Ebola incompetency

Ebola: it’s the risk, stupid.

So what is it about us our feckless administration doesn’t understand? For starters, they don’t understand the paramount responsibility to protect the citizenry. That is bad enough.

When it comes to Ebola, they fought the whole notion of banning travel, or even mandatory quarantines, like it was the problem not a solution. They told us that the real problem was getting the pandemic under control in West Africa. Given that, I’m sure part of their protocol in dealing with the epidemic IN Africa would be restricting movement and travel of people — known risks. That would be only natural and understandable.

However, here they take the reverse strategy. They want the people to mingle and travel about without restriction until some magical point where their temperature passes some arbitrary threshold. In this case its a temperature reading. Now anyone who has had a fever or kids knows how fast a temperature can spike. Sometimes minutes. Having had a bone infection myself I know how critical and fast this can occur. As for the exhaustion, the same infection taught me a lot about that. I also know a little about treating symptoms without treating the underlined problem.

As much as I hate repeating myself, this whole process is akin to treating symptoms not the disease. It is reactionary instead of pro-active. You could make the same case about ISIS terrorists and Ebola. I could make the case about many of their responsibilities in protecting the people.

Judge Jeanine Pirro said the CDC officials seem to be “using the body-count method of decision making” in their protocol. Now the real problem here is the risk. Who puts themselves at an unnecessary risk, voluntarily? But we have an administration making the decisions putting us at unnecessary risk.

When it is Ebola, they take the simple approach that it is not easily contracted. Okay, then two people got it from one patient while taking precautions. (following CDC protocol) They finally changed the protocol. Presumably, they will change it until they get it right. They still refuse to say travel is a problem. They instituted temperature checks. Finally, another Ebola case of another medical professional traveling from Guinea. Then, in the fallout, even the governor of NY is forced to admit the voluntary self-check system doesn’t work.

Why would you want to expose people to more risk than they have to be? In ObamaCare we heard the lectures about risk. It was all about reducing risk, they claimed. Here we have a disease with an incubation window of 21 days. The idea is to let people with a high risk of incubation run rampant until that trigger is tripped. Even then they relied on the person reporting. And if the person doesn’t report, they are going to go find them? Right.

And if a person traveling from West Africa shows up here and does become symptomatic, then what? Well, they will shuttle them off to medical treatment of course. Does that not make the case for them coming here, especially if they know they’ve been infected? Then leave it to us to give them the best supportive care they could get in the world.

Meanwhile, we the people are put at risk so they can freely intermingle. When the light, or symptoms, go off then we have a great problem: “who, what, where?” But why take the unnecessary risks? Indeed, why intentionally expose all of Americans to those risks? I was at a lab facility years ago. looking through a window, through a clean room and another glass, into the room where a tech was working with meningitis. That glass was the only thing between me and it. Ebola is on another continent with nothing but miles of ocean between us and the virus. And apparently they want nothing between us and the epidemic.

As the good Judge said, maybe theirs is the body-count methodology? After all, they can always say in a country of 325 million people, we only had X numbers of Ebola. Next to 325 million almost anything is a small number. But what is the acceptable number, that’s the question? Ours is zero but that is not theirs. Their acceptable risk appears limitless.

RightRing | Bullright

Stop the BS…

Obama: ‘a travel ban is less effective’ than asking people if they have Ebola taking their temperature

Pat Dollard | Oct 17, 2014

AFRICAN OBAMA: I don’t have a philosophical objection, necessarily, to a travel ban if that is the thing that is going to keep the American people safe. The problem is that ? in all the discussions that I’ve had thus far with experts in the field, experts in infectious disease… a travel ban is less effective than the measures that we are currently instituting…

If we institute a travel ban instead of the protocols that we’ve put in place now, history shows that there is a likelihood of increased avoidance. People do not readily disclose their information. They may engage in something called broken travel – essentially breaking up their trip so they can hide the fact that they have been to one of these countries where there is a disease in place. As a result we may end up getting less information about who has the disease, they are less likely to get treated properly, screened properly, quarantined properly and as a consequence we could end up having more cases rather than less.

The lame campaign of excuses continues.

So how bad is Ebola really?
It’s so toxic that Obama cannot even handle the issue himself. He needs an Ebola handler.

Amid Assurances on Ebola, Obama Is Said to Seethe

WASHINGTON — Beneath the calming reassurance that President Obama has repeatedly offered during the Ebola crisis, there is a deepening frustration, even anger, with how the government has handled key elements of the response.

Those frustrations spilled over when Mr. Obama convened his top aides in the Cabinet room after canceling his schedule on Wednesday. Medical officials were providing information that later turned out to be wrong. Guidance to local health teams was not adequate. It was unclear which Ebola patients belonged in which threat categories.

“It’s not tight,” a visibly angry Mr. Obama said of the response, according to people briefed on the meeting. He told aides they needed to get ahead of events and demanded a more hands-on approach, particularly from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “He was not satisfied with the response,” a senior official said.

Continue reading >

Highlights of hearings

Cat and mouse:
Steve Scalise asked if he had any conversations with the WH about a travel ban. He wouldn’t answer. Oh no, I bet the issue never came up.

He asked Mr. Frieden about a breach in protocol. He asked “were protocols breached?” Frieden wouldn’t answer though he told us right after the first nurse contracted it that protocols were breached. How could he state that if he didn’t know they were breached?

Can’t they even answer any questions?

Ebola and ISIS: a chronic comparison

What does Ebola have in common with ISIS?

The simple answer is Obama. But that is where the commonality ends. Both represent threats and catastrophic circumstances.

The talk about Ebola is the call and challenge to scale up the treatment of Ebola. In fact, from the Center for Disease control, they say it is not just a problem for African areas but a problem for the whole world. It demands a world-wide response. The World Health Organization is telling everyone it demands our response. See WHO video here.

CDC: “I wish every world leader could see what I have seen. Stopping this outbreak is more than any one nation can do,” Dr. Frieden says. “The sooner the world comes together to help West Africans the safer we all will be.”

“The window of opportunity to stop Ebola from spreading widely throughout Africa and becoming a global threat for years to come is closing, but it is not yet closed,” Dr. Frieden continued. “If the world takes the immediate steps– which are direct requests from the front lines of the outbreak and the Presidents of each country – we can still turn this around.”

Now even Obama is well out front recording a message to Africa about the severe threat of Ebola. “Stopping this disease won’t be easy but we know how to do it,” Obama said.
Washington Post reported:

The decision to involve the military in providing equipment and other assistance for international health workers in Africa comes after mounting calls from some unlikely groups — most prominently the international medical organization Doctors Without Borders — demonstrating to the White House the urgency of the issue. “And then it could be a serious danger to the United States,” Obama said.

“We’re going to have to get U.S. military assets just to set up, for example, isolation units and equipment there,” he said, “to provide security for public health workers surging from around the world.”

From Anthony Fauci, dir. of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIHealth: “We’re left with a situation where if, in fact, this thing smolders on and on, we know mutations will accumulate,” he said. “And that has its own set of problems. We’ve really got to get this thing shut off.”

However, why is it he cannot talk about ISIS or the spreading Islamic State the same way? They can ban or restrict travel in areas affected by Ebola, but not so much on those traveling to and from the Islamic State with the potential to spread this poisonous ideology. Don’t rush to rash decisions on traveling to and from Syria.

Of course, comparing one severe threat to another draws criticism, but why should it? They are similar in nature and affects. Both are a disease.

When you hear these officials run to the microphone announcing Ebola is a serious world problem demanding an immediate reaction, it is chilling. What about ISIS? A response to Ebola cannot come fast enough, on a scale large enough to suit the need. They say the Ebola outbreak is vastly underestimated, an “International public health emergency” and an “urgent” matter of international concern. It is “critical” that it receive labels, they say, so that we provide resources.

Can they even say genocide?

What about ISIS, is there not an equal responsibility there? On ISIS and their ‘black-flag plague’ consuming the Middle East, Obama said:

“People like this [ISIS] ultimately fail,” … “They fail, because the future is won by those who build and not destroy.”

Try that with Ebola.

That a way to rally them to the cause, Obama. Imagine he said the exact thing about Ebola, paraphrasing: “These diseases ultimately fail, sooner or later.” There would be outrage about any passively dismissive statement to real immediate results of a disease spiraling out of control, which knows no borders or boundaries. Yet here we are watching a 1400 yr-old campaign being revived, kick started, and growing rapidly.

All the officials compete demanding action against the Ebola outbreak, epidemic. Maybe Ebola is a diversion from another plague spreading globally? (a genocide) More hypocrisy? One demands immediate condemnation, resources and all our efforts. The other is just a “regional problem”. Try that with Ebola, they’d laugh you right out of the UN.

But there is anther big contrast. While the headchopper plague meanders through the Mid East under Islamic ideology, Christianity is working to feed the poor, purify drinking water, and treat the sick. The biggest enemies of Islamists are, you guessed it, Christians. Christians are trying to help a sick world, Islamists have a passion for slaughter and an agenda against Christians. They are executing people from the tip of Africa to Iran. Christians are trying to save peoples lives, even from Ebola.

In Gaza, Muslim terrorists indiscriminately fire missiles into Israel hoping to kill and injure as many as possible, saying ‘God willing’. It’s an industry. Israel defends its modest homeland and they cry “human rights abuses” by Israel, calling it heavy-handed. Ever tell a headchopper that? Ever tell Hamas that? Has humanity ever witnessed such twisted rationalizations under a guise of humanitarianism?. Yet ISIS cutting out giant swaths of land across borders makes no difference. Then they all lecture America that we must show restraint in the face of evil. Obama tells Israel to show restraint. Indeed, at home Obama complains it takes time, criticizing people for being too far ahead of where they are at.

Now could you apply that to the Ebola outbreak? I think not. Speed, responsibility, and resources are the watchwords for Ebola. Though I get a sick feeling the black-flag death cult could come right in behind Ebola killing thousands as brutally as they can. Or killing people the world is trying to save, from a threat it is trying to eradicate. Still we have this epidemic of compassion for a disease and what it is doing in countries most of us will never see. It causes people to be working non-stop on a vaccine to stop or prevent the carnage — plans being put in place, policies implemented.Time is of the essence to prevent the spread of death. On ISIS not so much. I hear advisers say take your time to come up with a plan.

The real problem of Obama on ISIS is also the extreme irony. What Obama has done thus far is barely equivalent to treating the symptoms rather than the disease. They want to treat the Ebola disease by a goal to eradicate it. Obama’s stated goal on ISIS is to shrink it to a “manageable problem”. The goal against Ebola is to eliminate the threat and disease – presumably kill it and prevent its return. It’s ironic that Christians and missionaries work toward eliminating the spread of Ebola. When it comes to ISIS, Obama sat on his hands observing its spread and now said he wants to shrink it into “a manageable problem”.(shrink the death toll?) After the Foley beheading, he lectured it was a political problem. True to form, he now is looking blame Congress for his policy on ISIS, in effect making it a political problem.

So I haven’t heard anyone make the case that Ebola is strictly a political problem, requiring a political solution. That would sound ridiculous. And apply all his other excuses on ISIS to Ebola and you come up with the same notion.

Could it be that the world is both not a large enough nor a small enough place to deal with either threat? Not large enough to have the resources to deal with such a heinous problem; not small enough to be able contain and mitigate them.

 

Today starts the official BS campaign on ISIS, speech to follow. The campaign on Ebola is under way. Maybe it’s easier to talk about a terrible disease ravaging borders in Africa, threatening the world. Much harder to talk about a plague of anti-human ideology spreading across borders like wildfire. I doubt he’ll discuss Ebola from the golf course.

“Major Garrett Asks Why Anyone Should Watch Obama’s ISIS Speech”

RightRing | Bullright