Obama regime trying to "restrain Ebola panic"? Umm, what panic?

[Little-Acorn]

There's been a lot of discussion about whether to impose standard curfews for a deadly disease like Ebola. And also a lot of screaming by Democrats at anyone who proposed them, pretending the proposers are "panicking".

Those Democrats should look a little closer to home for "panic". Starting by looking in their own mirrors.

---------------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2014/10/29/hysterical-media-tells-us-to-calm-down-n1911751/page/full

Hysterical Media Tells Us To Calm Down
Ann Coulter | Oct 29, 2014

In the past week, The New York Times has ridiculed Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Gov. Chris Christie for having "fed panic" by ordering quarantines for health workers arriving from Ebola-plagued countries.

NBC News' Brian Williams opened his broadcast last Friday announcing that the Obama administration was trying "to restrain the Ebola panic."

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow complained that the "hysteria" over Ebola was getting "stupider."

I haven't noticed any panic. If you want panic, review media coverage of the police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. That hair-on-fire coverage was based entirely, it turns out, on the media's gullibly swallowing inaccurate accounts of the incident.

For decades liberals have terrified soccer moms about a slew of imaginary terrors: global warming, Alar on apples, breast implants, heterosexual AIDS, nuclear war, and Republicans taking away their birth control.

Nannies rushed to grade schools to yank apples out of little children's hands, elderly married couples got tested for AIDS, and students at Ivy League colleges demanded that their health departments stock cyanide pills in case of nuclear attack. (Because the Russkies were definitely hitting Ithaca, New York, and Providence, Rhode Island, first.)

And then, except for a few heterosexual AIDS victims -- who also happened to be intravenous drug users -- no American ever died from a single one of these liberal-hyped dangers.

[Drummond]

There's been a lot of discussion about whether to impose standard curfews for a deadly disease like Ebola. And also a lot of screaming by Democrats at anyone who proposed them, pretending the proposers are "panicking".

Those Democrats should look a little closer to home for "panic". Starting by looking in their own mirrors.

---------------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2014/10/29/hysterical-media-tells-us-to-calm-down-n1911751/page/full

Hysterical Media Tells Us To Calm Down
Ann Coulter | Oct 29, 2014

In the past week, The New York Times has ridiculed Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Gov. Chris Christie for having "fed panic" by ordering quarantines for health workers arriving from Ebola-plagued countries.

NBC News' Brian Williams opened his broadcast last Friday announcing that the Obama administration was trying "to restrain the Ebola panic."

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow complained that the "hysteria" over Ebola was getting "stupider."

I haven't noticed any panic. If you want panic, review media coverage of the police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. That hair-on-fire coverage was based entirely, it turns out, on the media's gullibly swallowing inaccurate accounts of the incident.

For decades liberals have terrified soccer moms about a slew of imaginary terrors: global warming, Alar on apples, breast implants, heterosexual AIDS, nuclear war, and Republicans taking away their birth control.

Nannies rushed to grade schools to yank apples out of little children's hands, elderly married couples got tested for AIDS, and students at Ivy League colleges demanded that their health departments stock cyanide pills in case of nuclear attack. (Because the Russkies were definitely hitting Ithaca, New York, and Providence, Rhode Island, first.)

And then, except for a few heterosexual AIDS victims -- who also happened to be intravenous drug users -- no American ever died from a single one of these liberal-hyped dangers.

Trying to downplay the seriousness - and the need to properly guard against - Ebola, seems to be just about a universal Leftie approach to it.

I spent some of last Saturday in the company of a couple of 'local' Lefties (one travelling to my locality from Leicester, to watch his favourite soccer team, who decided to stop off along the way for some drinks at a local pub). Anyway ... they were united in their approach to this - namely, that the UK need not apply stringent border controls, and absolutely NOT want to reverse the EU's open border policy. No amount of arguing saw them budge so much as an inch on that.

To them, open borders within the EU, allowing free movement between every member State, is an inviolable principle. It matters not at all to them what might be happening in the world. Plague, pestilence, even nomadic Lefties (!!!) .... they're happy with it all. Because Political Correctness Decrees It, Open Borders Must Be Defended, To The Hilt.

Heaven forbid that some actual PRAGMATIC REALISM should ever intrude on their political 'la la land' world ...

I tell you ... leave Lefties to their own devices, the power to achieve whatever they want, and they could literally kill the lot of us !!

[fj1200]

Umm, what panic?

Um, you apparently haven't been keeping up with the panic right her on 'ol DP.

[Drummond]

Um, you apparently haven't been keeping up with the panic right her on 'ol DP.

... HAH !!!

I rest my case !!!!

[fj1200]

... HAH !!!

I rest my case !!!!

As do I. Offending idiot #1 is never too far away are you?


I tell you ... leave Lefties to their own devices, the power to achieve whatever they want, and they could literally kill the lot of us !!

:rolleyes:

[Drummond]

As do I. Offending idiot #1 is never too far away are you?



:rolleyes:

Thank you, FJ. You wanted an account of Leftie positions you adopt ? You're limbering up to take one, right now !!

So, OK. Since you're present here to comment, would you care to explain why Lefties are so determined to keep us placid about this disease ? Why are your lot trying to keep everyone so 'off the ball' and disinterested in taking the maximum precautions against its spread ?

- Try not to hijack this thread ...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thank you, FJ. You wanted an account of Leftie positions you adopt ? You're limbering up to take one, right now !!

So, OK. Since you're present here to comment, would you care to explain why Lefties are so determined to keep us placid about this disease ? Why are your lot trying to keep everyone so 'off the ball' and uninterested in taking the maximum precautions against its spread ?
Yes he is....
He loves to (he thinks) cleverly get in the left-side talking points..
Pose the so-called "enlightened version" of things and then say it was just him presenting the other side for fairness and balance.
Well, what fairness is there when the majority of the other side is damn lies and spins? --Tyr

[Drummond]

Yes he is....
He loves to (he thinks) cleverly get in the left-side talking points..
Pose the so-called "enlightened version" of things and then say it was just him presenting the other side for fairness and balance.
Well, what fairness is there when the majority of the other side is damn lies and spins? --Tyr

Well put !! (I'd add 'clapping' smilies to this, only the computer I'm using right now isn't my regular one, and isn't allowing it ....) ...

Anyway, we have a Leftie expert here. He should feel free to explain his comrades' destructive thinking on this.

Speak up, FJ !!

[fj1200]

... why Lefties are so determined...

You'll have to ask an actual leftie you idiot.


Yes he is...

Ah, offending idiot #2 who thinks everyone is out to get him thus proving my statement. Thank you.


Speak up, FJ !!

How can I hijack when you've already done it? :dunno:

[Drummond]

You'll have to ask an actual leftie you idiot.

I was. And am. Pay attention, please.

Why won't you answer what you've been asked ? Afraid of giving yourself away, even MORE than usual ?


Ah, offending idiot #2 who thinks everyone is out to get him thus proving my statement. Thank you.

... the second Conservative you've decided to attack on this thread today, just within the past couple of hours. Good grief ...

Did it ever occur to you to STOP attacking Conservatives here ? Or does your Leftieism keep getting in the way ?


How can I hijack when you've already done it? :dunno:

Your last post answers that one !!

As I've said elsewhere - you should now stop.

Now - ARE you going to answer this mystery about Leftie insisted-upon myopia about Ebola ?

[fj1200]

I was. And am. Pay attention, please.

Why won't you answer what you've been asked ? Afraid of giving yourself away, even MORE than usual ?

Your premise was faulty as usual idiot.


... the second Conservative you've decided to attack on this thread today, just within the past couple of hours. Good grief ...

Did it ever occur to you to STOP attacking Conservatives here ? Or does your Leftieism keep getting in the way ?

I'll stop attacking idiots when you stop attacking a conservative. :thumb:


Your last post answers that one !!

As I've said elsewhere - you should now stop.

