Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 04 Oct '14 15:39 / 1 edit
    The comment is only for the US because unlike other countries in the US the Hospitals are not a wing of the government.

    Who is charged with public safety?

    The government or hospitals? If you don't like hospitals and want to call it the medical community, go for it.

    To be specific, I'm talking about ebola. Who is supposed to protect the US population from ebola?

    I'd say it is the government. I'd say it is the government's responsibility to quarantine anyone from the areas known to have ebola. I think the going time for the quarantine is something like 21 days.

    The US government used to quarantine people before entering the country. I fail to see why we can't quarantine now, other than arrogance and stupidity.

    The government has no right to say that it doesn't need to quarantine and making it the Hospital's responsibility.
  2. 04 Oct '14 16:11
    So, quarantine everyone in Dallas?
  3. 04 Oct '14 16:15
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    So, quarantine everyone in Dallas?
    Figured that is what you'd get out of my post.

    Those born and raised on the Manor can't help to see what they see.
  4. Standard member Quarl
    Quarl
    05 Oct '14 00:05
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    So, quarantine everyone in Dallas?
    It would seem that if four African nations had been quarantined there would be no need for a quarantine in Dallas.
  5. Standard member Quarl
    Quarl
    05 Oct '14 00:11
    Originally posted by Quarl
    It would seem that if four African nations had been quarantined there would be no need for a quarantine in Dallas.
    In addition, to previous post I have a question:

    1-Aid workers volunteer to help victims in those Ebola afflicted countries knowing full well they could be risking their lives. They have the chance to exercise the right of free will in making that decision.
    2-When a volunteer becomes infected and chooses to return to their home country, those who do not choose to make the choice for possible exposure seem to have no right of free will on their own behalf.
  6. 05 Oct '14 00:12
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The comment is only for the US because unlike other countries in the US the Hospitals are not a wing of the government.

    Who is charged with public safety?

    The government or hospitals? If you don't like hospitals and want to call it the medical community, go for it.

    To be specific, I'm talking about ebola. Who is supposed to protect the US populatio ...[text shortened]... no right to say that it doesn't need to quarantine and making it the Hospital's responsibility.
    Can government really protect people in fields where they have no great expertise?
  7. 05 Oct '14 03:21
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Can government really protect people in fields where they have no great expertise?
    Government can always do a better job protecting us, which is why we continually have to surrender power to them in order to protect us.

    It's a never ending game we play.
  8. Standard member Quarl
    Quarl
    05 Oct '14 14:00
    Originally posted by whodey
    Government can always do a better job protecting us, which is why we continually have to surrender power to them in order to protect us.

    It's a never ending game we play.
    A person who surrenders freedom for safety will have neither.
  9. 05 Oct '14 15:38
    Originally posted by Quarl
    A person who surrenders freedom for safety will have neither.
    Who will protect you from your protector?
  10. 05 Oct '14 19:00
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Can government really protect people in fields where they have no great expertise?
    Can a government that is incompetent do its job?

    No, I guess asking the present US government to do its job is asking a bit too much.

    Funny how if you go back a 100 years or more you'd find the US government could do its job and quarantine people who enter the country.
  11. 05 Oct '14 19:02
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Can a government that is incompetent do its job?

    No, I guess asking the present US government to do its job is asking a bit too much.

    Funny how if you go back a 100 years or more you'd find the US government could do its job and quarantine people who enter the country.
    Oh yeah, they did a marvelous job back then. No epidemics at all. Nope, never. Not one.
  12. 05 Oct '14 19:05
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Oh yeah, they did a marvelous job back then. No epidemics at all. Nope, never. Not one.
    They were able to wipe out many diseases in the US it is only now that we are seeing diseases brought into the country.

    Since you believe the US needs to be brought down a few notches, you see nothing wrong with making the US more like the rest of the world.
  13. Standard member Quarl
    Quarl
    05 Oct '14 20:57
    Originally posted by Eladar

    Funny how if you go back a 100 years or more you'd find the US government could do its job and quarantine people who enter the country.
    I think we can all agree the reason those who have the funds in the Ebola infected countries are trying their best to get passage to the US. We can also agree, I’m sure, the reason they want to come to US is because of the medical expertise that exists there gives them their only hope to be saved.

    The US has been spending large sums to develop a vaccine or antidote for Ebola for years. That explains why they had the nicotine-based injections credited with saving those first three infected doctors who returned to US.

    Now to the point I wish to make:
    1- Why is it that the US administration has not blocked admittance of people from the infected nations as the UK and others have done?
    2- How much do you think the Congress would increase the research funding for anti-Ebola research if there is an outbreak in the US? 10 fold? 20 fold? 100 fold? No limit?
    3- US funding and infrastructure is the “best chance” for finding a cure but obviously there are those who think it needs a prod to go into top gear.
  14. 05 Oct '14 21:22
    I think that we can agree that no one from ebola regions should be allowed to enter the US or any other country that does not have an ebola problem.

    Quarantine is an easy effective solution.

    For some reason Obama looks like he wants the US to have a problem with ebola.

    His policies do not quarantine and he is even sending US troops to the region where they can be easily exposed to ebola.
  15. Standard member Quarl
    Quarl
    06 Oct '14 14:14
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]For some reason Obama looks like he wants the US to have a problem with ebola.[b]
    This is exactly what I tried (it seems unsuccessfully) to outline in my post previous to yours.

    Let me state it plainly: Those in power want a level of US Ebola infection to force unlimited funding for an all out effort to develop an Ebola cure.

    That is the ONLY logical conclusion a thinking person could possibly come to when unfettered entrance is granted to both infected and possibly infected individuals.