ROFL over this one - DoD can only transport 1 soldier at a time back from Africa?

[lapeer20m]

people don't need to panic about Ebola if you live here in the USA. It is apparently relatively difficult to transmit. None of the family members living in the apartment in texas with Mr Duncan contracted the disease. Likewise, the Medic's, police, bystanders, neighbors, etc also did not get sick. Of more than 70 hospital employees that cared for this patient, only 2 of them contracted Ebola and they both survived.

It is likely aerosolized during vomiting, coughing, sneezing, etc and in laboratory studies can be transmitted through absorption through the eyes or the respiratory tract of those in close proximity to the patient. However, it is apparently much more likely for others to contract the disease through direct contact.

Are we currently experiencing an ebola outbreak in the USA? No. Are we likely to see a widespread outbreak here? Not likely.

 

[davidmcbeth]

<snip>

Your opinion is noted. I see that you have not supported your opinion about what our military should be used for with actual doctrine.

Support it with what? Troops should not be used in this capacity...we are not the defenders of the world for every issue.

 

[wrightme]

Support it with what? Troops should not be used in this capacity...we are not the defenders of the world for every issue.

Once again you present your own opinion. You earlier asked 'Do you think its a national security issue that warrants the placement of our soldiers over there?' Is a 'national security issue' the only valid reason in fact, or only in your personal opinion?

 

[davidmcbeth]

Once again you present your own opinion. You earlier asked 'Do you think its a national security issue that warrants the placement of our soldiers over there?' Is a 'national security issue' the only valid reason in fact, or only in your personal opinion?

Well, what do you think?

 

[wrightme]

Well, what do you think?

I think that your narrow view of it is not supported by anything.


In fact:

http://www.army.mil/humanitarian/

Humanitarian aid and disaster relief appear to be valid roles for the US Army.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I think that your narrow view of it is not supported by anything.


In fact:

http://www.army.mil/humanitarian/

Humanitarian aid and disaster relief appear to be valid roles for the US Army.

You agree that its fine, I do not. Not a law but policy.

 

[wrightme]

You agree that its fine, I do not. Not a law but policy.

It is more than that, it is a direct refutation of your claim:

Our troops are over there, so the gov't thinks that it is a national security issue.

No. Having 'our troops over there,' does NOT mean that 'the gov't thinks that it is a national security issue.' You 'begged the question.' In addition, it was false to begin with.

 

[davidmcbeth]

It is more than that, it is a direct refutation of your claim:
No. Having 'our troops over there,' does NOT mean that 'the gov't thinks that it is a national security issue.' You 'begged the question.' In addition, it was false to begin with.

You are wrong ... they ARE over there due to national security issues. Because the US has a humanitarian policy does not mean that they are over there for that purpose.

You are confused.

Unless you wish to claim that possible ebola contamination is not a security issue, which would be wrong.

 

[wrightme]

You are wrong ... they ARE over there due to national security issues.

What do you base that upon?

Unless you wish to claim that possible ebola contamination is not a security issue, which would be wrong.

Huh? Do you have ANY information to present that supports your claims?

A viral epidemic isn't a national security issue, it is a health issue.

 

[davidmcbeth]

What do you base that upon?


Huh? Do you have ANY information to present that supports your claims?

A viral epidemic isn't a national security issue, it is a health issue.

Yes I do ... but not for someone who is clearly trolling at this point.

 

[wrightme]

Yes I do ... but not for someone who is clearly trolling at this point.

Disagreeing with you is trolling?



You presented a false characterization of the article in your thread title, I pointed that out.

You presented false claims about whether it was not enough to be able to transfer 1 patient at a time, and I pointed out the error with actual facts of the infection rates.

You presented a false claim about whether it is a 'national security issue' or not, and you have failed to support it with anything whatsoever except your opinion, and you claim I am the one trolling?



Yeah, right.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Disagreeing with you is trolling?



You presented a false characterization of the article in your thread title, I pointed that out.

You presented false claims about whether it was not enough to be able to transfer 1 patient at a time, and I pointed out the error with actual facts of the infection rates.

You presented a false claim about whether it is a 'national security issue' or not, and you have failed to support it with anything whatsoever except your opinion, and you claim I am the one trolling?



Yeah, right.

Trolls usually don't understand that they are trolling .. case in point.

 

[wrightme]

Trolls usually don't understand that they are trolling .. case in point.

So you do not understand the nature of most of the threads you open here? I thought you were fully aware.



Seriously though, why is it that you equate disagreeing with you, as well as proving you to be incorrect, with trolling?

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

The R naught for Ebola is about 1.5-2 from what i have read.

The difference between Ebola and measles is that if you get the latter, you have about a 0.015% chance of dying, whereas, Ebola in this current outbreak has about a 70% chance of killing you (if you live in west Africa) Apparently Ebola doesn't kill you if you are an American citizen.

Strange that some with all their smarts, couldn't answer that simple question as well as you. What the R sub naught for Ebola means is that even if a soldier is infected with Ebola it will be a fairly isolated event i.e. he won't be expected to go on to infect 5,10 15 others as might be expected with a more contagious disease. Therefore, there isn't a need to have a mass evacuation means at hand.

You also understand the distinction between contagious and infectious when it comes to disease, something easily confused even within the medical profession.