I tried mentioning the risk introduced by the violent backlash to you and I tried asking you to think about how unknown factors increase the risk but apparently the scientist in you is just as lazy and dull as the the rest of you. In situations like this, when you pretend to have all the factors plotted out, you are setting yourself up to be humbled.
No, the scientist in me relies on more than insinuation and half assed guesses being presented as definitive.
Backlash has been against small groups in rural settings. You think a convoy of US military vehicles and personnel would be subjected to the same?
Doctors have been infected while working over there. So its not reasonable to assume some 19 year old kid is going to be able to do any better in avoiding infection.
Because they're handling virus-ridden patients and corpses. Said 19 year old kid won't be. Get it yet? Or are you still "thinking for yourself"?
There's the disease. There is the threat of violence coming from resentful locals. And there is zero risk. Brilliant.
Nice dishonest cherry pick there. The zero risk is in regards to our personnel spreading Ebola in the US.
But since in your world assertions are apparently taken as gospel, I'll assert that being military personnel, they won't be subjected to violence because, well, the locals may not understand Ebola but they understand a rifle.
Only a fool would disregard the risk introduced by human error and bad judgement on the part of our people. But I've refrained from saying as much until now.
Only a fool doesn't understand that this is choosing the option with the least risk. Allowing this situation to continue with little control represents the greater risk.
BTW, do you think we should stop other US citizens from going over there? They may, after all, be subjected to violent opposition and they could (and have) contract the disease.
And the idea that many people here have experience in dealing with an Ebola outbreak in an environment where a good part of the local population is actively hostile those trying to help doesn't stand up to passing scrutiny.
Horse[...]. That's not a new phenomena.
The idea that none of the 3,000 people we send there are going to make mistakes is very unlikely.
Are you intentionally ignoring my responses to this regarding procedures being in place to ensure that if this happens it's covered? It's almost as if you think you know better than the actual professionals while not really offering anything of substance.
The same things we'd have to do if this effort fails and the disease comes here anyway.
LOL it's instructive on the apparent depth of your ignorance that you think a known exposure in a person with a known return to the US is the same thing as an unknown exposure coming to the US at an unknown time and being in unknown places while potentially infectious. For a guy who's being condescending regarding how "unknown factors increase the risk" you seem to be A-OK with option two which is loaded with unknowns.
Which is precisely why it's the preferred option to avoid.