3 ms·

You are missing my point. With a small outbreak (not sure you can even call it that) we are seeing just how disorganized the response has been. A nurse that w

You are missing my point. With a small outbreak (not sure you can even call it that) we are seeing just how disorganized the response has been. A nurse that was caring for the index patient was allowed to get on an airplane? Really? And how about that NBC reporter on quarantine who decided to go for take-out? Really? We are lucky we only had one imported case of Ebola. Had we had twenty these people would be running around like chickens with their heads cut off. That much is obvious today. The truth is they've been sitting around not dong anything of substance to prepare against a bio/chem attack. And I phrase it like that on purpose. If there ever was a wake-up call to get ready for events with potentially massive impact that call was 9/11. The threat of a bio/chem attack could not be dismissed. And agencies should have prepared for swift and effective response. They, obviously, are not ready. They wasted thirteen years of our time and money. The consequences could be dire. Do you think terrorists are not watching our news?

zimpenfish 12y ago
Terrorists have been watching your news for 13 years. How many attacks have you had since then? Spending time, money, and effort on combating ghosts is a ridiculous waste - just look at the TSA for a perfect example of this.
- hga 12y ago
  I don't see this revelation of the gross incompetence of the CDC et. al. being anything but recent. And if you admit to the possibility of biological warfare attacks, the same analysis we were doing a few weeks ago about the collapse of the facade of extreme competence of the Secret Service applies. We can be sure our adversaries are taking note of this and factoring it into their plans. Your claim these are "ghosts" by an absence of action during the period our defenders maintained their perception of competence is less than reassuring going forward.
- robomartin 12y ago
  And now they know we can't handle an attack of any given scale. I think it is safe to assume that we all thought we were more than ready to deal with ONE patient. Not the case. The President just said we are learning and making changes. Really? Now? You are missing a very important point. It is my fault for not making it explicit. I've been using bio/tech attacks as a general term and yes, there's an immediate association with terrorism. The problem is far deeper than that. What do you think is going to kill us all? Here "us" isn't an egocentric "USA" but rather a "humanity" us. What will kill us all? Nuclear bombs? War? A meteor? Nope. Evolution. Not ours. Bacteria and viruses. We have built a world that makes it easy for these organisms to quickly move across the globe. We already have bacteria that cannot be killed with most antibiotics. And while we spend billions developing weapons to kill each other we seem to be neglecting the reality that we are not the enemy, evolving bacteria and viruses are. In that context terrorism might not be a factor. If viruses or bacteria get past that evolutionary "click" that turns them into, well, weopons of mass destruction, terrorism will be the last thing we have to worry about. Now, what we, the world, have to do is take a 100+ year view of humanity, grow up and start moving towards the things that really matter. I would be shoveling, no, trucking money into programs to develop all manner of systems, products and organizations to fight a war that could be an existential threat to our species. So, you see, when I worry about e CDC or government wasting over a decade getting ready for patient one of an unknown killer event I am thinking well beyond Ebola. I am thinking we've squandered thirteen years of work towards understanding how to effectively protect our entire species. Let's put it this way, we are not going to solve the problem by building more churches. We need to enter an age of intense scientific enlightening and stop building smart bombs and stealth fighters. We are not the enemy.
  - zimpenfish 12y ago
    That's an excellent sci-fi plot but I fear not grounded in any kind of reality. > We already have bacteria that cannot be killed with most antibiotics. The spread of which is blocked by even the simplest of cleanliness protocols. Hardly an existential threat. Although we do already have existential threats to the species - e.g. the potential for a recurrence of the 1918 flu pandemic, for example, is already terrifying the people whose job it is to worry about these things.

zimpenfish 12y ago

Terrorists have been watching your news for 13 years. How many attacks have you had since then? Spending time, money, and effort on combating ghosts is a ridiculous waste - just look at the TSA for a perfect example of this.

hga 12y ago
I don't see this revelation of the gross incompetence of the CDC et. al. being anything but recent. And if you admit to the possibility of biological warfare attacks, the same analysis we were doing a few weeks ago about the collapse of the facade of extreme competence of the Secret Service applies. We can be sure our adversaries are taking note of this and factoring it into their plans. Your claim these are "ghosts" by an absence of action during the period our defenders maintained their perception of competence is less than reassuring going forward.
robomartin 12y ago
And now they know we can't handle an attack of any given scale. I think it is safe to assume that we all thought we were more than ready to deal with ONE patient. Not the case. The President just said we are learning and making changes. Really? Now? You are missing a very important point. It is my fault for not making it explicit. I've been using bio/tech attacks as a general term and yes, there's an immediate association with terrorism. The problem is far deeper than that. What do you think is going to kill us all? Here "us" isn't an egocentric "USA" but rather a "humanity" us. What will kill us all? Nuclear bombs? War? A meteor? Nope. Evolution. Not ours. Bacteria and viruses. We have built a world that makes it easy for these organisms to quickly move across the globe. We already have bacteria that cannot be killed with most antibiotics. And while we spend billions developing weapons to kill each other we seem to be neglecting the reality that we are not the enemy, evolving bacteria and viruses are. In that context terrorism might not be a factor. If viruses or bacteria get past that evolutionary "click" that turns them into, well, weopons of mass destruction, terrorism will be the last thing we have to worry about. Now, what we, the world, have to do is take a 100+ year view of humanity, grow up and start moving towards the things that really matter. I would be shoveling, no, trucking money into programs to develop all manner of systems, products and organizations to fight a war that could be an existential threat to our species. So, you see, when I worry about e CDC or government wasting over a decade getting ready for patient one of an unknown killer event I am thinking well beyond Ebola. I am thinking we've squandered thirteen years of work towards understanding how to effectively protect our entire species. Let's put it this way, we are not going to solve the problem by building more churches. We need to enter an age of intense scientific enlightening and stop building smart bombs and stealth fighters. We are not the enemy.
- zimpenfish 12y ago
  That's an excellent sci-fi plot but I fear not grounded in any kind of reality. > We already have bacteria that cannot be killed with most antibiotics. The spread of which is blocked by even the simplest of cleanliness protocols. Hardly an existential threat. Although we do already have existential threats to the species - e.g. the potential for a recurrence of the 1918 flu pandemic, for example, is already terrifying the people whose job it is to worry about these things.