a whole different ball of wax and it could get him charged as a criminal. What he's saying might be construed as criminal hate speech since it is advocacy and incitement to commit genocide of a particular class of people (ebola victims). Incitement and advocating to commit genocide is one of the things that comes under the category of hate speech punishable by law according to international Human Rights Treaties, regardless of other freedom of speech rights. Even in USA. If he is really saying those things then he may have just cooked his goose.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> They could easily be real tweets. Freedom of expression, right? That's some pretty horrible stuff he's saying if those are really his tweets. In most other circumstances he can say what he wants ... but .... advocating and inciting genocide is a whole different ball of wax and it could get him charged as a criminal. What he's saying might be construed as criminal hate speech since it is advocacy and incitement to commit genocide of a particular class of people (ebola victims). Incitement and advocating to commit genocide is one of the things that comes under the category of hate speech punishable by law according to international Human Rights Treaties, regardless of other freedom of speech rights. Even in USA. If he is really saying those things then he may have just cooked his goose.


What a rant about an "if"!!! :bored:


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> I don't know how many times I have to answer your question.
> 
> Try this. What is the death rate for Ebola as compared to the death rate for Enterovirus D68? It would be stupid to have the same public health approach for both of them.


Sometimes your answers conflict with the facts. The other day you said their was a 2 hours test to determine if someone has Ebola. That doesn't jive with what I've read. The deputy in Dallas taken to the hospital today with some symptoms has been tested and they say it will take up to 2 days to get results. I would think if a much quicker test was available, the big hospitals would be using it.


http://www.kens5.com/story/news/local/texas/2014/10/08/patient-frisco-ebola-suspect/16925255/


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> Sometimes your answers conflict with the facts. The other day you said their was a 2 hours test to determine if someone has Ebola. That doesn't jive with what I've read. The deputy in Dallas taken to the hospital today with some symptoms has been tested and they say it will take up to 2 days to get results. I would think if a much quicker test was available, the big hospitals would be using it.
> 
> 
> http://www.kens5.com/story/news/local/texas/2014/10/08/patient-frisco-ebola-suspect/16925255/


Facts like these?http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/08/tp-fast-ebola-test-tied-to-local-company/


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Facts like these?http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/08/tp-fast-ebola-test-tied-to-local-company/


So, it is a new test which bypassed the regulatory process to get approved just this week. Let's hope it is accurate. However, most are still relying on the old longer test.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> So, it is a new test which bypassed the regulatory process to get approved just this week. Let's hope it is accurate. However, most are still relying on the old longer test.


Like this one that takes three to four hours? http://www.newsweek.com/how-hospitals-test-ebola-274898. I'm guessing that every hospital isn't equipped to test for ebola and the samples have to be transported. Secure transport of potentially hazardous samples can take time. Care to show me your citations of what these "more accurate" and slower tests are. Or are you just speculating again?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> What a rant about an "if"!!! :bored:


Just stating some hard truths, not a rant. If you don't like it then produce the evidence that proves he's not guilty of saying those things.

You're just choked because it's a Republican that's made a raving fool of himself and proven he's a homicidal lunatic. If it was a Democrat incriminating himself with that same garbage you know you'd be jumping up and down ranting for him to be tarred and feathered then drawn and quartered.

Ebola isn't about politics though and it doesn't matter what that lunatic's politics are, all that matters is that he's openly advocating for murdering people who are stricken with a disease. :hohum:


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

poppy said:


> Sometimes your answers conflict with the facts. The other day you said their was a 2 hours test to determine if someone has Ebola. That doesn't jive with what I've read. The deputy in Dallas taken to the hospital today with some symptoms has been tested and they say it will take up to 2 days to get results. I would think if a much quicker test was available, the big hospitals would be using it.


Wasn't me.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Indications are that he was not treated as aggressively as other Ebola patients in the US have been, in that they delayed the use of experimental drugs and didn't use blood products. I'll be interested to know why.


Well, 1st ya know he was sent home, returned when it was too late to help him...got the experimental drug too late. Prolly b/c the hosp didn't have it yet.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kycountry said:


> What's this we stuff? You got a mouse in your pocket?
> 
> It's easy to say we this, we that, but in reality, we're sitting at home reading a forum.. would you think any different if it was your son or daughter included in the 4000 troops heading to combat this in Africa?? How about if it was you that had contact with patient 'zero'?
> 
> ...


Apparently the same mouse as those saying "we" need to close our borders. I'd feel the same way as I did when the neighbor boy, who rode the bus next to my DD for 10 years and shot his first deer on our property, enlisted and was sent to Iraq, then Afghanistan. Worried for his life but proud as heck that he was doing his duty.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Apparently the same mouse as those saying "we" need to close our borders.


That mouse seems to unclude 58% of the American public!


> An NBC News poll released Thursday reveals an American public unhappy with the Obama Administration's response to the terrible Ebola outbreak in West Africa, and the potential for the same to occur here. A full *58% of respondents disagree with the White House on banning flights from Ebola-afflicted countries.* *They want the flights banned.* The Administration has so far refused.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...cent-want-flights-from-ebola-countries-banned


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Just stating some hard truths, not a rant. If you don't like it then produce the evidence that proves he's not guilty of saying those things.
> 
> You're just choked because it's a Republican that's made a raving fool of himself and proven he's a homicidal lunatic. If it was a Democrat incriminating himself with that same garbage you know you'd be jumping up and down ranting for him to be tarred and feathered then drawn and quartered.
> 
> Ebola isn't about politics though and it doesn't matter what that lunatic's politics are, all that matters is that he's openly advocating for murdering people who are stricken with a disease. :hohum:


Yup, still a rant! Could have said it in three words or less! By the way, I'm not a republican! :bored:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> That mouse seems to unclude 58% of the American public!
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...cent-want-flights-from-ebola-countries-banned


The American public has been wrong on many things. I'm sure you can all provide your own examples.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> So, it is a new test which bypassed the regulatory process to get approved just this week. Let's hope it is accurate. However, most are still relying on the old longer test.


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/dallas-deputy-ebola-tests-confirm/story?id=26082627. Tests back yesterday. Negative. Within 24 hours.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> The American public has been wrong on many things. I'm sure you can all provide your own examples.


Obama is the top of my list:nanner:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I know my grandfather and his sister were quarantined for a period of time when the came over. They and many others spent time on Ellis island. But that was long ago when the goal was to protect people. Papers had to have order,and a sponsor to insure the immigrants would not be homes or staving.

No today we are so advanced with public control.....I mean political correctness that though other primitive nations north and south of American still want their borders protected and their citizens safe we focus on other issues...fundraising and golf and the next vacation.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Oh, you're visiting from west Africa, have flu like symptoms and a fever of 103f, take two aspirin and get some rest. :heh::smack

From the Associate Press
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d077...d57/ebola-patient-arrived-er-103-degree-fever

_DALLAS (AP) â Thomas Eric Duncan's temperature spiked to 103 degrees during the hours of his initial visit to an emergency room â a fever that was flagged with an exclamation point in the hospital's record-keeping system, his medical records show.

Despite telling a nurse that he had recently been in Africa and displaying other symptoms that could indicate Ebola, the man who would become the only person to die from the disease in the U.S. underwent a battery of tests and was eventually sent home.

Duncan's family provided his medical records to The Associated Press â more than 1,400 pages in all._...


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

kasilofhome said:


> No today *we are so advanced* ........ though *other primitive nations north and south of American* still want their borders protected and their citizens safe we focus on other issues...fundraising and golf and the next vacation.


Canada and Mexico primitive ??????? I think not. :hohum: 

If they are, then I guess that means that Alaska must be populated by knuckle-dragging troglodytes then.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well....both Mexico and Canada are willing to use profiling from data gathered from international travel data....passports,visa etc. To proactively rationally use the information based solely on facts to make calculated wise border control decisions.



Open unprotected borders are so damaging to a country's stability and political / correctness is view as academically the higher moral grounds that we are more willing to protect people from the harmful effects of the Washington red skins than face true issues that are truly life threatening like ebola, illegal immigration, or voter id.

Those that preach open borders as a superior position and scream that Americans wanting border control to limit immigration to persons with the basic test to insure health and safety of current legal citizens are racist. Yet Canada and Mexico has a tougher bar to reach for people entering their nation.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

kasilofhome said:


> Well....both Mexico and Canada are willing to use profiling from data gathered from international travel data....passports,visa etc. To proactively rationally use the information based solely on facts to make calculated wise border control decisions.


It's true both Mexico and Canada do those things. But so does USA. At least, USA does with people entering from Canada, I don't know about their response to people entering from other countries though. Canada and USA now share the same data banks and profiling methods and they share information gathered from international travel data. So every time I cross the border in and out of Canada and USA I get profiled again by each country and the information goes into the shared data banks. It's like that for all travellers between Canada and USA now. As a matter of fact I recently decided to stop visiting and shopping across the border because of it.



kasilofhome said:


> Open unprotected borders are so damaging to a country's stability and political / correctness is view as academically the higher moral grounds that we are more willing to protect people from the harmful effects of the Washington red skins than face true issues that are truly life threatening like ebola, illegal immigration, or voter id.
> 
> Those that preach open borders as a superior position and scream that Americans wanting border control to limit immigration to persons with the basic test to insure health and safety of current legal citizens are racist. Yet Canada and Mexico has a tougher bar to reach for people entering their nation.


I don't really think those people are being racists, but I do think the people who preach about wanting open borders don't understand the dangers of open borders. I know some people want open borders in North America like they have in the European Union countries, but in North America an open border policy like the EU policy would be absolutely an unmitigated disaster.

Yes, Canada and Mexico have a tougher bar to reach for people who want to immigrate permanently to either country, but it's not as difficult to get in as a visitor in either country. It's more difficult to get into USA to visit than to visit in Canada or Mexico.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Well....both Mexico and Canada are willing to use profiling from data gathered from international travel data....passports,visa etc. To proactively rationally use the information based solely on facts to make calculated wise border control decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Post of the day award.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Don't want to be pushy, but maybe it is time to change title. I think he has made that turn.


----------

