(10-17-2014 12:17 PM)mlb Wrote: (10-17-2014 12:14 PM)DrTorch Wrote: Except the two bear no similarities. Obama is culpable for this b/c he won't do the job he can do: ban air traffic.
Should Reagan have closed air traffic from Africa to protect against the spread of HIV? I mean, the transmission factor here isn't completely dissimilar.
C'mon, of course it is.
A. Ebola has been known about for how long? Look at the stuff Mach listed, he's been "involved" with it for years, I heard about I think in a Time magazine probably in the early 80's.
B. HIV-AIDS was essentially unknown at the time. We didn't have global news, really. Some people in remote areas of Africa had some weird disease, no one knew what it was, where it came from, how it started or much about how it was spread.
To this day we don't
really know how it arrived here. The last I read about their trying to wind this back was (I believe, it's been a while) some flight steward guy that contracted it overseas somewhere, maybe Africa, and landed in the Twin Cities. I think they called him patient X or something like that and the story went that he was either extremely "promiscuous" and ran around giving it to as many as 100 or more people himself, OR he knew he had some kind of a death sentence and was hell bent on taking out as many people with him as he could.
Now, how would closing airports to and from Africa at that point have done anything?
And we've had this idiotic argument before. If you were any older than about 10 in 1980++ and weren't aware of, educated about, and knew ALLLL the dirty little secrets about HIV-AIDS and what to do, what NOT to do, then you were either willfully ignorant or monumentally irresponsible.
No one is trying to get ebola. AIDS, yea, many actively were. IOW's all the Presidential addresses in the world would have changed about zip in the spread of AIDS.