What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

People coming here from ebola stricken nations? (1 Viewer)

Incoming passengers from ebola stricken nations should

  • continue to be allowed into the United States

    Votes: 40 26.0%
  • not be allowed into the United States

    Votes: 114 74.0%

  • Total voters
    154
No, nobody from Texas should be able to fly into the United States.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NO F'N WAY, did we learn nothing from when we let the pilgrims in on the nina, the pinta and the santa maria????? :unsure:

 
This should have been done weeks ago.
:goodposting:

Now we have 3 confirmed cases, a bunch of people in quarantine, a new group possibly exposed in Cleveland, and a healthcare system that clearly isn't ready for this.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will happen now or anytime in the near future.

Eventually it gets to NYC and that is when we find out how unprepared we really are.

Don't understand the argument for voting to allow these flights and passengers to continue to enter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This should have been done weeks ago.
:goodposting:

Now we have 3 confirmed cases, a bunch of people in quarantine, a new group possibly exposed in Cleveland, and a healthcare system that clearly isn't ready for this.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will happen now or anytime in the near future.

Eventually it gets to NYC and that is when we find out how unprepared we really are.

Don't understand the argument for voting to allow these flights and passengers to continue to enter.
Agree. I'm starting to get pretty concerned. And my fiancee is traveling to Europe for work in a month. :unsure:

 
avoiding injuries said:
fantasycurse42 said:
Don't understand the argument for voting to allow these flights and passengers to continue to enter.
Superior tolerance and compassion is what I'd guess they are thinking.
You don't think we should send some F-16s out there to shoot them down?

 
This is complete insanity. Liberia is a nation with 3.4 million people. There are 9,000 of them inflicted with the Ebola virus. That's about .025% of the population. And for this we're going to prevent all travel to the United States? It wouldn't work anyhow because people travel all over- perhaps a Liberian travels to London, and from there to Germany and from there to the USA. It's impossible to stop even if you wanted to.

This disease is deadly but it's extremely difficult to catch, and the fear mongering surrounding it needs to stop.

 
This is complete insanity. Liberia is a nation with 3.4 million people. There are 9,000 of them inflicted with the Ebola virus. That's about .025% of the population. And for this we're going to prevent all travel to the United States? It wouldn't work anyhow because people travel all over- perhaps a Liberian travels to London, and from there to Germany and from there to the USA. It's impossible to stop even if you wanted to.

This disease is deadly but it's extremely difficult to catch, and the fear mongering surrounding it needs to stop.
Seems to me that fear could drive resources towards a cure. The fear does not need to stop, it needs to be channeled, directed.

 
This is complete insanity. Liberia is a nation with 3.4 million people. There are 9,000 of them inflicted with the Ebola virus. That's about .025% of the population. And for this we're going to prevent all travel to the United States? It wouldn't work anyhow because people travel all over- perhaps a Liberian travels to London, and from there to Germany and from there to the USA. It's impossible to stop even if you wanted to.

This disease is deadly but it's extremely difficult to catch, and the fear mongering surrounding it needs to stop.
Seems to me that fear could drive resources towards a cure. The fear does not need to stop, it needs to be channeled, directed.
into nukes or napalm
 
dutch said:
No, nobody from Texas should be able to fly into the United States.
Excellent point. We should be stationing the national guard at the the Texas border.
Texas looks a bit foolish after all their tough talk in the past about defending borders. And a bit dangerous.
Mexico would be safe if the wall was built
Mexico would be throwing its dirty diapers over the wall and Texas would be dragging them to landfills after shooting them.

 
The problem with stopping anyone who's been in Liberia from coming back into the U.S is that African nations (generally) need western aid to contain the spread of the disease. A quarantine on anyone who's been to Africa essentially means that we're going to let these countries deal with this on their own, which seems like a great way of making sure it spreads as much as possible.

 
This is complete insanity. Liberia is a nation with 3.4 million people. There are 9,000 of them inflicted with the Ebola virus. That's about .025% of the population. And for this we're going to prevent all travel to the United States? It wouldn't work anyhow because people travel all over- perhaps a Liberian travels to London, and from there to Germany and from there to the USA. It's impossible to stop even if you wanted to.

This disease is deadly but it's extremely difficult to catch, and the fear mongering surrounding it needs to stop.
:lmao:

 
This is complete insanity. Liberia is a nation with 3.4 million people. There are 9,000 of them inflicted with the Ebola virus. That's about .025% of the population. And for this we're going to prevent all travel to the United States? It wouldn't work anyhow because people travel all over- perhaps a Liberian travels to London, and from there to Germany and from there to the USA. It's impossible to stop even if you wanted to.

This disease is deadly but it's extremely difficult to catch, and the fear mongering surrounding it needs to stop.
So, referring to the two nurses who now have it...were they swapping spit with the contanimated guy, or have they explained how the contracted it?

 
fantasycurse42 said:
This should have been done weeks ago.
:goodposting:

Now we have 3 confirmed cases, a bunch of people in quarantine, a new group possibly exposed in Cleveland, and a healthcare system that clearly isn't ready for this.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will happen now or anytime in the near future.

Eventually it gets to NYC and that is when we find out how unprepared we really are.

Don't understand the argument for voting to allow these flights and passengers to continue to enter.
Agree. I'm starting to get pretty concerned. And my fiancee is traveling to Europe for work in a month. :unsure:
Hotbed of ebola, amirite?

 
This is complete insanity. Liberia is a nation with 3.4 million people. There are 9,000 of them inflicted with the Ebola virus. That's about .025% of the population. And for this we're going to prevent all travel to the United States? It wouldn't work anyhow because people travel all over- perhaps a Liberian travels to London, and from there to Germany and from there to the USA. It's impossible to stop even if you wanted to.

This disease is deadly but it's extremely difficult to catch, and the fear mongering surrounding it needs to stop.
So, referring to the two nurses who now have it...were they swapping spit with the contanimated guy, or have they explained how the contracted it?
Vinson, who, according to a review of medical records by the AP, inserted catheters, drew blood and dealt with bodily fluids.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-care-worker-with-ebola-was-allowed-to-fly-despite-reporting-slight-fever/2014/10/15/094e7d6e-54a0-11e4-892e-602188e70e9c_story.html?hpid=z1

 
Of course there should be a travel ban. A government's duty is to protect its citizens. The reluctance to implement a travel ban is driven, in great part, by political correctness and the desire to appear that the U.S. is not discriminating against Africans. Other nations that are not as crippled by political correctness have no problem instituting a reasonable travel ban to and from the West African nations currently hit by ebola.

ST LUCIA, COLOMBIA BAR VISITORS FROM EBOLA NATIONS

 
fantasycurse42 said:
This should have been done weeks ago.
:goodposting:

Now we have 3 confirmed cases, a bunch of people in quarantine, a new group possibly exposed in Cleveland, and a healthcare system that clearly isn't ready for this.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will happen now or anytime in the near future.

Eventually it gets to NYC and that is when we find out how unprepared we really are.

Don't understand the argument for voting to allow these flights and passengers to continue to enter.
Agree. I'm starting to get pretty concerned. And my fiancee is traveling to Europe for work in a month. :unsure:
Hotbed of ebola, amirite?
Who knows where it will be a month from now? She is going to Copenhagen though.

 
Of course there should be a travel ban. A government's duty is to protect its citizens. The reluctance to implement a travel ban is driven, in great part, by political correctness and the desire to appear that the U.S. is not discriminating against Africans. Other nations that are not as crippled by political correctness have no problem instituting a reasonable travel ban to and from the West African nations currently hit by ebola.

ST LUCIA, COLOMBIA BAR VISITORS FROM EBOLA NATIONS
We didn't protect/seal our borders after 9/11, why should we start getting serious about stuff like this now.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
This should have been done weeks ago.
:goodposting:

Now we have 3 confirmed cases, a bunch of people in quarantine, a new group possibly exposed in Cleveland, and a healthcare system that clearly isn't ready for this.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will happen now or anytime in the near future.

Eventually it gets to NYC and that is when we find out how unprepared we really are.

Don't understand the argument for voting to allow these flights and passengers to continue to enter.
Agree. I'm starting to get pretty concerned. And my fiancee is traveling to Europe for work in a month. :unsure:
Hotbed of ebola, amirite?
Who knows where it will be a month from now? She is going to Copenhagen though.
She should bring an umbrella, then. And try the hotdogs.

 
For folks talking about banning individuals from flying into the US from nations where individuals are infected with Ebola, would you have a problem if other countries decided to implement the same policy (which meant no one from the US would be able to fly those countries since we're infected as well now)?

 
For folks talking about banning individuals from flying into the US from nations where individuals are infected with Ebola, would you have a problem if other countries decided to implement the same policy (which meant no one from the US would be able to fly those countries since we're infected as well now)?
if the US gets to the infection rate and #s that Africa has, I'd expect all countries to implement travel bans

 
For folks talking about banning individuals from flying into the US from nations where individuals are infected with Ebola, would you have a problem if other countries decided to implement the same policy (which meant no one from the US would be able to fly those countries since we're infected as well now)?
I'd have no problem with that. Nations are free, or should be, to take that reasonable action if they feel its in the best interests of their citizens.

 
For folks talking about banning individuals from flying into the US from nations where individuals are infected with Ebola, would you have a problem if other countries decided to implement the same policy (which meant no one from the US would be able to fly those countries since we're infected as well now)?
if the US gets to the infection rate and #s that Africa has, I'd expect all countries to implement travel bans
That's just it - where do you draw the line? All it takes is one person, right? What if that nurse who boarded the flight from Ohio to Texas instead took a flight from Ohio to Toronto or Ohio to London?

 
For folks talking about banning individuals from flying into the US from nations where individuals are infected with Ebola, would you have a problem if other countries decided to implement the same policy (which meant no one from the US would be able to fly those countries since we're infected as well now)?
I'd have no problem with that. Nations are free, or should be, to take that reasonable action if they feel its in the best interests of their citizens.
if controlling Ebola is in the US best interest than isolating the West Africa countries is not in America's best interest.

 
For folks talking about banning individuals from flying into the US from nations where individuals are infected with Ebola, would you have a problem if other countries decided to implement the same policy (which meant no one from the US would be able to fly those countries since we're infected as well now)?
I'd have no problem with that. Nations are free, or should be, to take that reasonable action if they feel its in the best interests of their citizens.
if controlling Ebola is in the US best interest than isolating the West Africa countries is not in America's best interest.
I heard the CDC chairman try to explain this, unsuccessfully. Maybe you can do a better job.
 
For folks talking about banning individuals from flying into the US from nations where individuals are infected with Ebola, would you have a problem if other countries decided to implement the same policy (which meant no one from the US would be able to fly those countries since we're infected as well now)?
I'd have no problem with that. Nations are free, or should be, to take that reasonable action if they feel its in the best interests of their citizens.
if controlling Ebola is in the US best interest than isolating the West Africa countries is not in America's best interest.
I heard the CDC chairman try to explain this, unsuccessfully. Maybe you can do a better job.
they need our tourism dollars

 
Fennis said:
Cjw_55106 said:
So it seems by simply touching body fluids...(a sneeze perhaps?) could be all it takes?
before you know it we will have it
Im not saying that, I'm seriously asking, what did they do with the fluids that would allow them to get the virus? How much or little did it take?
 
avoiding injuries said:
Fennis said:
Gary Coal Man said:
Witz said:
For folks talking about banning individuals from flying into the US from nations where individuals are infected with Ebola, would you have a problem if other countries decided to implement the same policy (which meant no one from the US would be able to fly those countries since we're infected as well now)?
I'd have no problem with that. Nations are free, or should be, to take that reasonable action if they feel its in the best interests of their citizens.
if controlling Ebola is in the US best interest than isolating the West Africa countries is not in America's best interest.
I heard the CDC chairman try to explain this, unsuccessfully. Maybe you can do a better job.
quarantine attempt

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2729741/Liberia-declares-curfew-orders-quarantine-50-000-slum-dwellers-battle-stop-spread-Ebola-capital.html

Tensions came to a head over the weekend when a mob attacked and looted an Ebola screening centre, accusing officials of bringing sick people from all over Monrovia into their neighbourhood.

Dozens of people waiting to be screened fled in the chaos. Looters made off with items, including bloody sheets and mattresses that could further spread the virus.

In many areas of the capital, meanwhile, dead bodies have been in the streets for hours, sometimes days, even though residents asked that the corpses be picked up by health ministry workers wearing protective gear.
 
what would happen if the federal government came and said we are going to quarantine Texas. No one in or out of the state.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top