Yes, because being paranoid, and therefore proactive is totally stupid. We should have at least half a million dead, scrambling, running around like chickens with our heads cut off to try and stop the spread of the disease. That's actually "preferable."

This thing is something like 50% lethal at its best, and is highly contagious.

Victor shows us, once again, the benefits of a "higher education"...

I dunno, given the time it would take to get a treatment in the works on a mass scale, and distributed adequately, I think a little paranoia and over-reaction isn't all that bad.

But I think this also doesn't help Victor's argument:

http://news.yahoo.com/ebola-diagnosed-in-second-dallas-nurse-105542930.html 

Second Dallas health care worker infected with deadly Ebola virus

DALLAS – A second Texas health care worker who treated Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan has become infected with the deadly disease, health officials announced early Wednesday.

The female hospital staffer reported a fever on Tuesday and was immediately isolated at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, officials said.

A bleary-eyed Dr. Daniel Varga, the hospital's chief clinical officer, called the second worker's infection “an unprecedented crisis” during a news conference.


The employee's name, age, and position have not been released.

“This is a heroic person, a person who has dedicated her life to helping others and is a servant leader,” Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins said during a news conference.

The woman was among 76 hospital workers who cared for Duncan, a Liberian citizen who died from Ebola at Texas Health Presbyterian a week ago.




Call me crazy, but I think if the staff was properly trained on how to handle this disease, we wouldn't have two healthcare workers contracting it, now would we?

Victor shows us, once again, the benefits of a "higher education"...

jpotts wrote:

You must not have even read my article.
Sounds just like you potts.

My argument is that it isn't a disaster yet, and everyone is running around blaming the other side for a disaster that hasn't happened yet.

This isn't about "paranoia" or about being prepared.

It's about both sides declaring this a "disaster" when the disaster hasn't occurred yet.

But hey... look, you're already trying to figure out how to blame people too... with your "if the staff was properly trained..."

victor809 wrote:

Victor, you really are an Ignorant slug to believe that we need to wait for an all out epidemic to occur!!! If this is what " higher edumication " does for you, I'll pass.

TMCTLT wrote:

You must not have even read my article.
Sounds just like you potts.

My argument is that it isn't a disaster yet, and everyone is running around blaming the other side for a disaster that hasn't happened yet.

This isn't about "paranoia" or about being prepared.

It's about both sides declaring this a "disaster" when the disaster hasn't occurred yet.

But hey... look, you're already trying to figure out how to blame people too... with your "if the staff was properly trained..."

victor809 wrote:

Reading comprehension people. The article is about blame and whining.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that we should NOT wait for a disaster to occur before blaming people for its occurrence?

Are you pro premature blaming?

I am not saying we shouldn't be treating the epidemic in africa like what it is, an epidemic (incidentally, the article doesn't say we shouldn't etiher). It's saying a few infected people in the US does not yet make a disaster which should immediately be blamed on (insert the political party you hate)... and yes, the article points out and chastises BOTH sides for doing this.

victor809 wrote: