We should not fear Ebola

DeaDRabbiT

New member
Sep 25, 2010
139
0
0
Olas said:
My only fear is a virus mutation that makes Ebola more easily transferable. The more people who get the disease the more replications and the more chances for it to transform into some sort of air-born nightmare disease.

Granted I don't consider that likely, but it's not science fiction either.
Which is where the first worlds "irrational" fear of Ebola comes from.

When you don't have travel restrictions at the very least FROM the outbreak zone, you are potentially exposing yourself to ground zero.

They said the Nigerian outbreak was for the most part over, and I'm so glad to hear that, but in a country where many people believe Ebola is some sort of myth, the chances for that mutation to airborne or some other horrific capability increases.

But yes, the likelihood of that occurring in a first world nation is slim.
 

Muspelheim

New member
Apr 7, 2011
2,023
0
0
Fear seems a reasonable reaction to a terribly unpleasant virus like Ebola. As long as it remains reasonable and in proportion.

It's likely not going to be quite as terrible if it arrives in the First World. Wash your hands, keep an ear to the ground and carry on. If you're afraid to go outside due to Ebola, then there might be a slight fear related problem. Of course, if you work in health care, it's at least a realistic risk. But there are routines, you know what to do.

Being afraid of hippoes is a warranted fear. But they won't be in your bathroom, so unless you're in places hippoes like to frequent, you can carry on as usual. And you probably won't need all those hippo repellants the guy in the checkered suit's trying to flog.
 

kurokotetsu

Proud Master
Sep 17, 2008
428
0
0
Well, that infection rate (or anything over 1 really) means that it will eventually spread to the whole population (if the number doesn't change over time). That is simple math and the result of or SIR model (ant the importance of Ross' limit in infectious population).

Also I guess that while not that transmissible in densely populated areas, that number may grow. A single infected patient in a big population center with densities high enough like Manhattan, Tokyo, Mexico City, could infect tens of people incidentally (just contact with the sweat of the carrier, which is inevitable in high density places like railways systems in rush hour or downtown) could mean a rapid and very difficult to control expansion of the disease in those cities, covering large areas and infecting a fair amount of people before anything can be done by CDC or any other agency or government, tracking down those people that came from such fortuitous contact can be nearly impossible. As such a big outbreak in a sufficiently dense population center could be expected. A certain amount f fear around those centers is to be expected. Early symptoms aren't that distinctive so unless the patient goes immediately after their fist sneeze (that most time won't be Ebola) they may be symptomatic (and infectious) for some time before quarantine. Most people touch their noses, mouths and eyes unconsciously and even coming into contact with sweat or saliva a moemnt can mean than when you do that action you infect yourself.

Couple that with high mortality rates (even in the best conditions one in five infected patients seem to die) and a very unpleasant experience even if you survive, no treatment proved or ready just now, well, it is a scary disease. It will not wipe out any country nor even cities and it is highly unlikely to be transmitted to such places. But thinking about it can be scary. It is a scary disease. No reason to panic, nor even be overly concerned, but I understand why the prospect can be seem with fear.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Matthew Jabour said:
Snipped for Verbosity
Viruses only mutate if they infect people in different regions (which isn't happening), and even then, only to accommodate for different climates. The other way a virus can mutate is to overcome a vaccination, which is moot, as what is currently being developed is, in fact, a cure. Furthermore, ebola is only transmissible while its symptoms are active, so that would, in fact, be the best thing that could happen.

Worrying ebola will mutate into an airborne virus is like worrying sharks will evolve legs and start chasing us off the beaches.
But that is exactly what happened. Do you think that the Ebola case in Dallas came from Dallas? No, it was brought back with him when he went on leave from deployment in Africa. That is what you call a change in environment, as well as a change in hosts, as our physiology is very different than theirs (based on diet, life style, and in some cases genetic, though that is only true for people not of African descent). So yes, there is a chance of Ebola mutating. However if you had actually read my entire post, you would see that I said it was a on in a million chance of happening.

And your second statement is incorrect. You can quite easily be a carrier and spread the virus your whole life without knowing it, however, once again, this is not what I was talking about (please try to read posts carefully before attacking their voracity). What I said was that due to the incubation period you have no symptoms, this means that a soldier who was infected in the line of duty could easily pass the medical check to be allowed back into the states. At that point his symptoms would manifest and he would begin being able to transmit the virus.
 

GabeZhul

New member
Mar 8, 2012
699
0
0
lacktheknack said:
People like to point at it spreading like crazy through Africa, but I'd like to point out that anti-Ebola protestors (??) destroyed an Ebola Clinic (?????) and stole blankets used by dying ebola patients (?!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!?!??!)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-armed-men-attack-liberia-ebola-clinic-freeing-patients/

Since this literally would never happen in Europe/Australia/America/etc, it really clamps down on my fear of it.
It's because all those uneducated but heavily armed (due to the war-torn status of the area) people saw was that doctors (who mights as well be witches for all they know about medicine) took away their sick and they never returned, therefore they concluded that those people must have been taken away for some nefarious purposes and after some general panic and fear-mongering they decided to "rescue" them.

As for it not happening in the western world... well, maybe not with "scary" diseases like Ebola, but I consider the thought-process pretty much the same for anti-vacc people. Uneducated people (read: parents) who don't understand what doctors are doing (read: "Vaccines cause autism, because a celebrity said so!") suspect some sort of nefarious purpose behind what they do (read: Vaccines are obviously unhealthy/unessessary/mind-control) and so they "rescue" (read: exempt from vaccination) the "victims" (read: children) and inadvertently spread diseases (read: http://www.cfr.org/interactives/GH_Vaccine_Map/#map).

CatLafitte said:
Bird flu, swine flue, mad cow disease, sars... None of this actually turned into anything. Why would it be serious this time? There was even an ebola-thing going on in the 90s, but the only outcome there was a decent movie with Dustin Hoffman.
This is a classic case of "damned if they do, damned if they don't". Sore, none of those turned into anything, and you are annoyed by the hype about them, but if they did[/d] turn into anything serious and there was no warning, you would be angry about that. While it is probable that this ebola outbreak is going to stay a third world problem and it won't affect your average American, but I think potentially millions of Africans dying is reason enough to be worried already.

Matthew Jabour said:
HIV is a near certain killer, but people still don't use condoms all the time.
Actually, it is not. At least if you take the proper medication, it doesn't even lower the average lifespan of a person. For all intents and purposes, as long as you take the specific anti-virals, AIDS is pretty much just a chronic illness that will certainly impact your life but won't actually kill you (compared to the "You have three years to live" type diagnoses you would have gotten when it first appeared). Yay for science?
 

Kyrian007

Nemo saltat sobrius
Legacy
Mar 9, 2010
2,564
647
118
Kansas
Country
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
The funny thing is, I hate people on both sides of this argument. The OP is totally right, as well as everyone on the anti-ebola-paranoia side of the argument. Sure, it's possible Ebola could mutate and become more easily transmissible... you know what would be FAAARRR worse and is FAAAAARRR more likely to spread? Flu mutating to add a hemoragic fever like symptom and becoming more deadly. And the chances of that happening are nearly equal to the chances of ebola mutating.

Yet the OP and his ilk have shown a tendency to blame "the mainstream media conspiracy" making this just another part of the nefarious paranoid's "they" that's bringing down society. Well, I'm a journalist and there's only so much of this shit I can put up with. Sure, partisan groups like Fox and MSNBC have given us a black eye... but most of us aren't highly paid network anchors and talking heads. Most of us are guys like me, just writing stories and punching a timeclock for our sub-shitty paychecks. I listen to a police scanner and run through local government meeting video for breaking news and b-roll interest fluff if nothing better is going on. But my facebook feed reposts AP copy from the national Ebola news and suddenly I'm either A: Creating a "Media Frenzy" to boost ratings, or B: I'm usuing "government" CDC quotes and figures because I'm part of "the administration's" coverup of the ebola crisis which will kill most of us and give Obama the opportunity to declare martial law and make himself dictator.

And so to group A... fuck you. If something happens I report on it. That's my fucking job. If you don't like how some people are taking that message... NOT MY PROBLEM.

And to group B... just... REALLY? Just fuck you too.

And yes, I know that lots of times when people talk about "the mainstream media" they don't mean local guys like me. They are just talking about the network bigwigs and talking heads. But you know what, I am in the mainstream media... I DO work for a media corporation. And do you know how many times they've asked me to alter a story? For an advertiser, or a supporter, or for any reason. NONE. Corruption is NOT as widespread as you think.

Kinda like Ebola.
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
Jul 19, 2010
1,620
83
33
Country
Free-Dom
CpT_x_Killsteal said:
Thought this was gonna be an "Ebola-chan" thread. Ye gods the mighty shitstorm that would've caused.

If you want to avoid unnecessary fear, just avoid mainstream media altogether, and probably almost anything shit politicians say. Mainstream media will use fear mongering to get ratings, and politicians will use it to set themselves up as con-men who can save you.
Well, you can't stop love, folks.



See...the above idea is simultaneously horrific and cathartic for an, apparently, sizable portion of the internet's underbelly.

I can understand it.

It provides a distinct sense of levity and disassociation from the actual awfulness of the virus and, well, what is the internet for if not escapism...and to a slightly lesser extent, equal parts porn, cat videos, and the accumulated knowledge of man.

It's just something that comes from distance. People living in those conditions aren't making anthropomorphized versions of the virus and ironically "worshiping" it. Frankly, I feel for them. I genuinely do. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine such a thing visiting upon me and mine.

My mother in particular has an exceptionally weak immune system due to a long history battling a couple different diseases/chemo and all that that entails. Ebola would kill straight up kill her. 50-70% chance? Heh. Try 95%, at least. She gets taken down for over a month or two, in a bad way, by the common cold.

The idea of it gaining a foothold over here is monstrous and, thankfully, (I hope) very unlikely.

But. Hey. If I can lessen the sense of irrational fear and entertain a brief spark of pitch black humor, tempered by an underlying sense of guilt and shame, to momentarily push out the near omnipresent sense of dread born from the knowledge that such a thing exists?

Well.

Good luck, Ebola-chan.
 

Megalodon

New member
May 14, 2010
781
0
0
michael87cn said:
Is saliva not a bodily fluid? Cuz you blow thousands of microscopic blobs of it with every breath. Let's not even talk about what happens when someone sneezes. It's REALLY disgusting. Okay, let's talk about it. When someone sneezes, they basically are CAKING the entire room they are in with their snot. Yum!

Sooooo, can you not get ebola this way? You have to drink their blood? Cuz you should just say that instead of "bodily fluids" if what you mean is blood to blood contact. It's just confusing.

I mean, if it is other stuff then ebola is actually highly transmissible just like the common cold is.
No, they mean bodily fluids. However, that term doesn't necessarily mean all bodily fluids, all the time (for example, HIV isn't carried in saliva). Ebola can be carried in saliva, but is not airborne, and certainly nowhere near as transmissible as Rhinovirus, this is a simple fact. Also remember, unlike colds, ebola patients are only contagious when they're symptomatic.

As for saliva, not all Ebola patient's saliva actually carries the virus, it's speculated here that the virus is inactivated by salivary enzymes, so most patient's saliva (assuming their data set is representative) isn't contagious.

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/196/Supplement_2/S142.full


barbzilla said:
However, no matter how rare it is, there is a possibility that this strain of Ebola could mutate into an Airborne transmissive disease with a long incubation period (I.E. no symptoms), which would cause it to spread like wildfire across populated areas before the first symptoms were noticed. If you combine that with the nearly 80% fatality rate of the virus, it is potentially a very serious threat (Even if the chances of this happening are one in a million, that is 1 more than I am comfortable with).
Significantly more unlikely than one in a million. As it need to evolve to be airborne, long incubation period, and contagious before symptoms develop.

Also, the virus doesn't have an 80% fatality rate. It depends on the strain, with different outbreaks varying wildly in lethality, with death rates anywhere between 23% and 88%. The current outbreak is relatively low down the list, with a 47% mortality rate.
 

Matthew Jabour

New member
Jan 13, 2012
1,063
0
0
barbzilla said:
Matthew Jabour said:
Snipped for Verbosity
Viruses only mutate if they infect people in different regions (which isn't happening), and even then, only to accommodate for different climates. The other way a virus can mutate is to overcome a vaccination, which is moot, as what is currently being developed is, in fact, a cure. Furthermore, ebola is only transmissible while its symptoms are active, so that would, in fact, be the best thing that could happen.

Worrying ebola will mutate into an airborne virus is like worrying sharks will evolve legs and start chasing us off the beaches.
But that is exactly what happened. Do you think that the Ebola case in Dallas came from Dallas? No, it was brought back with him when he went on leave from deployment in Africa. That is what you call a change in environment, as well as a change in hosts, as our physiology is very different than theirs (based on diet, life style, and in some cases genetic, though that is only true for people not of African descent). So yes, there is a chance of Ebola mutating. However if you had actually read my entire post, you would see that I said it was a on in a million chance of happening.

And your second statement is incorrect. You can quite easily be a carrier and spread the virus your whole life without knowing it, however, once again, this is not what I was talking about (please try to read posts carefully before attacking their voracity). What I said was that due to the incubation period you have no symptoms, this means that a soldier who was infected in the line of duty could easily pass the medical check to be allowed back into the states. At that point his symptoms would manifest and he would begin being able to transmit the virus.
Except, for every possible transmission the odds are once in a million. Combine this with the low infectibility rates, and the odds drop to zero exponentially quickly.

Why not worry about measles? It's 9 times more infectious and has actually posed a threat to America in the past.
 

Dakkagor

New member
Sep 5, 2011
59
0
0
Jim makes some good points: we have some points in Europe where its very easy for immigrants to get into the eurozone, this is a lot closer to home for us. However, there doesn't seem to be a lot of fear or panic over here. Media focus at the moment is mainly on IS (atleast in the UK) and our decision to go forward with air strikes in Iraq, and that 'Jihadi John' arsehole that most people want to see on a pike outside the Tower of London. We also have the party conferences, which are leading up to the upcoming General Election (next year I think)
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Megalodon said:
michael87cn said:
Is saliva not a bodily fluid? Cuz you blow thousands of microscopic blobs of it with every breath. Let's not even talk about what happens when someone sneezes. It's REALLY disgusting. Okay, let's talk about it. When someone sneezes, they basically are CAKING the entire room they are in with their snot. Yum!

Sooooo, can you not get ebola this way? You have to drink their blood? Cuz you should just say that instead of "bodily fluids" if what you mean is blood to blood contact. It's just confusing.

I mean, if it is other stuff then ebola is actually highly transmissible just like the common cold is.
No, they mean bodily fluids. However, that term doesn't necessarily mean all bodily fluids, all the time (for example, HIV isn't carried in saliva). Ebola can be carried in saliva, but is not airborne, and certainly nowhere near as transmissible as Rhinovirus, this is a simple fact. Also remember, unlike colds, ebola patients are only contagious when they're symptomatic.

As for saliva, not all Ebola patient's saliva actually carries the virus, it's speculated here that the virus is inactivated by salivary enzymes, so most patient's saliva (assuming their data set is representative) isn't contagious.

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/196/Supplement_2/S142.full


barbzilla said:
However, no matter how rare it is, there is a possibility that this strain of Ebola could mutate into an Airborne transmissive disease with a long incubation period (I.E. no symptoms), which would cause it to spread like wildfire across populated areas before the first symptoms were noticed. If you combine that with the nearly 80% fatality rate of the virus, it is potentially a very serious threat (Even if the chances of this happening are one in a million, that is 1 more than I am comfortable with).
Significantly more unlikely than one in a million. As it need to evolve to be airborne, long incubation period, and contagious before symptoms develop.

Also, the virus doesn't have an 80% fatality rate. It depends on the strain, with different outbreaks varying wildly in lethality, with death rates anywhere between 23% and 88%. The current outbreak is relatively low down the list, with a 47% mortality rate.
I'm sorry, you are correct, this was the Liberia Strain which sits at 54% according to the CDC website. When I said one in a million, I mean incredibly rare, as in people should stop worrying about stuff. My main point was that we shouldn't have sent Soldiers (you know, people trained to fight in combat) to fight a virus when we have the World Health Organization that is supposed to do this stuff. Had we not sent those soldiers, we likely would not have had an Ebola case in the US. We had a couple US Doctors who contracted it, but they had enough brain cells to realize they shouldn't board a plane back to the states. The Military on the other hand, when its Leave time, they are only asked to submit to a check up exam, and then are sent home without observation.

Ebola is contagious without symptoms since it is a bloodborne pathogen. Only Airbornes are typically non-contagious until symptoms present (though even they can be transmitted through blood if the virus is virulent enough). This was the main point of my post, not that we should freak out and all walk around in CDC Space suits. We do have another 9 potential cases being watched by the CDC currently though, so we shall see what happens.

Once again sorry about the 80%, for some reason I could have sworn the patient came from the Yambucu area, and that was my fault for not double checking my sources before posting.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Matthew Jabour said:
barbzilla said:
Matthew Jabour said:
Snipped for Verbosity
Viruses only mutate if they infect people in different regions (which isn't happening), and even then, only to accommodate for different climates. The other way a virus can mutate is to overcome a vaccination, which is moot, as what is currently being developed is, in fact, a cure. Furthermore, ebola is only transmissible while its symptoms are active, so that would, in fact, be the best thing that could happen.

Worrying ebola will mutate into an airborne virus is like worrying sharks will evolve legs and start chasing us off the beaches.
But that is exactly what happened. Do you think that the Ebola case in Dallas came from Dallas? No, it was brought back with him when he went on leave from deployment in Africa. That is what you call a change in environment, as well as a change in hosts, as our physiology is very different than theirs (based on diet, life style, and in some cases genetic, though that is only true for people not of African descent). So yes, there is a chance of Ebola mutating. However if you had actually read my entire post, you would see that I said it was a on in a million chance of happening.

And your second statement is incorrect. You can quite easily be a carrier and spread the virus your whole life without knowing it, however, once again, this is not what I was talking about (please try to read posts carefully before attacking their voracity). What I said was that due to the incubation period you have no symptoms, this means that a soldier who was infected in the line of duty could easily pass the medical check to be allowed back into the states. At that point his symptoms would manifest and he would begin being able to transmit the virus.
Except, for every possible transmission the odds are once in a million. Combine this with the low infectibility rates, and the odds drop to zero exponentially quickly.

Why not worry about measles? It's 9 times more infectious and has actually posed a threat to America in the past.

What in the hell makes you think every possible transmission is 1 in 1,000,000? Why do you think it is an epidemic in Africa, because they have improbably bad luck? No, it is because when a virus is gestating and growing in your system, you are able to spread it through blood to blood combat (I.E. battle, and we have soldiers in Africa to fight the virus and protect the villagers from attacks by radicals and warlords), Sex (all too common in Africa to have unprotected sex, and our troops are not exactly known for keeping it in their collective pants, and before someone says it, I am well aware that it is a minority of troops that screw from port to port, but that minority puts us in danger), and even bodily fluid transfer (Kissing, sneezing, ect).

Now the chances of spread in the US are far less as we have news outlets that are informing people of what signs to watch out for, and to get themselves to the hospital ASAP if they have any symptoms. Combine that with the CDC's rules on chain of contact (I.E. a list of every person you've visited in the past 3 weeks), and we have very little chance of a major outbreak, and I've never said otherwise. What I'm complaining about was sending soldiers to fight a virus.
Except, for every possible transmission the odds are once in a million. Combine this with the low infectibility rates, and the odds drop to zero exponentially quickly.

Why not worry about measles? It's 9 times more infectious and has actually posed a threat to America in the past.
 

Matthew Jabour

New member
Jan 13, 2012
1,063
0
0
barbzilla said:
Matthew Jabour said:
barbzilla said:
Matthew Jabour said:
Snipped for Verbosity
Viruses only mutate if they infect people in different regions (which isn't happening), and even then, only to accommodate for different climates. The other way a virus can mutate is to overcome a vaccination, which is moot, as what is currently being developed is, in fact, a cure. Furthermore, ebola is only transmissible while its symptoms are active, so that would, in fact, be the best thing that could happen.

Worrying ebola will mutate into an airborne virus is like worrying sharks will evolve legs and start chasing us off the beaches.
But that is exactly what happened. Do you think that the Ebola case in Dallas came from Dallas? No, it was brought back with him when he went on leave from deployment in Africa. That is what you call a change in environment, as well as a change in hosts, as our physiology is very different than theirs (based on diet, life style, and in some cases genetic, though that is only true for people not of African descent). So yes, there is a chance of Ebola mutating. However if you had actually read my entire post, you would see that I said it was a on in a million chance of happening.

And your second statement is incorrect. You can quite easily be a carrier and spread the virus your whole life without knowing it, however, once again, this is not what I was talking about (please try to read posts carefully before attacking their voracity). What I said was that due to the incubation period you have no symptoms, this means that a soldier who was infected in the line of duty could easily pass the medical check to be allowed back into the states. At that point his symptoms would manifest and he would begin being able to transmit the virus.

What in the hell makes you think every possible transmission is 1 in 1,000,000? Why do you think it is an epidemic in Africa, because they have improbably bad luck? No, it is because when a virus is gestating and growing in your system, you are able to spread it through blood to blood combat (I.E. battle, and we have soldiers in Africa to fight the virus and protect the villagers from attacks by radicals and warlords), Sex (all too common in Africa to have unprotected sex, and our troops are not exactly known for keeping it in their collective pants, and before someone says it, I am well aware that it is a minority of troops that screw from port to port, but that minority puts us in danger), and even bodily fluid transfer (Kissing, sneezing, ect).

Now the chances of spread in the US are far less as we have news outlets that are informing people of what signs to watch out for, and to get themselves to the hospital ASAP if they have any symptoms. Combine that with the CDC's rules on chain of contact (I.E. a list of every person you've visited in the past 3 weeks), and we have very little chance of a major outbreak, and I've never said otherwise. What I'm complaining about was sending soldiers to fight a virus.
Except, for every possible transmission the odds are once in a million. Combine this with the low infectibility rates, and the odds drop to zero exponentially quickly.

Why not worry about measles? It's 9 times more infectious and has actually posed a threat to America in the past.
I can think of no response to this post other than a giant question mark.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Matthew Jabour said:
barbzilla said:
Matthew Jabour said:
barbzilla said:
Matthew Jabour said:
Snipped for Verbosity
Viruses only mutate if they infect people in different regions (which isn't happening), and even then, only to accommodate for different climates. The other way a virus can mutate is to overcome a vaccination, which is moot, as what is currently being developed is, in fact, a cure. Furthermore, ebola is only transmissible while its symptoms are active, so that would, in fact, be the best thing that could happen.

Worrying ebola will mutate into an airborne virus is like worrying sharks will evolve legs and start chasing us off the beaches.
But that is exactly what happened. Do you think that the Ebola case in Dallas came from Dallas? No, it was brought back with him when he went on leave from deployment in Africa. That is what you call a change in environment, as well as a change in hosts, as our physiology is very different than theirs (based on diet, life style, and in some cases genetic, though that is only true for people not of African descent). So yes, there is a chance of Ebola mutating. However if you had actually read my entire post, you would see that I said it was a on in a million chance of happening.

And your second statement is incorrect. You can quite easily be a carrier and spread the virus your whole life without knowing it, however, once again, this is not what I was talking about (please try to read posts carefully before attacking their voracity). What I said was that due to the incubation period you have no symptoms, this means that a soldier who was infected in the line of duty could easily pass the medical check to be allowed back into the states. At that point his symptoms would manifest and he would begin being able to transmit the virus.

What in the hell makes you think every possible transmission is 1 in 1,000,000? Why do you think it is an epidemic in Africa, because they have improbably bad luck? No, it is because when a virus is gestating and growing in your system, you are able to spread it through blood to blood combat (I.E. battle, and we have soldiers in Africa to fight the virus and protect the villagers from attacks by radicals and warlords), Sex (all too common in Africa to have unprotected sex, and our troops are not exactly known for keeping it in their collective pants, and before someone says it, I am well aware that it is a minority of troops that screw from port to port, but that minority puts us in danger), and even bodily fluid transfer (Kissing, sneezing, ect).

Now the chances of spread in the US are far less as we have news outlets that are informing people of what signs to watch out for, and to get themselves to the hospital ASAP if they have any symptoms. Combine that with the CDC's rules on chain of contact (I.E. a list of every person you've visited in the past 3 weeks), and we have very little chance of a major outbreak, and I've never said otherwise. What I'm complaining about was sending soldiers to fight a virus.
Except, for every possible transmission the odds are once in a million. Combine this with the low infectibility rates, and the odds drop to zero exponentially quickly.

Why not worry about measles? It's 9 times more infectious and has actually posed a threat to America in the past.
I can think of no response to this post other than a giant question mark.
LMAO, I'm sorry Mat, I was trying to respond to someone else, and managed to quote you instead. Thank you for pointing it out, I'll fix it.
 

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
Dakkagor said:
Jim makes some good points: we have some points in Europe where its very easy for immigrants to get into the eurozone, this is a lot closer to home for us. However, there doesn't seem to be a lot of fear or panic over here. Media focus at the moment is mainly on IS (atleast in the UK) and our decision to go forward with air strikes in Iraq, and that 'Jihadi John' arsehole that most people want to see on a pike outside the Tower of London. We also have the party conferences, which are leading up to the upcoming General Election (next year I think)
This is why I'm preparing. Britain's such an easily fortifiable country yet only British Airways have stopped flights to Liberia. I know it's hard to infect people with it but it's still infectious and there's no way to stop it once it's out of control. That and the NHS is really understaffed and overworked right now, ebola victims in the country and ebola victims from outside the country (you really think Cameron won't let in every refugee that says "pretty please"?) will just add to that meaning treatment will be non-existent for anyone who gets it later into the infection.

Like I said, I know it's highly unlikely but my life motto is "prepare for the worst, hope for the best". That way if shit hits the fan I won't get sprayed.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
ToastiestZombie said:
Dakkagor said:
Jim makes some good points: we have some points in Europe where its very easy for immigrants to get into the eurozone, this is a lot closer to home for us. However, there doesn't seem to be a lot of fear or panic over here. Media focus at the moment is mainly on IS (atleast in the UK) and our decision to go forward with air strikes in Iraq, and that 'Jihadi John' arsehole that most people want to see on a pike outside the Tower of London. We also have the party conferences, which are leading up to the upcoming General Election (next year I think)
This is why I'm preparing. Britain's such an easily fortifiable country yet only British Airways have stopped flights to Liberia. I know it's hard to infect people with it but it's still infectious and there's no way to stop it once it's out of control. That and the NHS is really understaffed and overworked right now, ebola victims in the country and ebola victims from outside the country (you really think Cameron won't let in every refugee that says "pretty please"?) will just add to that meaning treatment will be non-existent for anyone who gets it later into the infection.

Like I said, I know it's highly unlikely but my life motto is "prepare for the worst, hope for the best". That way if shit hits the fan I won't get sprayed.
The UK didn't send soldiers to fight the virus though, they sent doctors. Thus the likelihood of it coming back to you from people trying to help out is slim. You do make valid points about the ease of just walking the border though.
 
Jan 27, 2011
3,740
0
0
You know, it's REALLY something when my VERY politically aware Grandpa is taken in by the fear. I had to explain it to him over and over that it only spreads through body fluids, so as long as they don't bleed on you or kiss you or whatever, you'll be fine, and that the Center for Disease Control wasn't even worried that much about it spreading, as long as Dallas takes certain precautions.

This guy usually is very aware of what's going on in the world, so to see him worry about this was a bit...weird.

Matthew Jabour said:
And some stations actually infect themselves on purpose in order to spread it, since those infected are more vulnerable to suggestions such as, 'this is all Obama's fault'.
You saw that fox clip too, huh? Dear GOD that was sad.

They got the head of the CDC to come on and he kept saying "It's not that big a deal, it only spreads through bodily fluid contact", and fox's main reply was "YEAH, but it's HERE! :eek:" "But it's really hard to spread, and it only spreads when the symptoms are active so as long as people are smart enough to go to the hospital when-" BUT ITS HEEEEEEERREEEEEEEE!!!!!1"

-_-

So far, the only vaccine, actually informing people properly, has proven to be only somewhat effective. People with naturally deficient intelligence systems may reject the vaccine, which results in hallucinations that, for some reason, the CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL is lying to them in order to (why not) spread ebola more.
You know Louie gohmert went on TV and basically said that the US was putting "boots on the ground" to "fight Ebola", but the whole point was for them to "catch it and bring it back to the US"? -_-

Symptoms of fear include: brain damage, hearing loss, blindness, paranoia, loss of respect from peers, and a compulsive urge to bomb small militant factions that couldn't assault their way out of a paper bag. Do not take Fox News if you are suffering from fear, as this has been proven to inflate symptoms. Recommended treatments include Animal Planet and CNN, television's leading providers of adorable cat videos.
Best post ever. XD
 

seris

New member
Oct 14, 2013
132
0
0
so someone mentioned above, the only real threat it posed is if it mutates during replication enough times until it inherits airborne properties
 

sandykumar

New member
Sep 28, 2014
13
0
0
Ebola is a disease of humans and other primates caused by an ebolavirus. Symptoms start two days to three weeks after contracting the virus, with a fever, sore throat, muscle pain, and headaches. Typically, vomiting, diarrhea, and rash follow, along with decreased function of the liver and kidneys

But we have to identify the symptoms and we take certain treatments for that FOR EVERY PROBLEM THERE IS A SOLUTION