US doctor with Ebola in Atlanta for treatment

[Force10]

Come on, work with me here. Or at least try. This isn't that hard to figure out. Risk vs. reward is usually self explanatory....Except to some here. If you feel you must take a chance in helping someone, regardless of the situation, are you going to take it if it put's you in worse shape than the person you're trying to help? Or perhaps dead? Take your car wreck example. If you can safely pull over and help without creating a more dangerous situation, fine. But are you going to dodge 8 lanes of freeway traffic at highway speeds in your Reebok's to get to it? If you have total disregard for your own life, then perhaps. Or else if your intent is to create an even bigger wreck than the one you're trying to assist in. Not too smart.

I'll give you an example of stupidly, "trying to help", and making a mess out of things in the process. Watch the track worker at 0:13 in the video as he tries to run across a race track under green, with F-1 cars passing by at over 180 MPH. He didn't do so well. And in the process he killed driver Tom Pryce when the fire extinguisher he was carrying smashed Pryce's skull when it slammed into him. Now....He was "trying to help" put out the fire in the car that had SAFELY pulled over and stopped. He took a horrifically stupid risk to do it. He not only paid the price with his own life, he took another guy with him who wasn't even involved. I can't make this any clearer.

To use your analogy, do F1 cars = Ebola, track worker = Doctor(s), race track = Africa, and car fire = African Ebola outbreak? If so, using your analogy and arguments so far, the track worker shouldn't even have been there! Why ever would somebody work in an area where there are cars zooming around at 180+ mph? I'm trying to work with ya...

Please explain how risk vs reward is [ETA self] explanatory, and how one can concretely, prospectively, make the claim that going into an Ebola outbreak with a strong knowledge about the disease is "too risky." Because we are talking about the intent and actions of the Doctor, right?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

No I "love" simple common sense. Doctors going into disease infested areas of the world without proper protection, doesn't display any more of it than that track worker did.

I hope to heaven, sir , that you never find yourself in a tough situation where you need to be rescued by someone going into harm's way... be it a doctor, an EMT , a cop, or just a friendly passer-by.

I suppose that if someone were attacking/robbing/shooting you and a passer-by with an LTCH tried to help, you would insist that he was a dumb bastard for even thinking of it, and should have left you to die.
Even if it was a cop - he should have waited for backup, right? Yep - he was a dumbass....

We all agree that these folks were doing non-frivolous things, right? For an example of said frivolity, see my aforementioned example of skiing down a hill of camel crap on the Iranian border - that's actually a reference to the dumb bunnies that were hiking the Iran Iraq border and got caught. Assuming that they weren't our spies and on the CIA payroll, THEY were certifiable dumbasses... But there is A HUGE difference between them, and Dr. Brantley and crew. But you seem to think not...

 

[billt]

I hope to heaven, sir , that you never find yourself in a tough situation where you need to be rescued by someone going into harm's way... be it a doctor, an EMT , a cop, or just a friendly passer-by. I suppose that if someone were attacking/robbing/shooting you and a passer-by with an LTCH tried to help, you would insist that he was a dumb bastard for even thinking of it, and should have left you to die. Even if it was a cop - he should have waited for backup, right? Yep - he was a dumbass....

Since you seem to love to use EMT's, cops, robberies, and shootings so much as examples, lets park your over developed emotions for a minute, and run with it. When EMT's show up where someone has been injured by a violent act, regardless of how bad or life threatening the injury is, the cops will not let them into the situation to administer treatment, or evacuate the person, until the area has been completely secured, and their safety guaranteed. They do this because they don't want or need more victims, not because they are "dumbasses". They don't allow people to simply run into a situation blind because they're "needed". Again, it's called common sense.

 

[billt]

Please explain how risk vs reward is explanatory, and how one can concretely, prospectively, make the claim that going into an Ebola outbreak with a strong knowledge about the disease is "too risky."

Simple, he caught it himself.

 

[indiucky]

the cops will not let them into the situation to administer treatment, or evacuate the person, until the area has been completely secured, and their safety guaranteed.

I had no idea cops were able to completely secure an area and guarantee the safety of others....I have been arguing with gun grabbers forever saying that LEO's have no obligation and no ability to guarantee anyone's safety but I guess I was wrong....No need to carry at public events patroled by police...."Safety is Guaranteed..." Cool....

Yeah...Now that you mention it the FBI wouldn't let the firetrucks in at Waco...They couldn't "guarantee their safety" from all of those church folk....

 

[Force10]

Simple, he caught it himself.

The key to my question was italicized for emphasis, but apparently was still missed. Prospectively. That is, how can you predict with any amount of certainty that event x will occur prior to said event? Hindsight is 20/20 or better, easy to make a judgement after the fact.

For the sake of argument, would you have the same opinion of the good doctor if he hadn't contracted the virus himself? Do we even know how many lives he saved by supporting their personal immune systems so they could fight off the virus?

 

[Force10]

To use your analogy, do F1 cars = Ebola, track worker = Doctor(s), race track = Africa, and car fire = African Ebola outbreak? If so, using your analogy and arguments so far, the track worker shouldn't even have been there! Why ever would somebody work in an area where there are cars zooming around at 180+ mph? I'm trying to work with ya...

And you didn't tell me whether my interpretation of your analogy was accurate or not.

 

[indiucky]

No I "love" simple common sense.

You must think William Travis, James Bowie, Davy Crockett and a couple of hundred other Tejanos/Americans were really dumb then......

[video=youtube;CvcAtLUzWWw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvcAtLUzWWw[/video]

As steveh said (and he and I do not agree on much), "Greater love has no man than this"....I know it seems quaint and old fashioned but there are people out there that believe in our heart of hearts that it is normal and proper to risk yourself to help others or for a cause greater than ourselves....

 

[Justus]

 

[ChalupaCabras]

A lot of ignorance related to this diseases life cycle.

But that's what I get for stumbling into the politics forum.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Simple, he caught it himself.

Is it hard to write cogent posts while listening to conservative talk radio at the same time?

 

[MisterChester]

A lot of ignorance related to this diseases life cycle.

But that's what I get for stumbling into the politics forum.

You must be new here.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Come on, work with me here. Or at least try. This isn't that hard to figure out. Risk vs. reward is usually self explanatory....Except to some here. If you feel you must take a chance in helping someone, regardless of the situation, are you going to take it if it put's you in worse shape than the person you're trying to help? Or perhaps dead? Take your car wreck example. If you can safely pull over and help without creating a more dangerous situation, fine. But are you going to dodge 8 lanes of freeway traffic at highway speeds in your Reebok's to get to it? If you have total disregard for your own life, then perhaps. Or else if your intent is to create an even bigger wreck than the one you're trying to assist in. Not too smart.

I'll give you an example of stupidly, "trying to help", and making a mess out of things in the process. Watch the track worker at 0:13 in the video as he tries to run across a race track under green, with F-1 cars passing by at over 180 MPH. He didn't do so well. And in the process he killed driver Tom Pryce when the fire extinguisher he was carrying smashed Pryce's skull when it slammed into him. Now....He was "trying to help" put out the fire in the car that had SAFELY pulled over and stopped. He took a horrifically stupid risk to do it. He not only paid the price with his own life, he took another guy with him who wasn't even involved. I can't make this any clearer.

[video=youtube;rdUhVP3tnAo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdUhVP3tnAo[/video]

I Billy Madison'd the wrong guy.

 

[Destro]

Simple, he caught it himself.

I will ALWAYS get out of my car

 

[billt]

The key to my question was italicized for emphasis, but apparently was still missed. Prospectively. That is, how can you predict with any amount of certainty that event x will occur prior to said event? Hindsight is 20/20 or better, easy to make a judgement after the fact.

For the sake of argument, would you have the same opinion of the good doctor if he hadn't contracted the virus himself? Do we even know how many lives he saved by supporting their personal immune systems so they could fight off the virus?

If he hadn't caught it he would have just been a bit luckier. The fact is he wasn't. Hypotheticals mean . You toying with words isn't going to change a bad decision. He made one, and now because of it others will be put at risk, and be forced to pay the price. Which latest reports say could run well over $ 1 MILLION for each of them. $200K for each flight alone. It appears his "strong knowledge" didn't help much, did it? Or the fact it all could have been avoided with the proper protection. The facts don't change regardless of how much you want to twist them.

 

[billt]

I had no idea cops were able to completely secure an area and guarantee the safety of others....

I'm sure there is plenty more you have "no idea of".

 

[billt]

And you didn't tell me whether my interpretation of your analogy was accurate or not.

No it wasn't. The track worker was exactly where he was required to be. He just made a stupid decision to run across a track thinking he could beat a 180 MPH race car doing it. He killed himself and another by trying to put out a fire in a race car, that the driver had already removed himself from. Dumb decision. Trust me, watch the video and you'll see it yourself. It's all there.

 

[chipdog4]

I'm glad that he's back and now has access to the best health care in the world.

Apparently, the eBoLa drug is made in Owensboro.
Compound used to combat Ebola virus being produced in Owensboro - 14 News, WFIE, Evansville, Henderson, Owensboro

 

[Wild Deuce]

*

 

[Force10]

No it wasn't. The track worker was exactly where he was required to be. He just made a stupid decision to run across a track thinking he could beat a 180 MPH race car doing it. He killed himself and another by trying to put out a fire in a race car, that the driver had already removed himself from. Dumb decision. Trust me, watch the video and you'll see it yourself. It's all there.

Required by whom? Someone who writes his paycheck? Why would he choose a place of employment that requires close interaction with lethal vehicles. I do agree it was dumb to attempt to put out a fire when there was [no] life to be saved, but I think that supports my argument more than yours.

I am pretty well set in my opinion, and it appears you are as well. I therefore thank you for your insight, but wholeheartedly and finally disagree with you on this subject.