A government MP offers the scant assurance that this legislation is not "trauma tainted," as it was drafted well prior to this week's instigating incidents.
No doubt. Legislation is written all the time and filed away until the public is sufficiently swept away by momentary passion. In the US gun control proponents have cabinets full of bills they pull out, like ghouls, every time there's a school shooting, just as the government has legislation that trims away privacy rights ready to go the next time the head-loppers hit the news.
Ebola is impossible to catch unless you are directly exposed to someone who is symptomatic.
Technically, yes. As doctors define direct exposure that's true. However, doctors and normal people don't define it the same way. If I have Ebola and get bodily fluids on a doorknob, then you come along an hour later, touch the doorknob and then rub your eyes... you can become infected. That fits the CDC's definition of "direct exposure", because you've been directly exposed to my bodily fluids.
So don't get complacent thinking as long as you don't actually touch an infected person you can't become infected.
First of all, we already have a "Czar" for this sort of thing. Her name is Dr. Nicole Lurie. That's the real reason we don't need a "Czar" - we already have one.
Secondly, the president can't give the CDC more funding. That's Congress's job.
Thirdly, in the last fifteen years the CDC budget has doubled, so they already have plenty of money. In fact, they have too much money, which has allowed them to ignore their primary mission and go off and do things like stump for gun control, study why lesbians get fat and gay men don't, and determine most monkeys are right handed.
It wasn't even that. It was illegal to create new embrionic cell lines using federal money. In other words, if you wanted to do stem cell research you could use one of the existing lines, or you could use private money.
The whole controversy was just red meat for abortion supporters. Didn't have anything to do with science.