By the numbers: Why Ebola is a far greater epidemiological risk to Democrats than Republicans

Monday, November 03, 2014
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tags: Ebola outbreak, Democrats, Republicans

---

(NaturalNews) Take note in the social media how quickly people will react to the title of this article without even reading it. What follows here is a thoughtful and well-formed epidemiological analysis of the most likely infection and transmission patterns of a level-4 pandemic virus.

Ebola isn't swayed by words, spin or propaganda. The virus doesn't care about the color of your skin, your country of origin or what political party you belong to. Ebola is transmitted to Republicans just as easily Democrats, but there is one hugely important demographic difference between Republicans and Democrats that's highly relevant to Ebola outbreak patterns: populations living in cities tend to be Democrats, while those who live in the country tend to be Republicans.

Democrats tend to live in cities

It's called the "Urban-Rural Divide." The Atlantic describes it as follows:

The new political divide is a stark division between cities and what remains of the countryside. Not just some cities and some rural areas, either -- virtually every major city (100,000-plus population) in the United States of America has a different outlook from the less populous areas that are closest to it. [1]

In other words, city-dwellers tend to be Democrats, and rural citizens tend to be Republicans. Higher population densities naturally lend themselves, it turns out, to the more socially-oriented "community" thinking that typifies the political platforms of Democrats. As a result, most people who live in cities tend to vote Democrat at elections. Similarly, most people who live in low-density rural areas tend to be far more self-reliant, self-sufficient and liberty-oriented, and they tend to vote Republican.

Ebola consistently replicates more successfully in the cities

If Ebola sweeps across America, it will almost certainly replicate far more successfully in the cities than in the countryside. This has clearly and irrefutably been observed in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, where high population density cities have been the focal points of viral replication and transmission. Citizens there, in fact, flee to the countryside when attempting to escape the "death traps" of the high density urban areas.

Even more, it can be legitimately argued that the very reason Ebola has managed to spread more successfully in West Africa today -- compared to the contained outbreaks of the 1970's -- is because West Africa now has larger cities with higher population densities. The more West Africa's population concentration begins to resemble places like New York City and Los Angeles, in other words, the more successfully Ebola spreads there.

Furthermore, large cities possess precisely the kind of mass transit systems that are ideal for the spread of Ebola, with subways being the most obvious example. Subway systems not only lack the natural sunlight that destroys Ebola; they also allow the rapid transmission of the virus from one person to another in small, enclosed spaces (subway cars). This is likely part of the reason why the CDC recently warned New York City to prepare for the possibility of an Ebola outbreak. [2]

City dwellers are the most likely victims of any nationwide pandemic

Understanding all this, it's not difficult to see why Ebola is a far greater threat to Democrats than Republicans. From an epidemiological standpoint, the virus is likely to cause more fatalities in urban areas than rural areas. And as we've already established, urban areas tend to be disproportionately Democratic.

Because of this, if a really horrific scenario unfolded for Ebola in America and, God forbid, 10 million people died from Ebola, there is no question that those 10 million people would disproportionately voted for Democrats.

An Ebola pandemic in America, in other words, would dramatically alter the political landscape of the nation by disproportionately inflicting mass casualties primarily in urban areas while leaving rural areas relatively untouched. It is also far easier for citizens living in rural areas to isolate themselves, whereas people living in cities have no such option.

So why aren't Democrats really worried about Ebola or other viral pandemics?

Because of all this, Democrats should be disproportionately concerned with Ebola right now... but they aren't. They are the ones who are presently downplaying the seriousness of the issue, even when Republican voters are largely positioned in geographic areas with far better natural resistance to viral pandemics.

It is interesting to note that Democrats are currently pursuing a "flood and vote" strategy to alter the political landscape by allowing a flood of illegal immigrants to enter the country with the plan of granting them all citizenship via executive order. The tactic would swell the Democratic voter rolls by millions, radically altering the outcomes of all future elections.

But Ebola -- or any deadly pandemic, for that matter -- threatens to just as rapidly erase those gains by causing mass fatalities among city-dwellers, shrinking the Democratic voter base. Yet somehow, this possibility is not being realistically considered by Democrats.

Why the CDC puts all of us at risk, regardless of political affiliation

Under the direction of the Obama administration, the CDC is currently giving out advice that puts us all at risk. The idea that "we have to let Ebola patients in via air traffic so that we can track them" is about as mindless as saying, "we have to let terrorists carry bombs on airplanes so that we can track them." See the cartoon below, published at The Federalist Papers. It's entitled, "If CDC ran Homeland Security."



The CDC also continues to foolishly insist that Ebola can only be spread via "direct contact" when even the W.H.O. openly admits it can spread via indirect contamination of surfaces or clothing.

Furthermore, the CDC is lying to us when it says Ebola only requires a 21-day isolation quarantine period. In reality, the required isolation period for Ebola is 42 days according to the W.H.O..

It is no stretch to point out that the CDC is putting the Democrats at risk by failing to take the necessary and appropriate steps to halt the spread of Ebola in America. Then again, the Democrats are also putting the Democrats at risk by downplaying the severity of the Ebola outbreak in the first place.

For the record, my intention in covering this is to save human lives and end human suffering. Regardless of their political affiliation, no one deserves to die from Ebola. And that's why I released a hugely popular series of free downloadable MP3 audio files on www.BioDefense.com that teach pandemic preparedness to everyone, free of charge.

Go there now if you want to survive the pandemic that the CDC appears to be actively encouraging.

Sources for this article include:
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/...

[2] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ebola-in-t...

[3] https://www.naturalnews.com/047267_ebola_outb...