Sending Troops to Fight Ebola

[Tony-DarkGrave]

FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. — Wearing a hooded chemical suit, breathing mask and two layers of gloves, Pvt. Antwon Phillips raised his arms as an instructor showed him how to scrub and spray with bleach in case of exposure to Ebola.

He was among more than 150 members of the 101st Airborne who were trained Thursday on how to avoid the deadly virus during their upcoming deployment to Liberia.

Across the gym at Fort Campbell, Sgt. Jesus Sanchez said, "We're so used to being in Iraq and Afghanistan, where you know what you're going to get. This is a lot different.

"I'll be honest with you," he added. "I'm kind of scared ... but we're going out there to help."

At least 700 members of the division will deploy to Liberia starting next week as part of the U.S. military's 4,000-soldier humanitarian mission, which is expected to last up to a year and is aimed at building 17 100-bed Ebola care centers and training hundreds of health care workers.

Source

and why the hell is this our problem risking 3,000 of our own servicemen in a problem that has NOTHING TO DO WITH US? good lord just let ebola run its course in West Africa, we should be more worried about containing it no flights in or out, but thats not happening because the current administration says that would be irresponsible (Heard that before!) the first rule of infectious disease is to cut off contact from the effected area. Even the Democrats in the House have joined the Republicans in calling for a travel ban! many European airlines stopped flights already British airways ceased flights as well as Air France. leaving only one which is a Belgian airline Brussels air.

[Camarohusky]

You say Ebola is not our problem, but ISIS is? I'm not sure there's much to say with this sort of massive logical breakdown.

[Feoric]

Too little too late. We, as well as every other developed nation, should have not just sent troops, but more importantly doctors, supplies and money over to West Africa months ago. Going by the latest sitreps, it's likely that the threshold for containment has been crossed. There's too many infected people in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone and too little resources and morale. Keep in mind that as the situation continues to deteriorate in these countries, so does their ability to not only report on new cases and deaths, but also to maintain quarantines and general rule of law. All bets are off when civil unrest occurs inside these countries.

If you want to see how to correctly contain a deadly outbreak, look at what Nigeria did:

"We have analysed epidemiological data of what appears to be a limited outbreak of EVD in Nigeria based on data available as of 1 October 2014, with no new EVD cases reported since 5 September 2014. The swift control of the outbreak was likely facilitated by the early detection of the index entering Nigeria from a country where disease is widespread, in combination with intense contact tracing efforts of all contacts of this index case and the subsequent isolation of infected secondary cases. In contrast, the initial outbreak in Guinea remained undetected for several weeks. This detection delay facilitated the transnational spread of the virus to Sierra Leone and Liberia, while difficulties and at times inability to track and contain infectious individuals compounded the situation and resulted in an as yet uncontrolled epidemic in these countries.

We estimated a mean case fatality rate of 40% (95% CI: 22–61) for the EVD outbreak in Nigeria. This estimate based on a small sample size is at the lower end of estimates from previous outbreaks, ranging from 41% to 89% and is likely a result of supportive care offered in dedicated facilities put in place in a timely fashion by the Nigerian authorities. In comparison, the EVD case fatality rate in the ongoing outbreak in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia has been estimated at 70% (range: 61– 89). As is the case for any emerging infection, these estimates have to be considered with caution as they are prone to many biases, including under-reporting of milder symptomatic cases (affecting the denominator) and censoring effects related to the unknown final outcome of the most recent infections."

Keeping that in mind, this is why the ebola outbreak is "our problem:"

"Currently in the US, we see the following issues regarding preparedness:

1. Public health preparedness is a world away from true frontline medical preparedness. The two communities are talking past each other. The civilian medical community is compromised due to the upheaval of healthcare in our country.

2. Five airports are checking for fevers at checkpoints. LaGuardia was left off this list, prompting an airline worker strike. The US Department of State has not indicated whether / what they are doing in regards to the granting of Visas (the true core of the issue). DHS TSA has failed to provide key information regarding passenger movement beyond the Ports of Entry. Understanding critical information regarding intra-country travel beyond the Ports of Entry is essential at this juncture. We do not believe checking for fever at Ports of Entry addresses the core concern, which is the prevention of citizens from the core affected countries from entering the United States until containment has truly been achieved.

3. There continues to be a serious erosion in public confidence in public health's leadership writ large. This lack of confidence permeates our medical community.

In short, the situation is out of control, and our country remains exposed with the potential for more surprise translocations. We do not anticipate significant potential for an uncontrolled epidemic here in the US, however preparedness is a serious problem."

There will most likely be more confirmed ebola cases in the US and Europe as time goes on, but an outbreak here can't occur if we act fast upon seeing warning signs as well as following the proper procedures. Being cocky like how we were in Dallas is exactly how deadly pathogens spread and kill a bunch of people. Randomness and incompetence will be our fault lines. The CDC is projecting that the virus will infect over 1 million people in West Africa by the end of January. Once we reach those levels of infection the virus cannot be contained. Millions of people are likely to die, among them will almost certainly be Americans and Europeans. So, yes, this is absolutely something we have a vested interest in seeing contained.

Concerning travel bans: you run the risk of people just attempting to enter the US/Europe through countries where the ability to enforce containment is equally unlikely, thus spreading it there and abroad in the process. If you live in Liberia and have the means to flee to the US and there's no commercial air traffic coming in/out of the country, chances are you're not just going to stay put and accept your fate.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/10/14 09:36 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You say Ebola is not our problem, but ISIS is? I'm not sure there's much to say with this sort of massive logical breakdown.

Claiming ISIS is our problem certainly makes a lot more sense than Ebola is (unless you're a pussy who thinks that measures to stop the spread of the disease to the west are 'racist').

[Hoodie]

You can't kill ebola dummies goshsodumbsodumb#sodumb

[Camarohusky]

At 10/10/14 06:39 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Claiming ISIS is our problem certainly makes a lot more sense than Ebola is (unless you're a pussy who thinks that measures to stop the spread of the disease to the west are 'racist').

How is ISIS our problem? ISIS has yet to kill anyone in America, last I checked.

My point is either: NEITHER are our problem, or Ebola is our problem and ISIS is not.

I have never cared for Africa. They have had so many opportunities to advance into the 17th Century in the past 100 year, but are too content living in extreme squalor. The reason Ebola has spread so well is precisely because they have had some internal aversion to getting their shit tpogether. However, Ebola is a dangerous disease and in our current world of extreme access, it's damn near impossible to contain. Shit, we in the US are suposed to be barred from Cuba, yet I know a ton of people who did a patheticlly easy sidestep of the rules and vacationed there.

Ebola has already infected two people in the US, an could do a shit ton more in the developed world if we don't nip it at the source.

ISIS, on the other hand, while having extreme power in the middle of the desert, hasn't done a single thing outside of their borders. Oh, and the locals, if they weren't selfish and greedy fuckbags, could handle this issue on their own, and do so with remarkable ease.

[Organguy41]

At 10/10/14 09:36 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You say Ebola is not our problem, but ISIS is? I'm not sure there's much to say with this sort of massive logical breakdown.

Love your thinking. You block entry from all Liberians until further notice. You don't send troops to fight Ebola; you send doctors with a cure who identify those with Ebola who are then quarantined. Anything the victims of Ebola touch is burned.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/12/14 10:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote: How is ISIS our problem? ISIS has yet to kill anyone in America, last I checked.

(If/)When ISIS take over Iraq and Syria, obviously they just want to create a nice little regime and keep to themselves, living in peace. Live and let live and all that. That will be the last we ever hear from them.

[Light]

At 10/12/14 10:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

I have never cared for Africa. They have had so many opportunities to advance into the 17th Century in the past 100 year, but are too content living in extreme squalor.

If you think Africa is not as advanced as the more developed areas of the world because they're so lazy, you're pretty ignorant of economic history and the geographic, biological, and political factors that make it difficult, if not impossible for Africa to completely industrialize.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/14/14 01:26 AM, Light wrote: If you think Africa is not as advanced as the more developed areas of the world because they're so lazy, you're pretty ignorant of economic history and the geographic, biological, and political factors that make it difficult, if not impossible for Africa to completely industrialize.

Biological factors? lol agreed

[Light]

At 10/14/14 03:36 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/14/14 01:26 AM, Light wrote: If you think Africa is not as advanced as the more developed areas of the world because they're so lazy, you're pretty ignorant of economic history and the geographic, biological, and political factors that make it difficult, if not impossible for Africa to completely industrialize.

Biological factors? lol agreed

I was talking about high mortality rates caused by diseases in the african environment you racist idiot.

[SadisticMonkey]

So..not biological factors then?

[Camarohusky]

At 10/14/14 01:26 AM, Light wrote: If you think Africa is not as advanced as the more developed areas of the world because they're so lazy, you're pretty ignorant of economic history and the geographic, biological, and political factors that make it difficult, if not impossible for Africa to completely industrialize.

First, I didn't say they were lazy, and second, I don't buy your argument at all.

I merely said that the reason African nations are down is because of African nations. They've have every opportunity to get going and have decided to infight, be massively corrupt, do nothing, torture their own citizen, and so on and so forth.

The only thing you say that's right, is the political mess, and African countries only have themselves to blame.

Your arguents are all convenient excuses, but they fall flat as numerous countries hve overcome every single one. India had just as shitty of a history, has a great deal of georgraphical obstacles, and is a cesspool of extremely dangerous biology. Yet, India has worked to pull iteself up by its bootstraps and become a player, not exactly First World yet, but definitely better than all but 2 or 3 (South Africa, Egypt, and maybe Morocco) African countries. Ohter countries, like Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia all had these problems, but they decided they wanted something better and got it.

Now, things have gotten so bad in Africa that these countries cannot do better on their own. That still doesn;t change the fact that their position is almost entirely their own fault.

[Korriken]

At 10/14/14 08:16 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So..not biological factors then?

I'm pretty sure diseases are biological.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/14/14 08:16 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So..not biological factors then?

And you act all surprised when I say you are racist. HAHAHA.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/14/14 11:25 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/14/14 08:16 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So..not biological factors then?

And you act all surprised when I say you are racist. HAHAHA.

When have i ever done that?

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/10/14 11:53 AM, Feoric wrote: If you live in Liberia and have the means to flee to the US and there's no commercial air traffic coming in/out of the country, chances are you're not just going to stay put and accept your fate.

Fine, then ban Liberians and whoever else is from a high-risk country entering America full-stop.

Of course, progressives care more about africans being able to come to america than they are about americans not getting ebola so of course sensible policy cannot be expected.

[Feoric]

At 10/16/14 01:44 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Fine, then ban Liberians and whoever else is from a high-risk country entering America full-stop.

I would not have a problem with this at all if there were no unintended consequences. I'm still not convinced this wouldn't do more harm than good at this point, but I think if we can't develop a vaccine in a timely fashion and West Africa can't get their shit together by the end of the year then we might have no choice. If we're going to ban travel in/out of WA then we've essentially written the place off as a lost cause.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/16/14 01:44 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Fine, then ban Liberians and whoever else is from a high-risk country entering America full-stop.

BAD IDEA. The best way to contain the spread of a disease is to know as much about it and its spread s possible. By shutting down the flights, we force them to make drastic measures, which mean undetected travel to other nations. The would mean that not only does West Africa start having a massive outbreak that could tentacle to America, but Southwest and North Africa have it as well. In this case there will be hundreds of flights into the US from countries that have the infection present long before we ever know the infection is present there. That means we could have numerous infected people enter the US and do so 100% UNKOWN.

At least, right now, we know everyone who is entering on these flights and we can chec them at the border and monitor them.

Of course, progressives care more about africans being able to come to america than they are about americans not getting ebola so of course sensible policy cannot be expected.

Just like how the conservatives want to knee jerk, fuck all to the consequences? Fear rarely makes good policy and rarely has positive consequences.

[Camarohusky]

Let's also not forget that the longer ebola exists in humans the higher the chance ebola will mutate to become an airborne illness. The chance may be extremely low, but saying "Who cares if Africans die" is potentially playing with a world ending fire.

[Th-e]

At 10/16/14 12:36 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/16/14 01:44 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Fine, then ban Liberians and whoever else is from a high-risk country entering America full-stop.

BAD IDEA. The best way to contain the spread of a disease is to know as much about it and its spread s possible. By shutting down the flights, we force them to make drastic measures, which mean undetected travel to other nations. The would mean that not only does West Africa start having a massive outbreak that could tentacle to America, but Southwest and North Africa have it as well. In this case there will be hundreds of flights into the US from countries that have the infection present long before we ever know the infection is present there. That means we could have numerous infected people enter the US and do so 100% UNKOWN.

The purpose of the travel ban is to protect America from being hit by Ebola outbreaks. If we allow infected or vulnerable people to board these planes, we run the risk of outbreak. As for the travel bans, it is a ban for all except essential personnel, aka those who are working to deal with the outbreak on African soil. So we still have people working to combat the disease and prevent it from spreading further. I believe that includes preventing people from fleeing the country.

And the way we are currently handling things in the U.S. with the (lack of) protocol, there are further reasons to restrict travel from those areas.

By the way, it seems that a Firestone business located in Liberia, one of the worst hit areas, is doing a lot better job with the Ebola crisis than our government or the UN! Maybe they can provide some better solutions...then again, our government probably won't use them...

[Camarohusky]

At 10/16/14 10:31 PM, Th-e wrote: The purpose of the travel ban is to protect America from being hit by Ebola outbreaks. If we allow infected or vulnerable people to board these planes, we run the risk of outbreak. As for the travel bans, it is a ban for all except essential personnel, aka those who are working to deal with the outbreak on African soil. So we still have people working to combat the disease and prevent it from spreading further. I believe that includes preventing people from fleeing the country.

I'm not sure you understood what I said. My point was that people from Ebola ravaged countries WILL enter the US regardless of whether we close flights or not. So, if the reality is they'll enter either way, the best option is for them to enter when we know where they're actually coming from. If we treat all who entier from the afflicated areas as possible carriers, we can monitor them and close off any problems as quick as possible. If we shut flights from Liberia and a huge chunk of Ebola-ers go the Mali and fly from Timbuktu into the US, we will not know to monitor them until a problem occurs, and by then it may be too late. It's the football equivalent of never letting your man get behind you. Sure, they get the first down if in front of you, but at least they won't rip off a 70 yard TD.

And the way we are currently handling things in the U.S. with the (lack of) protocol, there are further reasons to restrict travel from those areas.

Our protocal is pretty damn good for a handful of possible infectees. The Dallas issues shows several things. It shows that hubris exists in spades at many Medical centers. It shows that if the shit hit the fan, we will have trouble at the smaller and less advanced medical centers. It shows that, no matter how well you prepare for things, Texas can always find a way to fuck things up. What it does NOT show is a problem with the CDC protocols. I'd also like to add that the best way to learn something is to majorly fuck it up. It may actually benefit the shit out of us tht Dallas took a shit all over themselves so early. Because Dallas gang raped the pooch the rest of the hospitals have had to look at their own shit and get it together.

By the way, it seems that a Firestone business located in Liberia, one of the worst hit areas, is doing a lot better job with the Ebola crisis than our government or the UN!

How exactly is our government not handling this properly? Last I checked, we've had 8 infected people in the US and not a single outbreak among the general population. If those 8 went into an African nation, they'd have an outbreak in serious condition by now. Sounds like we've got it pretty much together.

[SadisticMonkey]

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Ebo-LIE

People In the Western World Need to Know What's Happening Here in West Africa. THEY ARE LYING!!! "Ebola" as a Virus Does NOT Exist and Is NOT "Spread". The Red Cross Has Brought a Disease to 4 Specific Countries for 4 Specific Reasons and It Is Only Contracted By Those Who Receive Treatments and Injections From the Red Cross. That is Why Liberians and Nigerians Have Begun Kicking the Red Cross Out of Their Countries and Reporting In the News the Truth. Now Bear With Me:

REASONS:

Most People Jump to "Depopulation" Which is No Doubt Always on the Mind of the West When It Comes to Africa. But I Assure You Africa Can NEVER Be Depopulated By Killing 160 People a Day When Thousands are Born Per Day. So the real Reasons Are Much More Tangible.

Reason 1:

This Vaccine Implemented Sickness Being "Called" Ebola Was Introduced Into West Africa for the End Goal of Getting Troops on the Ground In Nigeria, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.

If You Remember We Were Just Trying to Get Into Nigeria for "Boko Haram" #BULLSHIT But That Fell Apart When Nigerians Started Telling the Truth. There ARE NO GIRLS MISSING. Global Support Fell Through the Floor, and a New Reason Was Needed to Get Troops Into Nigeria and Steal the New Oil Reserves They Have Discovered.

Reason 2:

Sierra Leone is the World's Largest Supplier of Diamonds. For the Past 4 Months They Have Been on Strike, Refusing to Provide Diamonds Due to Horrible Working Conditions and Slave Pay.

The West Will Not Pay a Fair Wage for the Resources Because the Idea is to Keep These People Surviving on Rice Bags and Foreign AID So That They Remain a Source of Cheap Slave Labor Forever.

A Reason Was Also Needed to Get Troops On the Ground In Sierra Leone to Force an End to the Diamond Miners Strikes. This is Not the First Time This Has Been Done.

When Miners Refuse to Work Troops Are Sent In and Even If They Have to Kill and Replace Them All, the Only Desire is to Get Diamonds Back Flowing Out of the Country. Of Course to Launch Multiple Campaigns to Invade These Countries Separately Would Be WAY Too Fishy. But Something Like "Ebola" Allows Access to an Entire Area Simultaneously...

Reason 3:

In Addition to Stealing Nigerian Oil, and Forcing Sierra Leone Back to Mining, Troops Have Also Been Sent In to FORCE Vaccinations (Deadly "Ebola" Poison) Onto Those Africans Who Are Not Foolish Enough to Take The Willingly.

3000 Troops Are Being Sent In to Make Sure That This "Poison" Continues to Spread, Because Again It Is Only Spread Through Vaccination.

As More and More News Articles Are Released Like the One Above From Liberia, Informing the Populous of the US Lies and Manipulation, More and More Africans Are Refusing to Visit the Red Cross.

Troops Will Force These Vaccinations Upon the People to Ensure the Visible Appearance of an Ebola Pandemic. In Addition to This They Will Protect the Red Cross From the Liberians and Nigerians Who Have Been Rightfully Ejecting Them From Their Countries.

Reason 4:

3000 Troops..... Is Ebola Susceptible to Bullets?? Ridiculous. Last But Not Least the APPEARANCE of This Ebola "Pandemic" (Should Americans Not Catch On) Will Be Used to Scare Countless Millions Into Taking the "Ebola Vaccine" Which in Reality IS THE PANDEMIC.

Already They Have Started With Stories of How It Has Been Brought Back to the US and Has Appeared in Dallas, How White Doctors Were Cured But Black Infected Are Not Being Allowed to Be Treated Etc.

ALL That Will Do Is Make Blacks STRIVE to Get the Vaccine, Because It Appears That the "Cure" is Being Held Back From Blacks. They Will Run Out In Droves to Get It and Then There Will Be Serious Problems.

With All We Have Seen Revealed About Vaccines This Year You Would Think We Learned Our Lesson. All I Can Do Is Hope So, Because They Depend Highly On Our Ignorance to Complete Their Agendas.

Ask Yourself If Ebola Was Really Spread From Person to Person, Instead of Controlled Spread Through Vaccination - Then WHY Would the CDC and the US Government Continue to Allow Flights In and Out of These Countries With Absolutely No Regulation, Or At All?

We Have Got to Start Thinking and Sharing Information Globally Because They Do Not Give the True Perspective of the People Who Live Here in West Africa.

They Are Lying for Their Own Benefit and There Aren't Enough Voices Out There With a Platform to Help Share Our Reality. Hundreds of Thousands Have Been Killed, Paralyzed and Disabled By These and Other "New" Vaccines All Over the World and We Are Finally Becoming Aware of It.

[cga-999]

Here's my impression of the American troops. " Oh, ya. We can just shoot ebola with guns and everything will be fine, right?"

[Camarohusky]

At 10/16/14 11:35 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: WHAT DO YOU THINK?

You don't seriously believe this garbage, do you?

[Camarohusky]

At 10/16/14 11:46 PM, cga-999 wrote: Here's my impression of the American troops. " Oh, ya. We can just shoot ebola with guns and everything will be fine, right?"

Oi. It's not about shooting ebola. It's about providing man power skilled in disaster assistance to help assist doctors and government personal seeking to find and treat all afflicted people.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

well all the major EU airlines like france and british airways has stopped all flights to Western Africa until March 2015, now there is only one airline left and that Brussels Air.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

I'm worried ISIS might weaponize ebola somehow. Put infected needles inside of guns, and shoot them at people, or patient's blood inside water supplies....maybe I'm just a dark minded thinker.

also, the great influenza epidemic of 1918 was started by soldiers returning home from war. Just sayin

[cga-999]

At 10/17/14 12:07 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/16/14 11:46 PM, cga-999 wrote: Here's my impression of the American troops. " Oh, ya. We can just shoot ebola with guns and everything will be fine, right?"

Oi. It's not about shooting ebola. It's about providing man power skilled in disaster assistance to help assist doctors and government personal seeking to find and treat all afflicted people.

I know, it was a joke about how our Army needs to be more careful with what they do.

[Feoric]

At 10/16/14 08:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Let's also not forget that the longer ebola exists in humans the higher the chance ebola will mutate to become an airborne illness. The chance may be extremely low, but saying "Who cares if Africans die" is potentially playing with a world ending fire.

Not really. Crossposting from General:

"For ebola to become truly airborne and infectious, it would have to be able to grow inside of cells in the respiratory tract; more specifically, it would (most likely) have to gain the ability to infect epithelial cells (or others) inside the lungs, just like influenza or EBV. Regardless of which route it takes, the amount of mutations required to gain this ability would basically turn ebola into an entirely different virus which would be completely unprecedented as we have never observed/documented anything like that happening at any point in our history.

Just so everyone is clear, the term airborne has a strict definition, and it's not just arbitrary academic wizardry -- there are huge differences between droplet transmissions and droplet nuclei transmissions. For a pathogen to be truly airborne (droplet nuclei), it would have to remain suspended in the air not only until after the droplet evaporated, but also still be able to cause infection. There are many pathogens that are technically airborne but cannot cause infection. Generally speaking, this is due to the pathogen being too big to enter the respiratory tract, or due to other issues like tissue tropism. Even in the unlikely event that ebola becomes airborne against all odds, it might not even be able to cause infection via droplet nuclei. So, yes, ebola mutating into an infectious airborne pathogen is "possible" in the same sense that you could suddenly materialize on Mars due to random quantum fluctuations. It's basically not happening."

At 10/16/14 10:31 PM, Th-e wrote: The purpose of the travel ban is to protect America from being hit by Ebola outbreaks. If we allow infected or vulnerable people to board these planes, we run the risk of outbreak. As for the travel bans, it is a ban for all except essential personnel, aka those who are working to deal with the outbreak on African soil. So we still have people working to combat the disease and prevent it from spreading further. I believe that includes preventing people from fleeing the country.

Also crossposting:

"That won't do much good at this point. Even if you manage an 80% flight reduction, this only delays case importation by approximately 3 weeks. West Africa currently has a population of ~340 million people, there is absolutely no way in hell we have the resources to prevent every single group of refugees from making it out, even under the strictest hypothetical quarantine scenarios. The whole reason why ebola is breaking out now is because the world is more connected, you can't just flip a switch to turn that connectivity off. Health officials and world governments have to decide whether it's better to have more infected people travelling out of West Africa by easily traceable ways, or fewer people coming out via less traceable ways. They're going with the former. Here's why: ebola has a reproductive rate between 1-2; for comparison, measles has a reproductive rate between 12-18. If ebola was anywhere near that infectious then I'd say isolating the region would be an immediate priority, but that's not the case here. We should instead focus our resources on treating current cases in Liberia and preventing new ones; enforcing a lockdown will make the situation even worse by letting it fester, creating mass panic/civil unrest in the process."