Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

We really need to wake up

uncle-creepy
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 1:07:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There appears to be this unprecedented concurrence of catastrophes,crises,and chaos happening in the world,especially as of late.There really is no shortage of headline-grabbing stories that we can have lengthy discussions about.I personally would love to be positive,free of fear,and not suspicious or cynical during these tumultuous times but it's growing increasingly difficult as things continue spiraling further and further downward.Instead of offering brief summaries of what I think and feel about a handful of presently occurring events or ongoing stories,I think that the Ebola issue and its subsequent allowance on to North American (as well as European) soil is not only a concern but it should wake those up who are programmed-especially in America-into thinking that conspiracy theories or,at the least,openly questioning the true motives and agendas of their government is for the seditious,the unpatriotic,or the so-called "tin-foil hat wearing" people on the lunatic fringe.While it does seem like a lot of people are indeed waking up,a lot of others need to give their head a shake.

Just some rather simple piecing together of things from recent history is what led me to conclude that something is seriously wrong with the picture as it relates to now.

Problem:An outbreak of a highly lethal disease transpires in West Africa,one of which there isn't a known cure.The disease claims thousands of lives and puts others in the affected area at risk.The disease is classified as a Level 4 pathogen and carries with it the potential of going on a killing spree if not contained.
Solution:The best one is for every country to prohibit incoming and outgoing flights to and from the Ebola hot zone until the disease is contained.By doing so,the risk of the disease spreading beyond said hot zone is reduced significantly.

You can spray a deodorizer in a fish market but it's not going to take away the fishy scent.And something is fishy about all of this.The good old United States of America was all about national security,weren't they? Anyone remember the color-coded terror threat system or the USA PATRIOT ACT? How 'bout the NDAA ,the TSA's way-too-personal airport security searches or the NSA's spying on every American citizen? Let's not forget the two undeclared and illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.Yes,the inside job that was 9/11 (you heard me,inside job) gave the U.S. government the impetus to put boots on the ground overseas and to,basically,defecate on the constitutional rights of every freedom and liberty-loving American at home in order to "protect" the homeland and to bring the fight to all those long-bearded America-hating,machine gun-toting looney tunes that sought to teach a severe lesson to a nation rife with infidels and brought words such as 'jihad' into English parlance.

And yet,somehow,in a nation whose ruling regime supposedly puts its "security" and the combating of "terror" at or near the top of its priority list,there is no implementation of measures by the ruling regime that keeps people from Ebola-affected countries from entering the U.S. It's not like none of us were aware that an outbreak had occurred in West Africa and it just became news to us when a Liberian guy showed up at a Dallas hospital with the disease.It was a well-known fact that the disease was sickening and killing people over there and that it stood the possibility of becoming a global pandemic if not contained.And if there is no known cure for Ebola,that's even more reason for the U.S. (as well as other countries) to implement temporary travel bans.I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks this but someone who is a carrier of a Level 4 pathogen that enters the country,knowingly lies about not having come in contact with an infected person,and has put anyone he's been near at risk is more of a threat to Americans than some guy in Kabul screaming "ALLAHU AKHBAR!!!!! DEATH TO AMERICA!!!!" before spraying off a few rounds in the air.Bottom line:If there were a genuine commitment and effort undertaken by a government to protect the citizens who are under their governance from threats both from within and without,"threats" would also include within its definition highly lethal pathogens that can enter the country via travelers from affected regions.It's bad enough that the southern border is a sieve at best but with potential Ebola vectors flying in from West Africa,the notion of "national security" is a joke and the side-splitting laugh that follows.

I wonder why the U.S. government hasn't done the sensible thing and impose a temporary travel ban to flights either originating from,or have stopped over in,the Ebola-affected countries (as I have wondered the same here in Canada,where many of our "elected" officials aren't trustworthy enough to run a Kool-Aid stand efficiently much less a country.) This kind of negligence does more harm than good.Though you try not to panic and conduct your life as you ordinarily would,there comes a point in time when someone's contempt,ignorance,and lack of consideration is going to affect you.I honestly hope that Ebola becomes yesterday's news real soon,mostly for the sake of those in West Africa but for anyone that the American government has put at risk for balking at what is common sense.

The only reason why I think that no measures have been taken to prevent Ebola from spreading beyond the hot zone is because it's wanted here by those who are in power.If a "terror" attack like 9/11 provided those in office with the opportunities to pass draconian legislations and make George Orwell look like a prophet,it is reasonable to question what opportunities they have with a pandemic.There appears to be almost an across-the-board failure-from the Oval Office to the CDC-in carrying out the jobs that they are expected to do.The people that should be trusted just can't be.People need to be awake in these times and not be so quick to think that someone suspecting conspiracy belongs in the funny farm or wears a tin-foil hat.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 1:14:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"It is a question, I think, on which people can honestly disagree," "There are good arguments to be made on both sides. It's partly a philosophical choice."

- Stephen S. Morse, professor of epidemiology at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
uncle-creepy
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 1:25:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 1:14:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
"It is a question, I think, on which people can honestly disagree," "There are good arguments to be made on both sides. It's partly a philosophical choice."

- Stephen S. Morse, professor of epidemiology at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

Ummmm,okay.By responding with quotes from this Mr.Morse fellow,are you saying that you personally disagree with anything that I said in my post?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 1:53:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 1:25:35 AM, uncle-creepy wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:14:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
"It is a question, I think, on which people can honestly disagree," "There are good arguments to be made on both sides. It's partly a philosophical choice."

- Stephen S. Morse, professor of epidemiology at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

Ummmm,okay.By responding with quotes from this Mr.Morse fellow,are you saying that you personally disagree with anything that I said in my post?

Yes, I'm saying that there are rational, not only possibly nefarious, reasons for opposing banning travel from West Africa.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
uncle-creepy
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 2:12:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 1:53:22 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:25:35 AM, uncle-creepy wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:14:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
"It is a question, I think, on which people can honestly disagree," "There are good arguments to be made on both sides. It's partly a philosophical choice."

- Stephen S. Morse, professor of epidemiology at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

Ummmm,okay.By responding with quotes from this Mr.Morse fellow,are you saying that you personally disagree with anything that I said in my post?

Yes, I'm saying that there are rational, not only possibly nefarious, reasons for opposing banning travel from West Africa.

Please,do tell what you think are rational reasons for opposing banning travel from West Africa.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 2:55:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 2:12:58 AM, uncle-creepy wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:53:22 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:25:35 AM, uncle-creepy wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:14:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
"It is a question, I think, on which people can honestly disagree," "There are good arguments to be made on both sides. It's partly a philosophical choice."

- Stephen S. Morse, professor of epidemiology at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

Ummmm,okay.By responding with quotes from this Mr.Morse fellow,are you saying that you personally disagree with anything that I said in my post?

Yes, I'm saying that there are rational, not only possibly nefarious, reasons for opposing banning travel from West Africa.

Please,do tell what you think are rational reasons for opposing banning travel from West Africa.

Here are a number of rational reasons for you, http://www.ctvnews.ca...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
uncle-creepy
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 6:41:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 2:55:06 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 2:12:58 AM, uncle-creepy wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:53:22 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:25:35 AM, uncle-creepy wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:14:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
"It is a question, I think, on which people can honestly disagree," "There are good arguments to be made on both sides. It's partly a philosophical choice."

- Stephen S. Morse, professor of epidemiology at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

Ummmm,okay.By responding with quotes from this Mr.Morse fellow,are you saying that you personally disagree with anything that I said in my post?

Yes, I'm saying that there are rational, not only possibly nefarious, reasons for opposing banning travel from West Africa.

Please,do tell what you think are rational reasons for opposing banning travel from West Africa.

Here are a number of rational reasons for you, http://www.ctvnews.ca...

I've investigated the link that you gave me and it honesty doesn't assuage my concerns about the situation.Here's why..

In the article,it states,"Airport screening systems are not enough, many U.S. senators and others have been saying."

