Will Ebola become a big problem in the United States?

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

It is not a lot of money if it effectively keeps Ebola at the source and works to eradicate it there. If there was a serious outbreak in this country, believe me, it would cost a whole lot more than $6.2 billion.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

We haven't had much success eradicating HIV / AIDS or malaria there so not sure why we'd be any more successful with Ebola.  Malaria rates have dropped 42% since 2000 according to WHO,

There is a huge difference between people living with HIV and people living with AIDS. You can live with treatment living with HIV and hold off full blown AIDS, but it is very expensive.

Ebola CAN be eradicated, and you probably don't live without supportive treatment with Ebola. The life cycle of the viruses in a human body are decidedly different.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

It is not a lot of money if it effectively keeps Ebola at the source and works to eradicate it there. If there was a serious outbreak in this country, believe me, it would cost a whole lot more than $6.2 billion.

Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop

Maybe I'm wrong, but haven't you consistently been of the opinion that Ebola is/was/will never be an issue here?

It's a hypothetical, to show that $6.2 billion is really not that much in the overall scheme of things. That amount might be effective in battling it in West Africa, but what do you think it would cost in this country if 10,000 people came down with Ebola?

[Jeremie Boop]

It's a hypothetical, to show that $6.2 billion is really not that much in the overall scheme of things. That amount might be effective in battling it in West Africa, but what do you think it would cost in this country if 10,000 people came down with Ebola?

The problem is the huge ramp up in the amount. 2 months ago 155 million had been donated in total, then the US committed to 500 million. Suddenly it balloons up to 6.2 billion.

Ebola is obviously a very scary virus, BUT it's already been shown that isn't all that fatal with proper treatment. There are many things that still are fatal a large percentage of the time that affect way more that 10,000 people in the US now which also affect people globally that could use this type of funding. Can we, and should we, provide humanitarian aid to other countries? Of course, but I do think there are limits to what we can/should do.

[MS256]

If we did things like this as opposed to torturing people and indiscriminately dropping bombs on civilian populations, we would spend a whole lot less money overseas and have a whole lot more friendly receptions in foreign lands.

But off topic, Proceed.

Yep I would say completely off topic.

You would be hard pressed to find any country that goes to more effort to avoid civilian casualties in warfare than we do.

(Probably to a fault).

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

If we did things like this as opposed to torturing people and indiscriminately dropping bombs on civilian populations, we would spend a whole lot less money overseas and have a whole lot more friendly receptions in foreign lands.

But off topic, Proceed.

Originally Posted by MS256

Yep I would say completely off topic.

Well, actually it really isn't, since this now has gotten into a debate about the amount of humanitarian aid we should provide. Some folks here are complaining about a relatively small amount when we spend exponentially more on ill-advised military endeavors. $6.2 billion is NOT a lot of money to spend on the problem in West Africa.

[Lihu]

Well, actually it really isn't, since this now has gotten into a debate about the amount of humanitarian aid we should provide. Some folks here are complaining about a relatively small amount when we spend exponentially more on ill-advised military endeavors. $6.2 billion is NOT a lot of money to spend on the problem in West Africa.

Not everyone thought that was a great idea either. . .

[Mr. Desmond]

Mmm, thought it was relevant to how your ideology has manifested itself on this site, which I believe was the question. Off the ebola topic, sure, but I think I closed with a scintillating, on-point bullet.

Attempts to approach reality?? SMH

Thanks, I needed that.

During the Iraqi War, you can imagine that many Iraqis saw us as unjustified killers. We knock down the doors of their homes with guns pointed, ready to shoot, and sometimes, shot family members.

And then they heard the propaganda from sectarian militias and radical mullahs... If you hear a lie enough times it becomes their reality ...

So the reality is that is how many Iraqis saw us ... even if not true.

Put yourself in their shoes and you can see the obstacles we must overcome to win hearts and minds.

[MS256]

Not everyone thought that was a great idea either. . .

Bingo. No correlation between the two.

[Jeremie Boop]

During the Iraqi War, you can imagine that many Iraqis saw us as unjustified killers. We knock down the doors of their homes with guns pointed, ready to shoot, and sometimes, shot family members.

And then they heard the propaganda from sectarian militias and radical mullahs... If you hear a lie enough times it becomes their reality ...

So the reality is that is how many Iraqis saw us ... even if not true.

Put yourself in their shoes and you can see the obstacles we must overcome to win hearts and minds.

Seriously, this has zero to do with the discussion about Ebola.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Well, actually it really isn't, since this now has gotten into a debate about the amount of humanitarian aid we should provide. Some folks here are complaining about a relatively small amount when we spend exponentially more on ill-advised military endeavors. $6.2 billion is NOT a lot of money to spend on the problem in West Africa.

Originally Posted by Lihu

Not everyone thought that was a great idea either. . .

Whatever. As long as the spend is monitored, $6.2 billion is not a lot of money to deal with the Ebola crisis in West Africa. Particularly, because it will also take a lot of money to extract our healthcare workers if/when they contract the disease over there. They absolutely should be brought back here for the necessary supportive treatment. That takes $$$$$$.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Not to get too picky but only 53% of the population pays federal income taxes so the number is actually closer to $38 per person.  Still not a big number but still a waste of money.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Not saying I disagree with you because I really have no idea what their plans are but ... why is it automatically a waste, in your opinion?

I'm sure it has something to do with this unfortunate, simplistic statement...

[Mr. Desmond]

Seriously, this has zero to do with the discussion about Ebola.

You are correct -- it was in response to Golfing Dad and Gunther's posts, and Gunther's reply to me... not sure what to do.... will leave it alone now.

[Gunther]

During the Iraqi War, you can imagine that many Iraqis saw us as unjustified killers. We knock down the doors of their homes with guns pointed, ready to shoot, and sometimes, shot family members. And then they heard the propaganda from sectarian militias and radical mullahs... If you hear a lie enough times it becomes their reality ...  So the reality is that is how many Iraqis saw us ... even if not true. Put yourself in their shoes and you can see the obstacles we must overcome to win hearts and minds.

The question is do YOU or GD believe our soldiers are murdering those folks. Your answer to that is what separates us. Edit: saw the OT alert after posting this. I'm done too

[Golfingdad]

The question is do YOU or GD believe our soldiers are murdering those folks. Your answer to that is what separates us.

Edit: saw the OT alert after posting this. I'm done too

I realize its OT, but I still don't even remember what statement you were referring to.  Safe bet, though, that it wasn't in this thread, nor had anything to do with whether or not 6.2B is a lot of money.  Am I right about that part?

[iacas]

I realize its OT, but I still don't even remember what statement you were referring to.  Safe bet, though, that it wasn't in this thread, nor had anything to do with whether or not 6.2B is a lot of money.  Am I right about that part?

How about we just stop talking about OT stuff in general now okay?

If the two of you want to discuss it in PMs, or a new thread, cool. If you don't, also cool.

[trickyputt]

.....and the National Institutes of Health in Maryland have tested a ebola vaccine that produced antibodies in 20 volunteers. 20 people who are heroes.

[Lihu]

.....and the National Institutes of Health in Maryland have tested a ebola vaccine that produced antibodies in 20 volunteers. 20 people who are heroes.

Nice!

[phan52]

.....and the National Institutes of Health in Maryland have tested a ebola vaccine that produced antibodies in 20 volunteers. 20 people who are heroes.

That's good news. But remember, it usually takes years to approve something like this. I assume that they will fast track this, and maybe others, to the populations in West Africa, who will really be the guinea pigs in all of this. Maybe it is worth the risk to them, but I believe that it would never happen that quickly in the US. Mainly because we are way ahead of most in prevention of these diseases anyway.