So, I came across a screenshot of one “Charles Johnson” of Little Green Footballs asking the question “I wonder if conservatives worried about Ebola becoming airborne realize that they are now supporting evolution?” I went to LGF to see if I could source the quote–and ask if he actually knew what any of the words in that sentence meant (I’m guessing ‘no’).
I never did find that article, but I did find this one:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43932_How_to_Survive_in_an_Age_of_Ebola_and_Right_Wing_Panic
I’m not even going to bother trying to correct ‘lawhawk’s’ obvious misuse of the term ‘right-wing’. Let’s just look at some of the ideas he’s throwing out:
(The possibility of someone bringing Ebola into the United States is) fertile ground with the right wing already predisposed to being anti-science, and hits all the right’s notes with xenophobia and racism.
Because why lead with fact, when you can lead with ad hominems? Not one, mind you, but three in a single sentence. I’m particularly impressed with accusations of ‘anti-science’ by someone who had to have explained to him that bubonic plague isn’t spread by ticks. And the apparent suggestion that Ebola is a… ‘race’?
I’ve posted about right wing hysterics from the likes of Matt Drudge, touting baseless claims that illegal aliens are bringing in diseases (like Enterovirus D68, which was first identified in the US in 1962).
How does the fact that communicable disease has previously been identified in the United States, mitigate the fact that people entering the United States from Mexico without passing through any sort of screening, might bring a completely different disease with them? Or hell, how would it mitigate a new Enterovirus outbreak? It’s not like U.S. citizens were all magically made immune to it because it was “identified”.
Never mind that the second tweet is so easily debunked; there hasn’t been any second case of confirmed Ebola in the US. Duncan was the only case so far…
Enterovirus D68 has sent more people to the hospital and killed more people in the US than the single case of Ebola.
What the Hell does that have to do with anything? So, we should take no precautions against Ebola until it’s killed more people than some other, arbitrary disease? Unfortunately, containing horrifying infectious diseases doesn’t work like that. It’s too bad ‘lawhawk’ doesn’t apply that ‘logic’ where it would actually be logical: for example, by decrying attempts to remove citizens’ Constitutional right to bear arms, by pointing out the fact that rifles are used in fewer murders per annum than hammers.
Influenza has killed more people in the US (and more pediatric deaths for the 2013-2014 season) and poses a much greater risk to everyone in the country than Ebola.
Again, what relevance does ‘death-toll to date’ have? And how does influenza ‘pose a greater threat to everyone in the US’? Is there some new, untreatable strain breaking out, of which I am unaware? The actual threat of an actual disease is by definition greater that the potential threat of an hypothetical disease.
Ebola isn’t easy to get, and it is impossible to get if you haven’t come in contact with someone showing the active symptoms.
Well, I think that the current situation in West Africa somewhat undermines the “isn’t easy to get” statement. But if we can agree that Ebola is currently only transmitted by coming in contact with someone actively exhibiting symptoms, then why are we sending U.S. citizens to West Africa for the explicit purpose of coming in contact with people actively exhibiting symptoms? Citizens who might like to return home someday?
Meanwhile, as to the right wing talking points about the ease with which illegal aliens or ISIS could cross the border and infect people, the CDC has 20 sites around the country in high volume ports of call to operate quarantines. These quarantine centers are public knowledge and are fully staffed at all times.
Because, of course, it is well known that the first step of anyone feloniously entering the United States–whether those wonderful migrant farmers and maids that the TV networks like to write into their shows, or the MS13 enforcers who are ACTUALLY coming in–is to check in with the closest Federal authority. Kind of puts the lie to the pseudo-liberal claim that we have to pass an amnesty act for illegals because they are afraid to seek health-care, and so might start a new epidemic… Yes?
The CDC can quarantine persons showing symptoms for any of the following diseases…
Sure–but only if the CDC KNOWS THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE HERE. Which is (one of several very important reasons) why we need to take control of our borders.
Health professionals know what they’re up against here in the US. The concern shouldn’t be about an outbreak of cases here in the US, but rather in other parts of the Third World where the health infrastructure simply can’t handle the strain of this kind of outbreak.
‘This kind of outbreak’? I thought it wasn’t easy to catch? At any rate, the concern should be in preventing the spread of the virus. The big two rules there are, don’t send new people in to get infected, and don’t bring infected people out to uninflected populations. So far, we have deliberately done one, and are on track to do the other.
But the best way to prevent the spread of Ebola beyond West Africa’s borders is to stop the outbreak at the source.
Which is done by quarantining the area (with travel restrictions); NOT by shuttling our own people in and allowing anybody to come out.
Of course, that IS the best way to keep Mohammedan terrorists out of the United States–fighting them on their home ground–but apparently that distinction (mindless virus vs. human ideology) escapes lawhawk.
“(The White House’s Ebola strategy) focuses on Africa because that’s where the outbreak is occurring right now and the best way to stop it from entering the US is to stop it there. It’s called “containment.””
Again, where was the support for this strategy in dealing with Jihadists? Hm. The difference being, of course, that sending troops to fight human beings actually does contain those human beings. Sending troops to contact infectious patients just provides more potential vectors of transmission.
Home of the Little-Known Blogger 