Now - ARE you going to answer this mystery about Leftie insisted-upon myopia about Ebola ?

How stupid are you??? don't answer that yet... to ask me to stop and then ask a trolling question? You can answer that you're pretty stupid now. I can't answer what lefties insist upon regarding myopia but I can point out idiots when repeat their panic about Ebola in the first place.

[Trigg]

there is alreay a thread dedicated to the two of you arguing about ebola, does there need to be another?

[fj1200]

there is alreay a thread dedicated to the two of you arguing about ebola, does there need to be another?

You should ask the hypocritical idiot. He keeps trolling me. :)

EDIT: And technically we're not arguing about Ebola. He's spreading false arguments and I feel I must knock them out of the park.

[gabosaurus]

I see no reason why there should be a panic. Or even a quarantine. If you follow proper sanitary habits and don't kiss an infected person, you have ZERO chance to catching Ebola.
You can be five feet from an infected person and not catch the disease.

[jimnyc]

I see no reason why there should be a panic. Or even a quarantine. If you follow proper sanitary habits and don't kiss an infected person, you have ZERO chance to catching Ebola.
You can be five feet from an infected person and not catch the disease.

CDC admits droplets from a sneeze could spread Ebola (http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/cdc-admits-droplets-from-a-sneeze-could-spread-ebola/)

Ebola is a lot easier to catch than health officials have admitted — and can be contracted by contact with a doorknob contaminated by a sneeze from an infected person an hour or more before, experts told The Post Tuesday.

“If you are sniffling and sneezing, you produce microorganisms that can get on stuff in a room. If people touch them, they could be” infected, said Dr. Meryl Nass, of the Institute for Public Accuracy in Washington, DC.

Nass pointed to a poster the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly released on its Web site saying the deadly virus can be spread through “droplets.”

“Droplet spread happens when germs traveling inside droplets that are coughed or sneezed from a sick person enter the eyes, nose or mouth of another person,” the poster states.

Nass slammed the contradiction.

“The CDC said it doesn’t spread at all by air, then Friday they came out with this poster,” she said. “They admit that these particles or droplets may land on objects such as doorknobs and that Ebola can be transmitted that way.”

Dr. Rossi Hassad, a professor of epidemiology at Mercy College, said droplets could remain active for up to a day.

http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/cdc-admits-droplets-from-a-sneeze-could-spread-ebola/

[Drummond]

there is alreay a thread dedicated to the two of you arguing about ebola, does there need to be another?

Arguing exists because I'm not getting straight answers to straight questions ... questions I asked in posts #6 and #8 on this thread.

How FJ answers is up to him. That he's not done so, is also up to him.

I wanted to learn what explains the Leftie attitude to this disease. It is a serious inquiry.

I'd like an answer.

[Drummond]

I see no reason why there should be a panic. Or even a quarantine. If you follow proper sanitary habits and don't kiss an infected person, you have ZERO chance to catching Ebola.
You can be five feet from an infected person and not catch the disease.

Good grief ....

--OK. FJ, thus far, has ducked this (... as only FJ can do ...). Perhaps you will answer my query, instead ? Gabby, will you explain, truthfully, why Lefties are insistent upon peddling this complacent line ?? I've seen it over here. Evidently, your lot over there in America are doing the very same thing.

We've seen (I'm assuming you have, too) pictures of people going into infected villages wearing protective suits which are only one step away from the sort of stuff NASA was pleased to issue to Apollo astronauts. Now, have even these precautions been totally effective, OR, are we getting reports of returning doctors who have to be PUT INTO ISOLATION upon their return to their native countries ??

The story of the latest Ebola outbreak, thus far, has been of authorities being caught out by not doing ENOUGH of a vigilant nature. Result ... it's spreading, as it is !! Only this evening I saw a report stating that dead infected bodies are having to be burned to stop them being causes of infections themselves !

This hardly squares with your claims above, now, does it ? [Or, is Ebola perhaps animating dead bodies, 'zombie' style, and they're going around kissing people ??]

