Slashdot Mirror


Obama Administration Seeks $58M To Put (Partly) Toward Fighting Ebola

The Associated Press reports (here, as carried by the Washington Times) that The White House is asking Congress for $58 million above current levels to speed the production of promising drugs to fight Ebola and additional flexibility for the Department of Homeland Security to cope with the thousands of unaccompanied Central American children still arriving at the southern border. ... [T]he $58 million request for the Centers for Disease Control would help the agency ramp up production and testing of the experimental drug called ZMapp, which has shown promise in fighting the Ebola epidemic in western Africa. It would also help keep the development and manufacturing of two Ebola vaccines on track. The White House request also seeks to use $10 million in unused balances at the Department of Health and Human Services to help with the Ebola outbreak in Africa. The scarcity of ZMapp, the most promising treatment known for Ebola, is such that the third U.S. doctor to have been returned after being infected by the disease will be treated without it.

105 comments

  1. Nice by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    With Ebola in the news, its the popular thing to do.

    1. Re:Nice by ruir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And then, the only sane thing to do that is suspend commercial flights and quarantine people who are coming from that part of the world, is not done.

    2. Re:Nice by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Despite what people think Ebola is not very contagious in the western world where personal hygiene is actually practised. Ebola requires prolonged exposure or direct contact with bodily fluids. It's not like a influenza which can easily spread around an office from a simple sneeze.

      Personally I was more concerned about the SARS outbreak a few years ago than a few people coming and going from a "part of the world" which has an Ebola epidemic.

    3. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering how many people travel into the US and the extremely low number of cases of these diseases occurring to people who did not travel, I think your hysteria isn't warranted.

    4. Re:Nice by ruir · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Have you notice this world is ever so increasingly small with the ever commoditisation of fast transports, and that we have multicultural immigrations pretty much anywhere, which often live the same or only slight differently than in their original cultures/origin? And last time I noticed, once they start bleeding and vomiting, for instance in a packed plane, bus, mall, supermarket, or hospital waiting room, it will be mayhem no matter how much they follow personal higiene.

    5. Re:Nice by ruir · · Score: 1

      Immigrants, not "immigrations", damn automatic dictionaries.

    6. Re:Nice by guises · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you seriously trying to imply that the only reason to address an ebola outbreak is to score popularity points? Or are you saying that your personal bias is so strong that if Obama's name is on it, it must be bad? Even when it's as no-brain obvious as this?

      Reporter: "Thousands of people are dying from a massive outbreak of a terrible disease."
      Reporter: "Libya's health infrastructure has been completely overwhelmed. A number of hospitals, including their largest, have been closed and quarantined."
      Obama: "Yeah, we should do something about that."
      Mr D from 63: "Oh ho! Look who's jumping on the bandwagon!"

    7. Re:Nice by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      Should there be an ice bucket challenge for Ebola? I'm sure if we had one of those, it would be sorted out in a jiffy!

      I have a hypothesis that in a western hospital, the survival rate might be a bit more than 50%, too. We don't have a large sample size to judge by, yet.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    8. Re:Nice by Kaenneth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure Ebola /could/ mutate to spread easier... but the common flu could more easily mutate again to become more deadly, and it's already here.

    9. Re:Nice by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Fast mutation does not equal fast evolution. RNA based viruses mutate a lot faster than DNA based organisms because single helix RNA has less error correction than DNA. Single celled organisns mutate more than multicelled organisms that can protect their reproductive cells inside their outher layers, cells with nuclei have lower mutation rates than un-nucleated cells, and there are several other changes in organisms that reduce the mutation rate further which I won't bother to go into. But that doesn't translate to the organisms evolving faster. Any organism that survives to reproduce is pretty close to being a perfect fit for its environment. That's why evolution isn't about big, sudden jumps, A big change positions an organism so that it is much farther from perfectly adapted, and only a small change has any chance of positioning the organism closer to perfectly adapted for its local conditions, without overshooting. Viruses are so simple that just about any change is a big change. If, just for the sake of argument, we say that only 1 in 100 mutations in an 'advanced' organism (i.e. flounder, oak trees or us) is an improvement, then only 1 in 100,000 or 1 in a Million or an even lower ratio of changes is similarly beneficial to a virus.
              Imagine a giraffe, that is within a couple of inches of being the perfect height to reach the highest branches it needs to eat from. Figure that if a single mutation made a difference of 12 feet to that giraffe's height, the mutants would all have tremendous problems with pumping blood up to their brains, and be very unsuccessful. but a girraffe may have 20 different genes that each affect height in a small way, so a mutation can occur that gets that giraffe's descendents those couple of inches that actually count as an improvement, without overshooting wildly. A virus, on the other hand, may have one short gene for making a simple repeating structure that tiles to make its whole outer shell, and any change makes a structure that won't tile at all. The virus can mutate a lot, but every single time it gets any possible mutation on that gene, it dies without reproducing at all. Huge amounts of mutation are possible ,where maybe 20% of each generation dies of that one mutation before final assembly, but no evolution happens at all.

      I do like the idea of people choosing to donate for various projects, if they can be confident the government won't transfer the donations to other areas. I think even a system where people have to pay a given amount of taxes, but get to decide how much they want to go to what government projects would be an improvement.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    10. Re:Nice by Chryana · · Score: 2

      Disclaimer: I am not a citizen of the US, but I am in favor of any actions my government will take to help fight ebola.
      Maybe you should think for twenty seconds before shooting your mouth off.
      - It is still early enough that it is (relatively) cheap to contain the disease. If the disease is left to run amok, it is going to be astronomically more expensive to fight. When should action be taken? When the disease crosses into the Europe? Into North America? Into the US?
      - This is a valuable opportunity to learn the most effective measures to fight a major epidemic. Americans seems to be take the terrorism threat very seriously, maybe you could simply see the money spent as part of that effort. The lessons learned here could be useful in case of a biological attack. It would be drop in the ocean of US defense spending, anyways.
      Honestly, I find ridiculous (and abhorrent) your reduction of Obama's effort to political pandering. I sure hope the US Congress is more open minded than you, because nothing would ever get done if every Bill was turned down when it came from the opposing party. But from reading your post, that's probably what you want.

    11. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that the ALS ebola-infected-fluid bucket challenge?

    12. Re:Nice by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 3, Funny

      personal hygiene is actually practised

      Quite right. Simple measures
        Wash your hands, cover your mouth while coughing, seal the gloves of your suit with duct tape, stay home from work, use a glovebox, Get plenty of sleep and exercise, decontaminate yourself with a disinfectant shower, manage your stress, ensure that the air is filtered and sterilized,, drink plenty of fluids, decontaminate and sterilize your garbage, and eat healthy food.

    13. Re:Nice by houghi · · Score: 1

      and eat healthy food.

      Merikans gonna be ded.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Are you seriously trying to imply that the only reason to address an ebola outbreak is to score popularity points?

      It's been known to be a serious threat for many years now, but few serious efforts have been made in fighting it. I wouldn't say it's his only reason, but it's definitely why it's become a priority all of a sudden and you'd have to be pretty silly to say this had nothing to do with that.

    15. Re:Nice by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I didn't imply anything. Are your simply assuming that I am due to your own bias's?

    16. Re:Nice by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      You are making a lot of assumptions regarding my post, mostly it seems based on your own perceptions or seeming need to feel defensive. I simply made an observation, I'll leave judgement to those like you who feel the need to make it.

    17. Re:Nice by HJED · · Score: 1

      What you fail to consider is that virus generations are much shorter then the generations of multi-celled organisms and that is what speeds up the process significantly,

      --
      null
    18. Re:Nice by HJED · · Score: 2

      outbreak and threat do not mean the same thing. Having an outbreak significantly increases the threat (if that is seriously all you care about).

      --
      null
    19. Re:Nice by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      You should have been around during the Bush administration. People took everything the man ever said, twisted it, and started frothing at the mouth condemning it. It was ugly - this is mild in comparison.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    20. Re:Nice by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 0

      Ebola requires prolonged exposure or direct contact with bodily fluids.

