- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,093
- Liked Posts:
- 38,106
Yes fuck compassion. Survival of the fittest I say! Who is with me?
Scientist have always been concerned about virulent diseases and the only reason Ebola hasn't killed more is geography ie it has broken out in relatively sparsely populated areas. You unleash Ebola in a large city and you would likely see death rates to rival the plague which is why people want to find a cure. It's that potential that scares people not the current reality of how many people it has killed.
You are misinformed. Ebola has a low transmissibility because of its high virulence. People, once contagious, get sick and die too quickly. As well, it is a relatively fragile virus and doesn't cause sneezing and coughing like other contagious diseases, decreasing potential contact.
Lastly, if you haven't notice , in the US, the people that contracted the disease but had access to adequate health care in a timely manner have all recovered. The lone death was the guy that was incorrectly sent away when already symptomatic.
can a porpoise catch ebola?
remy you have not read any papers on ebola so puuulease
Trick question. They have fins, therefore they can't catch anything. Next.
Your lack of understanding virology is too much to tackle on a message board. There are some old text books I could dig up for you, but I am sure you feel the 3 articles you have read since this thread started has made you an expert.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.
Your lack of understanding virology is too much to tackle on a message board. There are some old text books I could dig up for you, but I am sure you feel the 3 articles you have read since this thread started has made you an expert.
You are also confusing the fear mongering singular focus sensationalism of this disease by the media to that of the CDC and WHO. Those organization have significant concern for many others contagions. You are just doing this:Lol, tell you what, can you provide me with any information from the CDC, WHO regarding the recent outbreak of Ebola that supports your view as I think you are confused regarding whose opinion is not consistent with the medical consensus.
I am not the one suggesting something that seems to be out of line with the medical consensus so I don't have to. Like does the CDC or WHO share the same lack of concern over Ebola that you guys do? If not then I believe the burden of proof would be on the people on the internet with no medical experience I am aware of trying to tell people that Ebola ain't that big a deal.
As it relates to Ebola, you guys are like Spartan rambling on about vaccines in that you like Spartan presume to know more about the risks of Ebola than the medical profession responsible for studying and keeping us safe from it. So again if I am mistaken and the medical consensus on Ebola has changed then feel free to direct me to where I can find more information on this.
Paul Allen has given more than $1.8 billion towards the advancement of science, technology, education, wildlife conservation, the arts and community services in his lifetime. In 2010, Allen became a signatory of The Giving Pledge, promising to give at least half of his fortune to philanthropic causes. In February, The Chronicle of Philanthropy 2014 named Allen as no. 11 on a list of the 50 most generous donors in 2014; Allen’s direct giving in 2014 totaled $206 million. In 2014 Paul Allen pledged to donate at least $100 million dollars to help combat Ebola in the United States and in other affected countries.[28] Allen's foundation previously pledged $26.5 million.
While I get the point trying to be made, I think it's a bit nitpicky given the above.
Further, Paul Allen is not being swayed by the media. He is being swayed by the science and pathology of the disease. Infect the same number of people with Ebola and the Flu, and the former will result in a shit ton more deaths than the latter. That is what Scientists and Paul Allen are reacting to. Scientist have always been concerned about virulent diseases and the only reason Ebola hasn't killed more is geography ie it has broken out in relatively sparsely populated areas. You unleash Ebola in a large city and you would likely see death rates to rival the plague which is why people want to find a cure. It's that potential that scares people not the current reality of how many people it has killed.
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.
I am not the one suggesting something that seems to be out of line with the medical consensus so I don't have to. Like does the CDC or WHO share the same lack of concern over Ebola that you guys do? If not then I believe the burden of proof would be on the people on the internet with no medical experience I am aware of trying to tell people that Ebola ain't that big a deal.
As it relates to Ebola, you guys are like Spartan rambling on about vaccines in that you like Spartan presume to know more about the risks of Ebola than the medical profession responsible for studying and keeping us safe from it. So again if I am mistaken and the medical consensus on Ebola has changed then feel free to direct me to where I can find more information on this.
Lol, tell you what, can you provide me with any information from the CDC, WHO regarding the recent outbreak of Ebola that supports your view as I think you are confused regarding whose opinion is not consistent with the medical consensus.
You are also confusing the fear mongering singular focus sensationalism of this disease by the media to that of the CDC and WHO. Those organization have significant concern for many others contagions. You are just doing this:
Or maybe I have a family member in Liberia right now as part of USAid's first wave of health care people training locals and establishing clinics?
Lol, tell you what, can you provide me with any information from the CDC, WHO regarding the recent outbreak of Ebola that supports your view as I think you are confused regarding whose opinion is not consistent with the medical consensus.
That would be relevant if he/she were the one on here and not you. If I have a friend that is an astrophysicist, that doesn't mean I know fuck all about astrophysics? Or are you telling me she told you not to worry about Ebola?
Wat is the medical consensus again?
rofl
You are a fuckin idiot if you think talking to someone 3 times a week who is on the ground in Liberia expressly to treat ebola is meaningless.
Not that you even have a point.