Ebola

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

Considering the 50-90% mortality rate, I don’t really think the fear mongering is without reason.
This morning on cbc-radio, a woman was comparing Canada’s reaction to SARS vs Ebola, she didn’t have a good grasp of things, but one major difference was that SARS had ~10% fatality.
I don’t think the travel bans are out of question, but they do need to be implement intelligently.
I was listening to some lawyer from Ontario talk about what about our healthcare workers not being able to come back, and I’m pretty sure this travel ban isn’t for healthcare workers but for the general populace, while the healthcare workers will be monitored/quarantined as needed.

If the countries that are providing aid become compromised, what then? So yeah, more important to look after ourselves while also looking after others, rather than being ignorant of possible outcomes.

323

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Considering the 50-90% mortality rate, I don’t really think the fear mongering is without reason.
This morning on cbc-radio, a woman was comparing Canada’s reaction to SARS vs Ebola, she didn’t have a good grasp of things, but one major difference was that SARS had ~10% fatality.
I don’t think the travel bans are out of question, but they do need to be implement intelligently.
I was listening to some lawyer from Ontario talk about what about our healthcare workers not being able to come back, and I’m pretty sure this travel ban isn’t for healthcare workers but for the general populace, while the healthcare workers will be monitored/quarantined as needed.

If the countries that are providing aid become compromised, what then? So yeah, more important to look after ourselves while also looking after others, rather than being ignorant of possible outcomes.[/quote]

The high mortality rate has a lot to do with the outbreaks occurring in countries without decent medical care. Most people who die from ebola die from dehydration.

Then take into account how hard it is to get infected compared to airborne flus and such. It’s just such a low likelihood that the fear is not warranted. It has nothing to do with fatality rates and everything to do with transmission. The fact is unless someone is dousing you bodily fluids with a high amount of virus present, you are not going to catch it. And, if there isn’t enough virus to cause symptoms, or show up in a test, there is not enough to risk infecting anyone.

I wonder sometimes if people want to be afraid. There is no evidence to warrant it.

324

Deb, do you know how long Ebola virions can remain in a man’s semen?

325

[quote]debraD wrote:
…The fact is unless someone is dousing your bodily fluids with a high amount of virus present, you are not going to catch it. And, if there isn’t enough virus to cause symptoms, or show up in a test, there is not enough to risk infecting anyone.

[/quote]

Could you share where you got this information about needing a high concentration of the virus to be infectious? This is inaccurate, from what I have read.

The opposite is true. A single virus, in a droplet of saliva against the lining of your eyelid is all it takes. And approximately 15% of people will be infectious, without running a fever. They can test negative in the first stages before the virus replicates enough to show up in a test, but they are certainly contagious during that time. That is my understanding.

Edited

326

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

…Unnecessary quarantines and travels bans…

[/quote]

Can someone define “unnecessary” in this regard?
[/quote]

I don’t know, Push. We keep getting propaganda type slogans from the White House, like “We can’t be safe over here until they’re safe over there!”

327

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
…The fact is unless someone is dousing your bodily fluids with a high amount of virus present, you are not going to catch it. And, if there isn’t enough virus to cause symptoms, or show up in a test, there is not enough to risk infecting anyone.

[/quote]

Could you share where you got this information about needing a high concentration of the virus to be infectious? This is inaccurate, from what I have read.

The opposite is true. A single virus, in a droplet of saliva against the lining of your eyelid is all it takes. And approximately 15% of people will be infectious, without running a fever. They can test negative in the first stages before the virus replicates enough to show up in a test, but they are certainly contagious during that time. That is my understanding.

Edited [/quote]

it’s basic probabilities. if the concentration of the virus is so low that it is not affecting the host, it is also unlikely to be in that droplet of whatever droplet of sweat or spit that landed on your eye. Theoretically I could get Aids from the same scenario but we don’t freak out over that (anymore) thankfully.

But if you don’t believe me check out a Wikipedia article about the transmission. How else could you explain the fact the Duncan was in the later stages of sickness and sharing an apartment with others who were nursing him, and they STILL were not infected. It wasn’t until his disease reached the point of severe vomiting and diarhhea that exposed the nurses to highly infected fluids.

Seriously, in the midst of all this panic and as bungled as the case that wound up in Texas that got the two nurses, if it were like the fear mongers seem to want to believe we’d be we’ll into part 2 of the stand by now :stuck_out_tongue:

But yet, after it all, there have only been 3 people affected in the US and they have all survived. (Edit and one was the doctor who brought it back with him)

Compare that to the flu and tell me you still think its highly infectious and something to worry about…

328

Here’s a good article: Understanding the Ebola virus | Ars Technica

329

Here’s a question: if it was in fact that infectious and a travel ban would be a good idea, then why on earth would the CDC, WHO, doctors without borders and basically every scientific org with a background in the disease disagree with that?

330

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Deb, do you know how long Ebola virions can remain in a man’s semen?[/quote]

I think the number I heard was up to 3 months, that is a man who has recovered from and infection, can pas it on.

331

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
…The fact is unless someone is dousing your bodily fluids with a high amount of virus present, you are not going to catch it. And, if there isn’t enough virus to cause symptoms, or show up in a test, there is not enough to risk infecting anyone.

[/quote]

Could you share where you got this information about needing a high concentration of the virus to be infectious? This is inaccurate, from what I have read.

The opposite is true. A single virus, in a droplet of saliva against the lining of your eyelid is all it takes. And approximately 15% of people will be infectious, without running a fever. They can test negative in the first stages before the virus replicates enough to show up in a test, but they are certainly contagious during that time. That is my understanding.

Edited [/quote]

it’s basic probabilities. if the concentration of the virus is so low that it is not affecting the host, it is also unlikely to be in that droplet of whatever droplet of sweat or spit that landed on your eye. Theoretically I could get Aids from the same scenario but we don’t freak out over that (anymore) thankfully.

But if you don’t believe me check out a Wikipedia article about the transmission. How else could you explain the fact the Duncan was in the later stages of sickness and sharing an apartment with others who were nursing him, and they STILL were not infected. It wasn’t until his disease reached the point of severe vomiting and diarhhea that exposed the nurses to highly infected fluids.

Seriously, in the midst of all this panic and as bungled as the case that wound up in Texas that got the two nurses, if it were like the fear mongers seem to want to believe we’d be we’ll into part 2 of the stand by now :stuck_out_tongue:

But yet, after it all, there have only been 3 people affected in the US and they have all survived. (Edit and one was the doctor who brought it back with him)

Compare that to the flu and tell me you still think its highly infectious and something to worry about…
[/quote]

It’s a Level 4 Biosafety Pathogen. To compare, HIV is only a Biosafety Level 2. It is different from the flu or HIV. That’s why all the caution. And I’d say concern and caution, not panic. I don’t see anyone panicking, but being cautious and getting protocols in place.

Factors such as pathogenicity, virulence, transmission, agent stability in the environement, infectious dose, and antibiotic resistance go into these these Biosafety classifications. It’s not just about transmission. It’s a more serious pathogen in other ways.

332

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
…The fact is unless someone is dousing your bodily fluids with a high amount of virus present, you are not going to catch it. And, if there isn’t enough virus to cause symptoms, or show up in a test, there is not enough to risk infecting anyone.

[/quote]

Could you share where you got this information about needing a high concentration of the virus to be infectious? This is inaccurate, from what I have read.

The opposite is true. A single virus, in a droplet of saliva against the lining of your eyelid is all it takes. And approximately 15% of people will be infectious, without running a fever. They can test negative in the first stages before the virus replicates enough to show up in a test, but they are certainly contagious during that time. That is my understanding.

Edited [/quote]

it’s basic probabilities. if the concentration of the virus is so low that it is not affecting the host, it is also unlikely to be in that droplet of whatever droplet of sweat or spit that landed on your eye. Theoretically I could get Aids from the same scenario but we don’t freak out over that (anymore) thankfully.