It's nice to know that at least some people in Senate have their wits about them.Whatever "screening" that was in place when Thomas Eric Duncan arrived in the United States was obviously not foolproof as all he had to do was fib his way past it.He put the passengers on that flight at risk,he put people that he came in contact with in the airports at risk,and he probably put a lot of people in Dallas at risk.All of this could have been prevented if the authorities had banned flights originating in West Africa.

"The World Health Organization has said repeatedly it does not recommend travel bans on the countries affected by the Ebola outbreak because that would leave the countries cut off from the rest of the world, "resulting in detrimental economic consequences, and hinder relief and response efforts, risking further international spread.

The key problem in travel bans, says the WHO and others, is that ending flights in and out of affected countries hinders these countries" ability to receive the new supplies they so desperately need. As well, there are already not enough health workers on the ground in the affected countries. What foreign worker would willingly fly into the epidemic to offer assistance knowing they might not be allowed to fly back out?
"

One area where I will make a concession is that medical and military personnel are exempted from a travel ban.I had thought about that when I was typing out my original post and I should have included that within the post.I'm sure that we can all agree that these affected countries are seeing the pandemic spread in large part because Third World nations don't have the personnel,the facilities,or the funding (often no thanks to corrupted politicians or greedy warlords) to combat the spread of the virus.I'm all for the international community providing aid and assistance to the stricken region,so as long as there's a waiting period prior to returning home to assure that these people are not Ebola vectors when they do return.Otherwise,if it's just a leisure trip or one to visit family,no go until we know for fact that the disease has been contained.

As far as "detrimental economic consequences," I would expect that kind of poppycock from someone that has a corporate interest in,or stands to monetarily profit from,no bans placed on travel.At this point,the World Health Organization should be living up to its moniker instead of being an economic advisor or consumer advocate.For one,the countries affected are already Third World nations.How much poorer can you get if you're already poor as dirt? Two,whatever economic activity within the affected regions surely was impacted upon the outbreak.Who's going to be good little consumers of goods and services if they're scared that the acquisition of such goods and services could result in contracting a highly fatal illness? Three,consideration has to be given to what the lesser of two evils is.Even if there are detrimental economic consequences that result from the imposition of a temporary travel ban,how much more detrimental will the economic consequences be if Ebola becomes a global pandemic? Please refer back to my "good little consumers" point.If Ebola is given the chance to spread,as it appears it has been,it will not be life or business as usual.And just to add to the "good little consumers" point,one can not make their contribution to the economy if Ebola kills them.

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Thomas Frieden also says cutting off affected countries with travel bans could make the outbreak spread throughout the African continent."

Frieden should be on the unemployment line along with many others who have refused to take this Ebola outbreak seriously enough so as not to use their authority.None of us should trust a single word or syllable that comes out of his mouth or anyone else who has committed a serious breach of whatever trust the public had in them beforehand (which I suspect isn't a whole lot to begin with.) And,while I wouldn't want Ebola to spread throughout the rest of the African continent,it's not going to do that continent or any other continent a bit of good by not imposing travel bans.Clearly,Frieden knows that this virus is contagious and serious enough that it could turn into a full-blown continental issue.That being said,someone in his position,instead of the laity,should be among the first to give voice to banning travel.

"In countries where the collective mood has been dominated by fear, mistrust and panic in recent months, travel restrictions could also further anger these countries" exhausted and frustrated citizens, suggests Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

'When you start closing off countries like that, there's a real danger of making things worse,' Fauci told 'Fox News Sunday' last weekend.
"

Great point,Dr.Fauci.So,in order to alleviate the fear,mistrust,and panic of the Ebola affected region,the rest of the world should each take a slice of the fear,mistrust,and panic too as the virus is allowed into our countries.It's not like those of us who see the rationality in a travel ban are insensitive toward the plight of West Africans.We don't want them to get worse.But it's going to if we continue to treat things with kid gloves so as not to spark an uproar among the thin-skinned,mentally retarded segment of the populace otherwise known as the politically correct.The way to remedy a regional problem is to contain it,not make it global.Instead of resorting to transparent excuses,these people need to be honest and just say "we don't want to appear racist,xenophobic,or insensitive" or "we're afraid that we're going to take a hit on the bottom line" by banning travel.

Seeing that I'm running out of characters,the argument that's being made that "banning travellers isn"t simple" or that "travel bans don"t work" are just not so convincing that I'll see the rationality behind doing very little in response to the problem.One,if my memory serves me correctly,the world became one big no fly zone on and just after 9/11.I had a cousin that was stranded in Amsterdam but it didn't matter what inconvenience it may have caused for her and all the others in her position.It was a move made to eliminate the risk of other incidents of airline "terrorism." Flights get grounded all the time if the element of risk is too great.
uncle-creepy
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 7:29:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Continuing from the previous post,barring those flights that transport medical and military personnel to the region,any airline company that acts in non-compliance to the provisions of a travel ban (or aren't given an exemption clearance) receive a hefty fine and/or prosecution.Bans,recalls,products getting yanked off store shelves,etc. happen often so as to minimize the risk to public safety (and save lawsuits) when it has been identified that there is a risk associated with the object of a ban,recall,yanked product.And yet somehow a ban wouldn't work in this case? I don't bite.Citing "studies" really doesn't mean anything at times.I don't have to conduct a study to know that,

(1)-Disease spreads when it isn't contained,especially at the identified source or region.
(2)-Disease spreads when people lack the ability to sanitize or have courtesy for others so as not to willfully expose them to illness.This not only applies to the A-hole that boards a city bus hacking and sneezing but to the powers-that-be who are resorting to lax measures in dealing with a Level-4 pathogen.

I guess I'll wrap up what's already been a lengthy response by quoting the last section of the article.

"The key to preventing Ebola"s spread to the rest of the world, say most public health officials, is to extinguish the outbreak at its source. Dedicate resources to fighting new infections and ensure that those who need care can receive it without having to leave their country.
Short-term quarantines may have proven helpful at catching some hidden infections, as Sierra Leone"s experience has demonstrated. But worldwide and long-term travel restrictions are another matter and may not be the best approach in the long run.
"

The countries that are affected by Ebola have given us some showings that they take the situation perhaps more seriously than here in North America.Had Thomas Eric Duncan survived and returned to Liberia,he would have been facing prosecution upon his return.And at least Sierra Leone had the sense to lock itself down in a short-term quarantine.It could be argued that porous borders caused Ebola to spread from Guinea into Liberia and Sierra Leone.Fortunately for Senegal and Nigeria,it appears as though some fast and smart action prevented Ebola from spreading like wildfire in those countries.I don't think that it can be ruled out that the outbreak in the Congo isn't connected to the West African outbreak.But,ultimately,the text that I have highlighted in bold should be rephrased to "the key to preventing Ebola's spread to the rest of the world is by not letting it spread to the rest of the world.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 12:40:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 6:41:30 PM, uncle-creepy wrote:
At 10/10/2014 2:55:06 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 2:12:58 AM, uncle-creepy wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:53:22 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:25:35 AM, uncle-creepy wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:14:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
"It is a question, I think, on which people can honestly disagree," "There are good arguments to be made on both sides. It's partly a philosophical choice."

- Stephen S. Morse, professor of epidemiology at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

Ummmm,okay.By responding with quotes from this Mr.Morse fellow,are you saying that you personally disagree with anything that I said in my post?

Yes, I'm saying that there are rational, not only possibly nefarious, reasons for opposing banning travel from West Africa.

Please,do tell what you think are rational reasons for opposing banning travel from West Africa.

Here are a number of rational reasons for you, http://www.ctvnews.ca...

I've investigated the link that you gave me and it honesty doesn't assuage my concerns about the situation.Here's why..

In the article,it states,"Airport screening systems are not enough, many U.S. senators and others have been saying."

It's nice to know that at least some people in Senate have their wits about them. Whatever "screening" that was in place when Thomas Eric Duncan arrived in the United States was obviously not foolproof as all he had to do was fib his way past it.He put the passengers on that flight at risk, he put people that he came in contact with in the airports at risk, and he probably put a lot of people in Dallas at risk. All of this could have been prevented if the authorities had banned flights originating in West Africa.

"The World Health Organization has said repeatedly it does not recommend travel bans on the countries affected by the Ebola outbreak because that would leave the countries cut off from the rest of the world, "resulting in detrimental economic consequences, and hinder relief and response efforts, risking further international spread.

The key problem in travel bans, says the WHO and others, is that ending flights in and out of affected countries hinders these countries" ability to receive the new supplies they so desperately need. As well, there are already not enough health workers on the ground in the affected countries. What foreign worker would willingly fly into the epidemic to offer assistance knowing they might not be allowed to fly back out?
"

One area where I will make a concession is that medical and military personnel are exempted from a travel ban.I had thought about that when I was typing out my original post and I should have included that within the post.I'm sure that we can all agree that these affected countries are seeing the pandemic spread in large part because Third World nations don't have the personnel,the facilities,or the funding (often no thanks to corrupted politicians or greedy warlords) to combat the spread of the virus.I'm all for the international community providing aid and assistance to the stricken region,so as long as there's a waiting period prior to returning home to assure that these people are not Ebola vectors when they do return.Otherwise,if it's just a leisure trip or one to visit family,no go until we know for fact that the disease has been contained.

As far as "detrimental economic consequences," I would expect that kind of poppycock from someone that has a corporate interest in,or stands to monetarily profit from,no bans placed on travel.At this point,the World Health Organization should be living up to its moniker instead of being an economic advisor or consumer advocate.For one,the countries affected are already Third World nations.How much poorer can you get if you're already poor as dirt? Two,whatever economic activity within the affected regions surely was impacted upon the outbreak.Who's going to be good little consumers of goods and services if they're scared that the acquisition of such goods and services could result in contracting a highly fatal illness? Three,consideration has to be given to what the lesser of two evils is.Even if there are detrimental economic consequences that result from the imposition of a temporary travel ban,how much more detrimental will the economic consequences be if Ebola becomes a global pandemic? Please refer back to my "good little consumers" point.If Ebola is given the chance to spread,as it appears it has been,it will not be life or business as usual.And just to add to the "good little consumers" point,one can not make their contribution to the economy if Ebola kills them.

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Thomas Frieden also says cutting off affected countries with travel bans could make the outbreak spread throughout the African continent."

Frieden should be on the unemployment line along with many others who have refused to take this Ebola outbreak seriously enough so as not to use their authority.None of us should trust a single word or syllable that comes out of his mouth or anyone else who has committed a serious breach of whatever trust the public had in them beforehand (which I suspect isn't a whole lot to begin with.) And,while I wouldn't want Ebola to spread throughout the rest of the African continent,it's not going to do that continent or any other continent a bit of good by not imposing travel bans.Clearly,Frieden knows that this virus is contagious and serious enough that it could turn into a full-blown continental issue.That being said,someone in his position,instead of the laity,should be among the first to give voice to banning travel.

"In countries where the collective mood has been dominated by fear, mistrust and panic in recent months, travel restrictions could also further anger these countries" exhausted and frustrated citizens, suggests Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

'When you start closing off countries like that, there's a real danger of making things worse,' Fauci told 'Fox News Sunday' last weekend.
"

Great point,Dr.Fauci.So,in order to alleviate the fear,mistrust,and panic of the Ebola affected region,the rest of the world should each take a slice of the fear,mistrust,and panic too as the virus is allowed into our countries.It's not like those of us who see the rationality in a travel ban are insensitive toward the plight of West Africans.We don't want them to get worse.But it's going to if we continue to treat things with kid gloves so as not to spark an uproar among the thin-skinned,mentally retarded segment of the populace otherwise known as the politically correct.The way to remedy a regional problem is to contain it,not make it global.Instead of resorting to transparent excuses,these people need to be honest and just say "we don't want to appear racist,xenophobic,or insensitive" or "we're afraid that we're going to take a hit on the bottom line" by banning travel.

Seeing that I'm running out of characters,the argument that's being made that "banning travellers isn"t simple" or that "travel bans don"t work" are just not so convincing that I'll see the rationality behind doing very little in response to the problem.One,if my memory serves me correctly,the ...

I agree with the point of view and reasoning expressed in the article.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.