[Drummond]

CDC admits droplets from a sneeze could spread Ebola (http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/cdc-admits-droplets-from-a-sneeze-could-spread-ebola/)



Ebola is a lot easier to catch than health officials have admitted — and can be contracted by contact with a doorknob contaminated by a sneeze from an infected person an hour or more before, experts told The Post Tuesday.

“If you are sniffling and sneezing, you produce microorganisms that can get on stuff in a room. If people touch them, they could be” infected, said Dr. Meryl Nass, of the Institute for Public Accuracy in Washington, DC.

Nass pointed to a poster the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly released on its Web site saying the deadly virus can be spread through “droplets.”

“Droplet spread happens when germs traveling inside droplets that are coughed or sneezed from a sick person enter the eyes, nose or mouth of another person,” the poster states.

Nass slammed the contradiction.

“The CDC said it doesn’t spread at all by air, then Friday they came out with this poster,” she said. “They admit that these particles or droplets may land on objects such as doorknobs and that Ebola can be transmitted that way.”

Dr. Rossi Hassad, a professor of epidemiology at Mercy College, said droplets could remain active for up to a day.

http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/cdc-admits-droplets-from-a-sneeze-could-spread-ebola/

Thanks, Jim. This is a lot more realistic.

I see things getting orders of magnitude worse. I can't speak for the hottest environments to be found in the southern US .. but certainly in more northerly latitudes, the combination of winter colds and flu, and now with the prospect of Ebola added to the mix, seems to me to guarantee perfect conditions for Ebola to spread like wildfire.

Perhaps I'm fortunate -- I'm imminently due to retire, so I won't have to be in an environment with people sneezing all over me at any or all times of the day (much less have to touch objects carrying infection as part of a nearly unavoidable routine). But, really .. could you ask for better conditions for its spread than we are due to get in the coming weeks ?

Cue some passing Leftie (either wanting to openly be one, or choosing not to be ?) to come along with a soothing yet worthless set of assurances for us all ?

[PixieStix]

I see no reason why there should be a panic. Or even a quarantine. If you follow proper sanitary habits and don't kiss an infected person, you have ZERO chance to catching Ebola.
You can be five feet from an infected person and not catch the disease.

People place money in the strangest places. Can you imagine working with money all day? I bet it is really clean and stuff

Gabby I watched a documentary that was filmed in march and aired in july. This was BEFORE our the first infected person came to our country

I trust what that documentary says. Ebola is very contagious.

[Drummond]

People place money in the strangest places. Can you imagine working with money all day? I bet it is really clean and stuff

Gabby I watched a documentary that was filmed in march and aired in july. This was BEFORE our the first infected person came to our country

I trust what that documentary says. Ebola is very contagious.

.... as I also trust that when doctors go into infected African villages, they're not covering every millimetre of skin with protective clothing just to make an especially bizarre fashion statement !!

WAY more should be being done to stop Ebola's spread, than IS being done, that's my view. Give it a couple more months, and I think there will be a massive public outcry, wanting to know how and why there was ever any complacency about recognising what was potentially coming.

[PixieStix]

.... as I also trust that when doctors go into infected African villages, they're not covering every millimetre of skin with protective clothing just to make an especially bizarre fashion statement !!

WAY more should be being done to stop Ebola's spread, than IS being done, that's my view. Give it a couple more months, and I think there will be a massive public outcry, wanting to know how and why there was ever any complacency about recognising what was potentially coming.

I could not agree more Drummond

[gabosaurus]

Once again, you need to be in contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person to catch ebola. The virus is not going to live two months on a shred of paper. Nor is it going to travel great distances through the air.
Why do aid workers cover every inch of their bodies with protected clothing? Because they are usually in direct contact with an infected person.
I am more worried about influenza. Or equally infectious diseases like malaria.

The media is an expert is scare tactics. If you don't worry people, they won't continue to tune in.
Politicians are the same way. How better to seize the needed spotlight than to spread gloom and doom. And blame their opponent for the spread of ebola.

[Drummond]

Once again, you need to be in contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person to catch ebola. The virus is not going to live two months on a shred of paper. Nor is it going to travel great distances through the air.
Why do aid workers cover every inch of their bodies with protected clothing? Because they are usually in direct contact with an infected person.
I am more worried about influenza. Or equally infectious diseases like malaria.

The media is an expert is scare tactics. If you don't worry people, they won't continue to tune in.
Politicians are the same way. How better to seize the needed spotlight than to spread gloom and doom. And blame their opponent for the spread of ebola.

Some fascinating efforts at ramming complacency down our throats, in this lot !!!

OK, Gabby - to deal with the points I've highlighted ...

1. Nor is it going to travel great distances through the air.

You're sure about that ?

How far does a sneeze travel ? At what speed ? What's the density of vapour, or droplets, necessary for contracting Ebola-contaminated droplets ?

Imagine yourself on the New York Subway, or the London Underground .. on a packed train, people crammed together, in a rush hour. In that carriage is an infected passenger, who sneezes a couple of times during the journey.

None of the fellow passengers have thought to wear space suits for their journeys.

Now imagine yourself trying to convince all those passengers that they have absolutely no need for concern .....

2. Because they are usually in direct contact with an infected person.

See above. Much of my comments will apply.

Where there's one infected person, one day, there could be a hundred a couple of hours later.

3. I am more worried about influenza.

To each their own, Gabby. But let me ask: are the mortality percentages for influenza anything like as high as for Ebola ?

Do we hear of air passengers being screened for 'flu, upon arrival ?

Which would you rather contract ? The flu ... or Ebola ?

[fj1200]

Arguing exists because I'm not getting straight answers to straight questions ... questions I asked in posts #6 and #8 on this thread.

How FJ answers is up to him. That he's not done so, is also up to him.

I wanted to learn what explains the Leftie attitude to this disease. It is a serious inquiry.

I'd like an answer.

:facepalm99: Here's a serious inquiry: How hard do you have to work to be as dumb as you are? Only an idiot such as yourself is unable to see the flaw in your question.

[Jeff]

I see no reason why there should be a panic. Or even a quarantine. If you follow proper sanitary habits and don't kiss an infected person, you have ZERO chance to catching Ebola.
You can be five feet from an infected person and not catch the disease.

So that healthcare worker that caught it in Tx had to kiss the patient , dam whore :rolleyes:

[Trigg]

Once again, you need to be in contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person to catch ebola. The virus is not going to live two months on a shred of paper. Nor is it going to travel great distances through the air.
Why do aid workers cover every inch of their bodies with protected clothing? Because they are usually in direct contact with an infected person.
I am more worried about influenza. Or equally infectious diseases like malaria.

The media is an expert is scare tactics. If you don't worry people, they won't continue to tune in.
Politicians are the same way. How better to seize the needed spotlight than to spread gloom and doom. And blame their opponent for the spread of ebola.

Ebola is just as easy to catch as any other virus, since it can and does live on hard surfaces. It is just as easy to catch as the flu since they are both viruses and are spread exactly the same way.



I see no reason why there should be a panic. Or even a quarantine. If you follow proper sanitary habits and don't kiss an infected person, you have ZERO chance to catching Ebola.
You can be five feet from an infected person and not catch the disease.

I'm sure everyone is careful around people with colds, they wash their hands and don't kiss them. But a cold is a VIRUS, so if someone sneezes and then touches a doorknob that virus is going to sit there and the next person to touch it is going to get the cold.

[Nukeman]

Ebola is just as easy to catch as any other virus, since it can and does live on hard surfaces. It is just as easy to catch as the flu since they are both viruses and are spread exactly the same way.




I'm sure everyone is careful around people with colds, they wash their hands and don't kiss them. But a cold is a VIRUS, so if someone sneezes and then touches a doorknob that virus is going to sit there and the next person to touch it is going to get the cold.And here is the article..

http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/cdc-admits-droplets-from-a-sneeze-could-spread-ebola/


Ebola is a lot easier to catch than health officials have admitted — and can be contracted by contact with a doorknob contaminated by a sneeze from an infected person an hour or more before, experts told The Post Tuesday.
“If you are sniffling and sneezing, you produce microorganisms that can get on stuff in a room. If people touch them, they could be” infected, said Dr. Meryl Nass, of the Institute for Public Accuracy in Washington, DC.
Nass pointed to a poster the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly released on its Web site saying the deadly virus can be spread through “droplets.”
“Droplet spread happens when germs traveling inside droplets that are coughed or sneezed from a sick person enter the eyes, nose or mouth of another person,” the poster states.
Nass slammed the contradiction.
“The CDC said it doesn’t spread at all by air, then Friday they came out with this poster,” she said. “They admit that these particles or droplets may land on objects such as doorknobs and that Ebola can be transmitted that way.”

[Drummond]

:facepalm99: Here's a serious inquiry: How hard do you have to work to be as dumb as you are? Only an idiot such as yourself is unable to see the flaw in your question.

Thanks for your latest round of abuse. So kind ...

Now ... here's something of a revolutionary thought. How about ANSWERING the questions I put to you ? Do I have a snowball's chance in hell of seeing you do that ?

I've no intention of asking again. Life's too short. [I want to fill it with something comparably more excitement-packed .. such as watching paint dry ..]

[fj1200]

Thanks for your latest round of abuse. So kind ...

Now ... here's something of a revolutionary thought. How about ANSWERING the questions I put to you ? Do I have a snowball's chance in hell of seeing you do that ?

I've no intention of asking again. Life's too short. [I want to fill it with something comparably more excitement-packed .. such as watching paint dry ..]

You ask stupid questions with a faulty premise. Are you to stupid to realize that? If I told you nicely would you realize your error? I think not.

But here's a question; if you think lefties are too lax about Ebola why are the knuckleheads taking the hair-on-fire attitude?

[Drummond]

You ask stupid questions with a faulty premise. Are you to stupid to realize that? If I told you nicely would you realize your error? I think not.

But here's a question; if you think lefties are too lax about Ebola why are the knuckleheads taking the hair-on-fire attitude?

I might consider answering your question (which is more than you do with mine ..) ... if I could even understand it.

Clarification questions: who are these 'knuckleheads' you refer to ? Any names to offer ?

And .. the 'hair on fire attitude'. What, EXACTLY, are you suggesting by that ?

To take all possible precautions is sensible, prudent, and, dare I say it ... a CONSERVATIVE approach. Can you explain why such resistance to such sheer commonsense persists ?

[.. and answering 'Because it's the Leftie thing to do' will not satisfy me ..]

[fj1200]

I might consider answering your question (which is more than you do with mine ..) ... if I could even understand it.

Clarification questions: who are these 'knuckleheads' you refer to ? Any names to offer ?

And .. the 'hair on fire attitude'. What, EXACTLY, are you suggesting by that ?

To take all possible precautions is sensible, prudent, and, dare I say it ... a CONSERVATIVE approach. Can you explain why such resistance to such sheer commonsense persists ?

[.. and answering 'Because it's the Leftie thing to do' will not satisfy me ..]

My god you are one stupid idiot. If you have to ask those follow ups it only proves the truth of my statement. I have no problem with common sense precautions. You'll have to ask those evil leftie, commie, gay, muzzy globalists who are to get you why they think what they think.

[sundaydriver]

Aside from the media overplaying the story as they do with all too many stories, any panic was unfounded. People from the US had been treating and studying Ebola cases in Africa for decades and coming home. The major difference this time is the heavy population density in which it occurred.

BY the time it is contagious the carrier is very, very ill and not out walking around. That is why it is referred to as the Caretaker's Disease since they are the most exposed to the body fluids as the carriers body ruptures from the interior spilling it's fluids.

While cleaning out my garage the other day it struck me that I have 3 lawnmowers for every Ebola death in the US. That put it in proper perspective for me, but le your panic continue.