# Ebola

49 replies to this topic

### #35 Floppy

Floppy

Thinking

• Banned
• 13 posts

Posted 28 October 2014 - 08:57 AM

http://www.bbc.com/n...africa-28754546

Ye but no one in the UK is likely to have malaria sooo. There's only fear in UK hospitals as a result of a suspected Ebola man arriving from Africa
• Coolio and dudeasinepic like this

### #36 Racoon

Racoon

Politically Incorrect

• Members
• 3800 posts

Posted 28 October 2014 - 06:06 PM

The CDC says now that Ebola can live on cold surfaces for up to 50 days or more... 39 degrees farenheit

Could be right on a door handle...

There was a Ebola outbreak among chimpanzees that became Airborne, and infected the chimps thru the ventilation system..

http://gotnews.com/d...-gone-airborne/

Fortunately it was one of the 5 strains that do not affect humans, but it shows the potential for Ebola to mutate into an airborne pathogen.

It can already be somewhat airborne in that droplets from sneezes and coughs can transmit Ebola.. No laughing matter when you board an airplane, bus, or subway car..

I'm not trying to sound the Panic alarm, but it should be noted that the CDC are unequiped to handle this in case of a major outbreak... Just a few isolated cases are already straining the resources of the nations hospital systems.

The Hospitals still have to perform surgeries, treat other patients, and whatnot, WITHOUT the threat of a Ebola Pandemic.

So why is Obama still allowing in Flights in from affected countries??

### #37 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8946 posts

Posted 28 October 2014 - 06:43 PM

Chuck Johnson is a charlatan and a moron. Don't listen to him. The original source for the 50 day quote actually appears to be Alex Jones, who makes his living off of conspiracy theories.

The story they are misrepresenting is that yes Ebola, if you keep it refrigerated AND IN A FLUID STATE, can last for several weeks. It's that "fluid state" that's important, and under most conditions it means that Ebola virus left by a symptomatic patient dropping/expelling bodily fluids are going to all be dead within a few hours.

Could you create conditions in an extremely high humidity closed environment that got it to last for longer? Sure, with conditions that no human would willingly tolerate for any length of time.

The problem with quarantines is that they are not only not effective because they cannot stop everyone, they are counterproductive because they both prevent reporting of symptoms as well as reduce the ability of healthcare workers to actually get to the source of the epidemic and work to stop it there.

Do you honestly think it's a good thing that a general and 30 troops have been quarantined at the apparent insistence of the Italian government and are now unable to return *anywhere* including back to Africa to try to continue to stop the spread of Ebola?

The bottom line is that it is these scaremongers--whose ONLY goal is to mindlessly smear Obama like you just did--are the single biggest force in increasing the ultimate spread of the disease because they are preventing the actions necessary to stop it by spreading misinformation, and trying to put obstacles in the way of the people who are actually willing to put themselves in harms way to stop it.

I also think that people who want to insist that we wall off the country to everyone in a desperate panic seemingly only to ensure that there's no possibility of them catching the disease are cowards: in every war we are all on the front lines, and have to be prepared to sacrifice for the benefit of all.

If it makes you feel any better, if Alex Jones is right, then Obama just caught Ebola from that nurse from Dallas he hugged on Saturday in the White House, so he'll probably die soon which is what all these selfish conspiracy lunatics want anyway apparently.

It's these same nuts who also have pushed hard to cut the CDCs budget and willfully ignore the fact that the very design of the CDC is not to run the entire response to such situations, but to honor "State's Rights" and provide coordination, not dictate actions or fund them.

Or are you saying you want to federalize all this stuff and you're willing to have your taxes increased to "ensure" your "safety?"

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,

Buffy

• sanctus likes this

### #38 Racoon

Racoon

Politically Incorrect

• Members
• 3800 posts

Posted 28 October 2014 - 07:03 PM

I think inconveniencing a few people in a quarantine for a few weeks is worth the risk of preventing a widespread outbreak.

The States have a right to enforce their own Protocols if the Federal Government wont.

This Ebola is in new unchartered territories with regards to our HealthCare Infrastructure..

If you still believe in Obama, then I am sorry for you. He is not the Hope and Change everyone wanted.

Obama is just a convincing Liar.

Edited by Racoon, 28 October 2014 - 07:04 PM.

### #39 Racoon

Racoon

Politically Incorrect

• Members
• 3800 posts

Posted 28 October 2014 - 07:14 PM

Sorry Buffy.. Youir Statement makes no Logical Sense.

By Quarantining People you are Minimizing Risk..

The problem with quarantines is that they are not only not effective because they cannot stop everyone, they are counterproductive because they both prevent reporting of symptoms as well as reduce the ability of healthcare workers to actually get to the source of the epidemic and work to stop it there.

You stop people by Isolating them.. Not allowing them to free range in a city .  How does quarantining them upon return affect their work trying to Help when they aren't in West Africa ??

They should know that going into it, They accept that Risk.

You are reducing contact upon Return.. This is too dangerous a potential to play Patty-Cake games with..

Edited by Racoon, 28 October 2014 - 07:14 PM.

### #40 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8946 posts

Posted 28 October 2014 - 07:30 PM

How are you going to catch them all? If you lock them all up, how many more are going to try to evade it?

Sorry, you don't live in a perfect world where such things actually work. If we did, there'd be no messicans getting in your way on the street and stealing all your tax dollars.

Sometimes logic can be too simplistic to deal with reality. That's science.

Earthly minds, like mud walls, resist the strongest batteries; and though, perhaps, somethimes the force of a clear argument may make some impression, yet they nevertheless stand firm, keep out the enemy, truth, that would captivate or disturb them,

Buffy

### #41 Racoon

Racoon

Politically Incorrect

• Members
• 3800 posts

Posted 28 October 2014 - 07:50 PM

How are you going to catch them all? If you lock them all up, how many more are going to try to evade it?

Sorry, you don't live in a perfect world where such things actually work. If we did, there'd be no messicans getting in your way on the street and stealing all your tax dollars.

Sometimes logic can be too simplistic to deal with reality. That's science.

Buffy

So by NOT quarantining people, we are decreasing the possibility of its spread??

That makes No sense.

The U.S. Shut Down flights to Israel when Rockets flew close to the Airport in Tel Aviv..  But We can't shut down incoming flights from Ebola Infected countries into the US because somehow that will stop the Aid going into those countries??

Ebola has a super-potential to shut down economies and kill millions of people.  Every little slight of precaution is worth it. Whether it be a nurse who has to stay 21 days in a tent, or some African who can't fly to the United States.

### #42 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8946 posts

Posted 28 October 2014 - 08:03 PM

Ebola does indeed have the ability to kill millions, especially if we follow mindlessly simplistic solutions.

You should indeed think about the example I offered, as it's exactly the counter-argument.

Nothing is as simple as we hope it will be,

Buffy

### #43 tscience

tscience

Thinking

• Members
• 16 posts

Posted 29 October 2014 - 06:51 AM

http://www.bbc.com/n...africa-28754546

Really there are many topics to know more about Ebola...

### #44 Foghorn

Foghorn

• Members
• 38 posts

Posted 30 October 2014 - 01:23 PM

I hear ya Eclo, I get the same crap from my family.

You cant believe a third of what you hear from Fox Noise...

And that third will be hyped up as far as it can be.

So, Yes, we wil ALL die from Ebola soon.

But, while we wait, can I get that autographed Les Paul from you?

Just to hold it for you, of course....lol

### #45 sanctus

sanctus

Resident Diabolist

• 4255 posts

Posted 03 November 2014 - 08:06 AM

So it can even get worse for people in West Africa!:

http://www.bbc.com/n...africa-29868394

### #46 Racoon

Racoon

Politically Incorrect

• Members
• 3800 posts

Posted 07 November 2014 - 03:25 AM

Ebola does indeed have the ability to kill millions, especially if we follow mindlessly simplistic solutions.

You should indeed think about the example I offered, as it's exactly the counter-argument.

Nothing is as simple as we hope it will be,

Buffy

And if your daughter gets Ebola, then its just whatever Obama Policies..

Stop flights and immigrants with infectious disease.. Its that simple\

.

Countries and communities have been doing that since they recognized infectious disease since the Middle Ages. .

Isolate and detain

### #47 CraigD

CraigD

Creating

• 8034 posts

Posted 08 November 2014 - 12:35 PM

Stop flights and immigrants with infectious disease.. Its that simple\

Airport official in The West African countries affected by the current Ebola epidemic (Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Senegal) check the temperatures people before allowing them to board commercial airplanes, while those in countries like the US check again check the temperatures of people arriving from these countries. If their temp is elevated, they are taken to hospitals and tested for Ebola and other diseases.

Because Ebola can take up to 3 weeks to show symptoms such as elevated temperature, this policy prevents the spread of the disease during and for a few days after travel. This is why it’s important to monitor people who have traveled from Ebola outbreak places after their arrival.

Such monitoring could be done by confining all arriving travelers in special facilities for 3 weeks and monitoring them there. There are at least these problems with this approach:
• Laws - US law requires due process before depriving people of their liberty. This process requires a convincing demonstration to a court that the risk to the public of not doing warrant the confinement. Considering to the best of their ability the scientific data about Ebola, US court have decide in that it does not.
• Cost - About 150 people are estimated to arrive each day in the US from Ebola affected countries, so the about 3150 people would need to be detained for the duration of the policy. Assuming prison-like costs, this would cost about $250,000/day. Assuming hospital-like costs, it would cost about$13,500,000/day. The question of who would pay, and how much, would need to be addressed.
• Self-reporting truthfullness – because many people wouldn’t want to be confined for 21 days, so would lie about where they were traveling from to avoid it. We only know that travelers originate in Ebola outbreak countries because they self-report it, so it would be very difficult to catch people if they lied.
I think it’s this last problem – self-reporting – that most influence the US’s CDC and other health agencies in recommending the less burdensome approach of self-monitoring of people traveling from Ebola outbreak countries.

Perhaps greater, public health officials fear that if greater burden is placed on travelers from these countries, fewer healthcare workers will be available in these countries to control the Ebola outbreak there, resulting in a great increase in the total number of infections, a corresponding great increase in the number of infected people traveling to other countries, and the current epidemic becoming a global pandemic.

In short, in the opinion of the best public health experts, a strict “isolate and detail” policy, even if made legal, would make the Ebola epidemic worse, not better.

Countries and communities have been doing that since they recognized infectious disease since the Middle Ages. .
Isolate and detain

I don’t think following disease control example from the Middle Ages is wise. For example, the French government ca 1350 followed a policy of confining suspected Black Death plague (Yersinia pestis) carriers, who they believed to be primarily Jews, in walled and gated ghettos. In some towns, Frightened people massacred the people in the ghettos. Please from church and medical authorities to discontinue these policies were often ignored.

That our present-day governments don’t ignore legal and medical experts is, I believe, a reason why we refer to the Middle Ages as the Dark Ages, and why we’re better now than then.

And if your daughter gets Ebola, then its just whatever Obama Policies..

This kind of argument is an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy. You should avoid logical fallacies in your posts at hypography, Racoon.
• Buffy likes this

### #48 sanctus

sanctus

Resident Diabolist

• 4255 posts

Posted 12 November 2014 - 07:12 AM

This article presents a cool POV, wrt why we are scared of Ebola:

http://www.bbc.com/n...health-28689949

### #49 CraigD

CraigD

Creating

• 8034 posts

Posted 12 November 2014 - 09:01 AM

This article presents a cool POV, wrt why we are scared of Ebola:
http://www.bbc.com/n...health-28689949

Good article, but I disagree with one of its main assumptions

Perhaps then it has something to do with the fact that there is no cure and that 50%-90% of people infected will inevitably die.

Ebola can be “cured” in the same way most viral infections are: by supporting the patient, primarily by assuring they are well-hydrated, until their immune system can eliminate the virus. Blood transfusions from recent recovered Ebola patients also appears to improve the change of survival.

Currently, the worldwide number of infections and deaths for the 2014 Ebola epidemic are 13594 and 5410, which gives a death rate of 40%, not “50%-90%”. In cases where detection is early and the best available care available, such as the US, 3 of 4 cases in the US and several cases treated in the US, the death rate is 0%.

The perception that Ebola “has no cure and that 50%-90% of people infected will inevitably die”, contributes to fear of it. This perception is contradicted by actual data.

### #50 sanctus

sanctus

Resident Diabolist