Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I would imagine that you're absolutely correct about that, but not having any kind of real knowledge of viral pathogens, like most people, I only know what I'm told. what we're being told is not consistent - first, the CDC says that the incubation period for Ebola is 21 days and you need to be in direct contact to catch it. then they say that the incubation period is actually closer to 45 days, and that 'direct contact' is defined as being within 3 feet of the patient. it's not surprising to me at all that people are frightened, especially when it's reported that another person has not only contracted the disease, but has also flown on a commercial airline. I have faith in our potential to control the spread of Ebola in general, but the supposed experts make it very difficult for me to have any faith in them specifically. SImple math: 4000 people have died from Ebola worldwide this "outbreak" That's 4000 out of 7 billion. Compare that to the Black Death which killed 1/3 of humanity. Today that would be equivalent to 2.33 billion people. Ebola is all bark, and no bite, disease-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Ebola is all bark, and no bite, disease-wise. nice pun, considering that the bubonic plague was spread via flea bites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 America is a country of hypochondriacs and nosy neighbors who treasure their own privacy. Our leaders, in their infinite wisdom are curtailing the travel rights of Amrican citizens while leaving an open door to the festering cesspool of infection that is Western Africa because they're afraid of being called "racists" b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) SImple math: 4000 people have died from Ebola worldwide this "outbreak" That's 4000 out of 7 billion. Compare that to the Black Death which killed 1/3 of humanity. Today that would be equivalent to 2.33 billion people. Ebola is all bark, and no bite, disease-wise. Gee, imagine the lawsuits if that happened! I love the big apology-fest happening in Dallas. Edited October 16, 2014 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 SImple math: 4000 people have died from Ebola worldwide this "outbreak" That's 4000 out of 7 billion. Compare that to the Black Death which killed 1/3 of humanity. Today that would be equivalent to 2.33 billion people. Ebola is all bark, and no bite, disease-wise. Stupid math. It's not a worldwide outbreak. It's mostly confined to three countries, with a total population of 20 million. It's also inaccurate to measure just fatalities. The entire case-load in those three countries is about 10,000 right now. So that's one case per 2000 people, over a nine month time span. That's roughly as bad as salmonella is in the US. And this is a particularly bad Ebola outbreak - most are on the order of a dozen cases, and end in ten weeks or so. The scary thing is that in Liberia the cases are increasing at a frightening rate (doubling about every ten days). Sierra Leone and Guinea, the number of cases is increasing linearly, which is bad but not uncontrolled. In Liberia, the situation is well out of hand. And that's what scares people here - they look at Liberia, and think that could happen here. Well...no, not really. The US actually has a public health system, disease surveillance, and mechanisms to control the spread of a disease. Liberia barely has doctors - I know office buildings that have more medical infrastructure than all of Liberia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 they look at Liberia, and think that could happen here. Well...no, not really. The US actually has a public health system, disease surveillance, and mechanisms to control the spread of a disease. Liberia barely has doctors - I know office buildings that have more medical infrastructure than all of Liberia. That's what I've been saying. You can't compare the U.S. to a shithole like Liberia. Hell, a shithole like anywhere in Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 THE WAPO GAVE THAT CLAIM FOUR PINOCCHIOS. PINOCCHIO GOT TURNED INTO A DONKEY FOR LYING. THE DONKEY IS THE DEMOCRATS’ SYMBOL. SO IT ALL MAKES SENSE: As Expected, Dems Push Debunked Ebola Funding Cuts Talking Points At House Hearing. http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/10/16/As-Expected-Dems-Push-Debunked-Ebola-Funding-Cuts-Talking-Points-At-House-Hearing/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 IIRC, Flight 93 was also taken to Cleveland on 9/11. I wonder just how big the hidden airplane hanger is. So were the missing ballot boxes from Ohio in 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 To put this Ebola "crisis" in perspective: there have now been more "false alarms" in the US than there have been actual cases in Africa. That's what I've been saying. You can't compare the U.S. to a shithole like Liberia. Hell, a shithole like anywhere in Africa. In Africa's defense, Liberia's a shithole even by African standards. About 20 doctors in the whole country...and they still have a shortage of gloves and masks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Another little Liberia vs. US factoid: It costs $1000/hr to take care of an Ebola patient in the US. Liberia's per-capita health care spending is $100 per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) there is no vaccine. there is no specific treatment. the virus is quite readily transmitted. what is so difficult to comprehend? even the stock market vultures get it. and so far the vaunted american health system hasn't performed so well. the ehr didn't mention that the dallas pt had travelled from africa so the er doc didn't catch it and didn't bother to ask. the triage nurse had obtained that history but it was missed. how does that happen? how does she/he not say "doc, you know this guy might have ebola?". and how do we not already have a designated hospital for suspected and confirmed ebola cases? your faith is misplaced. Edited October 17, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 there is no vaccine. there is no specific treatment. the virus is quite readily transmitted. what is so difficult to comprehend? even the stock market vultures get it. and so far the vaunted american health system hasn't performed so well. the ehr didn't mention that the dallas pt had travelled from africa so the er doc didn't catch it and didn't bother to ask. the triage nurse had obtained that history but it was missed. how does that happen? how does she/he not say "doc, you know this guy might have ebola?". and how do we not already have a designated hospital for suspected and confirmed ebola cases? your faith is misplaced. I don't think anyone is putting their faith in the "vaunted" American health care system, but rather the extreme difficulty of the virus to spread within the population. You have a greater chance of being hit by a bus in Iowa than you do of contracting the virus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I don't think anyone is putting their faith in the "vaunted" American health care system, but rather the extreme difficulty of the virus to spread within the population. You have a greater chance of being hit by a bus in Iowa than you do of contracting the virus. and what do you base that statement on? do you think that's true of health care workers? you seem to know a lot more about transmission of the virus than the cdc http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/, for example. they admit to not even knowing the initial vector. there's a lot more unknown then known. never a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 and what do you base that statement on? do you think that's true of health care workers? you seem to know a lot more about transmission of the virus than the cdc http://www.cdc.gov/v...a/transmission/, for example. they admit to not even knowing the initial vector. there's a lot more unknown then known. never a good thing. Common sense. All I'm commenting on is the media driven hysteria is not only unnecessary, but possibly dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 and what do you base that statement on? do you think that's true of health care workers? you seem to know a lot more about transmission of the virus than the cdc http://www.cdc.gov/v...a/transmission/, for example. they admit to not even knowing the initial vector. there's a lot more unknown then known. never a good thing. Let's base that statement on: it's not an easy virus to catch. About as easy as Hep C - the same protective measures work about as well for either. And there's a hell of a lot of knowns about how this virus is transmitted - it's been studied for almost 40 years, through more than 20 outbreaks. It's not an enigma. It's not the Andromeda Strain. It's not even yellow fever in 1900. And judging by what info I found from the Iowa DOT...yes, you are in fact more likely to be hit by a bus in Iowa than catch Ebola. There's been more bus accidents in Iowa the past month than there have been Ebola cases in Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) Common sense. All I'm commenting on is the media driven hysteria is not only unnecessary, but possibly dangerous. our definitions of common sense differ greatly. i would see common sense in being extremely vigilant and highly concerned about an infectious disease that is poorly understood, has no vaccine, is untreatable and highly lethal. Let's base that statement on: it's not an easy virus to catch. About as easy as Hep C - the same protective measures work about as well for either. And there's a hell of a lot of knowns about how this virus is transmitted - it's been studied for almost 40 years, through more than 20 outbreaks. It's not an enigma. It's not the Andromeda Strain. It's not even yellow fever in 1900. And judging by what info I found from the Iowa DOT...yes, you are in fact more likely to be hit by a bus in Iowa than catch Ebola. There's been more bus accidents in Iowa the past month than there have been Ebola cases in Dallas. about 3.2 million americans have chronic hep c. there were only 849 confirmed acute cases in america in 2007. i sure hope you're wrong in your analogy. Edited October 17, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I would imagine that you're absolutely correct about that, but not having any kind of real knowledge of viral pathogens, like most people, I only know what I'm told. what we're being told is not consistent - first, the CDC says that the incubation period for Ebola is 21 days and you need to be in direct contact to catch it. then they say that the incubation period is actually closer to 45 days, and that 'direct contact' is defined as being within 3 feet of the patient. it's not surprising to me at all that people are frightened, especially when it's reported that another person has not only contracted the disease, but has also flown on a commercial airline. I have faith in our potential to control the spread of Ebola in general, but the supposed experts make it very difficult for me to have any faith in them specifically. FYI, "21 days" is the 95% confidence interval - 95% of the people who would come down with the disease will do so in 21 days or less. 42 days equates to 98%, and is the amount of time that has to elapse without a diagnose case of Ebola before the WHO will declare an epidemic over. The important thing being that the numbers are statistical, not deterministic (the incubation for rabies can be as short as a week, or as long as three years, for example). Therein lies the confusion: it's not possible to give a definitive answer, and Americans do not handle probabilities well at all (or any measure less than 100%). The CDC's message is screwed up...but I don't blame them, as they're a product of the warped culture they work for. our definitions of common sense differ greatly. i would see common sense in being extremely vigilant and highly concerned about an infectious disease that is poorly understood, has no vaccine, is untreatable and highly lethal. There's a difference between "vigilant" and "paranoid." You're pretty much crossing it. about 3.2 million americans have chronic hep c. there were only 849 confirmed acute cases in america in 2007. i sure hope you're wrong in your analogy. Not my analogy; the initial guidance for protective measures, way-back-when when Ebola really was an enigma, was basically "act like it's hepatitis." The manner of transmission and relative risk to different populations is roughly similar between the two, including health care workers being at higher risk, which is why I specifically made the comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) the scientists at the cdc truly include some of the worlds most accomplished and recognized experts in infectious disease. some of them literally wrote the textbooks. their uncertainty only reflects the overall and actual uncertainty regarding this virus. Edited October 17, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 the scientists at the cdc truly include some of the worlds most accomplished and recognized experts in infectious disease. some of them literally wrote the textbooks. their uncertainty only reflects the overall and actual uncertainty regarding this virus. Not six posts ago the uncertainty reflected them knowing very little ("a lot more unknown than known.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) Not six posts ago the uncertainty reflected them knowing very little ("a lot more unknown than known.") please explain how not knowing more than one knows and being uncertain are incompatible or inconsistent descriptions. and while you're at it, cite a more respected source for information on current infectious disease issues than the cdc. Edited October 17, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts