Ebola Cannot Be Halted or Slowed Any Time Soon, Says New Study

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

JET1971:

Seriously though I am quite tired of all the scare mongering in the media, first ISIS and now Ebola. What's next ISIS Ebola terrorist attacks?

DON'T! GIVE! FOX! NEWS! IDEAS!

JET1971:

Seriously though I am quite tired of all the scare mongering in the media, first ISIS and now Ebola. What's next ISIS Ebola terrorist attacks?

Dalisclock:

DON'T! GIVE! FOX! NEWS! IDEAS!

Actually... the UK version of Fox News has that covered.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2786433/Could-Ebola-used-weapon-ISIS-Terror-experts-raise-prospect-jihadists-infecting-spreading-virus-Western-countries.html

Those "experts", man. They apparently know their stuff... about bullshitting.

All aboard the panic train.

For starters, well, how about, close the frigging public airports so it does not fly to other countries? i mean yes its uncontrollable because were not even attempting to control it.

then again, we got a little over 9000 sick, when a single country may have as much population as whole US, making it an extremely small portion of people.

Sarge034:

Folks, there are confirmed cases in the US. At least two, last I heard, were nurses who treated an infected patient. So assuming these nurses followed procedures and had no skin on skin contact with a patient infected with an unknown illness how did they get infected?

I can speak for those nurses but i have experience first hand how doctors treat contagious illnesses here in eastern europe. lets just say the precautions leave much to be desired.

VanQ:
The scary thing for me is that the lab I work at is prepared now to test for Ebola. Meaning we're the only lab in Australia (as far as I'm aware) that can test for the virus. This means that every suspected case that pops up here will be sent to us. I heard a nurse returned to Australia and was infectious while on board a flight with 132 passengers and that our government is desperately scrambling to find and quarantine those people as soon as possible.

Hell, Australia only has 5 virus isolation pods and there's a suspected 132 possible Ebola cases wandering around our country. We are not adequately prepared for an outbreak.

And I'm aware that the period of infectiousness is small and that it is only transmitted via bodily fluids so I'm not freaking out here or intending to freak anyone out. Just saying to take care and be prepared, outbreaks can happen, even in first world countries.

I don't know which lab you're working at, but the Australian nurse was released after two negative Ebola tests.

I am surprised that after all this time, the numerous (but isolated cases in first world countries) hasn't caused the world's leaders to stand up and say "To hell with this, we are throwing all the money at this and won't stop until there is a cure!"

I've said this before, my only fear is if the virus mutates into something more easily transmittable. Every new host increases the likelihood of this happening.

Fortunately, I never leave the house anyway, so this doesn't affect me, but the rest of you should be terrified.

Olas:
I've said this before, my only fear is if the virus mutates into something more easily transmittable. Every new host increases the likelihood of this happening.

Fortunately, I never leave the house anyway, so this doesn't affect me, but the rest of you should be terrified.

thats what concerns me as well. ebola itself can only be transmitted by bodily fluids but its demonstrate on one occasion to mutate into an airborne strain which was fortunately harmless to humans, but in such a large pool of host the potential for mutation is there, not to mention if it gets into livestock populations where the mutation risk is so much higher

I guess that's why they call me... *sunglasses* Mr. Ebola.

Olas:
I've said this before, my only fear is if the virus mutates into something more easily transmittable. Every new host increases the likelihood of this happening.

... but its demonstrate on one occasion to mutate into an airborne strain which was fortunately harmless to humans...

Source please? I haven't heard about that happening. I know that is can be transmitted in aerosol form in a small radius either by the victim coughing/convulsions or evaporating fluids from a dead body but I have not herd of it becoming truly airborne

008Zulu:

I am surprised that after all this time, the numerous (but isolated cases in first world countries) hasn't caused the world's leaders to stand up and say "To hell with this, we are throwing all the money at this and won't stop until there is a cure!"

Why would they? The cases in fist world countries are easily contained and and nothing to worry about. there is no uncontrolled spread and the danger of contracting it to the average citizen is so close to nil that it's not even worth consideration at this point. No they will do nothing until it really starts affecting them directly, it's not worth the cost. Hell the only reason that the virus has even spread so far is because of the poor health infrastructure in Africa and the prevalence of the belief that Ebola is not a real thing.

The uncomfortable truth is that this type of thing will become more and more prevalent in the coming decades/century. As population density increases then the potential for viral/bacterial pandemic grows geometrically. You could argue that we have the drugs and vaccines to fight them in the first world and it's really the countries with a poor healthcare infrastructure that will be the most affected. That's partly true but it only holds as long as the antibiotics are effective. Which they may not be for very much longer.

Strazdas:
For starters, well, how about, close the frigging public airports so it does not fly to other countries?

Probably because closing ports (since I assume you don't want this to get out by ship either) would devastate the economy of any country that tried it, lead to food and supply shortages for the healthy population, not to mention aggravate the best way we have to contain the outbreaks by denying the opportunity for medical professionals to enter the country and deal with it.

Unless you want to adopt an "It's okay, they're black so who cares if huge swathes of the population are infected and killed without need?" Personally, I think that's probably not a very ethical position to take.

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:

Strazdas:
For starters, well, how about, close the frigging public airports so it does not fly to other countries?

Probably because closing ports (since I assume you don't want this to get out by ship either) would devastate the economy of any country that tried it, lead to food and supply shortages for the healthy population, not to mention aggravate the best way we have to contain the outbreaks by denying the opportunity for medical professionals to enter the country and deal with it.

Unless you want to adopt an "It's okay, they're black so who cares if huge swathes of the population are infected and killed without need?" Personally, I think that's probably not a very ethical position to take.

Erm, not what i said. I said closing public airports. which means no civilians flying. cargo is still fine, altrough riskier. No need to worry about ships though. This is because Ebola is a fast virus, and the symptoms would show up before it would reach its destination unless its a very short distance travel (in which case trucks are used almost always nowadays). Essentially ebola would kill itself on ships because it could not spread in open waters and it kills humans too fast for it to fly across the ocean in incubation.

And obviuosly exceptions need to be made for stuff like getting medical professionals in and so on, im not saying a completel blackout, more like "dont let it spread guys". Also i never once inferred anything racial here so what are you even talking about this?

A sad, sad time to be a golden shower fetishist.

Baresark:

P-89 Scorpion:

Baresark:
First: I see Escapist has jumped on the "OMG PANIC" bandwagon here. That's always nice to see.

Second: I'm in partial agreement about a few things here. In Africa Ebola has a pretty high morbidity rate at this point. The more infected, the harder it becomes to contain.

Third: How in the world does 9200 suspected Ebola cases turn into 200,000 infected. I'm calling bullshit, someone made a big typo somewhere.

Fourth: Maybe someone can explain to me why the WHO denied the "right" of experimental treatments to the people of Africa. Last I checked, if I'm 99% sure I am gonna die because I have Ebola, who the hell are they to tell me I'm not allowed to try anything I want to cure myself (within reason of course).

First infected December 2013
31st March 2014 - 130 infected
30th April 2014 - 233 79% increase
29th May 2014 - 354 34%
30th June 2014 - 759 53%
31st July 2014 - 1,440 47%
31st August 2014 - 3,707 61%
28th September 2014 - 7,192 48%
14th October 2014 - 9,216 22%

If the infection rate continues at a 50% increase every month 230,000 will be infected by the end of February 2015

Unfortunately the above WHO figures are believed to be vastly underestimated as the governments are only giving the numbers of those admitted to hospital, if someone gets ebola and dies before being admitted to a hospital then they are not counted. The WHO believes the real infected rate is 2.5 times higher if that is correct 200,000 by the end of December is possible.

Now, I don't claim to be an expert at the maths, but if it increases by 50% every month, it won't be anywhere near 200k people infected by December, it will be an order of magnitude less, literally.

So, feel free to tell me what I did wrong there. I simply added 50% to the numbers for several months (cumulative of course), unless we are literally assuming the number is 2.5 times less than what is based on actual known numbers. In that case, by December we are looking at 60.5k cases, not 200k cases. Once again, feel free to correct me on how I'm looking at this wrong.

That's what I said, that on current figures it's 200,000 by February 2015 but by the 2.5 times higher the WHO believes are the real numbers then it's 200,000 by December.

P-89 Scorpion:

Baresark:

P-89 Scorpion:

First infected December 2013
31st March 2014 - 130 infected
30th April 2014 - 233 79% increase
29th May 2014 - 354 34%
30th June 2014 - 759 53%
31st July 2014 - 1,440 47%
31st August 2014 - 3,707 61%
28th September 2014 - 7,192 48%
14th October 2014 - 9,216 22%

If the infection rate continues at a 50% increase every month 230,000 will be infected by the end of February 2015

Unfortunately the above WHO figures are believed to be vastly underestimated as the governments are only giving the numbers of those admitted to hospital, if someone gets ebola and dies before being admitted to a hospital then they are not counted. The WHO believes the real infected rate is 2.5 times higher if that is correct 200,000 by the end of December is possible.

Now, I don't claim to be an expert at the maths, but if it increases by 50% every month, it won't be anywhere near 200k people infected by December, it will be an order of magnitude less, literally.

So, feel free to tell me what I did wrong there. I simply added 50% to the numbers for several months (cumulative of course), unless we are literally assuming the number is 2.5 times less than what is based on actual known numbers. In that case, by December we are looking at 60.5k cases, not 200k cases. Once again, feel free to correct me on how I'm looking at this wrong.

That's what I said, that on current figures it's 200,000 by February 2015 but by the 2.5 times higher the WHO believes are the real numbers then it's 200,000 by December.

I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding you. It doesn't look like you read my post. I said that no matter how I do the math, I DO NOT arrive anywhere near 200k infected by December. I arrive at 20k by December. And if it's 2.5 times more infected like it could possibly be, I get to 60.5k infected by February of 2015. I'm saying that if I'm wrong, please correct me on how I'm supposed to arrive to those numbers, the first of which looks like a magnitude too large.

Baresark:

P-89 Scorpion:

Baresark:

Now, I don't claim to be an expert at the maths, but if it increases by 50% every month, it won't be anywhere near 200k people infected by December, it will be an order of magnitude less, literally.

So, feel free to tell me what I did wrong there. I simply added 50% to the numbers for several months (cumulative of course), unless we are literally assuming the number is 2.5 times less than what is based on actual known numbers. In that case, by December we are looking at 60.5k cases, not 200k cases. Once again, feel free to correct me on how I'm looking at this wrong.

That's what I said, that on current figures it's 200,000 by February 2015 but by the 2.5 times higher the WHO believes are the real numbers then it's 200,000 by December.

I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding you. It doesn't look like you read my post. I said that no matter how I do the math, I DO NOT arrive anywhere near 200k infected by December. I arrive at 20k by December. And if it's 2.5 times more infected like it could possibly be, I get to 60.5k infected by February of 2015. I'm saying that if I'm wrong, please correct me on how I'm supposed to arrive to those numbers, the first of which looks like a magnitude too large.

Well, the math is complicated but it can be seen in the linked article.

They are using what is called normally a SEIR model. Susceptible, Exposed, Infected and Recovered. To make ti more accurate they added some new categories. The H and F categories, and changing the R to account for the dead/removed. The idea is simple. Divide the population in the categories. Either those that are susceptible, exposed, infected in the hospital, died but still infecting in funerals and those that recovered, died or are in some other capacity no longer in the cycle of the model and are "out". These give you a set of differential equations, telling you how the rate of change of these populations change over time. The parameters, given by the data, give what is called an R0, which is how many people get infected per unit of time basically, which is around 2.2 for the data reported in the countries. That means that every infected person, infect around 2.2 other people (not 1.5).

The solution of those differential equations, for the time being is an exponential equation (the solution is different for larger amounts of time, as the population all got infected and then returned to other states). That means it grows very, very rapidly, especially with an R0 that big.

For the infection to disappear, the R0 must be under 1, (eery infected person infects less than one, so it doesn't recover the population) and what the paper reports, is that measures taken now, would not decrease the R0 under that number (actually the overall R0, seems to stay above 2 for every scenario), which means that the epidemic will not die out with those measures. Which could be interesting to see if those reductions of R0 where dependent on a I0 (an initial number of infected) which would mean that maybe those numbers would be better if applied before the measures before this point.

The time scale is in days in the paper, not months by the way. Just to say. So teh increase of R0, menas that there are 2.5 new infected per each infected each day, not each month.

That's terrible.
Poor africans.

BadNewDingus:
Considering that this is from a study where they compile a bunch of research from outside sources and make a educated guess ... I still wouldn't panic. Panic drives people mad and causes more harm. Of which, the media has done a great job of doing. I do believe that the numbers of which they're giving us could be false and are far worse, but it is kinda hard to hide anything like this these days.

Also, if the any strain was airborne the numbers of infected would be gigantic. It's just the fact that our nurses are not prepared for this sort of virus. Flu season is coming and if anyone is sick should stay the fuck home. I don't know how many times I've seen idiots go out shopping while sick and coughing everywhere. Those are the people that will spread it.

So people who are single, sick, and have no one else to take care of them aren't allowed to buy food and supplies to keep them from starving to death?

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:

Strazdas:
For starters, well, how about, close the frigging public airports so it does not fly to other countries?

Probably because closing ports (since I assume you don't want this to get out by ship either) would devastate the economy of any country that tried it, lead to food and supply shortages for the healthy population, not to mention aggravate the best way we have to contain the outbreaks by denying the opportunity for medical professionals to enter the country and deal with it.

Unless you want to adopt an "It's okay, they're black so who cares if huge swathes of the population are infected and killed without need?" Personally, I think that's probably not a very ethical position to take.

Danger, would not the closing of passenger airlines to and from an area while still maintaining essential services minimize the possible risk while still supporting the country? One of the people infected in US checked into a hospital, explained that he'd recently traveled from Libya, and then was sent home after an antibiotic shot was administered because he had no insurance. This was dumb, ignoring the little alarm bell that he'd been in a country where the virus was. If people are going to make this sort of mistake, it would behoove us to take the reigns out of those hands somewhat.

Sarge034:

Don Incognito:
That is all perfectly true.

However, it is not particularly likely to spread in any nation with a functional public health system.

chiefohara:
Ebola takes from 2 days to 2 weeks to show infection but because its not airborne the majority of people will be okay. Unless you are sleeping with someone who has it, or someone who has it sneezed in your face you'll be fine. Its passed on through touch and liquid. You could have been sharing a daily bus with an ebola victim for the last month and you will be fine.

This bastard virus is going to devastate africa, but its not going to kill the world.

Folks, there are confirmed cases in the US. At least two, last I heard, were nurses who treated an infected patient. So assuming these nurses followed procedures and had no skin on skin contact with a patient infected with an unknown illness how did they get infected? There is the very real possibility this strain could be airborne, or at the very least survive in aerosolized body fluids long enough to mimic airborne transmissions. The CDC has confirmed that several infected people had flown not only from Africa but within the US as well. And the CDC is refusing to institute a pandemic level quarantine on those arriving from hotspots as well as Obama sending 5,000 troops to "help". These aren't doctors or nurses or bio-chemical warfare specialists. These are 5,000 men and women we are going to unnecessarily expose to this pathogen and then bring home. It is going to spread, and we will only have our governments to blame.

Actually, to my understanding (My mother is a microbologist, this is her job), there was a fairly major breech in protocol, which resulted in bare skin with minor wounds getting liquids in it.

kurokotetsu:

Baresark:

P-89 Scorpion:

That's what I said, that on current figures it's 200,000 by February 2015 but by the 2.5 times higher the WHO believes are the real numbers then it's 200,000 by December.

I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding you. It doesn't look like you read my post. I said that no matter how I do the math, I DO NOT arrive anywhere near 200k infected by December. I arrive at 20k by December. And if it's 2.5 times more infected like it could possibly be, I get to 60.5k infected by February of 2015. I'm saying that if I'm wrong, please correct me on how I'm supposed to arrive to those numbers, the first of which looks like a magnitude too large.

Well, the math is complicated but it can be seen in the linked article.

They are using what is called normally a SEIR model. Susceptible, Exposed, Infected and Recovered. To make ti more accurate they added some new categories. The H and F categories, and changing the R to account for the dead/removed. The idea is simple. Divide the population in the categories. Either those that are susceptible, exposed, infected in the hospital, died but still infecting in funerals and those that recovered, died or are in some other capacity no longer in the cycle of the model and are "out". These give you a set of differential equations, telling you how the rate of change of these populations change over time. The parameters, given by the data, give what is called an R0, which is how many people get infected per unit of time basically, which is around 2.2 for the data reported in the countries. That means that every infected person, infect around 2.2 other people (not 1.5).

The solution of those differential equations, for the time being is an exponential equation (the solution is different for larger amounts of time, as the population all got infected and then returned to other states). That means it grows very, very rapidly, especially with an R0 that big.

For the infection to disappear, the R0 must be under 1, (eery infected person infects less than one, so it doesn't recover the population) and what the paper reports, is that measures taken now, would not decrease the R0 under that number (actually the overall R0, seems to stay above 2 for every scenario), which means that the epidemic will not die out with those measures. Which could be interesting to see if those reductions of R0 where dependent on a I0 (an initial number of infected) which would mean that maybe those numbers would be better if applied before the measures before this point.

The time scale is in days in the paper, not months by the way. Just to say. So teh increase of R0, menas that there are 2.5 new infected per each infected each day, not each month.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining.

Ignoring the absolute numbers for a moment.

Are they essentially saying that they don't see any way to escape a ~100% infection rate in Liberia and Sierra Leone? If even the most optimistic view of potential measures still show spread then containment within those countries seems impossible period. The measures will only get harder to implement with more cases.

It's unlikely to spread out into the so-called "developed world" anytime soon. What we need to do is not panic and instead funnel more money into researching a vaccine or cure. I'm fairly certain that lack of money is the only reason we don't already have a vaccine for ebola yet.

I was starting to get worried what with all of the fear mongering the mainstream media (especially cnn) have been running, but then I talked to my mom who is also a nurse. The cold kills more people per day than this ebola outbreak has in total. And given that it is only spread by direct contact with body fluids, there isn't actually that much risk in developed nations. I am effectively totally sick of this.

Although it would help if infected people would stop getting on planes and flying to other countries. The hospital my mom was working at had a call from a guy that rode on the plane with that one infected nurse: he was fine, but I find it a bit disconcerting that the government has no qualms spying on me but won't opt for a simple medical check at the borders.

EDIT: And before people start jumping on me about being unsympathetic to the nations that are being affected: I care, really I do, but I care slightly more about more localized outbreaks like that children's cancer cluster that sprung up in a town south of where I live (Protip: don't let chemical companies build playgrounds on top of their old dumps).

Baresark:

kurokotetsu:
Well, the math is complicated but it can be seen in the linked article.

They are using what is called normally a SEIR model. Susceptible, Exposed, Infected and Recovered. To make ti more accurate they added some new categories. The H and F categories, and changing the R to account for the dead/removed. The idea is simple. Divide the population in the categories. Either those that are susceptible, exposed, infected in the hospital, died but still infecting in funerals and those that recovered, died or are in some other capacity no longer in the cycle of the model and are "out". These give you a set of differential equations, telling you how the rate of change of these populations change over time. The parameters, given by the data, give what is called an R0, which is how many people get infected per unit of time basically, which is around 2.2 for the data reported in the countries. That means that every infected person, infect around 2.2 other people (not 1.5).

The solution of those differential equations, for the time being is an exponential equation (the solution is different for larger amounts of time, as the population all got infected and then returned to other states). That means it grows very, very rapidly, especially with an R0 that big.

For the infection to disappear, the R0 must be under 1, (eery infected person infects less than one, so it doesn't recover the population) and what the paper reports, is that measures taken now, would not decrease the R0 under that number (actually the overall R0, seems to stay above 2 for every scenario), which means that the epidemic will not die out with those measures. Which could be interesting to see if those reductions of R0 where dependent on a I0 (an initial number of infected) which would mean that maybe those numbers would be better if applied before the measures before this point.

The time scale is in days in the paper, not months by the way. Just to say. So teh increase of R0, menas that there are 2.5 new infected per each infected each day, not each month.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining.

You're welcome. I kind of like this models, so I've studied them. They are fascinating, and where concepts like herd immunity come in.

flying_whimsy:
I was starting to get worried what with all of the fear mongering the mainstream media (especially cnn) have been running, but then I talked to my mom who is also a nurse. The cold kills more people per day than this ebola outbreak has in total. And given that it is only spread by direct contact with body fluids, there isn't actually that much risk in developed nations. I am effectively totally sick of this.

Although it would help if infected people would stop getting on planes and flying to other countries. The hospital my mom was working at had a call from a guy that rode on the plane with that one infected nurse: he was fine, but I find it a bit disconcerting that the government has no qualms spying on me but won't opt for a simple medical check at the borders.

EDIT: And before people start jumping on me about being unsympathetic to the nations that are being affected: I care, really I do, but I care slightly more about more localized outbreaks like that children's cancer cluster that sprung up in a town south of where I live (Protip: don't let chemical companies build playgrounds on top of their old dumps).

Per day? Are you talknig globally? Because in the US, alone that is not true, as average, there are 23,000 deaths per year of influenza and influenza related complications such as pneumonia. If the model is correct by December and if the current death rates stay, this epidemic will have killed nearly four times that (about 90,000 deaths) in the same amount of time and even double of the worst epidemic of influenza in the US since the seventies. If the model is right, more people will have died of Ebola in those countries than women of breast cancer in the USA in 2011, and we have month of awareness over that.

Let's put a perspective here. If the model is correct, by the year about 1% of the population of three countries will be infected with a disease that has around 45% mortality rate. If a similar outbreak happened in only Dallas that be around the 6200 deaths in a year. if it was Texas, it would be around 100,000 deaths in a year. If it was the USA in its totality there would be around 1.6 million deaths.

Yes, absolute numbers tell one story. But relative ones tell another. This is a huge epidemic. It will kill and be a devastating effect on a lot of people. Saying flue kills more people, or that this isn't a big deal is being disrespectful for a very important event. It is huge and this piece of news is discouraging, as it means that if the model is accurate, a very significant amount of the population of several countries will be affected by a horrible disease. It is very sad it came to this. Hope the model is wrong.

Should this be part of the Escapist news? it seems very unrelated to gaming or nerd subculture, I had half expected to see something about plague inc.

I get that this kind of news is important, but this is not the place for it.

Oh it can be stopped, or at least prevented from endangering the rest of the world. But the people in charge won't do what must be done because it would be "cruel" or "inhumane" or whatever.

O maestre:
Should this be part of the Escapist news? it seems very unrelated to gaming or nerd subculture, I had half expected to see something about plague inc.

I get that this kind of news is important, but this is not the place for it.

Since it's spreading out like alot of my Plague Inc. plays, I'm gonna call relevance.

FalloutJack:

O maestre:
Should this be part of the Escapist news? it seems very unrelated to gaming or nerd subculture, I had half expected to see something about plague inc.

I get that this kind of news is important, but this is not the place for it.

Since it's spreading out like alot of my Plague Inc. plays, I'm gonna call relevance.

Really? No offence but that seems like you are using the wrong tactics to play. Usually I have about 75-100% of the world infected before someone notices the disease.

O maestre:

FalloutJack:

O maestre:
Should this be part of the Escapist news? it seems very unrelated to gaming or nerd subculture, I had half expected to see something about plague inc.

I get that this kind of news is important, but this is not the place for it.

Since it's spreading out like alot of my Plague Inc. plays, I'm gonna call relevance.

Really? No offence but that seems like you are using the wrong tactics to play. Usually I have about 75-100% of the world infected before someone notices the disease.

I generally win, but I have not figured out how to keep under the radar for very long. If, in the spirit of things, you wished to share this unique tactic, that would be fine.

200,000 cases in an overpopulated, underdeveloped part of the world.

7,000,000,000 people in the world currently.

That's .0028% of the world's overall population if my math doesn't suck too badly. That is mathmatically insignificant number that screams "who the hell cares?!".

So, what I gathered so far is that Ebola is like that one co-worker who has to take to bus because they don't have enough money to get their own vehicle, let alone a viable driver's licence... Now, even if they did get enough money from their own vehicle and license to drive said vehicle, they wouldn't be able to drive not that far from their house without being pulled over by the police for suspected vehicular manslaughter... and that goes double, even triple, if they were caught driving in a highly populated, yet financially (and medically) stable neighborhood... Then again, they could still get away by ducking through the alleyways and the like if they were traveling by foot, for example, but its not always a viable option of getting to work on time because, surprise surprise, some alleyways are booby-trapped to the point that they're better off giving up and going back to using the bus like as before...

Other than that, as long as those capable of handling Ebola follow whatever protocol to prevent any unplanned human-spreading of Ebola from their end as well as everyone else keeping up in standard hygiene ranging from washing one's hands to not coughing on someone's face in public and those with the potential to having Ebola reporting to their local hospital as soon as possible, we should be fine for the time being... (I was going to make a POTA analogy, but I could not think of anything clever outside of referencing Andy Serkis and his lack of an Oscar or something like that...)

Saetha:
You, uh... you realize they admitted that the nurses became infected due to a breach in protocol, right? That was the problem. They didn't follow procedure.

That being said, the sending troops thing is really stupid to me, too, since I fail to see how they'll lend any aid other than protection from those who think ebola is black magic being spread by doctors. However, preeetty sure they'd at least watch those soldiers for signs of infection when they return.

No, I had not heard that but I'd be skeptical if I had. Just so much of what I'm hearing about the different cases in the US worries me that this strain might have airborne properties. And I know the system well enough to know they value order over prevention. They would rather tell us that these people broke protocol than to say it could possibly be a deadlier strain. Not saying it is, but makes me wonder non the less.

As for the troops, I would hope they get quarantined. But I would have also thought quarantining anyone coming from a hot spot or the surrounding areas would be common sense too... But regardless of that, how many men and women are we sending to their deaths before they even get back home?

Strazdas:
I can speak for those nurses but i have experience first hand how doctors treat contagious illnesses here in eastern europe. lets just say the precautions leave much to be desired.

Well, that's all fine and good but I wasn't talking about eastern Europe. I live in the US and know a few healthcare professionals, nurses mostly. The procedure is to not to have any skin to skin contact with a patient showing symptoms of an unidentified pathogen, or suspected contagious pathogen, and to have the patient wear a mask if sneezing or coughing. The system works so long as it is followed and everyone has the right info about pathogens to watch out for.

wackymon:
Actually, to my understanding (My mother is a microbologist, this is her job), there was a fairly major breech in protocol, which resulted in bare skin with minor wounds getting liquids in it.

I'll say again I was unaware of that development but I'll ask was that the case for both of them? Can we confirm, without a doubt, that this particular strain does not have airborne properties? But even at that, why has the CDC not implemented mandatory quarantine for those coming back from hot spots? Perhaps your microbiologist mother who's job this is can explain that one?

Artaneius:

BadNewDingus:
Considering that this is from a study where they compile a bunch of research from outside sources and make a educated guess ... I still wouldn't panic. Panic drives people mad and causes more harm. Of which, the media has done a great job of doing. I do believe that the numbers of which they're giving us could be false and are far worse, but it is kinda hard to hide anything like this these days.

Also, if the any strain was airborne the numbers of infected would be gigantic. It's just the fact that our nurses are not prepared for this sort of virus. Flu season is coming and if anyone is sick should stay the fuck home. I don't know how many times I've seen idiots go out shopping while sick and coughing everywhere. Those are the people that will spread it.

So people who are single, sick, and have no one else to take care of them aren't allowed to buy food and supplies to keep them from starving to death?

You do know you can buy almost anything online. And if you're sick, I'm sure you'll have food in the house before you got sick. It's not like you're going to run out of food from a couple of days from being sick.

And yes, single people have to take care of themselves or have one of your family members come over to help. We're not talking about the end of the world here. Just don't go out when you sneezing constantly and snot coming out of your nose. I know you'll just reply, "Well, what about their job." And you know what, whenever I was sick, my boss told me to go home and yelled at me for even coming to work. You'll get others sick and only cause more harm for being a trooper.

Now, do you have any snotty retort to this post?

BadNewDingus:

Artaneius:

BadNewDingus:
Considering that this is from a study where they compile a bunch of research from outside sources and make a educated guess ... I still wouldn't panic. Panic drives people mad and causes more harm. Of which, the media has done a great job of doing. I do believe that the numbers of which they're giving us could be false and are far worse, but it is kinda hard to hide anything like this these days.

Also, if the any strain was airborne the numbers of infected would be gigantic. It's just the fact that our nurses are not prepared for this sort of virus. Flu season is coming and if anyone is sick should stay the fuck home. I don't know how many times I've seen idiots go out shopping while sick and coughing everywhere. Those are the people that will spread it.

So people who are single, sick, and have no one else to take care of them aren't allowed to buy food and supplies to keep them from starving to death?

You do know you can buy almost anything online. And if you're sick, I'm sure you'll have food in the house before you got sick. It's not like you're going to run out of food from a couple of days from being sick.

And yes, single people have to take care of themselves or have one of your family members come over to help. We're not talking about the end of the world here. Just don't go out when you sneezing constantly and snot coming out of your nose. I know you'll just reply, "Well, what about their job." And you know what, whenever I was sick, my boss told me to go home and yelled at me for even coming to work. You'll get others sick and only cause more harm for being a trooper.

Now, do you have any snotty retort to this post?

The list of things wrong with this post:

* Not everyone has a stockpile of non-preparation food. Some people go shopping when they literally have no food, not when their food is low.
* Not everyone has access to the internet.
* Not everyone has access to an online grocery that delivers in their area.
* Not everyone lives in an area where their friends or family live to get groceries for them.
* Not everyone has a job where their bosses are happy for them to go home. Many people work in jobs where they will be let go if they miss more than a day of work in a row. This includes jobs which involve preparation of food.

Deathfish15:
200,000 cases in an overpopulated, underdeveloped part of the world.

7,000,000,000 people in the world currently.

That's .0028% of the world's overall population if my math doesn't suck too badly. That is mathmatically insignificant number that screams "who the hell cares?!".

Well when you consider that these people are still Human beings.....

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.