      Ah, like AIDS, then? Well the US is safe then, because AIDS never made any progress there.

      At least, not among White Middle-aged Guys. Not even their own wives would have promiscuous sex with them. Which is confusing, being that only White Middle-aged Guys are given the cure for Ebola.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    21. Re:Nice by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      You are highly optiimistic. There is a fair chance the 40% that survive in West Africa have had a lifetime of low level exposure to similar things. That is not probable in America (or Europe).

      Even while the top five hospitals in the country each have a single case to deal with, the survival rate may be good - it wont be the situation when there are more cases than hospitals.

      Either a heap of people follow Obama's lead or "we gonna be toast!"

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    22. Re:Nice by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      To put it in terms your xenophobic brain can understand, isn't it better to fight a disease over there so it doesn't come here, like, say, fighting starvation there so the people starving don't come here?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's basically PID tuning optimisation with genetics. I think all the engineers reading this will understand this much more than you realise.

    24. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then, the only sane thing to do that is suspend commercial flights and quarantine people who are coming from that part of the world, is not done.

      Exactly! Like if there was a zombie plague in NYC, just close JFK and LGA to protect SF/Houston (or vice versa). No one would flee over the bridges and tunnels or highways to get out of the area and fly still further via Dallas or Newark. Ok, maybe Newark isn't worth the risk, but Boston's OK for the northeast.

    25. Re:Nice by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      which often live the same or only slight differently than in their original cultures/origin?

      You come across as incredibly racists / ignorant. I live in a country with a massive immigrant population from places like India, Pakistan, Africa, and SE Asia. I have also visited many countries of their origin. While some of what they do may be considered by you to be unhygienic it's a far cry from what goes on in their own countries.

      Travelling around the world I have seen people in major cities dedicate on the streets, wash food in the same water they just wash their cloths, wash themselves en-mass in a local river without any soap. This is not about being prim and proper and using an alcoholic swap on your palms after shaking hands, this is about access to clean water, sewage, things to stop babies from projectile pooing, uncontaminated food, etc. The nationalised immigrants you see in your own country act NOTHING AT ALL like they do back home where the lack of hygiene is born from necessity more than anything else.

    26. Re:Nice by rockout · · Score: 1

      Oh bullshit. You implied exactly what he said, and then, like the coward you are, backtracked and said "oh wait I didn't imply anything that's all in YOUR head!" Spare us your trolling in the future, please.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    27. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you sir are a horrible person, but at least you are honest. So, you got that going for you. Much better than all the closet racists.

    28. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet. Just wait until a few million are infected and everyone who can possibly afford an air ticket out has one.

      Then you should really start worrying.

      Too bad for you! I've already been stocking up on food, water, gold, and ammo! Oh and gas masks AND handiwipes. And all sorts of other stuff.

      There simply won't be any supplies left by the time you wake up. Give yourself a preemptive Darwin Award. Your woman will be at my place ;-)

    29. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha! What about Western and Northern Europeans? You're really partial to Slavs or something?

      As a White race, we're dying already. Last thing we need is Not-Ebola destroying the rest of our hegemony.

      The world would be a MUCH worse place without White women, science, symphonies, techno, philosophy, software, democratic systems (we invented), etc., etc., etc.

    30. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pussy. Stand behind your words like a man or remove the Mr. from your nickname!

    31. Re:Nice by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I see you are emotionally invested in this. Please, recognize that politicians of all parties act on events getting play in the headlines. Its not like Ebola is a new problem.

    32. Re:Nice by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously trying to imply that the only reason to address an ebola outbreak is to score popularity points?

      I personally wouldn't think so, no. But the state of play as given easily supports the notion that, despite its independent merits, it's definitely a convenient political lever as well, a.k.a. "Rahm's Rule":

      TFA states somewhat in passing that this is part of a package of so-called "anomalies" to the upcoming Continuing Resolution, including, as the article coyly puts it, "additional flexibility" for border control, without providing any numbers or other details. Being the curious sort, I just spent about 10 minutes looking for the actual details on the rest of the proposal and could find only a few me-toos of TFA. One therefore might be forgiven for wondering if the administration is teeing this up as the heartstring-front-runner to put pressure on Congress to accept its entire package of spending "anomalies" that's doubtless orders of magnitude larger than $58MM.

    33. Re:Nice by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to see that censorship is alive and well on Slashdot.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    34. Re:Nice by rockout · · Score: 1

      I'm emotionally invested in calling out passive-aggressive assholes when I spot them.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  2. Left Behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That he is not getting what works because he can't pay for it. What chance do 3rd worlders have? Zero. Or 10% if they are lucky.

    Bring out your dead!

    1. Re:Left Behind by 0123456 · · Score: 0

      Uh, no. The reason it's scarce is because they've been sending it to Africa.

  3. Partly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "To Put (Partly) Toward Fighting Ebola...". The majority of it will go to buy votes.

  4. Why More? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why spend more when we could simply allocate more effectively? Why isn't that ever the answer?

    1. Re:Why More? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now how the heck should that increase kickbacks?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. kill the Export Import bank by silfen · · Score: 0

    I think the money for Ebola is a boondoggle, but heck, not as bad as most of those things.

    But continued financing of the Export Import Bank is an outrage. Obama himself said it should be shut down when he was a candidate.

  6. cost-benefit by supernova87a · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When you compare against all the other assinine things that $58 M have been spent on (to the tune of being merely a drop of the bucket in larger spending bills) within pork programs, we should be jumping to take advantage of helping in this situation. The level of waste in this kind of spending is close to zero.

    1. Re:cost-benefit by readin · · Score: 0

      I agree we should fund this. But we should also cut spending somewhere else to pay for it. If Ebola is important enough to spend the money on (and I believe it is) then it is important enough to find the money to spend by cutting other programs. When you see someone proposing spending without explaining how to pay for it as the President is doing here (and plenty of Congressmen are equally guilty), they're not being serious about governing- they're campaigning.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  7. Re:How about closing the border? by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    A red carpet rolled out, you say?

    From Africa to the United States, you say?

    And the Americans who have been flown back are illegal, you say?

    I am only giving you credit for having an IQ higher than asphalt because you posted as AC.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  8. Oh wow by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You people are horrible.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Oh wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we just see this as what it is - using a recent news event to force through more pork.

    2. Re:Oh wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Slashdotters are not a particularly nice bunch. They're hopelessly cynical about EVERYTHING, and always look at stuff with the most negative of perspectives. Nothing is ever simple, everything must have an ulterior motive. Worst of all, they think that this totally cynical and frankly, miserable attitude to life makes them superior to other people because they somehow know how the world really works.

      In the case of this story, it's in Obama's interest to address the Ebola outbreak, if for no other reason to ensure that the US remains safe and avoids a national epidemic. Maybe there's political points to be obtained from this, but I strongly doubt it's the primary motivation for it. It simply makes sense for an administration to want to avoid a national emergency when it can.

    3. Re:Oh wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But think how much freedom your share of a fighterjet could cause!

  9. Water and Aspirin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not use that? Tried, tested, and true..

    1. Re:Water and Aspirin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ebola is a serious disease. Don't make jokes like that. The only way to cure ebola is to dress up like clowns and dance around a bonfire. The only time this doesn't work is when the victim is also possessed by demons, which, admittedly, is like 99% of the time.

    2. Re:Water and Aspirin by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 0

      I've heard of some Africans raping virgins thinking that will cure their diseases.

    3. Re:Water and Aspirin by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Or they just need an excuse for raping virgins.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Dude, I have a great idea. Let's use the people who signed up for the one-way trip to Mars to serve as doctors and nurses since they are totally expendable!!

  11. Re:They didn't build that by ruir · · Score: 2

    I dont know which part you havent heard about Monsanto buying shares...inside information about being subsided by government, maybe?

  12. Re:Why? by DarkTempes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given that it can only be transferred through bodily fluid I don't think it's really that big of a risk to treat patients in the states. We have isolation wards for a reason.

    My impression is that the whole reason it's even spreading in Africa is because of the culture there -- people don't trust the doctors and bad burial practices and lots of ignorance and superstition.

  13. Re:Why? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0

    I was one who posted that I was willing to go to Mars one-way.

    I wouldn't go to Africa to try to stop ebola.

    Mars has a better chance of success.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  14. How much is for Ebola? by KenHansen · · Score: 1, Troll

    The administration wants $58M more money (new debt) to fight Ebola AND pay for kids at the border... How much of the $58M is for Ebola and how much is for the kids crossing the border? Oh, and in addition, they want to reallocate another $10M in unspent money at HHSto fight Ebola.

    1. Re:How much is for Ebola? by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      Yes... these are separate issues and should be voted on separately. I won't do the rant I did in response to an earlier post, but spending bills need to be for lone or related projects. They only do this so that when someone votes "no" because of the border issue they can be accused of wanting people to die from Ebola.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  15. Too bad this person is going untreated. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Too bad they used up a dose on the foolish doctor that gave no credit to the doctors and scientists that formulated the treatment, instead giving all credit to the invisible man in the sky who happily lets thousands die of this disease.

  16. Re:This is BS by gfxguy · · Score: 2

    The only reason they attached these bills together is so that if republicans vote down the human trafficing, the democrats can complain that republicans want everybody to get ebola and die. Seriously... I know both sides play this game, but it's time we stop allowing spending bills to cover multiple, entirely unrelated projects no matter which "side" you're on, and dismanlte the whole system of riders that accomplish the same thing.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  17. Re:This is BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    republicans want everybody to get ebola and die.

    Considering they proved that is what they want by blocking funding, you're a jerk for saying otherwise. They hate those of us that aren't old white men and want us to die. That is the way of their kind. As Rmoney said, go in the corner and die. That is what Republicans want for us.

    Yet again Obama proves he is looking out for the common people by funding something that affects mainly the poor, and again the Republicans prove they hate blacks by blocking funding for something that mainly affect blacks. The hate us and want us to die.

  18. "Scarcity" of ZMapp by l2718 · · Score: 2

    ZMapp is not a mass-produced medication. It is an experimental treatment. Calling it "scarce" gives entirely the wrong impression -- it is amazing that it is available for clinical use at all.

    It's certainly worth it to produce ZMapp in significant quantities -- people would rather take an untested drug than try to survive Ebola -- but there is no "scarcity" here. Perhaps if many people wish to try it we'll have a better idea if it actually works.

    1. Re:"Scarcity" of ZMapp by MildlyTangy · · Score: 3, Informative

      ZMapp is not a mass-produced medication. It is an experimental treatment. Calling it "scarce" gives entirely the wrong impression -- it is amazing that it is available for clinical use at all.

      It's certainly worth it to produce ZMapp in significant quantities -- people would rather take an untested drug than try to survive Ebola -- but there is no "scarcity" here. Perhaps if many people wish to try it we'll have a better idea if it actually works.

      Wrong.

      Calling it scarce completely fits all dictionary and popular use definitions of the word 'scarce'.

    2. Re:"Scarcity" of ZMapp by guises · · Score: 2

      "Scarce" is accurate - the drug is derived from genetically modified tobacco plants of which there are only a very limited number. Obviously they're working on producing more, but the plants don't grow overnight.

  19. Re:Why? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    well obviously they wouldn't have to go if they don't want to. either way the hospital staff will be exposed. the point is to minimize exposure to the general population.

  20. I want to know ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If 58 million dollars our taxes are going to a company that makes the vaccine, then do we own the patent? I'm tired of crony capitalism/corporate welfare for billionaires.

  21. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why are we bringing people infected with a virulent disease that has no real cure back to this country?

    Because, in all seriousness, getting an Ebola patient for your hospital's biocontainment unit is like getting a panda for your zoo.

    It's an exclusive club that marks your facility as being top tier, guarantees continued funding for your biocontainment unit (which has only been used once in the past decade), gets you *loads* of local, national, and even international coverage, etc.

    All the other regional hospitals will be green with envy. Just make sure you are only accepting a patient that is past the inflection point (i.e. is contagious but highly likely to recover) in order to avoid bad publicity.

  22. Re:This is BS by readin · · Score: 1

    That was good advice to read the article. Why can't Obama ask for a clean bill to fund this Obama thing? If he wants funding to handle the massive surge in illegal border crossers his policies encouraged, then he should pressure the Democrats in the Senate to get to work on the funding bills the House Republicans passed. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/... ).
    Instead Obama is adding his illegal immigration poison pill so that he doesn't get the funding for the child illegal border crossers and doesn't get the funding to fight ebola. All he gets is political points against the Republicans (when the press blames them for Obama's mess) and a chance to usurp more Congressional power because "Congress won't act".

    The article also explains how he's trying to renew the import-export bank corporate welfare by attaching it to another important bill. Unfornately, just as the immigration debate shows there are a lot of Republicans and Democrats willing to help their rich friends at the expense of poor and middle class Americans by bringing a lot of cheap labor, the export-import bank will show that that there are a lot of Republicans and Democrats willing to help their rich friends with corporate welfare.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  23. Re:Any of our money that Obamebola sends to Africa by readin · · Score: 1

    How did you get modded down for this? The corruption in Africa is world famous with many relief organizations complaining about how much charity funding the local governments and warlords divert to their own purposes in maintaining power.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  24. $58 million? You could almost buy... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a fraction of a fighter jet for that!

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  25. Re:How about closing the border? by Yoda222 · · Score: 2

    You want to shut down all travels from Africa when only 4 countries have a significant number of Ebola case? You have no idea of the size of Africa, do you?

  26. Re:How about closing the border? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ebola isn't the only reason to lock down immigration from that cesspit.

  27. Re:How about closing the border? by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

    The comment doesn't speak about stopping immigration, it specifically refers to stopping Ebola by closing down (or quarantining) everyone coming from anywhere Africa. Including US citizen.

  28. Re:They didn't build that by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    inside information about being subsided by government,

    "subsided" has a meaning. Look it up sometime.

    It is NOT, however, the verb form of "subsidy". That would be "subsidized".

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  29. Re:How about closing the border? by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

    You want to shut down all travels from Africa when only 4 countries have a significant number of Ebola case? You have no idea of the size of Africa, do you?

    Well, be fair. I believe the AC posting above is former half-term governor Sarah "Winky" Palin. You know, who referred to Africa as a country.

    Or possibly the AC is Rep Tom Marino (R, naturally), who criticized the president about Libya, saying, "Where does it stop? Do we go into Africa next?"

    Proud to a 'murican!

  30. Re:They didn't build that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Captain Asshole! You forgot to wear your mask!

  31. Re:Why? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Telephone Sanitisers won't suffice. This is too big a job for just them.

  32. Re:They didn't build that by Guppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ZMapp is produced by a private firm

    If you follow the money, it'll lead back to a grant funded by the Federal government (in this case, both the U.S. and Canadian governments).

    Ebola therapeutics were (and probably still are) anticipated to be a profit-less product segment, as far as the civilian commercial market is concerned. The affected population can't afford any resulting product, plus previous outbreaks were sporadic with small numbers of fatalities. The only potential "customers" -- at the time research was initiated over a decade ago -- were governments who might be interested in stockpiling treatments for future bio-defense use.

    Now, a few of the large pharmaceutical companies still maintain and fund tropical-diseases divisions, despite the lack of profitability (for instance, Glaxo's division is largely a legacy of British Colonial days, which they've carried ever since). But I highly doubt a small biotech like Mapp Biopharm would ever do so without being paid most of the cost up-front.

  33. Re:Why kill the virus when you can milk it? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 0

    I guarantee that the CIA is somehow involved in this. And ISIS, and Al Qaeda are both probably thinking about weaponizing it. ISIS "owns" whole cities and many of their core are university trained...combined with their suicidal tendencies; I fully expect "Zombies of Mass Destruction" for real in New York but with Ebola. Forget a "dirty bomb", infected US citizens coming back "under cover" to their families could wreak mass havoc.

  34. Re:This is BS by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    Keep it up. More and more people will figure out what fever-swamp nuts you are. Keep damaging you brand and maybe we'll be rid of you soon.

  35. Re:Why? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Could we at least try with the lawyers?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  36. Killing the ignorant personal hygiene myth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    @"Despite what people think Ebola is not very contagious in the western world where personal hygiene is actually practised"

    You are so ignorant its astounding. I guess you're never been on any public transport then in your entire life. Let alone any major public transport network in any major city during any regular working week rush hour!. Try to imagine all the mutual points of contact (e.g. points to hold on to) on packed public transport?

    By the way, Ebola is known to be spread in mucus & saliva, so imagine people sneezing into their hand then holding onto the surfaces like public transport hand holds while they struggle to work with what they thing is the start of the flu. Then other people touch these points, then their pockets and money and phones etc.. and then get to work and clean their hands, then they pickup their phone out of their pocket at lunch time and text a friend whilst having a sandwich.

    Oh yes, our western personal hygiene won't allow it to spread. What total absolute bullshit. Do you think the workers who have worked with Ebola for decades dress up in level 4 protective clothing for fun, because they have a clothes fetish!. My point is it spreads in subtle ways. Personal hygiene didn't save over 240 trained medical staff who know about personal hygiene (of which over 120 are already dead).

    Imagine the potential for it to spread on surfaces. Public transport, freight boxes, money you get handed to you in a shop, its endless the points of personal contact.

    So seriously, stop this insanely ignorant idea that personal hygiene will stop it spreading!.

    If you're still not convinced, then try reading the following sections here:
    http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php

    Look at sections headed by SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST and the whole of SECTION VII - EXPOSURE CONTROLS / PERSONAL PROTECTION.

  37. President Randall Flagg by gelfling · · Score: 0

    Obama will call for a complete dismantling of all laws regarding border control. There's no better to destroy us all than right now.

  38. Would more money be USEFUL? by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

    I mean, is there a good place to PUT IT so that something good can be made to happen? (Instead of pure waste?)

    I've regularly seen situations where throwing more money than a certain amount at something simply doesn't help. You can only ramp up programs so fast, bring equipment into operation so fast, get people in, trained, and working productively so fast.

    It's quite possible that President Obama asked the people doing the work, "how much money can you absorb right now to accelerate things?" and got told "maybe $30M...?" So he got them $58M.

    Adding any more money to their efforts would just be waste. I know that my organization could absorb maybe $20M in "surprise" funding productively in a single year, any more than that and we'd just sit on the money or send it back. (I would hope we wouldn't waste it.)

    If we KNEW we were going to get a year-on-year increase, and were given carte blanche to hire people and support so we could write contracts as much as we wanted, we could ramp up over a year or two to use $200M or more productively, but in a single year? No way.

    Best,

    --PeterM

  39. Why wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you so helpless that you can't do anything on your own? You need your government to do it for you? If you want to help, send a check to the company working on the medications.

  40. The latest progress of the Ebola vaccines? by Eric+Shawn · · Score: 1

    I learned from a blog entitled Vaccines and Therapies Targeting Ebola Virus May Meet Breakthroughs that the United States National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration are collaborating to speed up the clinical trials of vaccines. They announced that, in this September, an Ebola vaccine would be ready for clinical trials. Does anybody know the latest news about this vaccine?

  41. Re:They didn't build that by HommeDeJava · · Score: 1

    In fact, many years of funding by the Public Health Agency of Canada. http://www.brandonsun.com/busi...

  42. Except the CIA/NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has ran this entire psy-op, and your niggerface fell for it again, hook line and sinker

  43. Run a primary candidate against... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maxine Waters.