RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries?

RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries?

US airports should have closed airports from Ebola ravaged countries.

29% (13)

The US should immediately close airports from Ebola ravished countries

38% (17)

We should never close airports from any country.

11% (5)

What the hell is going to happen next in this country?

4% (2)

I could care less, until the US has at least 100 cases of Ebola

6% (3)

I am not worried, I will never get Ebola.

4% (2)

I am worried, and I have no idea what I should do.

4% (2)

Total Votes : 44

(last vote on : 11/4/2014 8:15:41 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

BamaD -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 6:27:48 PM)
FR More people die of other things so we shouldn't quarantine nations with ebola outbreaks. That is like saying that since you are more likely to get struck by lightening that eaten by a shark there is no reason not to go swimming in shark infested waters with an open cut.

BenevolentM -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 7:08:30 PM)
The infectious dose for influenza is 79 times greater than Ebola. quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml Do you know how much easier it is to transmit the flu? quote: INFECTIOUS DOSE: Viral hemorrhagic fevers have an infectious dose of 1 - 10 organisms by aerosol in non-human primates. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php The infectious dose is alarmingly small. Now lets compare it to flu. Supposedly flu is wildly more contagious, but let's peek at the numbers anyway. quote: The infectious dose for the influenza A variant ... is greater than 790 organisms ... http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/influenza-a-eng.php I fear that people are putting politics ahead of common sense.

BamaD -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 7:14:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM The infectious dose for influenza is 79 times greater than Ebola. quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml Do you know how much easier it is to transmit the flu? quote: INFECTIOUS DOSE: Viral hemorrhagic fevers have an infectious dose of 1 - 10 organisms by aerosol in non-human primates. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php The infectious dose is alarmingly small. Now lets compare it to flu. Supposedly flu is wildly more contagious, but let's peek at the numbers anyway. quote: The infectious dose for the influenza A variant ... is greater than 790 organisms ... http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/influenza-a-eng.php I fear that people are putting politics ahead of common sense. So should we do nothing to stop the spread of Ebola, quarantine seems the logical step while there is some chance to contain it.

BenevolentM -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 7:16:51 PM)
The vast difference in the infectious dose of Ebola as compared to more familiar seriously contagious diseases is obviously creating these anomolies. The people who feel we have nothing to fear are thinking like global warming theorists. They have a simple argument. Ebola is not an airborne disease; hence, it is hard to catch, but they are not taking into consideration that vast difference between the infectious dose needed to get sick from the disease and how it can survive for substantial periods of time outside the body on infected surfaces. There is potential for Ebola to become an airborne disease, but that is another matter.

BenevolentM -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 7:30:26 PM)
BamaD you misunderstood what I wrote. Ebola is very dangerous. The point I was making was that Ebola is considerably easier to catch than say the flu and we know it is easy to catch the flu. The difference is vast. The gulf is wide enough to make your head spin. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD ... quarantine seems the logical step while there is some chance to contain it. I agree with you. It may hamper medical professionals getting into regions where they are needed, but I figure that can be remedied by giving them exceptions. If you have credentials stating that you know how to take care of Ebola patients safely and other related matters, such professionals could be given a free pass into and out of the hot zones. Presumably, they will know how to keep themselves from getting infected. We would also have to make certain that people with such credentials have what they need when they enter the hot zones.

BenevolentM -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 7:35:56 PM)
The problem with my argument is that in some ways it is like saying that nuclear energy can be made safe, but it would give the medical professionals a chance to work their magic. It sounds to me like a good compromise where you employ several strategies to combat the disease at once instead of relying on just one remedy which may or may not be enough.

BenevolentM -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 7:54:47 PM)
Perhaps I should put this in perspective. If Ebola becomes a serious problem in the United States it would destroy any hope of the Democrats returning to power for years to come. Get over the politics of the disease. This disease is holding a knife at your throat. If the people get to thinking that the Republicans will be better at containing the situation, your ass will be grass.

BenevolentM -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 8:04:39 PM)
This is not some vague terrorist threat or 911 tragedy that for most Americans was a TV sit com this is something that has the potential to kill the first born in every family in America, not to mention Canada and Mexico, et al. Knocking on your skull, Hello. This could be for real people. Mother nature is a bitch.

