Unless I’m missing something this applies only to respiratory diseases, and that would exclude Ebola at this time.
The "or's" could well be argued to mean respiratory diseases 'OR have the potential to cause, a pandemic, OR, upon infection, are highly likely to cause mortality OR serious morbidity if not properly controlled.'
I'm sure Holder, Jarret, et al. will hold out for the narrowest, least intrusive, most freedom protecting interpretation of this de facto law of the land.
Aren't you?
Unless I’m missing something this applies only to respiratory diseases, and that would exclude Ebola at this time.
*************************************
No big deal .... the “science” will suddenly show that Ebola is airborne and respiratory and all you have to do is exhale and you could be infecting millions, especially if you are of the dreaded ‘anti-Obama’ political ilk or have any skin color that Holder doesn’t approve of.
Ebola is absolutely a respiratory disease.
It attacks ALL internal organs. It is not “airborne” in the sense that you have to be in close contact. However, droplets from a sneeze can carry the virus in an aerosol form right down into the lungs.