Sunday, October 12

CDC director writes long piece on why banning commercial flights will make things worse. But...

CDC Director Tom Friedman wrote an article for Fox News on why we should NOT ban flights from nations with large numbers of Ebola patients.

The article is filled with contradictions and faulty logic.  One possible but unlikely explanation is that Friedman is really that stupid.  The other is that Friedman is a standard Democrat hack who believes Americans are stupid and can be lied to brazenly and with impunity.  You decide:
The first case of Ebola diagnosed in the United States has caused some to call on the United States to ban travel for anyone from the countries in West Africa facing the worst of the Ebola epidemic.

That response is understandable. It’s only human to want to protect ourselves and our families. We want to defend ourselves, so isn’t the fastest, easiest solution to put up a wall around the problem?

But...[that would be] wrong. 
We don't want to isolate parts of the world... [1]
Nice use of the "royal we."  That's your and Obama's unsupported assertion.  Obviously you didn't ask the American public.
...or people who aren't sick, because that's going to drive patients with Ebola underground, making it infinitely more difficult to address the outbreak.
You claim banning travel will drive patients underground?  Sorry, that's bullshit.  As it stands now people who believe they're infected will deny being in a risk group if it will get them on a plane to the U.S.  What new and more damaging reaction do you claim will happen with a ban?
A travel ban is not the right answer.  It’s simply not feasible to build a wall – virtual or real – around a community, city, or country.
Simply not feasible?  That sounds like bullshit.  If you mean it's not possible to have one that's 100% effective, fine.  But 95% would help, as you surely know.  You're using non-sequiturs because the low-info voter and the gullible fraction of the elite will buy your argument.
A travel ban would essentially quarantine the more than 22 million people that make up the combined populations of Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea.
That's the point, eh?  Besides, didn't you just claim it "simply wasn't feasible to build a [virtual] wall"?  Why yes, you did.  Which way do you want to go?  Another clue that you're blowing smoke.
When a wildfire breaks out we don't fence it off. We go in to extinguish it before one of the random sparks sets off another outbreak somewhere else.
When a wildfire breaks out, people bulldoze firebreaks to help keep the fire from spreading.  Ever heard of 'em?  Does that mean firefighters can't go into the hot zone?  Of course not.  Again, your transparently faulty arguments suggest you're bullshitting us.  Surely you don't believe the shit you're spouting.
Stopping planes from flying from West Africa would severely limit the ability of Americans to return to the United States or of people with dual citizenship to get home, wherever that may be.
First, you say "stopping *planes* from flying..."  As you know, that hasn't been proposed.  Instead the proposal is to stop *commercial flights.*  Chartered jets could still operate, as could military and government flights.  You're deliberately misquoting the proposal to support your point--yet another indication that you're bullshitting.
In addition to not stopping the spread of Ebola, isolating countries [2] will make it harder to respond to Ebola, creating an even greater humanitarian and health care emergency.
Nonsense.  Again, what's been proposed is to stop commercial flights.  Governments can fly in any amount of medical supplies and specialists.
Importantly, isolating countries [3] won’t keep Ebola contained and away from American shores.  Paradoxically, it will increase the risk that Ebola will spread in those countries and to other countries, and that we will have more patients who develop Ebola in the U.S.
Again you misquote.  The proposal is NOT to "isolate" but to keep sick people from boarding commercial flights.  No one claims this will *prevent* infected people from making it to the U.S but it will most certainly reduce the number who do so.  As for your claim that "isolating" (as you misconstrue it) "will increase the risk that the virus will spread in those countries, and to other countries, and that we will have more patients who develop Ebola in the U.S," this is just bullshit.  Again, you're free to fly in all the aid you and Barack want to to help end the epidemic.  Stopping commercial flights won't hinder you one iota.  And you know it.
People will move between countries, even when governments restrict travel and trade. And that kind of travel becomes almost impossible to track.
Clever.  Hard to disagree that "People will move between countries," but every time I've travelled overseas people had to have things called "passports," which neatly logged all transit points.  Of course it's possible that under Obama's open-borders policy that's now been scrapped.  Wouldn't surprise any of us.
Isolating communities [4] also increases people’s distrust of government, making them less likely to cooperate to help stop the spread of Ebola.
Isolating communities and regions [5] within countries will also backfire. Restricting travel or trade to and from a community makes the disease spread more rapidly in the isolated area, eventually putting the rest of the country at even greater risk. 
Again, mischaracterizing the proposal.  And can you provide *any* manner of support for your claim that restricting outbound travel will make the disease spread more rapidly?  Take your time.  We'll wait.
To provide relief to West Africa, borders must remain open and commercial flights must continue.
Oh, so you *do* recognize that the proposal is only a ban on commercial flights!  But you just mischaracterized that five times as "isolating."  So you evidently know there there's a difference.
There is no more effective way to protect the United States against additional Ebola cases than to address this outbreak at the source in West Africa. That’s what our international response—including the stepped-up measures the president announced last month—will do.
To claim "there is no more effective way to protect the U.S." is an unsupported--and illogical-- assertion.  And again, no part of the proposal--which you finally correctly described--will prevent any amount of "addressing" the epicdemic at the source.  As. You. Well. Know.
What works most effectively for quelling disease outbreaks like Ebola is not quarantining huge populations.
Illogical and unsupported assertion.  How many times will you repeat that?
What *works* is focusing on and isolating the sick and those in direct contact with them as they are at highest risk of infection.
You just wrote that "What *works* is...isolating the sick and those in direct contact with them..."  Wait, surely that has to be a typo--because you just got through writing *five times* above that
    "We don't want to isolate parts of the world..." [1]
    "Isolating countries will make it harder to respond..." [2]
    "isolating countries won’t keep Ebola...away from American shores. [3]
    "Isolating communities also increases people’s distrust of government, making them less likely to cooperate to help stop the spread...[4]
    "Isolating communities and regions...will...backfire." [5]