BenevolentM -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 8:27:15 PM)
If Ebola ever comes to your community, you might want to consider home schooling an option. On the bright side the fundy Christian children will survive whereas your kids won't.

BenevolentM -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 8:31:34 PM)
If your kid gets sick, just remember, if you take care of your kid, it could mean a death sentence for you and your entire family.

Marini -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 8:57:26 PM)
I would like to ask the "powers that be" that do not feel we need to put restrictions on those traveling from Ebola ravished countries, or those that do not feel we need to "step up" security measures, what would it take to consider restrictions?

Marini -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 9:00:00 PM)
I hope most that read these boards realize that BenevolentM, enjoys stirring the pot. [8\|]

DaddySatyr -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 9:18:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So should we do nothing to stop the spread of Ebola, quarantine seems the logical step while there is some chance to contain it. Nope. We should send all the Ebola patients to Europe and let them deal with the shit since it would appear theirs are the loudest voices protesting our desire to protect ourselves (I wonder why that might be?). Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

BenevolentM -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 11:34:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I wonder why that might be? Their medical infrastructure may be better than ours and so they reason it can't touch them, but as I pointed out it is like claiming that nuclear energy is safe. There are tantalizing reasons to believe that nuclear energy can be made safe, yet we continue to have nuclear accidents.

BenevolentM -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/12/2014 11:41:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr We should send all the Ebola patients to Europe and let them deal with the shit ... That might actually be a good idea. Their healthcare system is allegedly better than ours. They may have better luck. It is called globalization. Let the countries that can produce the manufactured goods or provide the service the most efficiently do the job. Sounds American to me.

DomKen -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/13/2014 2:48:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM BamaD you misunderstood what I wrote. Ebola is very dangerous. The point I was making was that Ebola is considerably easier to catch than say the flu and we know it is easy to catch the flu. The difference is vast. The gulf is wide enough to make your head spin. Ebola is much harder to catch than influenza. The infectious dose has very little to do with how hard a virus is to catch. Maybe you should actually know what you are talking about before you talk about a subject. Influenza is very communicable because it is transmittable in water droplets. Ebola is not. Ebola must be transmitted in bodily fluids so even though relatively fewer viral particles need to be transmitted to successfully cause an infection than scenarios under which people are exposed to those fluids are simply far less common. Influenza pandemics routinely sweep across the globe in the course of a year. In the course of a year Ebola has infected a few thousand people. That is simply not very infectious. If our response had been effective in the beginning or the public health systems in west Africa had not been in a state of near collapse this would already be over.

BenevolentM -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/13/2014 3:17:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The infectious dose has very little to do with how hard a virus is to catch. Multiple variables are always at work, but how do you explain the near 100 percent transmission rate between patient and caregiver? Every parent comes into contact with the bodily fluids of their child. This issue of bodily fluids is not one that can be trivialized. Transmission has occurred by just touching the patient. The Democratic party is taking an awfully big risk by not taking this seriously.

crazyml -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/13/2014 9:37:52 AM)
Bless your heart. You really have no fucking idea what you're talking about, do you? The infectious dose is only one tiny component of the answer to the question "Do you know how much easier it is to transmit the flu" You babbling half wit.

crazyml -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/13/2014 9:40:10 AM)
I am sure that it has nothing to do with where the different voices are coming from. I just think that it's coincidental that the hysterical-panties-in-a-twist posters happen to be on one side of the pond while the pragmatic ones are on the other. As for "why that might be" - I am sure you have a theory, but I give zero fucks about what it might be.

PeonForHer -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/13/2014 10:18:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So should we do nothing to stop the spread of Ebola, quarantine seems the logical step while there is some chance to contain it. Nope. We should send all the Ebola patients to Europe and let them deal with the shit since it would appear theirs are the loudest voices protesting our desire to protect ourselves (I wonder why that might be?). Eh? Which Europeans, exactly? The latest advice from Europe's medical experts seems to be that we screen people before they leave Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia particularly. It's going to be a pig of job to try to do it at the other end for us Brits, especially, because there are no direct flights from these places and potentially infected people will therefore travel via major airports in North Africa or on the Continent. To add to that Heathrow is a giant airport and major hub. But best of all, by far, of course, is that Ebola gets dealt with within those countries. We live in a globalised world, now, and people travel much too easily and quickly for us to be able to consider that anything else is going to be effective in the longer term..

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.1015625