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

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.

The comparison lives on, Ebola to IS

Ebola_2988634b The IS Motto: “Remaining and Expanding”

A while back I made a comparison of ISIS and Ebola (or Islamic State)  and was probably one of the first to draw direct parallels. Since then, the more I see and learn about either of these viruses the more similar they seem.

For instance, Ebola has been around since ’76 but its a naturally occurring virus. That means they may eliminate the latest epidemic but at some point it will return.

That much is really like ISIS, or Islamism itself. It keeps returning even in areas pushing natural boundaries or borders. Killing the latest strain of ISIS would only be followed by a return of Islamic terrorism under some other name.

But unlike the Ebola disease, radical rabid Islamists spread their virus in creative ways mutating almost daily. And, instead of a fear and withdraw, there is a natural attraction to it in the Mid East and Muslim world. A remote cell can be activated in any country and a willing individual radicalized just by reading their constant propaganda.

It is never politically correct to criticize the environment that breeds such an insidious and evil disease as ISIS or Islamic radicalism. In Ebola they try to use science and understanding to combat the plague. They claim knowledge is power and accurate information will only help not hurt us. It is in our interest to know about it to defeat it. So science claims.

Still Obama claimed the chances of an Ebola outbreak here is very low. In fact, he declared that it was very hard to get. Do not enact a travel ban because it could make the threat worse, he claims. We were worrying about nothing, before the exact remote chance indeed happened.

With the Islamic radicalism it is all about denial. We must deny the source, must deny its motivations, and must deny its end goals as ridiculous. Does that make any sense? Not to you or me but does to those in authority that lecture us about it. The same talking points apply to Islamicism though, when it happens…deny deny. They claim it is something happening way over in another part of the world that really has no affect here. So that was the mantra.

But they do say we have to contain Islamic terrorism there so it does not come here, or that was the assumption before Obama. He changed that. He decided until we have a case here that affects us, then we will worry about it. IOW, after the caliphate is formed, after the fatwas are drawn up, after they demonstrate they are here and serious. Then they will respond. But even then they tone down the source, laced in denial, about who they really are. Government is at work cleansing the terms. Even when it does happen, they call it something else so it technically wasn’t labeled Islamic terrorism.

Both are very much a threat to our national security. Both are dismissed as pretty much irrelevant to us in America. However, they tell us every trace of carbon is a problem. Thus, their war on coal and energy. EPA can design regs that will exterminate whole industries, and entire communities, but that is a commendable.

We are Islamophobic if we are worried about Islamonazis. We are fear mongering if we are concerned about Ebola. We are “flat-earthers” if we deny their man-made global warming agenda. We are extremists if we oppose EPA’s dictates. Now conservatives are even blamed for it all. But just don’t fear the Reaper.

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 >

Demophants send Letter to Obama

House Dems call for US troops in Africa to give direct Ebola care

By Peter Sullivan | The Hill

A trio of House Democrats is calling on President Obama to allow U.S. troops in West Africa to provide direct care to Ebola patients.

The Obama administration has already committed around 4,000 U.S. troops to help fight Ebola in the affected West African countries, but they are performing tasks such as building treatment centers and training local providers, not directly providing care.

Reps. Keith Ellison (Minn.), Karen Bass (Calif.), and Barbara Lee (Calif.) want to change that.

“We write to urge you to consider building on the current response to the Ebola epidemic by allowing military medical and technical personnel to provide direct care to and to come into contact with patients in West Africa,” the representatives wrote in a letter to Obama.

The call comes as the World Health Organization says that there could be as many as 10,000 new Ebola cases every week within two months.

The lawmakers raised concerns that there would not be enough trained staff to care for Ebola patients if the U.S. did not directly intervene.

More: The Hill

So the people that hate America’s nation building think our military should be caregivers and run clinics in Africa. As long as we put no boots on the ground in the Middle East. And yet all they really care about is promoting abortion and global warming around the world.

They also claimed:

“If the U.S. enacts policies like travel bans, which are not effective and discourage volunteer participation, we increase the chance of worsening the epidemic and the chance that new cases arrive in the U.S,” they wrote. “Instead, we should be offering incentives for volunteers and assurances that they will have access to everything they need to be as safe as possible at all times.”

So by banning travel we get more Ebola. But they don’t say how much Ebola we get without a ban. So there is an acceptable amount of Ebola?

Obama had no problem shutting down Tel Aviv airport at a moment’s notice, but to avert spread of a deadly disease? Never. Then he claimed it wasn’t his own ideological decision, but other “experts”. Even in making a decision not to act he can’t take responsibility. He never told us that experts made him shut down Tel Aviv. And reaction didn’t matter.

RightRing | Bullright

Ebola censorship and famine

NY Post reports that NYC 911 dispatchers are forbidden from saying the E-word, Ebola over the radio transmissions.

“Just like you can’t say bomb on an airplane, we can’t say ‘Ebola.’ ”

Nothing I can add.

Ebola outbreak: Famine approaches to add to West Africa’s torment

World according to WH Baghdad Josh

According to Josh Earnest:

People can be confident of the tenacity of government’s response to be able to deal with evolving situations, on the Ebola crisis.

Asked about a Ebola or disease czar, Earnest said that they are continually monitoring the situation and, if needed. they would “not hesitate” to install one.

Here’s a simple analogy of our current Ebola situation
Suppose you have a ship and it somehow gets a hole in the midsection. The captain immediately puts an alert to keep an eye out for any new cracks or holes in the bow. Then the captain says we are not going to repair that hole because we don’t think that is productive to dealing with the problem… in the water where it originated.

Also for perspective from a nurse about Ebola, see here.

Now apply either of the above talking points to the Islamic State, or ISIS’ black-flag death cult. Does Obama say “we are monitoring the situation and tenacious on responding to it…and if troops or more response is needed we will “not hesitate” to provide it”? No, of course not. But on the contrary, Obama absolutely rules it out. I’m sure that if more troops or something is needed for Africa, he will “not hesitate” to act accordingly.

However, when it comes to closing the border and travel from the infected areas, well, he refuses to do that. In fact, he declares it the wrong thing to do. (notice the pattern) Since when did Obama “NOT HESITATE” about any crisis? Worse, Obama’s first line of defense to a crisis is not even to hesitate, but actually ignore or deny it.

Now if, according to the talking points on Ebola so far, the chief “symptom” of someone causing them to be contagious is a fever, then you could say they’re acting by checking temps of passengers in selected airports. But that “symptom” check only suggests whether the person is contagious at that moment. (going by what they told us). That means that truly the only people they are protecting are supposedly other passengers and airline staff. So a person can show up somewhere like Thomas Duncan did, or travel to a destination in the middle of America, and become contagious.

The only thing it does is help insure he isn’t infectious in travel or at airport. That’s like a suicide bomber making it all the way through the checkpoints without being detected only to blow himself up later at some destination. And if we should have such an incident, we will not hesitate to respond in our tenacious government.

Make sense? I thought so. Thanks, Obama, or maybe that is the strategy to allow someone to pass through undetected. Why would you not place travel restrictions, especially after the exact scenario already happened? Now we have the fallout from the initial patient. The irony now is treating the symptoms and not the disease.

More toxic fallout — or symotoms:

State attorney general wants to stop ashes of Ebola victim’s belongings from being brought to Louisiana

Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said late Sunday that he will seek a temporary restraining order to stop the incinerated belongings of Dallas Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan from being brought to a Louisiana landfill.

However, there is no evidence that this would spread the dreaded disease.

Another unforeseen problem. Surprise!

RightRing | Bullright

Guess who’s words these are?

“failure to prepare for emergencies can have devastating consequences.”

“We learned that lesson the hard way after Hurricane Katrina,”

“This nation must not be caught off-guard when faced with the prospect of an avian flu pandemic. The consequences are too high. … The question is will we be ready when that happens? Let’s make sure that answer is yes. I urge my colleagues in the Senate and the House to push this administration to take the action needed to prevent a catastrophe that we have not seen during our lifetimes.”

Bingo, it’s the One and Only, Barack Obama — Senate floor 2005, on his favorite topic.

Read more at WND — Obama accused of facilitating terrorism

Hat/tip to Lafayette Angel

Ebola epidemic: serious global threat

Obama: Ebola outbreak a threat to global security

By JIM KUHNHENN | Sep 16th 2014

ATLANTA (AP) – Calling the Ebola outbreak in West Africa a potential threat to global security, President Barack Obama is ordering 3,000 U.S. military personnel to the stricken region amid worries that both the financial and human cost of the outbreak is spiraling out of control.

Obama also called on other countries to quickly supply more helpers, supplies and money.

“If the outbreak is not stopped now, we could be looking at hundreds of thousands of people affected, with profound economic, political and security implications for all of us,” Obama said Tuesday after briefings at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“It’s a potential threat to global security if these countries break down,” Obama saietd, speaking of the hardest-hit countries of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. At least 2,400 people have died, with Liberia bearing the brunt.

Continue reading>

It’s like I said earlier here.

So basically everything he said there could also apply to the ‘black-flag’ death plague raging across the Mid East, and soon to be exported to a country near you.

But no, he doesn’t seem to use that same language or sense of urgency about that epidemic. Then, on terrorism, the words are couched in politically correct terms.

Notice how the same basic idea applies though. We must “contain it”, must get many other countries involved, must have joint cooperation. Can you say coalition? But on Ebola it’s all hands on deck. Now its a billion-dollar problem, upgraded from the earlier 500 million one.