A new kind of Ebola?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 02:42
VIEWED: 11272
PAGE 4 of 11
I had to chuckle at Obama and his unbelievable hubris...
Quote:
Parsing Obama's Answer on the Unfairness of Giving Ebola Serum to Americans Before Africans
"And the countries that have been affected are the first to admit that what's happened here is that their public health systems have been overwhelmed."
But he's not gonna stand up and say, "We're not gonna share it." He's gonna stand up and say they know they don't want it. They know enough to know that they don't know what to do with it. They know enough to know that their health care systems are so shoddy that they wouldn't be able to use it anyway. So he's hiding behind them. These three African countries, he's gonna deny it to 'em. But he wants everybody to believe that they are telling him that they don't want it. That's what that means. When you hear him say anything like this ever, "And they'll be the first to admit, these countries that have been affected by this, they'll be the first to admit that what's happened here is that they're a bunch of hellholes and they don't know what they're doing and they're not worth saving and they can't get this."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/08/07/parsing_obama_s_answer_on
_the_unfairness_of_giving_ebola_serum_to_americans_before_africans
Obama never is at fault, for ANYTHING. Every time, it's someone else who isn't getting the job done, who is obstructing, or who can't even handle the very drugs that may help stop this epidemic. Gee, Obama would love for nothing more than to hand over boxes and boxes of the drugs , fly them there himself, if he only could. But they don't want it. They know better, so we'll just abide by their wishes. He flipped it onto them, where if this were Bush, the media would be going bonkers at the SELFISHNESS of white Americans, saving their own, but not caring enough to help black Africans.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are these quotes from THUGR from other threads? I confess, I find myself baffled. They seem to express THUGR's (or maybe G's) most ideological/ authoritarian moments, and they're very specific, but they're not from this thread.
You must be pro Russian. Or anti American. Or both. Commie jihadist scum.
You will never ever be allowed to claim any facts ever again that won't be dismissed out of hand because - well - who they think you are is more important than what the facts are.
Their agenda is all. Facts are nothing. Get used to it.= KIKI
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
….Magon
Having seen snippets of American news, I can say that most of it appears to be SHOCKINGLY and ALARMINGLY biased in a way that is less common here. There seems to be a blurring between opinion and news, which often feels more distinct over here.
So it's no bad thing to look to different sources for information.
I agree with using many sources to form a conclusion, but I found a Dutch reporters take on American global involvements interesting.
Throughout the earlier goings on with the downing of the airliner a reporter from the Netherlands appeared on some news shows here. I saw him several times. He explained how this tragedy was different because his country was used to sitting back in righteous indignation, while reporting about the United States and our involvements globally. The little guy poking the big guy with a stick if you will. He spoke about the Dutch having a seat at the big boy table for the first time because of the fact that half or so of the 300 people killed were from there. He was very honest about the fact that they had very little capacity to do anything and was much more supportive of America’s role globally. His smugness disappeared.
Europe loves to judge America while depending on us for their continued security. Many times in the past few months, even years I have heard reporters from Europe stating the world has felt leaderless because Obama was not taking a leadership role. He may be leading everywhere but if they disagree with his level of involvement they criticize endlessly and stand around scratching their heads as to what to do.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think you meant the Netherlands, commonly but incorrectly known here as "Holland".
Denmark having a seat at the big boy table for the first time because of the fact that half or so of the 300 people killed were from there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Are these quotes from THUGR from other threads? I confess, I find myself baffled. They seem to express THURGR's (or maybe G's) most ideological/ authoritarian moments, and they're very specific, but they're not from this thread.
You must be pro Russian. Or anti American. Or both. Commie jihadist scum.
You will never ever be allowed to claim any facts ever again that won't be dismissed out of hand because - well - who they think you are is more important than what the facts are.
Their agenda is all. Facts are nothing. Get used to it.= KIKI
You are confused because that is what 1kiki does. She mixes up posts from others into her own and spews garbage off topic. In this case I do recognize this as a shot at me with the first part of a sentence mimicking a comment by me but the second half must be her. She always and I mean always suggests the other person ignores the facts even when she was just proven wrong. It's classic 1kiki.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Back to the topic of the thread....
WHO declares Ebola epidemic an international health emergency
Quote:
(Reuters) - West Africa's Ebola epidemic is an "extraordinary event" and now constitutes an international health risk, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Friday.
The Geneva-based U.N. health agency said the possible consequences of a further international spread of the outbreak, which has killed almost 1,000 people in four West African countries, were "particularly serious" in view of the virulence of the virus.
"A coordinated international response is deemed essential to stop and reverse the international spread of Ebola," the WHO said in a statement after a two-day meeting of its emergency committee on Ebola.
The declaration of an international emergency will have the effect of raising the level of vigilance on the virus.
"The outbreak is moving faster than we can control it," the WHO's director-general Margaret Chan told reporters on a telephone briefing from the WHO's Geneva headquarters.
"The declaration ... will galvanize the attention of leaders of all countries at the top level. It cannot be done by the ministries of health alone."
The agency said that, while all states with Ebola transmission - so far Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone - should declare a national emergency, there should be no general ban on international travel or trade.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/08/us-health-ebola-emergency-id
USKBN0G80M620140808
Ie quarantine the nations involved and let it burn itself out?
Quote:The real issue is intellectual property. The company investigating the effectiveness of this drug ("forsythia" in the movie "Contagion") clearly can't produce enough for the need, but other companies can... if they're given the formula on how to make it. If there were some kind of deal reached- give us the formula to use for six months, and we'll be doing on-the-ground tests for your use later - then the relationship could be mutually beneficial.
After an experimental drug was administered to two U.S. charity workers who were infected in Liberia, Ebola specialists urged the WHO to offer such drugs to Africans. The U.N. agency has asked medical ethics experts to explore this option next week. [ID:nL6N0QB5UH]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:I think you meant the Netherlands, commonly but incorrectly known here as "Holland".
Denmark having a seat at the big boy table for the first time because of the fact that half or so of the 300 people killed were from there.
The Dutch, Netherlands yes, I stand corrected.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Your first post, you said "actually" as if to correct my assertion that Gov influenced news was not to be trusted. You cited Aussie ABC. To me, that was not an equivalent, so I felt I needed to make distinctions even further - I wouldn't think I'd have to point out the differences between Russia & Aus, or between funded and controlled, but clarity is good.
Fox is horrible, it is known. They invented the "bias posing as news" format as far as I can tell. It's worse on our radio. If you have never listened to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh then you have not heard just how bad it can be. Both of these people have a mind blowing number of listeners and their message is basically the same every day: "Obama Sucks!" I can only listen for a few minutes before it's just too much to take. If you REALLY want to hear how bad it can be, I suggest you have a quick listen.
A lot of countries have government run stations - they're not all bad. Sometimes that assertion gets made that they are nothing but big propaganda machines spewing lies. I was trying to assert that that is not always the case, nor is the opposite true that privately run agengies are automatically paragons of newsworthy virtue. I dont have anything to say about Russian news sites, not being places that I have visited, so they may have be more of less on a par with some of the US/ENglish sites which are pretty poor. In which case, referring to them as alternate source of information is no worse than referring to the Daily Mail, or Fox or any other news source frequently quoted on these boards.
I have had the misfortunue to listen/watch a few brief moments of Limbaugh and he sounds pretty insane. We have a few shock jocks here who get a bit of air time, but they tend to be agent provacateurs in the media world. I understand that is there role, to provoke an extreme response. That shoulld be different to the news. What's kind of shocked me about news in the US is how much opinion there is in there, newsreaders making partisan comments. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the concept of'news' over there.
Apart from the government run ABC and SBS news, the commercial channel news is for the lowest common denominator here. 20 minutes of sport, 20 of car crashes and murders and a snippet on world news if it is sensational enough. It's a waste of eye fluid.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:G, your post is incomprehensible.
You obviously aren't comprehending (or reading my posts) - thanks you. The fact that those are Kiki's words makes it all the more funny. Wait for it... wait for Kiki to come in and spin her post to deflect her intentions. What really seems to have galled her is my belief that you shouldn't trust government controlled media. That's how absurd her line of thinking is.
Also, I DO read and understand your posts. What I find, however, is that while you SAY you don't trust any news sources, you make it a feature of your posts ... totally trusting some sources and totally rejecting others. And it just wigs you out when others (such as myself) don't trust who you trust and reject who you reject. You get quite frothy about it. You're really source-oriented, not reality-oriented. So I don't know if you noticed how hypocritical you are? But you say one thing and do another almost all of the time, which makes your posts conflicted.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The WHO website is nearly inscrutable. However, I found this, which is interesting
http://www.who.int/csr/don/archive/disease/ebola/en/
Each report, they indicate the new cases that have been reported in the interim. You have to take into account that the reporting periods are uneven - anywhere from 2 to 5 days - but then you can look at the approximate number of new cases per day.
It would a "trend" of only one point so far, but the last reporting period showed a lower "new case per day" than the two previous reporting periods.
It is thought that Ebola is under-reported by a factor of 5 to 10. (Heard some of that in an interview, I'll try to re-find that link.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME