OT: Round of applause for Paul Allen

[ijustposthere]

 

[iueyedoc]

If I have a friend that is an astrophysicist, that doesn't mean I know fuck all about astrophysics?

Lack of a fucks worth of knowledge about a subject has yet to stop you from arguing. Reference your lack of understanding of virology and transmissibility above.

 

[remydat]

Lack of a fucks worth of knowledge about a subject has yet to stop you from arguing. Reference your lack of understanding of virology and transmissibility above.

So viruses don't evolve and there wasn't an epidemic in West Africa despite the low transmissibility? Your statements aren't really supported by science or reality.

 

[iueyedoc]

So viruses don't evolve and there wasn't an epidemic in West Africa despite the low transmissibility? I am incapable of understanding your statements and they aren't really supported by my reality.

FIFY

 

[Bearshomer]

The racists on this board don't care about Ebola destroying three African countries because it isn't likely to infect white Americans.

 

[Amaru]

Transmissibility is not simply a function of how quickly people get sick and die. It's also a function of how many people are exposed and where they go after exposure. They get exposed and go to a baseball game or on an airplane before they realize they are sick and before they die then they can infect others even in the small window. Further, diseases are not static. They evolve. They can become resistant to treatment, they can become airborne despite not being so at first. Ebola hasn't been exposed to all the human attempts to cure it like the flu and hence we haven't seen how it may evolve once confronted with humans trying to wipe it out. Even if you ignore the fact that diseases evolve naturally, they can evolve artificially as well. The risk of Ebola is not just from some natural outbreak but also from someone trying to weaponize it by for example making it airborne and more contagious.

Finally, making an assumption based on anecdotal evidence that because the people infected in the US didn't have the same fatality rates as what we have historically seen is due to adequate healthcare is bad science. There isn't enough of a sample size there to say that with any degree of scientific certainty. You could find two out of 3 people in Africa that just happened not to die. Doesn't prove anything. Then again maybe I missed the scientific paper your statement is supported by so feel free to provide.

So no I am not misinformed. You are making comments as if the world is static. It isn't.

You kinda are misinformed. Most of your facts are not wrong per say, but inaccurate.

1) People aren't contagious during the incubation stage (2-21 days). However it can be hard to diagnose the first symptoms so yeah someone infected with ebola could go to a baseball game with a little fever but even there he is not highly contagious and for other people to be exposed, they need to be in contact with either cutaneous lesions, or body fluids.

2) There's absolutely no evidence (and a boatload of research have been done about it) that any pathogens (bacteria, virus, fungi, ...) develop resistance to treatment because they are exposed to the said treatment. Pathogens mutes naturally and sometimes develop a resistance to the treatment. The treatment did not produce the mutation, but will select the mutant strain resistant to treatment.

3) There's also no evidence to the fact that any virus could change its transmission pattern. To the scientists knowledge no virus ever did such things.

 

[FatBabiesHaveNoPride]

The racists on this board don't care about Ebola destroying three African countries because it isn't likely to infect white Americans.

Yawn.

 

[FatBabiesHaveNoPride]

can a porpoise catch ebola?

Accidentally, but not on porpoise!

 

[remydat]

You kinda are misinformed. Most of your facts are not wrong per say, but inaccurate.

1) People aren't contagious during the incubation stage (2-21 days). However it can be hard to diagnose the first symptoms so yeah someone infected with ebola could go to a baseball game with a little fever but even there he is not highly contagious and for other people to be exposed, they need to be in contact with either cutaneous lesions, or body fluids.

2) There's absolutely no evidence (and a boatload of research have been done about it) that any pathogens (bacteria, virus, fungi, ...) develop resistance to treatment because they are exposed to the said treatment. Pathogens mutes naturally and sometimes develop a resistance to the treatment. The treatment did not produce the mutation, but will select the mutant strain resistant to treatment.

3) There's also no evidence to the fact that any virus could change its transmission pattern. To the scientists knowledge no virus ever did such things.

The outbreak in West Africa has been traced to a 2 year old that lived in a small city/town near the Guinea/Liberian border. From that one patient in a small town in Africa, it has resulted in a few thousand cases. So let's say that boy instead lived in NYC, I am not suggesting that people would get infected at the same rate as they would in Africa where conditions are perhaps less sanitary and resources more scarce. I am suggesting that the sheer size of the population of NYC and the fact that population is more mobile means that even if they do get infected at lower rates, it could still result in a larger potential for outbreak because once again the spread of a disease is not solely a factor of it's transmissibility. It's also depends on factors that exist in the exposed population as for example the U.S. may be more sanitary but a city like NYC also has a shit ton more IV drug users or people living on the streets which means if they got Ebola, their chances of spreading it are a lot higher than say a person that lives a more sanitary lifestyle.

Another factor is the advanced warning. Part of the reason outbreaks like this get contained is because the fact it broke out in a small city in West Africa which means that by the time it ever gets to a big city, that big city is usually already aware of the potential for outbreak. Case in point, the US had significant advanced warning of the risk for Ebola due to the outbreak in West Africa. I know people that got a fever and who ran to the hospital to be sure it wasn't something worse because they had heard about the Ebola threat. That is a far different scenario than if an outbreak originates in a large city with no advanced warning. Those same people probably wait out the fever longer.

I wasn't suggesting that pathogens develop resistance because they are exposed to treatment. I was suggesting which is what you are saying that in being exposed to these treatments natural selection would occur and the strain that is resistant or is airborne would become the dominant strain as the ones that aren't resistant or airborne die out. The point being we may not have knowledge of those strains right now because they are only a small part of the population.

So I am not saying Ebola can change its transmission mode in the sense that a strain that was not airborne can suddenly become airborne. I am saying a strain of the virus that is airborne may already exist but we just haven't encountered it because the strain that is not airborne exists in far greater abundance right now. The first 2 Ebolaviruses were discovered in 1976 then another one in 1989 then another one in 1994 and the final known strain in 2007. That is 5 strains whose discovery is separated by over 30 years. So we can't say with any degree of certainty that we now have found all existing strains out there because the reality is we typically don't find new strains until there is an outbreak. This is on top of any sort of human attempts to weaponize the disease.

 

[Trump32]

There is a black market in Africa for Ebola blood because it is believed it prevents transmission of Ebola. Africans make up 70% of the world population living with HIV due to their culture. Applying the African transmission rate to the U.S. is ridiculous. It is more of an education and organizational problem than anything.

Blowing $100 million is his right, but praising him for buying into the news organizations' overhyped fear campaign is just plain dumb. Good for him for donating, but there are tons of better uses for the money that would help/save many more people and this was an opportunity squandered foolishly.

 

[iueyedoc]

Thank you.

Transmissibility is not simply a function of how quickly people get sick and die. It's also a function of how many people are exposed and where they go after exposure.

it could still result in a larger potential for outbreak because once again the spread of a disease is not solely a factor of it's transmissibility.

:rofl::rofl:

they can become airborne despite not being so at first.

So I am not saying Ebola can change its transmission mode

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

They evolve. They can become resistant to treatment

I wasn't suggesting that pathogens develop resistance because they are exposed to treatment.

:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:

 

[remydat]

They can evolve. They can become resistant to treatment.

I believe your confusion stems from the fact that you think I am saying the evolution is being driven by attempts to treat it. That is an assumption you are making. The evolution occurs as a result of the cells trying to replicate as viruses based on RNA are notoriously bad at copying themselves which is why HIV and Ebola mutate so much.

So I am not saying Ebola can change its transmission mode in the sense that a strain that was not airborne can suddenly become airborne

A lot easier to understand when you quote the whole thing. The point is the mutation is not sudden ie in response to attempts to treat it. The mutation already potentially exists due to the imperfect replication process of RNA. It's just doesn't have an evolutionary advantage at the moment because it may be less efficient than than the non-airborne strain.

Here is an article that discusses that while a virus mutating and in so doing altering it's transmission mode is unlikely it is physically and theoretically possible. Refer to the bold. The evolutionary pressure would come in the form of if treatment was developed for the more dominant and prevalent non-airborne strain then the airborne strain (presuming it mutated randomly) could due to natural selection win out.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-the-ebola-virus-will-go-airborne/

And yet Ebola already spreads very easily without such mutations. The delicate lock-and-key protein–virus fit required for the virus to successfully latch onto and replicate in the airway has not developed because there is no evolutionary pressure for it to do so; it simply would not be an efficient option. Epidemiologists can take some comfort in that.

 

[iueyedoc]

 

[botfly10]

I never said it was meaningless. I asked you how it is relevant and what he/she told you. You haven't actually relayed anything he/she said so again not sure your point. There are people with USAID that are just that aid workers and aren't doctors or scientists or have any qualifications that would be relevant when discussing the science of Ebola.

You are acting like this person has provided you with some inside knowledge without actually saying what the inside knowledge is beyond just telling me they are with USAID. Like what's their qualifications and how is their experience relevant to your argument. Or am I suppose to just say, "Holy shit, he has a family member with USAID so I should just believe anything he says even though he hasn't told me anything that this person said to him."

This is some serious gibberish

 

[remydat]

This is some serious gibberish

And yet you still haven't clarified what it is this USAID worker said and how it is relevant. Do you routinely go around saying "I know someone" anytime someone disagrees with you without actually telling people what this person supposedly said?