$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.

[Anonymous]

---

@am*3 wrote:

Back to you now, julia, direct the thread in the direction you want it to go now.

---

thank you.

abbott not wanting to send personnel

because of the time it takes to evacuate.

[cherry*135]

Well, you are here now, get the stick out... see posts above ^^^.

( we will have to wait and see what direction maritini wants her thread to take.. opening post covers funding and personnel... the 30 day excuse & time taken to evacuate was introduced by someone else (you?)

I read why it would take so long to evacuate sick people from West Africa, because the airforce doesn't have portable isolation units or not enough of them,.. or something like that.

[polksaladallie]

---

@am*3 wrote:

Where is julia2010 with her 'that is irrelevant stick' now?

If the Abbott Govt sent more funds to West Africa it would help contain the disease there and silly people in Australia wouldn't need to get 'panicky'.

Why would a Dr arrange a consultation for a person in Aust who has never been out of the country, never been in contact with anyone who has just returned from West Africa, to tell them they don't have ebola virus? When no-one else in the country has it to catch it from?

---

Re the last paragraph, I think someone is telling porkies.

[cherry*135]

[Anonymous]

---

@am*3 wrote:

Well, you are here now, get the stick out... see posts above ^^^.

( we will have to wait and see what direction maritini wants her thread to take.. opening post covers funding and personnel... the 30 day excuse was introduced by someone else (you?)

---

Opening Post:

Personnel we deployed to to fight I.S.? 

600.

Personnel we deployed to fight Ebola?

Zero.

the 30 day excuse was introduced by someone else (you?)

could i have been any more on topic

quoting abbott's justification for deploying

zero personnel  ?

[debra9275]

yes, but somone up there was inferring that by testing them before symptoms could lead to an early diagnosis and facillitate an earlier departure after quoting 6 to 16 days from the onset of symptoms to death.

was something like "daily testing could have them home before symptoms appeared"

I was referrring to the people working with ebola patients as the infection period is 21 days and symptoms do not always show at first (   I guess that means until they are at the stage of infecting others)

what I had in mind was the earlier the infection is detected in people, the better they respond to treatment ( and survival)

but I guess testing évery day is a bit OTT

with the time frame of the diseaese i disagree with what the govt says about them being dead in 30 hours & I wish we could send over the people  from here who want to go and try and contain the disease. If we did what the Brits are doing re the Naval Hospital ship, we could be doing something useful to try and stop the spread of the virus

[cherry*135]

No, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with Abbott's justification and post accordingly.. because lots don't agree with his justifications including Tanya Plibersek.

The thread title and Post 2 by the OP is about funding too, which is a separate issue from sending personnel to W Africa.

And to put the fundng into perspective - 

The government spent $21.6mill to Disney to ensure they filmed the next Pirates of the Carribean in Australia.

Mark Zuckerman donated $28million to funding the fight against Ebola announced the same day our government announced our paltry $18mill.

[cherry*135]

The UN has warned the world has just 60 days to get Ebola under control, or face an “unprecedented situation for which we don’t have a plan”.

A new report issued by the organisation’s health arm, the World Health Organisation, says the virus “is running faster than us and it is winning the race” as it sweeps West Africa and has begun to make its way across the globe.

Speaking at the UN Security Council yesterday, the UN’s deputy Ebola co-ordinator Anthony Banbury outlined critical goals for the December deadline.

“The WHO advises within 60 days we must ensure 70 per cent of infected people are in a care facility and 70 per cent of burials are done without causing further infection,” he said.

It’s the first time the UN has created a mission in response to a public health crisis, warning the goals must be completed or “a lot more people will die”.

Banbury said he was “deeply, deeply concerned” that all of the efforts so far won’t be enough to stop the outbreak.

What is Australia doing?

Giving a paltry $18m and no other action

[Anonymous]

No, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with Abbott's justification and post accordingly.. because lots don't agree with his justifications including Tanya Plibersek.

i never said that's what it meant.

[cherry*135]

You decreed the following was the issue (topic) here, which I don't see the topic  is limited to just that one point. How can the spread of the disease into other countries not be a MAJOR concern worldwide?

good information but irrelevant

to the issue discussed here.

the issue is not the spread of the

disease but the length of the evacuation

process of those who are sick - in

particular - australian personnel.

The title, the opening post and post 2 by the OP covers funding (not much given so far) and sending personnel to W Africa of not... not just discusing the excuse the Abbott Govt have come up with to not send personnel to West Africa.