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?