I'm just glad we can leave Fox news out of it now, considering every other media outlet has similar fear-mongering.

Why? That false equivalence horseshit is exactly the problem with our media. It's too forgiving to Fox, who played their part as they always do by choosing to throw everything they've got into accelerating the hysteria to drive a false narrative that's advantageous to the political party they shill for. The sole reason that a travel ban is popular and seen as a "common sense" solution is that people don't actually understand how Ebola works and how to combat it, and Fox is the principal reason for that.

We could implement the ban, it would predictably solve little to nothing, and then Fox's false narrative predictably shifts to "The reason that Ebola is still a problem is because Obama didn't act fast enough, the ban would have worked but because Obama doesn't know how to lead we're still dealing with this," and all their yuppies continue to slurp up their gruel and we still never get around to actually solving the problem.

Fox had a single moment of sense, but it's back to derping up a storm..... It was nice while it lasted.

Viruses mutate (RNA especially), this isn't something exclusive to Ebola. I'm not sure why you seem to think this is remotely controversial.

The virus has killed isolated populations before this. I don't know what "densely populated areas" you're talking about, but a few hundred cases over decades is nothing compared to what we're seeing now.

More human to human transmissions increases the likelihood of a beneficial mutation (for human to human transmission) being favored. That sort of change could have happened at any time in the past, but for a virus that rarely leaves its natural host population it would be unlikely to be favored.

As I said, humans are only incidentally impacted through contact with infected animals. This normally means bush meat (e.g. A chimp that was infected) or through direct contact with the natural host (e.g. Consumption of fruit bat). The longer this outbreak goes on the more likely a random mutation will occur which favors the current human to human mode of transmission.

It's more likely, but only in the sense that you're more likely to get struck by lightning than bit by a shark. Virus mutations take time to accumulate and to change modes of infection are incredibly unlikely events. Even a mutation to stay alive on a counter top would require drastic modification of the protein coat which would require several random successive mutations to accumulate on top of each other. It might happen, but not in any time frame we should be concerned with.

Your argument holds weight only if and when such outbreak occurs.

Obama never has been a leader.

He has spent more time golfing than attending intelligence briefings.

Evidence: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/30/obama-has-spent-more-time-playing-golf-than-in-intel-briefings/

Bush spent more time taking a crap than XXXXX arbitrary presidential item.

I like how you also provided an appropriate link for your argument.

However, I do agree that Bush, Obama, and practically every president we've had since before possibly Theodore Roosevelt have been idiots.

But it is fitting that a democracy composed of morons would elect morons to lead them.

This post was edited by PixileDust on Oct 21 2014 12:40am