Elizabeth, you misunderstood. I'm not talking about the patient. I'm talking about the responsibility of the Government Officials who would be responsible for bringing that patient into the a Country. This could be a decision that if things went wrong, the blood would be on their hands for making such a deliberate decision.I wonder if Homeland Security approved of these infected individuals returning to the US. Or if they were even asked to approve. Here is another way a terrorist attack could occur.
We are seeing a lot of cases in our Government where the combination of naïveté and stupidity can result in dire consequences.
Do you think it is a good idea to knowingly bring such a deadly virus into an area where it does not exist.?
My own opinion is it is the height of irresponsibility. Originally Posted by Jackie S
https://www.yahoo.com/health/how-ebo...513417302.html
"This is a very low-risk situation for the general U.S. population," Diane Griffin, M.D., professor and chair in molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins University, told Yahoo Health. "Emory is a great place for [the patient] to go. They are set up well to handle this type of situation."
Ebola is not spread like the cold or the flu, she added. You could be sitting next to someone who is infected and still not contract the virus. “It’s transmitted by very close contact with people who are sick or with their bodily secretions, such as blood, urine, and feces,” said Griffin. “It isn’t spread through the air like most other viruses. It’s usually contracted by people who are taking care of a sick person – either a health care worker in a medical setting or by someone taking care of a sick family member at home.”
It's only low risk because it hasn't be introduced into a highly mobile, relatively uncontrollable population until now. So what happens when the person's feces and urine are absorbed into the public sewage system? What happens to Eva when he goes to clean the public restrooms?
