Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama lied to you. He knew the risk was not extremely low:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-found-nearly-25-percent-chance-ebola-184611722.html

Oh, please.

The study found there was a twenty-five percent chance that we would see a case here. Despite this, the president said our overall Ebola vulnerability remains very low, which is true. Importing a single case does not equal a U.S. epidemic, as evidenced by the fact that we have seen only two additional cases since Duncan and none outside the hospital setting. The president was right. We will contain it, just as Nigeria did.

25% is not very low. why not say 'the study showed a 25% chance of it arriving on outpr shores by end of Sept". That's the truth, is. It not? How do you think people would have reacted to such news?

The President's CDC appt has lied multiple times, and has been caught in them.

I'm glad you have such faith. You are in the minority

You are being deliberately obtuse. The chances of a single case are not that low but the chances of a US epidemic are extremely low. The latter is what the president was speaking to. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

I do understand it. I also understand that instead of simply releasing the findings of the study to the American public, and acting to reduce the immediate risk of a patient 0, he his it and chose to take the path he did. Ask yourself why.

So you agree then that Obama did not "lie". Glad to hear we're on the same page.

Do you just rely on yahoo for news? They did not accurately quote the study.

..."It is possible to observe that the probability of importation is relatively small (<5%) for countries not in the African region, with the exception of the United Kingdom (UK). The probability of importation in a four weeks horizon (22 September) increases, but does not exceed the 25% threshold with the exception of Ghana and Gambia.

Here is the entire study quoted in that story."
http://currents.plos.org/outbreaks/article/assessing-the-international-spreading-risk-associated-with-the-2014-west-african-ebola-outbreak/

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, why are you deleting posts about the Nigerean man who died on route to JFK after vomiting profusely in his seat?

Please post messages like this in website feedback so that this thread does not get derailed (as it would have been by posting a message about a guy who didn't have ebola).

Determined by a cursory walk-on by CDC, not testing

Are you going to react this way to every African that vomits from now on? Nigeria has had practically no ebola. This is part and parcel of your and others' attempt to generate mass hysteria of the "everything has changed" style illustrated in a post above.

It's here now. Being prepared means staying alert. There is now a lecel 4 virus in this country that the CDC is being lax about. Everything has changed, my friend.

Being alert and aware is always prudent. In bars, in your home, walking outside. Read The Gift Of Fear. It highlights the balance quite well

Had i not been alert and aware, I would have not noticed the man following me in my car. I would have not noticed him hide his car behind a gas station row of pumps when I deliberately stopped at a populated convenience store. Worse yet, I could have dismissed my rational mind as hysterical, and allowed him to follow me home. Police tell me that without my rational, quick thinking, I would be a statistic today. So yes, I trust myself

Liberals like yourself adopt a laisse faire attitude about everything, making you dangerous to others. Then you gaslight by saying they are hysterical. I can't imagine being so naive - or so cruel

A man followed you to your car so you now need to post multiple posts about any African that vomits? Does that seem sane to you?

Gaslighting again I see. It doesn't work on me

Being alert and aware protects us all. In criminal situations, in health situations, in everyday situations. That's just fact

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes! This is exactly the point! Add to that, who can we trust after being lied to by CDC?

When did the CDC lie? I know that you earlier posted saying that you believed Duncan's fiancé had ebola and the government was covering it up. Is that the "lie" you are describing?

They lied when they threw both nurses under the bus. They knew she traveled and they knew she called in. Please!

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you please quote the lie?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Gaslighting again I see. It doesn't work on me

Being alert and aware protects us all. In criminal situations, in health situations, in everyday situations. That's just fact

I agree that being alert protects us all. But, posting multiple times about an African vomiting is not simply being alert. It is being pretty crazy. You never answered my earlier question. Do you plan to post multiple times about every African that vomits from now on?

[Anonymous]

On another note...

Here is something interesting and pertinent: Research on the Transmission of Disease in Airports and on Aircraft ( http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/163870.aspx )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My opinion of DCUM posters has never been so low.

Why?

