US doctor with Ebola in Atlanta for treatment

[BigBoxaJunk]

Not to mention you need a good dose of common sense. I'm done with listening to you talk out your ass. You don't even make sense because you possess none.

Have you ever noticed that the seat next to you is the last one taken at family get-togethers?

Try this:

 

[Timjoebillybob]

They are treated as citizens because police are just as responsible for their safety as they are yours.

So generally speaking, no responsibility at all. At least per SCOTUS......

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I agree with the fact that an active shooter and an Ebola response are not completely the same. However, I think the underlying goal that drives the response to both events is the saving of human lives. The debate is about how to best accomplish that and what is an 'acceptable' risk. The tie in with the whole active shooter thing is that we are realizing 'zero risk' is no longer an acceptable standard. If it were ... fire engines would never leave the firehouse, police cars would never leave the station, and doctors would never touch patients.

Makes sense to me. And plainly , there's a lot of disagreement about exactly how much risk is entailed in tackling Ebola both in Africa and in a more 1st World setup, like here in the States.

Thank you for the info!

 

[billt]

Bottom line - bill - you seem to be of the opinion that we are nuts for even THINKING of going over to the Ebola zone to help out. Much less bring anyone back that goes over and gets infected. Is that accurate?

No, not accurate at all. Let me clarify. Don't confuse helping the people of a deadly disease ridden country with medical help, to this clown thinking todays modern police forces are sending EMT's into free fire zones, with full auto weapons blazing. For Christ's sake you had armed cops who couldn't get to shot up cops who were bleeding to death, because the fire from full auto weapons was so intense and heavy. They had to pull news choppers back because they were shooting at them. Over 1,700 rounds were exchanged in 45 minutes. But now according to....."modern improved methods", they'd just march right in with guns blazing. Beyond ridiculous. It's got the stupid meter pegged.

Back to Ebola. The only mistake these doctors made was not being properly prepared for what they did. That's it. As a result, they both caught a deadly disease that could very well kill them. It could have been prevented. I can all but guarantee you that will never happen again. They won't make the same mistake twice. These doctors were unselfish. They were also foolish. Nothing wrong with helping these people. If we don't, who will? The UN? The whole damn continent will be wiped out before those impotent buffoons create a bigger mess we'll have to clean up in the end. Their cause was noble. They're methods were poor at best, dangerous in fact. And that can be improved. And I'm no more of an EMT than he is. I just apply common sense.

 

[churchmouse]

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

As a result, they both caught a deadly disease that could very well kill them. I can all but guarantee you that will never happen again.

Like Daffy Duck said in the one where he drank gasoline, ate a bunch of gunpowder, shook himself, then swallowed a lit match, "This is a good trick, but I can only do it once".

 

[femurphy77]

Interesting debate from all quarters, let me just add to the mix; according to the CDC there were approximately 725,000 hospital acquired infections in 2011 with 75,000 deaths as a result. This is just from "normal" stuff like aspergillus, and other assorted nasties so why risk adding ebola to the mix? Someone upstream said it'll get here eventually, I filled in the "might as well get it now" in my head because that's the way it came off. People make mistakes; so they may get away with it this time or the next time or the hundredth time, but sooner or later it will escape a "secure" facility. Now back to our regularly scheduled nastiness!

 

[billt]

Like Daffy Duck said in the one where he drank gasoline, ate a bunch of gunpowder, shook himself, then swallowed a lit match, "This is a good trick, but I can only do it once".

If you're going to quote me, at least do it in context.

 

[Fargo]

Interesting debate from all quarters, let me just add to the mix; according to the CDC there were approximately 725,000 hospital acquired infections in 2011 with 75,000 deaths as a result. This is just from "normal" stuff like aspergillus, and other assorted nasties so why risk adding ebola to the mix? Someone upstream said it'll get here eventually, I filled in the "might as well get it now" in my head because that's the way it came off. People make mistakes; so they may get away with it this time or the next time or the hundredth time, but sooner or later it will escape a "secure" facility. Now back to our regularly scheduled nastiness!

I would wager that when Ebola is found in the US, it will be out in the open off a traveler, not escaping from any lab. The odds of it coming in across the border are actually probably pretty good; vastly more than it escaping from the containment unit this doc is in.

Once again though, it is not highly contagious and we don't have the asymptomatic reservoir of mammals that Africa has...

Even if it does appear, it isn't going to kill a large number of people. (Unless weaponized in which case we are screwed!)

 

[churchmouse]

If you're going to quote me, at least do it in context.

I think we all get it.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

If you're going to quote me, at least do it in context.

You caught me. I was just trying to maximize the funny.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Back to Ebola. The only mistake these doctors made was not being properly prepared for what they did. That's it. As a result, they both caught a deadly disease that could very well kill them. It could have been prevented. I can all but guarantee you that will never happen again. They won't make the same mistake twice. These doctors were unselfish. They were also foolish. Nothing wrong with helping these people. If we don't, who will? The UN? The whole damn continent will be wiped out before those impotent buffoons create a bigger mess we'll have to clean up in the end. Their cause was noble. They're methods were poor at best, dangerous in fact. And that can be improved. And I'm no more of an EMT than he is. I just apply common sense.

First - I cut all of the pissing contest out of this. Reason - while the subject applies and is relevant, the pissing contest itself is not.

Back to Ebola. So we agree that these aid workers were noble in their cause? Cool.

So they caught the disease that they were trying to help with.... Call them foolish, or unlucky or whatever you prefer. C'est la vie. Doesn't matter - they've now caught it - and we have to go from there. Whether one thinks they we noble, stupid, or some of each.

So now the question is - what do you do with/for them?
a) Screw 'em - leave them in the third world conditions to face pretty certain death.
b) Bring them back to first world conditions (i.e. US) where they stand a better chance.
Secondary question - you have a untested treatment option
c) do you give them a shot at it or no?
d) Does that decision alter the a/b choice above - since you might want to observe the results under more controlled conditions.

We know what the CDC and others chose. But the question is - what would you choose?

 

[churchmouse]

First - I cut all of the pissing contest out of this. Reason - while the subject applies and is relevant, the pissing contest itself is not.

Back to Ebola. So we agree that these aid workers were noble in their cause? Cool.

So they caught the disease that they were trying to help with.... Call them foolish, or unlucky or whatever you prefer. C'est la vie. Doesn't matter - they've now caught it - and we have to go from there. Whether one thinks they we noble, stupid, or some of each.

So now the question is - what do you do with/for them?
a) Screw 'em - leave them in the third world conditions to face pretty certain death.
b) Bring them back to first world conditions (i.e. US) where they stand a better chance.
Secondary question - you have a untested treatment option
c) do you give them a shot at it or no?
d) Does that decision alter the a/b choice above - since you might want to observe the results under more controlled conditions.

We know what the CDC and others chose. But the question is - what would you choose?

I am not putting a dog in this combat between you and billt as I do not have a dog.

You guys can sniff each others behinds later....

That said this is a perfect opportunity to observe known treatment in a lab environment.
Also a perfect opportunity to delve into unknown areas of treatment. Develop a vaccine from this.

 

[Wild Deuce]

*

 

[billt]

So now the question is - what do you do with/for them? But the question is - what would you choose?

I think the better choice would have been to bring them, along with whatever they require, to a military base out of the country. My guess is nowhere in Europe would have allowed them. I'm talking about places like Ramstein in Germany and such, where they have excellent medical facilities. I can't say I would blame the German government, or any other European government for that matter, for not wanting them. But somewhere, perhaps even Greenland, just to keep them out of the country until they show improvement. This is a bit like nuclear waste. You can talk and talk about how safe it is, and how well you have it under control, but would you want it in a dump in or near your town? People are afraid of this. And you can't blame them. If a doctor, a trained professional, can contract it, how can they be so damn sure it won't spread here?? Kind of hard to provide a good enough answer to calm people.

 

[Fargo]

I think the better choice would have been to bring them, along with whatever they require, to a military base out of the country. My guess is nowhere in Europe would have allowed them. I'm talking about places like Ramstein in Germany and such, where they have excellent medical facilities. I can't say I would blame the German government, or any other European government for that matter, for not wanting them. But somewhere, perhaps even Greenland, just to keep them out of the country until they show improvement. This is a bit like nuclear waste. You can talk and talk about how safe it is, and how well you have it under control, but would you want it in a dump in or near your town? People are afraid of this. And you can't blame them. If a doctor, a trained professional, can contract it, how can they be so damn sure it won't spread here?? Kind of hard to provide a good enough answer to calm people.

So we are supposed to crap on our allies and service members? Wow, just wow...

 

[billt]

So we are supposed to crap on our allies and service members? Wow, just wow...

How are we "crapping on them"? I said they most likely wouldn't allow it, and I don't blame them. Besides, I thought there wasn't any danger? When I suggested there might be, I was raked over the coals for it. So, according to you, you would rather "crap on" the United States, than our precious allies. Maybe you should bake Merkel a nice angel cake. Wow, just wow.

 

[Fargo]

How are we "crapping on them"? I said they most likely wouldn't allow it, and I don't blame them. Besides, I thought there wasn't any danger? When I suggested there might be, I was raked over the coals for it. So, according to you, you would rather "crap on" the United States, than our precious allies. Maybe you should bake Merkel a nice angel cake. Wow, just wow.

You are the one who thinks this is a huge risk, but you are cool with taking it to other peoples homes, just not yours...

I, on the other hand, don't think it a huge risk and am fine with bringing him home.

One of the positions is logically consistent, the other is grossly self serving...

 

[Vigilant]

You are the one who thinks this is a huge risk, but you are cool with taking it to other peoples homes, just not yours...

I, on the other hand, don't think it a huge risk and am fine with bringing him home.

One of the positions is logically consistent, the other is grossly self serving...

I was all for leaving it there, and taking the treatment and or facilities to them! I'll bet it would have been cheaper for the CDC or AAMRIID to bring a bio containment facility and staff to Africa than to bring the infected here?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Vigilant - I don't know if the logistics of doing that would have fit within the timeframe we had. Our facilities are not built strictly for Ebola and already existed. Reasonable thought nonetheless.

I don't see it as a huge risk, and I can see why there are benefits to bringing it here.

At the end of the day, I suspect that some are simply more freaked by this than others.

If I WAS more freaked by it, I don't think that I would opt for taking it somewhere like Greenland or Germany. If it isn't ok to move it to my backyard - it's not ok in my friend's backyard either.
I would opt for leaving it where it was and tackling it there.

I also agree with the person above who said that a damaging outbreak is far more likely to come from some dip weasel getting infected in Africa and getting on a plane, than it EVER is from bringing someone home under controlled conditions. THAT scenario actually DOES concern me right now with the outbreak going on.