So no cause for alarm?

Six Reasons to Panic

Oct 27, 2014, Vol. 20, No. 07 • By JONATHAN V. LAST | Weekly Standard

As a rule, one should not panic at whatever crisis has momentarily fixed the attention of cable news producers. But the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, which has migrated to both Europe and America, may be the exception that proves the rule. There are at least six reasons that a controlled, informed panic might be in order.

1) Start with what we know, and don’t know, about the virus. Officials from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and other government agencies claim that contracting Ebola is relatively difficult because the virus is only transmittable by direct contact with bodily fluids from an infected person who has become symptomatic. Which means that, in theory, you can’t get Ebola by riding in the elevator with someone who is carrying the virus, because Ebola is not airborne.

This sounds reassuring. Except that it might not be true. There are four strains of the Ebola virus that have caused outbreaks in human populations. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the current outbreak (known as Guinean EBOV, because it originated in Meliandou, Guinea, in late November 2013) is a separate clade “in a sister relationship with other known EBOV strains.” Meaning that this Ebola is related to, but genetically distinct from, previous known strains, and thus may have distinct mechanisms of transmission.

Not everyone is convinced that this Ebola isn’t airborne. Last month, the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy published an article arguing that the current Ebola has “unclear modes of transmission” and that “there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.”

And even if this Ebola isn’t airborne right now, it might become so in the future. Viruses mutate and evolve in the wild, and the population of infected Ebola carriers is now bigger than it has been at any point in history—meaning that the pool for potential mutations is larger than it has ever been. As Dr. Philip K. Russell, a virologist who oversaw Ebola research while heading the U.S. Army’s Medical Research and Development Command, explained to the Los Angeles Times last week,

I see the reasons to dampen down public fears. But scientifically, we’re in the middle of the first experiment of multiple, serial passages of Ebola virus in man. .  .  . God knows what this virus is going to look like. I don’t.

Great article well worth the time: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/six-reasons-panic_816387.html?page=1

As to motive for Obama’s stubborn refusal to ban travel, it goes to motive. According to this article, I am not alone. Obama’s immigration policies are the big reason. It might disturb his open border policy and interfere with his amnesty plans. Sort of looks bad if you ban travel while you are declaring there is no threat on our southern border. It proves there is a security issue. I bet he curses the Ebola timing. How dare it interfere with his plans.

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