But if you don’t believe me check out a Wikipedia article about the transmission. How else could you explain the fact the Duncan was in the later stages of sickness and sharing an apartment with others who were nursing him, and they STILL were not infected. It wasn’t until his disease reached the point of severe vomiting and diarhhea that exposed the nurses to highly infected fluids.

Seriously, in the midst of all this panic and as bungled as the case that wound up in Texas that got the two nurses, if it were like the fear mongers seem to want to believe we’d be we’ll into part 2 of the stand by now :stuck_out_tongue:

But yet, after it all, there have only been 3 people affected in the US and they have all survived. (Edit and one was the doctor who brought it back with him)

Compare that to the flu and tell me you still think its highly infectious and something to worry about…
[/quote]

It’s a Level 4 Biosafety Pathogen. To compare, HIV is only a Biosafety Level 2. It is different from the flu or HIV. That’s why all the caution. And I’d say concern and caution, not panic. I don’t see anyone panicking, but being cautious and getting protocols in place.

Factors such as pathogenicity, virulence, transmission, agent stability in the environement, infectious dose, and antibiotic resistance go into these these Biosafety classifications. It’s not just about transmission. It’s a more serious pathogen in other ways.

[/quote]

And it also has to do wi the conditions medical personnel are exposed to when treating someone who is severely ill.

Either way, why do you suppose, in light of these facts, the WHO et al are still not supporting any of the ‘cautious’ measures being proposed?

I don’t know about you, but schools refusing to allow kids from Rwanda to go to class, locking a nurse in a tent with a port a potty and calling for quarantines of people who cannot infect you is not what I call acting sensibly and rationally. I’d call that quite the opposite and those kind of reactions are the opposite of what you need.

333

Intelligence analysis indicates that Ebola’s bark is much worse than it’s bite, especially as a potential biological weapon used by terrorists.

334

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Intelligence analysis indicates that Ebola’s bark is much worse than it’s bite, especially as a potential biological weapon used by terrorists.

First off, it’s infinitely worse to obtain & handle than dog shit for a simple flaming bag-o-poo on someone’s door step. Deffo hard to weaponize to be used on a large scale where it would be effective. I think we have bigger things to worry about including the plain old nasty-ass flu that’s expected this season.

335

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Intelligence analysis indicates that Ebola’s bark is much worse than it’s bite, especially as a potential biological weapon used by terrorists.

You first bro, let me know how it goes.

336

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Intelligence analysis indicates that Ebola’s bark is much worse than it’s bite, especially as a potential biological weapon used by terrorists.

You first bro, let me know how it goes. [/quote]

No, I’ll save the hysterics and finger pointing for your ilk.

339

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Intelligence analysis…
[/quote]

Tell us about intelligence analysis, B. Can those who practice it professionally be trusted?[/quote]

No. They said the chances of Ebola getting here were extremely low. Well it still got here.

Then they said they were prepared if it did get here, and protocols were in place. Well that was a lie too, proven by how the Dallas hospital treated the infected Liberian man. He even told them he came from Liberia and they still him go.

They screwed up again when they let that nurse fly to Cleveland, when she called the CDC and told them she had a fever.

Then they fucked up with that useless self-quarantine idea, sure didn’t stop the NYC doctor from going bowling and taking the subway while showing symptoms.

Then we have the self righteous nurse Laci Hickox, who decided to go grace the public with her presence BEFORE she cleared the 21 day observation period was over.

It seems we dodged Ebola due to sheer luck, not from human intelligence or even common sense. People keep fucking around with this Ebola, it will come back to bite us in the ass.

340

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Gettin’ all ilky on us, eh Senor Blue Blood Bistro?

[/quote]

My parents lost their home and my father his decidedly middle class job in the wake of the financial crisis. I funded my undergraduate degree through student loans and working as a dishwasher for 38 hours a week. But hey, character assassination is easier than actually addressing a short threat assessment briefing.