^j^ Posted October 30, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 148 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2014 I don't think we should hijack this thread to speak of D68. I'll start a new thread featuring an article that speaks to the CDC reporting a suspect source for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted October 30, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 598 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,170 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,897 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2014 Excellent. Thank you. I'll register my complaint and suggestion. I hope others do too. This woman stands to set a precedent, which is what she wants. She's not affording a responsible image to responsible health care. If she comes down with symptoms, what then? What's she say? "Oops!" ? I'm not so sure she is going to come down with ebola... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
^j^ Posted October 30, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 148 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2014 Willing to bet peoples lives on that? She is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Excellent. Thank you. I'll register my complaint and suggestion. I hope others do too. This woman stands to set a precedent, which is what she wants. She's not affording a responsible image to responsible health care. If she comes down with symptoms, what then? What's she say? "Oops!" ? I'm not so sure she is going to come down with ebola... i'm beginning to suspect she was never exposed to it in the first place, but that this was just some ploy by the cdc in cahoots with our government to force america to leave our borders even less protected than they already are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
^j^ Posted October 30, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 148 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2014 The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.Ronald Reagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted October 30, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Oh yes let's force people to stay in their homes. I understand the safety aspect, but the flip side-do we really want to give the government another reason to get into and control our lives? Where does this lead? How can this power be abused? A better solution then arresting people who've been overseas-is to make it mandatory they go through a 21 day quarantine before they board the plane to go home. If they don't want to that's fine their right-but they won't be putting anyone at risk stateside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Teditis Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Oh yes let's force people to stay in their homes. I understand the safety aspect, but the flip side-do we really want to give the government another reason to get into and control our lives? Where does this lead? How can this power be abused? A better solution then arresting people who've been overseas-is to make it mandatory they go through a 21 day quarantine before they board the plane to go home. If they don't want to that's fine their right-but they won't be putting anyone at risk stateside. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 patriot, i agree with the quarantine before boarding, but that's not going to do any good for this sort of thing. you know, the thing where she is already HERE. the thing where the other doctor was already here and went BOWLING. that thing. the government actually already HAS that control. has had for decades. they used to quarantine for things like mumps and measles. quarantine laws have been unnecessary to enforce for a very long time because of modern medicine. and maybe i sound like the dreaded conspiracy theorist here (and i rarely buy into that sort of thing... and to be fair i haven't heard anyone but myself voice this concern), i still wonder if maybe this isn't a ploy to abolish existing quarantine laws to make our country more vulnerable. i get the whole 'let's not panic' concept. but i think the opposite extreme, the one of not being cautious, is just as dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted October 30, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Yes the other doctor is already here-but think if they had mandated the quarantine before entering before entering the us that whole incident would have never happened. And doing so now will prevent future incidents from happening without violating anyone's rights. Realistically speaking however as long as this nurse isn't being intimate with anyone or treating anyone the chance of her infecting anyone is slim to none even if she has it. To date the only people who have contracted the disease here in the states were actively treating that guy in Dallas and to date there's no evidence that that doctor in new York infected anyone other then maybe his girlfriend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 i'd say she's probably being intimate with her boyfriend, since they're living together and stuff. and putting my tin foil hat back on, i figure if she's willing to put him at risk, and he's willing to take that risk, then they both must know that she has no chance of contracting it. which leads me back to my previous speculation.... what if she never was working directly with ebola patients in the first place, and this is all a farce? i mean heck, she did fail to disclose that she'd been working for the CDC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts