Ebola

When you people figure out exactly what the fuck you're talking about, get back to me.


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/brittany-m-hughes/cdc-you-can-give-can-t-get-ebola-bus

CDC: You Can Give—But Can’t Get—Ebola on a Bus

October 15, 2014 - 3:26 PM
________________________________________
By Brittany M. Hughes

(CNSNews.com) - Dr. Tom Frieden, director for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said during a telephone press briefing Wednesday that you cannot get Ebola by sitting next to someone on a bus, but that infected or exposed persons should not ride public transportation because they could transmit the disease to someone else.
Dr. Frieden also reported that a Dallas health-care worker who has been diagnosed with Ebola had a temperature of 99.5 when she flew from Cleveland to Dallas on Monday.
Frieden’s statement came in response to CNSNews.com’s question regarding a video message from President Barack Obama last week addressing Ebola-stricken countries in West Africa, in which the president told residents they “cannot get [Ebola] through casual contact like sitting next to someone on a bus.”
During the conference call, CNSNews.com asked Frieden: “In a video message to countries in West Africa that are experiencing Ebola outbreaks, President Obama told residents they cannot get the disease by sitting next to someone on a bus. But CDC recommendations state that travelers in West Africa who begin to show possible symptoms, or people who have experienced a high risk of exposure, should avoid public transportation, including buses. And we’ve also seen large amounts of concern regarding potentially infected people traveling on airplanes.
“My first question is, did the CDC vet this video message before it was released and posted on U.S. embassy websites, and is it true that a person runs absolutely no risk of contracting Ebola on public transportation, such as a bus?”
“Yes, CDC vetted the message, and, yes, we believe it’s accurate,” Frieden responded.
“I think there are two different parts of that equation,” he continued. “The first is, if you’re a member of the traveling public and are healthy, should you be worried that you might have gotten it by sitting next to someone? And the answer is no.”
“Second, if you are sick and you may have Ebola, should you get on a bus? And the answer to that is also no. You might become ill, you might have a problem that exposes someone around you,” he said.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/who-do-they-think-we-are-1413502475

Who Do They Think We Are?

The administration’s Ebola evasions reveal its disdain for the American people

Oct. 16, 2014 7:34 p.m. ET

The administration’s handling of the Ebola crisis continues to be marked by double talk, runaround and gobbledygook. And its logic is worse than its language. In many of its actions, especially its public pronouncements, the government is functioning not as a soother of public anxiety but the cause of it.
An example this week came in the dialogue between Megyn Kelly of Fox News andThomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control.
Their conversation focused largely on the government’s refusal to stop travel into the United States by citizens of plague nations. “Why not put a travel ban in place,” Ms. Kelly asked, while we shore up the U.S. public-health system?
Dr. Frieden replied that we now have screening at airports, and “we’ve already recommended that all nonessential travel to these countries be stopped for Americans.” He added: “We’re always looking at ways that we can better protect Americans.”
“But this is one,” Ms. Kelly responded.
Dr. Frieden implied a travel ban would be harmful: “If we do things that are going to make it harder to stop the epidemic there, it’s going to spread to other parts of—”
Ms. Kelly interjected, asking how keeping citizens from the affected regions out of America would make it harder to stop Ebola in Africa.
“Because you can’t get people in and out.”
“Why can’t we have charter flights?”
“You know, charter flights don’t do the same thing commercial airliners do.”
“What do you mean? They fly in and fly out.”
Dr. Frieden replied that limiting travel between African nations would slow relief efforts. “If we isolate these countries, what’s not going to happen is disease staying there. It’s going to spread more all over Africa and we’ll be at higher risk.”
Later in the interview, Ms. Kelly noted that we still have airplanes coming into the U.S. from Liberia, with passengers expected to self-report Ebola exposure.
Dr. Frieden responded: “Ultimately the only way—and you may not like this—but the only way we will get our risk to zero here is to stop the outbreak in Africa.”
Ms. Kelly said yes, that’s why we’re sending troops. But why can’t we do that and have a travel ban?
“If it spreads more in Africa, it’s going to be more of a risk to us here. Our only goal is protecting Americans—that’s our mission. We do that by protecting people here and by stopping threats abroad. That protects Americans.”
Dr. Frieden’s logic was a bit of a heart-stopper. In fact his responses were more non sequiturs than answers. We cannot ban people at high risk of Ebola from entering the U.S. because people in West Africa have Ebola, and we don’t want it to spread. Huh?
In testimony before Congress Thursday, Dr. Frieden was not much more straightforward. His answers often sound like filibusters: long, rolling paragraphs of benign assertion, advertising slogans—“We know how to stop Ebola,” “Our focus is protecting people”—occasionally extraneous data, and testimony to the excellence of our health-care professionals.
It is my impression that everyone who speaks for the government on this issue has been instructed to imagine his audience as anxious children. It feels like how the pediatrician talks to the child, not the parents. It’s as if they’ve been told: “Talk, talk, talk, but don’t say anything. Clarity is the enemy.”
The language of government now is word-spew.
Dr. Frieden did not explain his or the government’s thinking on the reasons for opposition to a travel ban. On the other hand, he noted that the government will consider all options in stopping the virus from spreading here, so perhaps that marks the beginning of a possible concession.
It is one thing that Dr. Frieden, and those who are presumably making the big decisions, have been so far incapable of making a believable and compelling case for not instituting a ban. A separate issue is how poor a decision it is. To call it childish would be unfair to children. In fact, if you had a group of 11-year-olds, they would surely have a superior answer to the question: “Sick people are coming through the door of the house, and we are not sure how to make them well. Meanwhile they are starting to make us sick, too. What is the first thing to do?”
The children would reply: “Close the door.” One would add: “Just for a while, while you figure out how to treat everyone getting sick.” Another might say: “And keep going outside the door in protective clothing with medical help.” Eleven-year-olds would get this one right without a lot of struggle.
If we don’t momentarily close the door to citizens of the affected nations, it is certain that more cases will come into the U.S. It is hard to see how that helps anyone. Closing the door would be no guarantee of safety—nothing is guaranteed, and the world is porous. But it would reduce risk and likelihood, which itself is worthwhile.
Africa, by the way, seems to understand this. The Associated Press on Thursday reported the continent’s health-care officials had limited the threat to only five countries with the help of border controls, travel restrictions, and aggressive and sophisticated tracking.
All of which returns me to my thoughts the past few weeks. Back then I’d hear the official wordage that doesn’t amount to a logical thought, and the unspoken air of “We don’t want to panic you savages,” and I’d look at various public officials and muse: “Who do you think you are?”
Now I think, “Who do they think we are?”
Does the government think if America is made to feel safer, she will forget the needs of the Ebola nations? But Americans, more than anyone else, are the volunteers, altruists and in a few cases saints who go to the Ebola nations to help. And they were doing it long before the Western media was talking about the disease, and long before America was experiencing it.
At the Ebola hearings Thursday, Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) said, I guess to the American people: “Don’t panic.” No one’s panicking—except perhaps the administration, which might explain its decisions.
Is it always the most frightened people who run around telling others to calm down?
This week the president canceled a fundraiser and returned to the White House to deal with the crisis. He made a statement and came across as about three days behind the story—“rapid response teams” and so forth. It reminded some people of the statement in July, during another crisis, of the president’s communications director, who said that when a president rushes back to Washington, it “can have the unintended consequence of unduly alarming the American people.” Yes, we’re such sissies. Actually, when Mr. Obama eschews a fundraiser to go to his office to deal with a public problem we are not scared, only surprised.
But again, who do they think we are? You gather they see us as poor, panic-stricken people who want a travel ban because we’re beside ourselves with fear and loathing. Instead of practical, realistic people who are way ahead of our government.

happy jack wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/who-do-they-think-we-are-1413502475

Who Do They Think We Are?

I know exactly what you are, you're right wing, fear mongering propagandists terrorizing the ignorant with sky-is-falling rhetoric who blame Barry and Co. on what the   incompetent fuck ups did or didn't do at the Dallas hospital.
WTF, isn't this Rick Perry's fault?
Ebola And Rick Perry's 3am Call

http://www.intoxination.net/blog/ebola-and-rick-perrys-3am-call


It's nothing new, par for the course for the ODS extremists.




