$500mill to stop IS. $18mill to stop Ebola.

[i-need-a-martini]

Personnel we deployed to to fight I.S.? 

600.

Personnel we deployed to fight Ebola?

Zero.

[cherry*135]

I wasn't posting just to you. Could you have said instead  'you aren't addressing the issue in my post".  Which no-one has to address if they don't want to anyway.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Personnel we deployed to to fight I.S.? 

600.

Personnel we deployed to fight Ebola?

Zero.

---

Interesting point. The casualty from Ebola is going to be extranomical. Now you just have to work out how to infect ISIS with Ebola. win win.  

[cherry*135]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:

The UK are sending a hospital ship to West Africa.

This is what Australia is doing about direct requests for help. Very little.

The World Health Org/UN have asked for more funds ( they were down to $100 000) and personnel to be sent to West Africa.. Australia's response a paltry $18m and no personnel to be sent.

WHAT WE’RE DOING

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has defended his government’s decision not to send Australian health workers to Ebola-ravaged west Africa.

He’s praised the “selfless humanitarianism” of non-government organisations who have sent volunteers to the region, but says there’s a world of difference between volunteering and being forced to tackle the deadly epidemic.

---

What do you feel should be done by Australia besides pledging $18 mil, Am?

---

Quite obvious the answer to that question.

[Anonymous]

---

@muppet_detector wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:

What is Australia doing?

Giving a paltry $18m and no other action

---

Unbelievable!

This thread has shown numerous times that Australia is developing/has developed centres for treatment here in Australia.

Screw trying to help those who present with symptoms in Australia, even though there is already evidence that the virus is on the move.

Australian storm and fire season is upon us. should we spend all available resources and not keep any back should we need it? spend up to the hilt and ignore those who may need the funds here in Australia, even those we are already treating? Wager the farm and ignore all other industries that keep the revenue ticking over? Divert aid money from elsewhere?

Remember that budget that was being discussed - well here's a cool $18 million that I bet wasn't factored in. Maybe we could terminate live export, or mining or cripple the market for the production of caged animal produce and reduce our revenue without viable replacements - that would increase the amount we could donate! Close down the detention centres, turn em all away.

Sure, we could donate more money, but at what cost? What else will suffer? Which other charity or industry will receive less funds? Which will be the next crisis we are called upon to contribute to and how will we then fund that? "oops sorry, can't help out this time, we gave everything we had last time"

We could send another $23 million if everyone donated $1 from their pockets, but which other charities would suffer as a result? How many people will then have to buy caged pork at Christmas instead of free range?

I do like Debrahs idea of sending a hospital ship (or even more) I wonder if that is economically viable? I wonder what the logistics of that are?

---

RFA Argus will set sail loaded with three Merlin helicopters and a crew of 350, including 80 medics and 80 Marines

Strict rules to keep the ship ‘sterile’ from Ebola include banning personnel from going ashore on leave during up to three months of deployment.

Medics will take their temperatures twice a day and anyone who shows signs of Ebola will be flown to a British treatment clinic in Kerry Town.

worth reading:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2792857/royal-navy-hospital-ship-piled-high-vital-aid-suppli...

[cherry*135]

UK news media reporting on Australian current affairs/scandals etc often have more detail than we get in Aust media articles.

[icyfroth]

---

@am*3 wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:

The UK are sending a hospital ship to West Africa.

This is what Australia is doing about direct requests for help. Very little.

The World Health Org/UN have asked for more funds ( they were down to $100 000) and personnel to be sent to West Africa.. Australia's response a paltry $18m and no personnel to be sent.

WHAT WE’RE DOING

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has defended his government’s decision not to send Australian health workers to Ebola-ravaged west Africa.

He’s praised the “selfless humanitarianism” of non-government organisations who have sent volunteers to the region, but says there’s a world of difference between volunteering and being forced to tackle the deadly epidemic.

---

What do you feel should be done by Australia besides pledging $18 mil, Am?

---

Quite obvious the answer to that question.

---

You think we should also send a hospital ship to West Africa along with the $18mil and the volunteers that have already pledged themselves?

[Anonymous]

---

@am*3 wrote:

I wasn't posting just to you. Could you have said instead  'you aren't addressing the issue in my post".  Which no-one has to address if they don't want to anyway.

---

i thought it was obvious since you

quoted my comment when responding.

[cherry*135]

wow and that was worth going on about it for posts afterwards? Not being clear, when you kept saying thats not THE topic?

I know not to hit reply to your posts now.

icy - your question doesn't make sense to me. I pass on replying to it.

[Anonymous]

wow and that was worth going on about it for posts afterwards?

definitely not

[Anonymous]

You think we should also send a hospital ship to West Africa along with the $18mil and the volunteers that have already pledged themselves?

yep - we have so many to choose from -

http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/current-ships