I'm confused again.  The UN thinks travel restrictions on Ebola-ravaged countries are misguided, because they don't reflect the way the disease is transmitted, which is (apparently usually) by direct contact during an overtly symptomatic period.  It's as if the UN spokesman thought the only concern was that fellow passengers in an airplane might be infected; if the passenger has no fever when he boards, everything is in all likelihood going to be fine.  But that's not really the only issue, is it?  We just had a rather graphic example of what happens when someone still feels fine when he lands, but becomes symptomatic later, and wanders all over the place throwing up on the public for a few days before someone puts a net over him and gets him into isolation.

It's hard for me to understand why we wouldn't, at a minimum, quarantine for 21 days everyone who presents himself at our borders direct from an Ebola hotspot.  Yes, people will be able to get around this restriction by taking an indirect route, and there is that problem of the completely porous southern border, but it would at least help.

I'm sorry, I just realized I'm taking up digital space criticizing a policy advocated by a UN representative.  On the other hand, the CDC seems to be on the same page, so maybe it's worth talking about after all.


Grim said...

Quarantine makes perfect sense to me also. It's a great difficulty to impose on someone, but this is an epidemic disease with horrifying effects. It's not like this is the chicken pox.

Ymar Sakar said...

Wake me up when Obamanation turns into Obola nation.

Until then, it's Leftist alliance SOP as usual. Enjoy watching the world burn. It's better than being at Ground Zero, from what I am told.

It's a great difficulty to impose on someone, but this is an epidemic disease with horrifying effects.

It makes more sense to me that the Regime responsible for CPS Texas farming out children to child molestors, to be pardoning rapists, murderers, and genocide acts of biological warfare using Ebola.

Ymar Sakar said...

How are people liking their October surprise btw?

There might be more brewing, so hold on. Can't get presents for everyone.

Anonymous said...

I suggested firing Thomas Frieden after his first public statement on Ebola, and tis does nothing to change my opinion. He will not be effective to contain anything.

Texan99 said...


The best people are on it.

raven said...

Does there come a point when incompetence is functionally identical to ill intention?

Grim said...

Depending on what you mean by 'function.' Peter Abelard thought that incompetence wouldn't get you into Hell.

raven said...

Speaking of the temporal not spiritual.

For example, could Elfinstone (sp?)have done any worse had he just ordered the British Troops to form opposing ranks and shoot each other, rather than to attempt perhaps the worst retreat in history?
Maybe that old movie had it right, with a few changes- "Evil is as evil does"

Grim said...

Well, Elphinstone was good at Waterloo. An evil man might have been evil throughout.