Oh wait...Texas shit for brains number two speaks:

Rick Perry: ‘Unacceptable’ mistakes on Ebola
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/rick-perry-ebola-response-111987.html

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

   
I know exactly what you are, you're right wing, fear mongering propagandists terrorizing the ignorant with sky-is-falling rhetoric who blame Barry and Co.

I'm not blaming Barry for anything.

I was talking to Peggy Noonan, not you.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

   
I know exactly what you are, you're right wing, fear mongering propagandists terrorizing the ignorant with sky-is-falling rhetoric who blame Barry and Co.

[b]I'm not blaming Barry for anything.
The only president I might blame for helping spread a disease is Bill Clinton.

You might want to rethink that dumbass. I give you St Ronnie RayGun....

Quote :

Perhaps the greatest criticism surrounds Reagan's silence about the AIDS epidemic spreading in the 1980s. Although AIDS was first identified in 1981, Reagan did not mention it publicly for several more years, notably during a press conference in 1985 and several speeches in 1987. During the press conference in 1985, Reagan expressed skepticism in allowing children with AIDS to continue in school although he supported their right to do so, stating:

Quote :

I can well understand the plight of the parents and how they feel about it. I also have compassion, as I think we all do, for the child that has this and doesn't know and can't have it explained to him why somehow he is now an outcast and can no longer associate with his playmates and schoolmates. On the other hand, I can understand the problem with the parents. It is true that some medical sources had said that this cannot be communicated in any way other than the ones we already know and which would not involve a child being in the school. And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said, This we know for a fact, that it is safe. And until they do, I think we just have to do the best we can with this problem. I can understand both sides of it.[81]

The CDC had previously issued a report stating that "casual person-to-person contact as would occur among schoolchildren appears to pose no risk."[82] During his speeches Reagan called for expanded funding on AIDS, which took place.[83] increased AIDS testing for marriage licenses and mandatory testing for high risk groups.[84][85]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration#Response_to_AIDS

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

   
I know exactly what you are, you're right wing, fear mongering propagandists terrorizing the ignorant with sky-is-falling rhetoric who blame Barry and Co.

I'm not blaming Barry for anything.
The only president I might blame for helping spread a disease is Bill Clinton.

You might want to rethink that dumbass. I give you St Ronnie RayGun....

Quote :

Perhaps the greatest criticism surrounds Reagan's silence about the AIDS epidemic spreading in the 1980s. Although AIDS was first identified in 1981, Reagan did not mention it publicly for several more years, notably during a press conference in 1985 and several speeches in 1987. During the press conference in 1985, Reagan expressed skepticism in allowing children with AIDS to continue in school although he supported their right to do so, stating:

 

Quote :

I can well understand the plight of the parents and how they feel about it. I also have compassion, as I think we all do, for the child that has this and doesn't know and can't have it explained to him why somehow he is now an outcast and can no longer associate with his playmates and schoolmates. On the other hand, I can understand the problem with the parents. It is true that some medical sources had said that this cannot be communicated in any way other than the ones we already know and which would not involve a child being in the school. And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said, This we know for a fact, that it is safe. And until they do, I think we just have to do the best we can with this problem. I can understand both sides of it.[81]

The CDC had previously issued a report stating that "casual person-to-person contact as would occur among schoolchildren appears to pose no risk."[82] During his speeches Reagan called for expanded funding on AIDS, which took place.[83] increased AIDS testing for marriage licenses and mandatory testing for high risk groups.[84][85]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration#Response_to_AIDS

[b]Unless you can demonstrate that Reagan frequented bath houses and played Hide the Salami with thousands of gay men, I don't see how, by any stretch of the imagination, he can be accused of spreading AIDS.

If that POS would have responded in 1981 when the virus was identified instead of ignoring it until 1985, many more lives could have been saved or extended. Instead he chose to ignore it and innocent people died as a result.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

If that POS would have responded in 1981 when the virus was identified instead of ignoring it until 1985, many more lives could have been saved or extended. Instead he chose to ignore it and innocent people died as a result.[/b]

Head in the sand wrote:

Annual AIDS related funding was $44 million when he took office and was $1.6 billion in 1988, an increase of over 1000 percent.

The increase in funding only occurred after thousands were already dead from it.

uninformed troll wrote:

And there is still no cure.[/b]

Yes,but it's no longer a death sentence like it was while St Ronnie ignored it.