Should UK government be sending troops to Ebola regions

Reply 20

Chlorophile

20

For once, it's nice to see that the army's actually doing something good for the world.

Reply 21

SophiaLDN

13

Troops? Typical response from the UK (and USA). If you're going to send somebody, why not take a leaf out of Cuba's books and send doctors/ health professionals?

Reply 22

Aj12

18

Original post by SophiaLDN

Troops? Typical response from the UK (and USA). If you're going to send somebody, why not take a leaf out of Cuba's books and send doctors/ health professionals?

These are doctors.... As well as a hospital ship and other personal to build a treatment center.

Reply 23

SophiaLDN

13

Original post by Aj12

These are doctors.... As well as a hospital ship and other personal to build a treatment center.

I stand corrected. Good news for once..

Reply 24

CJKay

19

Original post by DErasmus

I already made that joke, four people have voted no I was assuming you were one of them.

Was expecting this to be a thread about killing Africans.

... is not a joke. That's a statement on your misconceptions of the thread.

I'm pretty sure that's not the sort of shot they've been asking for.

... was a joke.

Reply 25

DErasmus

3

Original post by CJKay

... is not a joke. That's a statement on your misconceptions of the thread.

... was a joke.

me - 1 rep
u - 0 reps

no one liked your joke

Reply 26

CJKay

19

Original post by DErasmus

me - 1 rep
u - 0 reps

no one liked your joke

I too got 1 rep from the friendly internet people!

Reply 27

RachelFiveee

9

People are already infected, you cannot just cull people off so it reduces the risk of it spreading over here- the deceased can also pass it on and with the unsanitary hygiene and burial practices even those who have passed away are a risk. It is essential that support is given to try and contain it, the equipment the armed forces have it suitable for purpose, and the reason they have been sent is as it poses a risk to our country (cynical but there we go). It is not classified as airborne as it is not as easily spread through the air as some diseases, but there has been research to suggest that it can be passed on through droplets suspended in the air; meaning it is harder this way but not impossible.

How anyone wouldn't realise that the troops they are sending are relevant ie) medical or able to assist in building and setting up centres is humorous.

Reply 28

Shabalala

14

Original post by SophiaLDN

Troops? Typical response from the UK (and USA). If you're going to send somebody, why not take a leaf out of Cuba's books and send doctors/ health professionals?

are the Cuban Doctors and Nurses going to construct field hospitals and build medical facilities? are the Cuban Doctors and Nurses going to provide security for the hospital so poor locals in need of treatment don't rush in as a mob and spread it even more?

Contrary to popular believe Soldiers aren't just uneducated chavs from up north who are only trained to kill people, it's full of well disciplined, well trained professionals in many fields like Engineering, Communications, Medicine and many more.

The armed forces will be far more efficient than any charity or health agency they are ready to deploy within a few hours and already have the capability to deal with a situation like this for any other agency it would take months to properly organize everything.

Reply 29

Rakas21

21

Some of you seem not to be thinking with any depth at all (i'll assume its a rare case since your supposed to be students).

To address your concerns, Ebola is not airborne which means that a solider wearing correct equipment and using certain procedures can avoid infection. It spreads rapidly in Africa because there's open sewage, a lack of healthcare and even people that don't believe Ebola exists. Here's a quote from the Independent..

Though highly contagious if it is given the chance to enter the body, it can only do so through the direct transferral of bodily fluids such as vomit, sweat or blood – making it much easier to contain than air-borne viruses like avian flu.

Secondly, no solider will be walking through Heathrow to infect us all if they do have it. They'll be checked, quarantined and then flown to some of the best medical facilities in the world. The risk of them being the cause of infection to our population is extremely low.

Thirdly, i've not got time to read the link but i'd guess that their role is to round people up and maintain order among what are several thousand probably panicked people. Defending medical staff from opportunistic Islamists and the like will no doubt be another concern.

..

On the whole then, i support our efforts in what was a former colony area and one which recently defended (Sierra Lionne) back in the late 90's.

Reply 30

UtopiaofEurope

Original post by RachelFiveee

Why not send soldiers? For many it is boring being stuck on some base in the middle of nowhere, not putting your training to use. Everything they do is planned and all risks taken into account, they are going in to help set up treatment areas and assist medically; precautions will be taken. As has been said it is good training as well, learning to deal with a vast array of challenging situations is beneficial to us, as is helping other countries help where possible. Not only from a humanitarian stand point but also to help minimise the risk of it spreading around the globe.

They should be sent because soldiers are bored stuck on a base somewhere.

What an immature, infantile statement. Grow the hell up !!

Reply 31

RachelFiveee

9

Original post by UtopiaofEurope

They should be sent because soldiers are bored stuck on a base somewhere.

What an immature, infantile statement. Grow the hell up !!

Erm no, i grew up in a military family, spent summers throughout secondary school and at uni working on a base, lots of my friends are serving and the general consensus? Whilst it is safer on base, we are trained to do a job- and being on a base doing menial tasks is boring. These are highly trained people, quite often physically fit and joined to make a difference and not to sit twiddling their thumbs doing more or less nought on base between training courses. Sure not everyone feels the same, but despite the risks most would rather be actually doing something.

Reply 32

username1530463

6

Original post by Ace123

It seems like absolute madness that the UK are sending 750 troops to the centre of the Ebola outbreak. First of all soldiers have signed up to protect the nation not to deal with this and also the government have been completely incompetent with Ebola- they have not stopped flights from the affected regions and have not introduced screening.

Now they are sending troops- what about risk of soldiers getting it? risk of them bringing it back to the UK? plus even if they are there can they really held in addition to medics already there

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29542129

They should use robots.

Reply 33

Okorange

17

Original post by asmuse123

They should use robots.

We don't have robots advanced enough. Not yet at least.

Reply 34

Dilzo999

19

Original post by Justanotherday

It seems that everyone understands what should be done, but clearly the government didn't get the memo or common sense for that matter.

So instead of helping out the poor people who've contracted the virus, we should just let them die? ****ing selfish ****.

Reply 35

sophiamarni

16

yep to steal west africas rich minerals and resources

Reply 36

Justanotherday

7

Original post by Dilzo999

So instead of helping out the poor people who've contracted the virus, we should just let them die? ****ing selfish ****.

I am not saying that we shouldn't help them. But sending our troops over there isn't the solution. We could pay for the infected places to have proper ebola protection, the doctors of the infected country will then therefore have the sufficient tools to protect their people. If we are sending troop over, there is a higher chance that they will be infected.

Reply 37

Dilzo999

19

Original post by Justanotherday

I am not saying that we shouldn't help them. But sending our troops over there isn't the solution. We could pay for the infected places to have proper ebola protection, the doctors of the infected country will then therefore have the sufficient tools to protect their people. If we are sending troop over, there is a higher chance that they will be infected.

And that money fritters away due to corruption. Also these 3rd world countries don't have the sufficient tech/knowledge/high skilled workers to actually make a difference. The troops are only there to restore order and they're trained professionals. Also there is a ship the RFA Argus which contains highly trained staff as well as state of the art technology which is more beneficial than just giving them a random sum of money.

Reply 38

Justanotherday

7

Original post by Dilzo999

And that money fritters away due to corruption. Also these 3rd world countries don't have the sufficient tech/knowledge/high skilled workers to actually make a difference. The troops are only there to restore order and they're trained professionals. Also there is a ship the RFA Argus which contains highly trained staff as well as state of the art technology which is more beneficial than just giving them a random sum of money.

It wouldn't hurt trying to train the people of the third world countries. So that if any other emergency comes e.g. earthquake, disease whatever. They will be able to tackle it more efficiently. I don't know, I just think of people are worried about the spread of this virus. It's a scary prospect, especially since it doesn't have any proven cure yet.