Reply With Quote
I can understand the precaution -- that's all.
I said that tongue-in-cheek as to not imply I am an expert in this field. I am not. But, it is probably true that I know a lot more about it than Dre. But, I could be wrong. I am trying to be humble, and I am not all-knowing, that is why it is so funny to hear from several individuals that don't appear to have very heavy science backgrounds tell WHO, The CDC, virologists, and epidemiologists that they are wrong.This has to be one of the funniest most ironic humble-brags I have ever read on these here internets.
I can understand the precaution -- that's all.
She won BECAUSE you're wrong, not in spite of it. She is arguing from a position of science. Not fear. Not irrational statements about pandemics and the world as we know it ending.
Science. Period. You've done nothing to show that you're coming from an equal positioning of science.
Your "NY Times" article is behind a paywall and will thus remain unread. I'm sure it's an opinion piece based on a "what-if" game rather than actual evidence.
Though I find it interesting that you call me lazy when you could have simply pasted the pertinent point of your article, but would rather obfuscate and entertain some silly notion of insulting me. It's cute.
Science. Or GTFO.
You mean allowing the bike ride or forbidding the allowed bike ride?
You can understand a precaution that has no basis in science? I'm not surprised.
She went for a bike ride against state request. They tried to have her quarantined. They failed.
This is not a complicated story. Yet you still manage to bungle it.
Lol science. We came from fish.
The WHO, CDC, and virologists all say she is contagious? I missed that.
I never claimed to be an expert. I do, however work with Doctors and other people who are paid to know a whole lot about Ebola, and many many other infectious dieaseses. If the info I get from them says she is safe to be around, and the CDC says she isn't contagious, and the court says she doesn't need to be quarantined, than I am going to listen to them a lot more than I am going to listen to people on a message board. That is all.
I'm from a "sciency" background. Whatever that means. My degree is in science, and I spend a lot of time with my work in hospitals. But I admittedly have a limited knowledge of medicine, and honestly, even most medical doctors have a fairly limited knowledge of the intimate details of a Biohazard Level 4 contagion. That's why I pay attention and read what the experts think, virologists who study it for their careers as opposed to taking it in bio class. And they say there's no basis for quarantine for someone who's asymptomatic.
Chump, myself, and others have asked you for ANY scientific data you have to counter that, and you have provided none.
No, she didn't win because I'm wrong, silly. They even quoted that she was "some risk". A judge is not a scientist, in general. He can interpret risk how he wishes. He ruled in her favor. That really has nothing to do with the science. Since you are at least trying, here is another link:
She won BECAUSE you're wrong, not in spite of it. She is arguing from a position of science. Not fear. Not irrational statements about pandemics and the world as we know it ending.
Science. Period. You've done nothing to show that you're coming from an equal positioning of science.
Your "NY Times" article is behind a paywall and will thus remain unread. I'm sure it's an opinion piece based on a "what-if" game rather than actual evidence.
Though I find it interesting that you call me lazy when you could have simply pasted the pertinent point of your article, but would rather obfuscate and entertain some silly notion of insulting me. It's cute.
Science. Or GTFO.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/10/ebola-...be-contagious/
Don't shoot the messenger because it's a conservative website. It was just the first one that popped up on my phone.
I will provide you with more, but I don't have a NYT subscription so I don't know why you couldn't see it, but I believe you.
Making her stay in her house was overkill, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to stay away from public places until the end of the incubation period.
lol Crosi?
That's the link you want to share?
Holy .
That wasn't in the CDC link you posted.
It's really difficult figuring out what your argument is when you keep changing it.
All it takes is common sense and reading comprehension....two things you lack.
Godwin's Law doesn't apply here--I won this argument pages ago.
The same CDC that issued a sneeze warning, then retracted it. The WHO still warns about it. Lmao at the "scientists". Idiots.
judge killed the quarantine, agreeing with evidence and science, not fatasshole LePage. Kaci agrees, reasonably, to daily monitoring, checkins.
lol you don't even know what Godwin's Law is!
You can be asymptomatic for up to 45 days according to some "scientists".
According to the article there there is ONE study that implies if one is Ebola POSITIVE it is POSSIBLE that they COULD spread it in a sneeze.
"wet and bigger droplets from a heavily infected individual, who has respiratory symptoms caused by other conditions or who vomits violently could transmit the Ebola virus over a short distance to another nearby person.”
Last I read, she did NOT test positive for Ebola. She does not have respiratory symptoms caused by other conditions and is not vomiting. Therefore, she should not be quarantined. Which the court aggred with.
Which ones?
Are you demanding the soldiers coming back from west Africa be quarantined an additional 24 days?
Yeah, I do. Since I quoted it before.
It it is identical to Smitty's Law which states: The first person to bring up Fox News or Rush Limbaugh in a political argument loses.
I demand they not be sent there in the first place.
And how do you think you won the argument?
By simple logic. But then the dipstick I debated and trounced so resoundingly he ran away made sure to lose any way going on about "Faux News" and Rush. Learn to read or get out of the thread, LegHumper.
Soooooooooooo, I just have to point out something. I'm not a physician, but I do spend enough time in hospitals that when I read:
I had to laugh and politely close the window. Strep is a bacteria. Anyone who says that strep is a virus should not ever ever ever be dispensing medical advice.“There’s a good potential that on any given day a person you may shake hands with will have Strep Group A Streptococcus that causes sore throats,” he pointed out. “Shaking hands you take the risk you are going to get the Streptococcus virus, even if the person you shook hands with looked perfectly well.”
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/10/ebola-...svu8vprd6D6.99
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions