huskyfan
New member
oh dear god. I hope she is ok.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Ebola - all or nothing?
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
oh dear god. I hope she is ok.
huskyfan
New member
source? I cant find this anywhere.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Karmically, I could say she got what she deserved. But honestly hubris doesn't make a difference and I don't want anybody to come down with disease much less this one. Fact is that I'd like my worry to be unwarranted but that means more information than that to which I will have.
We will see what happens... I'm only upset in that a whole lot of us are cast as the unreasonable. The reality is, yes, there's a lot of stupid out there... But just because that stupid is advertised doesn't make any more right or wrong. As it is, I'm sure there are those who are awfully nonchalant.
It would not different then saying the dregs of occupy believe X therefore X is dumb
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
You could, if you were a sociopath.
You do realize this person went to West Africa to fight the disease, right? What exactly have you done?
I wouldn't throw around "karma" after making that statement, Princess.
You could, if you were a sociopath.
You do realize this person went to West Africa to fight the disease, right? What exactly have you done?
I wouldn't throw around "karma" after making that statement, Princess.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
It was a breaking alert on local TV this morning but I can find no mention of it online. Guess it was a false report.
It was a breaking alert on local TV this morning but I can find no mention of it online. Guess it was a false report.
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
If it was good enough for the crew of Apollo 11, it's good enough for Clara Barton.
If it was good enough for the crew of Apollo 11, it's good enough for Clara Barton.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
And i agree, it would be an awful thing. Now get off your high horse.
You know that is exactly what priceless meant. That we that oppose him celebrate such a thing. That we are the heartless scumbags that oppose him.
Fact is I'm sick of having caution or disagreement being used as a cudgel. That the proof having a reason to disagree mean that I'm an awful person. "Guess you are happy now"... No, I'm not. This brings no joy. No satisfaction. Further, I'm only validated if she infects somebody else outside the hospital environ. Which is also something I don't want. Me being proven right only brings harm to others... Yay, I win, don't I? No, I don't.
Further, I applaud those who take their time to go help those in west Africa. They know the risks but I don't wish harm. I just wish that the extreme of cautions are taken in regards to a disease like Ebola. In the end I want people to be healthy and safe.
The words I have for you Kepler are unprintable in a polite audience. As you said, glass houses and the like. Goes both ways.
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
The "they" you're referring to is the commander in chief. The same commander in chief, BTW, who is encouraging states not to impose quarantines against returning civilian health care workers. Only you and the kool aid drinkers don't see the logical disconnect here. If the GIs are quarantined for health reasons, why shouldn't the civilians? The "reason known only to them" is to prevent transmission of a deadly disease. Duh.
There has been some hysteria and stupidity for sure. But only an hysteric would describe it as "mass." You qualify.
The "they" you're referring to is the commander in chief. The same commander in chief, BTW, who is encouraging states not to impose quarantines against returning civilian health care workers. Only you and the kool aid drinkers don't see the logical disconnect here. If the GIs are quarantined for health reasons, why shouldn't the civilians? The "reason known only to them" is to prevent transmission of a deadly disease. Duh.
There has been some hysteria and stupidity for sure. But only an hysteric would describe it as "mass." You qualify.
Last edited:
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
It's the age we live in, I guess. Disagreement can only stem from "hate" or "anger" or "racism" or something malevolent. These generalizations are handy alternatives to debating the issues. It's important for many of our liberal posters to constantly prove their moral superiority, not just the rightness of their position on a given issue. That's why, day after day, they scrounge around, looking for stupid things some conservative somewhere said so they can smear all conservatives and at the same time pat themselves on the back for being sooooo superior. Childish, really.
In the case at hand, I think back to what Dr. Pio used to refer to as an "index of suspicion." And how the folks at the hospital in Dallas appear to have been insufficiently suspicious when the first patient presented himself. I'm happy those two nurses have survived. But they went through a h*llish illness which I wouldn't wish on anyone (with the possible exception of ISIS bigwigs). The first rule of medicine is to do no harm. And it makes sense to me that doing no harm in the case of Ebola is to err on the side of caution and quarantine people exposed to the illness.
The notion that somehow our brave young GIs who are fighting the disease need to be quarantined, but not the civilian health care workers defies logic. Plus, we've seen an attitude, expressed by both the civilian workers and their supporters here that since they're "doing God's work" they're absolved of ordinary moral requirements. They can lie to authorities about their movements and contacts, or sneak out for some soup, and it's okay. Where does this elitism and sense of entitlement come from? There is no logical disconnect in praising these civilian workers while also insisting they use caution upon their return. You'd think they'd want to avoid any possibility of infecting others. Instead, they're acting like people who think their altruism absolves them of any responsibility. Sure, the chances of these people infecting others are slim, very slim. But slim isn't zero.
I hope the young lady in Maine isn't infected. And I further hope if she is, her selfish arrogant elitism hasn't caused some innocent people to become infected. That would be a real tragedy, because she knew the risks she was taking. While the people she came in contact with back home didn't. They had no choice.
It's the age we live in, I guess. Disagreement can only stem from "hate" or "anger" or "racism" or something malevolent. These generalizations are handy alternatives to debating the issues. It's important for many of our liberal posters to constantly prove their moral superiority, not just the rightness of their position on a given issue. That's why, day after day, they scrounge around, looking for stupid things some conservative somewhere said so they can smear all conservatives and at the same time pat themselves on the back for being sooooo superior. Childish, really.
In the case at hand, I think back to what Dr. Pio used to refer to as an "index of suspicion." And how the folks at the hospital in Dallas appear to have been insufficiently suspicious when the first patient presented himself. I'm happy those two nurses have survived. But they went through a h*llish illness which I wouldn't wish on anyone (with the possible exception of ISIS bigwigs). The first rule of medicine is to do no harm. And it makes sense to me that doing no harm in the case of Ebola is to err on the side of caution and quarantine people exposed to the illness.
The notion that somehow our brave young GIs who are fighting the disease need to be quarantined, but not the civilian health care workers defies logic. Plus, we've seen an attitude, expressed by both the civilian workers and their supporters here that since they're "doing God's work" they're absolved of ordinary moral requirements. They can lie to authorities about their movements and contacts, or sneak out for some soup, and it's okay. Where does this elitism and sense of entitlement come from? There is no logical disconnect in praising these civilian workers while also insisting they use caution upon their return. You'd think they'd want to avoid any possibility of infecting others. Instead, they're acting like people who think their altruism absolves them of any responsibility. Sure, the chances of these people infecting others are slim, very slim. But slim isn't zero.
I hope the young lady in Maine isn't infected. And I further hope if she is, her selfish arrogant elitism hasn't caused some innocent people to become infected. That would be a real tragedy, because she knew the risks she was taking. While the people she came in contact with back home didn't. They had no choice.
Last edited:
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
You were doing so well and then you said this...
But please, tell us some more about these horrible people who need to prove their moral superiority.
You were doing so well and then you said this...
But please, tell us some more about these horrible people who need to prove their moral superiority.
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
If it turns out she did infect some innocent person, how would you describe her attitude? Dot with a circle around it captures it nicely. To infect someone under these circumstances would definitely make her a horrible person. I know it would deprive you of your rhetorical Maginot Line. but that would make it about her, not me.
If it turns out she did infect some innocent person, how would you describe her attitude? Dot with a circle around it captures it nicely. To infect someone under these circumstances would definitely make her a horrible person. I know it would deprive you of your rhetorical Maginot Line. but that would make it about her, not me.
Last edited:
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
There is no way she could have given this to anyone. She isn't contagious. She has tested negative at least twice. You remember the guy who died of the disease after the Dallas hospital erroneously released him? No one else in his family - even the person who slept in the same bed - caught it, and he WAS contagious. Do you also consider the doctor in NYC who went bowling and rode the subway to suffer from "selfish arrogant elitism" even though not a single person caught the disease from him?
Again, she isn't trying to become famous and she didn't want to be the poster child for this. Govs Christie and LePage placed the spotlight on her. She is responding how most people would. I love all these holier-than-thou types who say three weeks in quarantine is no big deal. You do it then. You're just as contagious as she is right now.