New poster--this thread is appalling to me. Posters seem to be actively rooting for an Ebola outbreak in this country because it would make President Obama look bad. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You're projecting.

[Anonymous]

The political forum is still functioning, right?! Why can't you people go blame Obama over there? Done of us actually want to discuss the virus.

[Anonymous]

Some*

[Anonymous]

A rational discussion of this is not possible here. There is no way for an anonymous forum to maintain civil, informed discourse as long as there are a couple of ill-informed hysterics willing to blow up the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On another note...

Here is something interesting and pertinent: Research on the Transmission of Disease in Airports and on Aircraft ( http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/163870.aspx )

Could you highlight any relevant info? The doc is 70 pigs with no exec summary, the data are 5 yrs old at best & I doubt it specifically addresses Ebola....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A rational discussion of this is not possible here. There is no way for an anonymous forum to maintain civil, informed discourse as long as there are a couple of ill-informed hysterics willing to blow up the thread.

Name calling doesn't help either. "Do as I say, don't do as I do" LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, why are you deleting posts about the Nigerean man who died on route to JFK after vomiting profusely in his seat?

Good question. I have already raised to Jeff I feel he's being very iron fisted in his management of this topic based on his own opinion of the situation. I love this site, but it puts me off that as the moderator he's being so partisan. It's obvious through his posts he's a democrat. Everyone has a right to comment...but it would be way more professional to log in under a different username.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, why are you deleting posts about the Nigerean man who died on route to JFK after vomiting profusely in his seat?

Good question. I have already raised to Jeff I feel he's being very iron fisted in his management of this topic based on his own opinion of the situation. I love this site, but it puts me off that as the moderator he's being so partisan. It's obvious through his posts he's a democrat. Everyone has a right to comment...but it would be way more professional to log in under a different username.

The man did not have ebola. He was not from a country in which there is an ebola outbreak. Do you really want a post about every African that vomits from now on?

If attempting to be rational is indicative of being a Democrat, then I'm guilty as charged. But, I think that trying to keep threads on topic is the role of moderators of all political persuasions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, why are you deleting posts about the Nigerean man who died on route to JFK after vomiting profusely in his seat?

Good question. I have already raised to Jeff I feel he's being very iron fisted in his management of this topic based on his own opinion of the situation. I love this site, but it puts me off that as the moderator he's being so partisan. It's obvious through his posts he's a democrat. Everyone has a right to comment...but it would be way more professional to log in under a different username.

Probably because it's been ruled out that he had EBola. Jeff is likely trying to keep the rumors, fear mongering, and conspiracy theorists from overtaking this forum. I'm sure there are many other sites you can discuss this on.

Signed someone who isn't a fan of OBama but is glad Jeff is trying to control at least some of this from taking over the forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, why are you deleting posts about the Nigerean man who died on route to JFK after vomiting profusely in his seat?

Good question. I have already raised to Jeff I feel he's being very iron fisted in his management of this topic based on his own opinion of the situation. I love this site, but it puts me off that as the moderator he's being so partisan. It's obvious through his posts he's a democrat. Everyone has a right to comment...but it would be way more professional to log in under a different username.

Probably because it's been ruled out that he had EBola. Jeff is likely trying to keep the rumors, fear mongering, and conspiracy theorists from overtaking this forum. I'm sure there are many other sites you can discuss this on.

Signed someone who isn't a fan of OBama but is glad Jeff is trying to control at least some of this from taking over the forum.

I get that. I'm not the vomit poster, btw. I did post that Jeff should provide his opinions under a different username. What was the point of creating this site if not allowing free discussion? I do agree there should be management, and generally he is reasonable, but this issue has struck a nerve with him...and, that okay. But, it's incredibly unprofessional to both manage a site and interject your strong inion constantly. I think you need to Log in under a different name with the commentary. It is professional and facilitates the process of free speech. Plus, you also don't have people thinking your deleting posts because you don't agreed with the content. It's unprofessional.

Anyway, I don't want to derail the conversation. I won't mention this again.