On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:13:45 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 30/06/2016 16:07, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:24 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 30/06/2016 15:37, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/06/16 14:57, James Wilkinson wrote:
If I didn't want Ebola I'd pay for the immunisation.

There is no immunisation. its the early stages of vaccines that may
possibly work on some strains.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

****, but you are stupid.

If there is no immunisation, this argument is pointless. You might
aswell say the NHS helps stop the spread of aids.


You need to look up the difference between treatment and vaccination.

I know what they mean. What is your point? Do you think people with
Ebola and no NHS would just wander around infecting everyone?

You do, they can't afford treatment so that's what they do.

Well you could have that paid for by the government, but why should they pay to fix their broken leg?

--
Archeologists are excited about the discovery of fossils at an excavation in Kenya that indicate man's early ancestors were walking erect over 4 million years ago.
They base this conclusion on small traces of Viagra found at the dig site.