Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Pollster1

Thing is, that people might resist being put into quarantine. That is the only way that people might undermine any chance of containment, if they refuse to accept quarantine.


69 posted on 08/01/2014 5:16:41 AM PDT by CorporateStepsister (I am NOT going to force a man to make my dreams come true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]


To: CorporateStepsister
Homosexuals will effectively resist quarantine because quarantine of one homosexual person turns the whole subject into "anti homosexual discrimination." Homosexưals believe that if a homosexual has a deadly disease he has a Right to spread it to whomever he will.
73 posted on 08/01/2014 5:27:26 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINE http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: CorporateStepsister

You can’t refuse quarantine.


89 posted on 08/01/2014 7:06:02 AM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: CorporateStepsister
Thing is, that people might resist being put into quarantine. That is the only way that people might undermine any chance of containment, if they refuse to accept quarantine.

In quarantine, with proper hydration and symptomatic treatment, survival might be a whole lot better than 10% - or it might be close to zero if our dear leaders are saving those medical dollars for politically important conditions like HIV treatment and gender "reassignment". Hiding out infected, afraid of FedGov and those who might report to CDC, the outcomes could be almost universally grim. Hiding out before exposure in isolation as an individual, a family, or a community with a year's supplies, the risk of Ebola would be close to zero, but there is no guarantee the disease wouldn't find a host animal to hide out and flare up again once those supplies ran out. The keys will be how early cases are reported to be treated and whether the media have any credibility when the first hemorrhagic fever hits our country.

The very young (under age 2) and very old (over 65) are at much greater risk if it's spreading through random exposure. Druggies and gay men are at far greater risk than those who make healthier choices. The urban poor and city people in general are at far greater risk than those of us in flyover country.

99 posted on 08/01/2014 7:44:38 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson