[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

HIV and AIDS are not curable, but they can be held in check. Antiretroviral medication prevents the virus from multiplying in the body.
Antiretroviral therapy consists of three or more drugs that the patient has to take for the rest of their lives.
Such treatment has reduced the death rate from HIV by around 80 percent.

Yes, but we depend on the good will of those who have it not to spread it. If someone decides to spread it, it can make another person's life miserable. They might not know they have it for a long time and then they might spread it too. 473,000 people in the U.S. now have HIV/AIDS, according to online statistics. Medicine or no medicine, I don't think it's a very nice thing to have. And the medicine may not be inexpensive.

[Villages PL]

In the United States Of America, freedom is more important than worrying about the possibility of premature death. We don't limit our freedom to risk premature death due to living a poor lifestyle. We tell people they need to take personal responsibility. So how is this any different?

It's important for people to be free to travel, uninterrupted, to and from Africa. Think of all the many reasons for traveling like business, recreation, weddings and funerals etc.. This comes under the heading of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

It's up to people to control their intake of bodily fluids from others. In other words, they need to take personal responsibility. We don't need government telling us what we can and cannot do.

Anyone disagree?

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Schaumburger

Mr. Duncan has died at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, the hospital said this morning.

I wish for now that someone in Washington would do some kind of stopping people from traveling here from infected countries.. Now is when it is time to throw out political correctness and call some definitive shots.

AND please don't say the United States is infected...or say is again.

You know who you are.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

In the United States Of America, freedom is more important than worrying about the possibility of premature death. We don't limit our freedom to risk premature death due to living a poor lifestyle. We tell people they need to take personal responsibility. So how is this any different?

It's important for people to be free to travel, uninterrupted, to and from Africa. Think of all the many reasons for traveling like business, recreation, weddings and funerals etc.. This comes under the heading of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

It's up to people to control their intake of bodily fluids from others. In other words, they need to take personal responsibility. We don't need government telling us what we can and cannot do.

Anyone disagree?

What about freedom? Not important?

[kittygilchrist]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

In the United States Of America, freedom is more important than worrying about the possibility of premature death. We don't limit our freedom to risk premature death due to living a poor lifestyle. We tell people they need to take personal responsibility. So how is this any different?

It's important for people to be free to travel, uninterrupted, to and from Africa. Think of all the many reasons for traveling like business, recreation, weddings and funerals etc.. This comes under the heading of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

It's up to people to control their intake of bodily fluids from others. In other words, they need to take personal responsibility. We don't need government telling us what we can and cannot do.

Anyone disagree?

I do.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by kittygilchrist

I do.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I brought this up because of the many people who are always so protective about the food supply. We have an epidemic of overweight and obese people and many of them die prematurely from diabetes, cancer and heart disease etc. But no one wants the government to ban, tax or regulate junk food. We tell people they need to take personal responsibility, even though we know that most won't.

It seems that death from living a poor lifestyle is okay as long as it's a slow death, compared to Ebola which is a relatively quick death.

I'm just trying to find some consistency.

[keywest]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

In the United States Of America, freedom is more important than worrying about the possibility of premature death. We don't limit our freedom to risk premature death due to living a poor lifestyle. We tell people they need to take personal responsibility. So how is this any different?

It's important for people to be free to travel, uninterrupted, to and from Africa. Think of all the many reasons for traveling like business, recreation, weddings and funerals etc.. This comes under the heading of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

It's up to people to control their intake of bodily fluids from others. In other words, they need to take personal responsibility. We don't need government telling us what we can and cannot do.


Anyone disagree?

I disagree!

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I brought this up because of the many people who are always so protective about the food supply. We have an epidemic of overweight and obese people and many of them die prematurely from diabetes, cancer and heart disease etc. But no one wants the government to ban, tax or regulate junk food. We tell people they need to take personal responsibility, even though we know that most won't.

It seems that death from living a poor lifestyle is okay as long as it's a slow death, compared to Ebola which is a relatively quick death.

I'm just trying to find some consistency.

Villages PL As the boys in Iowa say that dog won't hunt. Your comparison is trailing you elsewhere.

You also discuss freedoms and that is not the issue.

the issue is simply containing something that can easily get out of hand. do you recall the spanish flu , some called it the swine flu that killed millions of people world wide. Experts pointed out in an article in WSJ that Ebola could mutate to be airborne. it can be passed from animals to humans.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I brought this up because of the many people who are always so protective about the food supply. We have an epidemic of overweight and obese people and many of them die prematurely from diabetes, cancer and heart disease etc. But no one wants the government to ban, tax or regulate junk food. We tell people they need to take personal responsibility, even though we know that most won't.

It seems that death from living a poor lifestyle is okay as long as it's a slow death, compared to Ebola which is a relatively quick death.

I'm just trying to find some consistency.

You are proceeding from an illogical premise based on inadequate information that is causing you to inaccuratly assess the situation and thus come to an incorrect conclusion.

Some people will die sooner due to heart disease and diabetes perhaps caused by poor diet, but 90 percent of people infected with the ebola virus will die.

Now the news is reporting that another person has come forward with symptoms of ebola who had been with Mr. Duncan.

AND I call on the administration in the WhiteHouse to do something more drastic than to monitor people for symptoms arriving from the three known countries with outbreaks of ebola. What if they spike a fever after they picked their nose and left it on your airplane seat.

This is serious stuff here and we have the opportunity if we act now to slow down the threat of an epidemic here..

[old moe]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Here's another idea: Don't exchange bodily fluids with anyone who has just flown in from Africa.

I dont think this issue should become a joking matter, That person died in Texzs, BUT HOW MANY PEOPLE DID HE COME IN CONTACT WITH?

[Patty55]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I brought this up because of the many people who are always so protective about the food supply. We have an epidemic of overweight and obese people and many of them die prematurely from diabetes, cancer and heart disease etc. But no one wants the government to ban, tax or regulate junk food. We tell people they need to take personal responsibility, even though we know that most won't.

It seems that death from living a poor lifestyle is okay as long as it's a slow death, compared to Ebola which is a relatively quick death.

I'm just trying to find some consistency.

Maybe we should quarantine them to a fat farm.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Patty55

Maybe we should quarantine them to a fat farm.

[gomoho]

The problem with the government's plan is, as evidenced by Mr. Duncan, it will only work if people are truthful. If I was exposed to ebola you better believe I would try to get to the US and tell any lie I need to hoping for a chance for treatment and to live.
Also if symptoms don't show up for 8-21 days after you have been exposed how many folks could come in not knowing they are infected - once again you have to depend on them being truthful - seems like pretty shaky ground to base a plan on. Mr. Duncan has shown us in real life if just one person gets in that is infected what the fall out is. The hospitalization, quarantine of those he came into contact with, monitoring of those he may have come into contact with, decontaminating his apartment and his bedding and towels and what to do with the highly infectious body? Too many consequences to simply say we need to allow freedom of travel - nothing is so important it can't wait till this is over. As far as aid workers coming and going to help that is easily monitored to allow these people to safely enter and exit the country.

[rubicon]

The government's lack of urgency, immediacy and aggressive plan has resulted in many loss opportunities.

[Barefoot]

===