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

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

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 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