There is no way she could have given this to anyone. She isn't contagious. She has tested negative at least twice. You remember the guy who died of the disease after the Dallas hospital erroneously released him? No one else in his family - even the person who slept in the same bed - caught it, and he WAS contagious. Do you also consider the doctor in NYC who went bowling and rode the subway to suffer from "selfish arrogant elitism" even though not a single person caught the disease from him?
Again, she isn't trying to become famous and she didn't want to be the poster child for this. Govs Christie and LePage placed the spotlight on her. She is responding how most people would. I love all these holier-than-thou types who say three weeks in quarantine is no big deal. You do it then. You're just as contagious as she is right now.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
Any medical professional who lies or dissembles about his activities after being in contact with Ebola or thinks she's above such mundane measures as a quarantine (like Clara Barton) is displaying selfish, arrogant elitism. Of course she's at low risk of becoming infectious or of passing the illness along to others. Of course politicians are playing politics. Starting with Louis Pasteur Obama, who thinks quarantining GIs to prevent the spread of the disease is a good idea but not civilians working in the hot zones. It is profoundly illogical and only explained by politics. And certainly not adequately explained by you.
I don't know or care what her motivations are here. I just know she should be quarantined. And she should volunteer for it. No question, spending 21 days at home is a royal pain in the a*s. Especially if she loses her internet connection or Direct TV. But most people would be able to get through it unscarred.
Your certitude about her zero potential for infecting others is not persuasive. And based almost entirely on your political perspective, not science. The risk she presents is low, very low. But it's not zero. And you're seriously begging the question by asserting her response is "how most people" would react. You have no freaking idea how "most people" would react. And how I would react under identical circumstances is irrelevant (however, it's an interesting question if you're capable of ever expressing an argument without going ad hominem).
She should put the rights of uninfected innocent people ahead of her rights. And being the dedicated, caring professional she claims to be, why isn't she? I repeat: if a quarantine was okay for the crew of Apollo 11, why not Clara Barton?
Any medical professional who lies or dissembles about his activities after being in contact with Ebola or thinks she's above such mundane measures as a quarantine (like Clara Barton) is displaying selfish, arrogant elitism. Of course she's at low risk of becoming infectious or of passing the illness along to others. Of course politicians are playing politics. Starting with Louis Pasteur Obama, who thinks quarantining GIs to prevent the spread of the disease is a good idea but not civilians working in the hot zones. It is profoundly illogical and only explained by politics. And certainly not adequately explained by you.
I don't know or care what her motivations are here. I just know she should be quarantined. And she should volunteer for it. No question, spending 21 days at home is a royal pain in the a*s. Especially if she loses her internet connection or Direct TV. But most people would be able to get through it unscarred.
Your certitude about her zero potential for infecting others is not persuasive. And based almost entirely on your political perspective, not science. The risk she presents is low, very low. But it's not zero. And you're seriously begging the question by asserting her response is "how most people" would react. You have no freaking idea how "most people" would react. And how I would react under identical circumstances is irrelevant (however, it's an interesting question if you're capable of ever expressing an argument without going ad hominem).
She should put the rights of uninfected innocent people ahead of her rights. And being the dedicated, caring professional she claims to be, why isn't she? I repeat: if a quarantine was okay for the crew of Apollo 11, why not Clara Barton?
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
I had to pause it because I was laughing.
Unrelated, but the "debate" with his panelist in the middle was weird and bordering on awkward.
I had to pause it because I was laughing.
Unrelated, but the "debate" with his panelist in the middle was weird and bordering on awkward.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
That was the one with the Palestinian journo, right?
The middle panelist is usually the idiot, but that woman did hold her own. I actually would like to hear her debate Maher on this, but that was not the forum.
That was the one with the Palestinian journo, right?
The middle panelist is usually the idiot, but that woman did hold her own. I actually would like to hear her debate Maher on this, but that was not the forum.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
For those of you who took the under at 1 week on an OP/Priceless tickle fight following the latter's return, congratulations.
For those of you who took the under at 1 week on an OP/Priceless tickle fight following the latter's return, congratulations.
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
When I want any more sh*t out of you, I'll unscrew your head and ladle it out of your neck.
For those of you who took the under at 1 week on an OP/Priceless tickle fight following the latter's return, congratulations.
When I want any more sh*t out of you, I'll unscrew your head and ladle it out of your neck.