So you inveigh against isolating "parts of the world" and "countries" and "communities" but then say that isolation *works*--as long as we're merely isolating "the sick and those in direct contact with them."  Yes and yes.  And that's what the ban on easy exits by commercial airline will do.

And. You. Know. That.
This strategy worked with SARS and it worked during the H1N1 flu pandemic. Casting too wide a net, such as invoking travel bans, would only provide an illusion of security and would lead to prejudice and stigma around those in West Africa.
Sorry, but if it comes down to a choice between letting more people with Ebola board commercial flights to the U.S. and allowing "prejudice and stigma around those in West Africa," as far as I'm concerned that's no contest.  But I understand that for you and your boss, preventing more Ebola from coming to the U.S. is far less important than keeping the floodgates open.
Americans can be reassured we are taking measures to protect citizens here.  Today all outbound passengers from Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone are screened for Ebola symptoms before they board an airplane.
Really?  Cuz the people on-scene report the only screening methods being used are asking passengers if they're at risk or feel sick, and scanning 'em with non-contact thermometers.  The latter is laughable because the people operating the scanners don't know how to use 'em, having reported body temperatures equivalent to 80 degrees F.  I.e. not possible for living humans.
Staff from CDC and [DHS "Border Protection"] will begin new layers of entry screening, first at [JFK] and in the following week at four additional airports -- Dulles, Newark, Chicago and Atlanta.  [T]hese U.S. airports receive almost 95 percent of U.S.-bound travelers from the Ebola-affected countries.
How canny of you to tell sick Liberians which airports will have the screening.  Lets 'em choose Miami, Dallas or Detroit instead.  But hey, we've come to expect that sort of moronic behavior from Obozo's appointees.  You guys know politics infinitely well; street smarts a bit lacking.
Travelers from those countries will be escorted to an area of the airport set aside for screening. There they will be observed for signs of illness, asked a series of health and exposure questions, and given information on Ebola and information on monitoring themselves for symptoms for 21 days. Their temperature will be checked, and if there’s any concern about their health, they’ll be referred to the local public health authority for further evaluation or monitoring.
But by then they're already here, eh?  And have already had a chance to infect who knows how many fellow passengers.  But of course you're fine with that did you put it?  Oh yeah:  We don't want to allow "prejudice and stigma around those in West Africa."
Controlling Ebola at its source – in West Africa – is how we will win this battle. When countries are isolated, we cannot get medical supplies and personnel efficiently to where they’re needed...
There you go with the "When countries are isolated" crap again.  That has not been proposed.
As the WHO's Gregory Hartl said recently, “Travel restrictions don’t stop a virus. If airlines stop flying to West Africa, we can’t get the people that we need to combat this outbreak, and we can’t get the food and the fuel and other supplies that people there need to survive.”
Again, stopping commercial flights doesn't prevent medical workers and supplies from getting in or out.  Plus no country flies in fuel or food.  As. You. Well. Know.  The volumes needed are orders-of-magnitude too large.  Those things are coming in by land or sea.
We know how to stop Ebola: by isolating and treating patients, tracing and monitoring their contacts, and breaking the chains of transmission.
Again, after claiming six times above how counterproductive and/or useless "isolation" would be, you're now fine with isolating *patients*--which of course is the purpose of banning commercial flights:  Don't let sick people get out of the affected area.  Stop the transmission.  Yes.  We agree.  But for political reasons alone, you claim banning commercial flights won't accomplish that.  Yet all your objections to that measure are specious.

Short answer:  You're spouting bullshit--likely because that's what your boss wants.

Either that or you're dumber than a box of rocks.

Oh, and...UPDATE!  A nurse who treated the Liberian patient in Dallas has tested positive for the virus.  CDC director Friedman says "We may see more cases in the next few days" and claims the nurse's infection was caused by a "breach of protocol."  But...get this...he was unable to say what the alleged "breach" was!  In fact, here's the quote:
"The fact we don't know of a breach in protocol is concerning, because clearly there was."
Locals say there was no breach of protection protocol.  So who should you believe?

Friedman's lengthy article cited above shows that he's a bald-faced liar who's willing to say anything--no matter how absurd, illogical and unscientific--to please Obama, which suggests he's probably not a reliable source of accurate information.

But hey, don't worry, citizen!  The emperor and his minions have everything totally under control.  Cuz...well, faith in God is absurd but all cool, hip people believe in "hope and change."  So there ya go.

Hey, that's cool.  Democrats think we have too many people in the world anyway, so I'm guessing they'll be delighted with current events. 

Believe the Emperor, bitchez.  He knows best.  You bet.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home