So when do we start refusing flights from Africa from entering the U.S.?

This Ebola sheit is getting real.   

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/27/world/africa/ebola-american-doctor-infected/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Nommad2 wrote:This Ebola sheit is getting real.    

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/27/world/africa/ebola-american-doctor-infected/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Depending on corporate interests, either too late, or very soon. We are a reactionary country, no one is going to be proactive about this.

Nommad2 wrote:This Ebola sheit is getting real.    

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/27/world/africa/ebola-american-doctor-infected/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    

InTenSity wrote:
Depending on corporate interests, either too late, or very soon. We are a reactionary country, no one is going to be proactive about this.

Sad, but true. Maybe Obama will consider something while lining up his next putt.

Kinda crazy that we have no way to treat it. We all gone?

Chitown_Badger wrote:Kinda crazy that we have no way to treat it. We all gone?

We have no way of treating it because there is no money in saving a few hundred lives in Africa

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
We have no way of treating it because there is no money in saving a few hundred lives in Africa

Wow, you have a wonderful view of people.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
We have no way of treating it because there is no money in saving a few hundred lives in Africa

Would be interesting to see how quickly the gubment funneled resources to finding a cure if/when the first case hits US soil.

Of course, tons of work may have already been done trying to find a cure and I just don't know about it because ebola is not an area I study in my free time.

Hut1hut2 wrote:

Wow, you have a wonderful view of people.

Sorry, but it's the reality of how these things work.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
We have no way of treating it because there is no money in saving a few hundred lives in Africa

If you could save a few hundred people at a cost of say, $10 billion, where would you divert the money from?

Rodeo Burger wrote:

If you could save a few hundred people at a cost of say, $10 billion, where would you divert the money from?

Kids with AIDS? I don't know... We're basically saying the same thing though. You're playing the slightly more altruistic card by pointing out opportunity cost and I'm going more pessimistic and blaming greedy pharmaceutical companies that would rather pump out another penis drug.

Edit- so in answer to your question... I'd get the $10 billion by halting penis drug research for 3 months.

Chitown_Badger wrote:

Would be interesting to see how quickly the gubment funneled resources to finding a cure if/when the first case hits US soil.

Of course, tons of work may have already been done trying to find a cure and I just don't know about it because ebola is not an area I study in my free time.

Don't count on it. The illegals from central American have already brought up a resistant form of TB and something called Chagas.

Green Note wrote:

Don't count on it. The illegals from central American have already brought up a resistant form of TB and something called Chagas.

Can you source that from somewhere not called "Conservative Daily" or otherwise? I'm not calling you a liar... But I am saying that that's smells of something that would come from that kind of source...

Rodeo Burger wrote:

If you could save a few hundred people at a cost of say, $10 billion, where would you divert the money from?

I'd say pharmaceutical companies could have diverted a little of what they spent solving the erectile dysfunction crisis.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Kids with AIDS? I don't know... We're basically saying the same thing though. You're playing the slightly more altruistic card by pointing out opportunity cost and I'm going more pessimistic and blaming greedy pharmaceutical companies that would rather pump out another penis drug.

Edit- so in answer to your question... I'd get the $10 billion by halting penis drug research for 3 months.

Cym Jim wrote:

I'd say pharmaceutical companies could have diverted a little of what they spent solving the erectile dysfunction crisis.

Fair enough, that seems like a good trade off.

Another solution could be to allow all research to continue, but to permanently ban Big Pharma from advertising directly to consumers (which is nothing more than coaching them to demand drugs from their physicians IMO).

We've got another flesh-eating thing much closer to home.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/vibrio-vulnificus-flesh-eating-ocean-bacteria-hospitalizes-32-kills-10-in-florida

Cym Jim wrote:

I'd say pharmaceutical companies could have diverted a little of what they spent solving the erectile dysfunction crisis.

What! No more old people boners!

How about the trillions spent on weapons to the Middle East. Let the fuckers fight with rocks and sticks.

Rodeo Burger wrote:



Fair enough, that seems like a good trade off.

Another solution could be to allow all research to continue, but to permanently ban Big Pharma from advertising directly to consumers (which is nothing more than coaching them to demand drugs from their physicians IMO).

Disagree, More info the better. Docs need to be held accountable for the insane amount of prescriptions they write

Hut1hut2 wrote:

What! No more old people boners!

How about the trillions spent on weapons to the Middle East. Let the fuckers fight with rocks and sticks.

The sooner we close the gates to anyone from Mongobongoland the better, amirite?

Chagas, TB, and gang bangers walking across the boarder are much more of a threat than ebola. Ebola is hard to catch in a country with running water and sanitation. However, a toilet on a plane where one infected person is blowing out their o-ring and failing to properly wash their hands could pose a risk.