Posted on 10/24/2014 6:45:16 AM PDT by NOBO2012
The situation in NYC actually worries me a little bit less than the situation in Dallas (and I say that as a New Yorker). Yes, NYC has much higher population density, and a much more developed public transportation system. BUT, the window for infection was much smaller in Dr. Spencer’s case than it was for Duncan. Spencer first started showing symptoms yesterday, and was transported to the hospital immediately, by people in biohazard gear. By contrast, Duncan was sent home the first time he went to the hospital (already symptomatic), and when he was brought back to the hospital, he was brought back in a regular ambulance, without any extra precautions, and was placed with other patients for several hours (again, without any extra precautions).
I agree. Lets face it, Ebola is hard to get. The only people who’ve gotten in the US so far have been those directly in contact with Ebola patients. Duncan got it it in Africa, and even after hanging out with his family for days, none of them got it.
Doctors are permitted a choice of oaths. Some take the Hippocrates oath. Some take the Mengele oath. The ebowler obviously took the latter.
Which is why I smell a rat. We've been given no time frame: For instance, WHEN did he get back from Liberia (or whichever plague-infested state he came from)?; or WHERE had he been moving around before going out on Wednesday evening?; or had he self-quarantined?; or what is happening to/with his family and friends? etc, etc.
We get one trickle of information, in a society that tries carefully to control the flow of information, which repeats the same pathetically few random "facts" -- subway, bowling, 103, taxi, doctor....
For me, this oddness could be taken several different ways:
1) It is as is being said. With gov't news being doled out (in the characteristically clumsy "transparent" fashion we've become accustomed to)
2) It's a put-up job--by gov't. He doesn't actually have ebola... maybe some other (self-inflicted) less-virulent thing. Purpose of which might be to demonstrate how much exposure can be tolerated before the virus is transmitted (a demonstration under false pretenses, obviously--just in case they're wrong)
3) It's a put-up job by people who'd like the big apple to melt down in a huge episode of paranoia. Or perhaps by people who'd like to see the borders closed faster.
For the moment, I hold with #1 per Occam's Razor.
If anyone has information that speaks to the things I said we didn't know, please feel free to correct. But I'd very much like to know if anyone else is bothered by the same inconsistencies.
Basically, it just seems strange to me. But I'm willing to be enlightened. fh
A link to this thread has been posted on the Ebola Surveillance Thread
Thanks for the ping!
You’re Welcome, Alamo-Girl!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.