>>23702Nah. That would be way too obvious and wouldn't get support from bleeding heart progressives. We know Ebola is love but they don't know it or refuse to accept it.
I'm thinking more like #freedomforfreetown, #stopgenocideinafrica, or something along those lines. With the intent that those few who can access the Internet and Twitter from Africa would see how
even the citizens of the west know the western doctors are there only for population control rather than humanitarian aid.
Alternative would of course be the opposite: to publicly support (rather than oppose) the genocide of Ebola-Americans in west Africa, or setting up competing Twitter campaigns against and in favor of WHO-conducted population reduction.
But on the article itself:
quarantining non-symptomatic people might work for a while. But as they might not afford to feed them properly, and the quarantine being a rather lengthy one, the motivation to break free from containment is high. It may work for a while… but when people break away from their house arrests, they flee. They cannot actually return to their homes, hence they become
untrackable potential carriers.
As the guards are armed, it's also only a matter of time until they need to actually use the guns. Either use them, or the guns become a joke not taken seriously. And when they are used against unarmed civilians (who may even be non-symptomatic) you have just created a spark that may cause the society to explode due to general distrust toward the government.