Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

ebola


Westside Steve

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So I don't repeat myself again, I'll post this quote from Nature (key points in bold):

 

Though the strain of Ebola in the current outbreak appears to kill 56% of the people it infects, to become infected in the first place, a person's mucous membranes, or an area of broken skin, must come into contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, such as blood, urine, saliva, semen or stools, or materials contaminated with these fluids such as soiled clothing or bed linen. By contrast, respiratory pathogens such as those that cause the common cold or flu are coughed and sneezed into the air and can be contracted just by breathing or touching contaminated surfaces, such as door knobs. A pandemic flu virus can spread around the world in days or weeks and may be unstoppable whereas Ebola only causes sporadic localised outbreaks that can usually be stamped out.

 

 

The fact is people were more justified in being worried about SARS than Ebola. The article continues with the stuff I've been saying in the other ebola thread:

 

 

So why is the outbreak continuing in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia?

In principle, it should be straightforward to bring an Ebola outbreak under control via public health measures alone, namely, identifying all people who have been infected and isolating them, monitoring all those that they have been in contact with for 21 days (the maximum incubation period), as well as promoting basic infection control measures. What's more, since people infected with Ebola do not infect others until they have symptoms, it is easier to trace their contacts than it is for some other diseases. Ebola is out of control in these countries because the sheer size of the outbreak is stretching response teams, and also because of local sociocultural factors.

What kind of sociocultural factors?

Local health authorities and international organisations such as WHO and Médecins Sans Frontières (also known as Doctors Without Borders) are struggling to control the spread in these areas because of a lack of trust and cooperation among the affected populations. Doctors and health workers have sometimes been blocked from accessing affected places because of opposition from villagers who fear the medics will bring the disease. According to the WHO, not all people who are infected are getting or seeking care, and so are passing the virus on to family and other close contacts. Another major driver of new infections is that families are often continuing to perform traditional burial rites that involve mourners having direct contact with the bodies of the dead – and unfortunately all too often Ebola.

Relax people. We are not going to have an Ebola outbreak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, they were reporting that just touching the sweat of someone infected you could catch it. Also if someone infected were to cough or sneeze on you, you could catch it. Your information is misleading. In addition, they reported that this strain has a 70 percent fatality rate, not the rate you quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, they were reporting that just touching the sweat of someone infected you could catch it. Also if someone infected were to cough or sneeze on you, you could catch it. Your information is misleading. In addition, they reported that this strain has a 70 percent fatality rate, not the rate you quote.

 

I don't think it is misleading. Supposing the report is true that touching sweat could make you catch it, you'd still have to touch it where you have broken skin, or touch it and then touch some food and eat that food, or pick your nose, or whatever. That is still less likely to infect someone than a sneeze or a cough which creates an arisol virus bomb that can infect multiple people at once. The quoted rate is an average over the ~10 "outbreaks" of ebola in history. It's exhibited anywhere from ~25% to ~85% mortality rates.

 

A higher mortality rate, though it is horrible to think about it, does actually make the disease less likely to cause an outbreak because it makes it less likely that the carrier of the virus will come in contact with others since they will become incapacitated sooner.

 

Very misleading. Do you really think that the infected healthcare workers were so uncareful that they allowed themselves to come into direct contact? Think about it for a minute.

 

They had protective gear on and still caught it.

 

I'm not in the business of speculating and we don't have the facts. When I think about it a minute, I realize this is the first time we've had Ebola in the USA, and people may not be adequately prepared to handle it even though they think they are. There is absolutely no way the virus can get through the protective gear, Ebola does not typically cause sneezing or coughing, so if we MUST speculate, the most likely conclusion is they touched the outside of their protective gear accidentally as they were removing it.

 

Also of note is the latest healthcare worker was cleared to fly after exhibiting a slightly elevated fever. At what point does a person really become infectious?

 

This suggests a lack of preparedness for Ebola as I suggested above. If this worker exhibited an elevated fever, why were they not quarantined? The above article states people become infectious when they exhibit symptoms and this worker began showing symptoms. Again, poor decision-making by people unprepared to deal with something like Ebola.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Looks like a good amount of conservative sites fear mongering about ebola, or articles that have nothing to do with ebola in the US.

 

 

 

No one thinks ebola is a joke, its a very dangerous disease. I think the hysteria is a joke though. All of it is clearly politically motivated. I wouldn't ever assume you'd be the person to see past that though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when the media scared us about the swine flu, bird flu, west Nile virus and killer bees. But I think this has some validity even though the media is going crazy with it. But the rest of the world seems concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one soldier gets ebola over there, and this dirtbag president must be impeached,

and prosecuted.

 

as if he hasn't deserved that already..... @@

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/10/101st-airborne-wont-get-full-protective-hazmat-suits-for-ebola-mission-in-west-africa/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a fool if you think the cdc ' s containment measures are going to work at this point. You want to protect people? Then protect them.

Yeah, genocide baby!

 

Meanwhile, in Lagos, only 20 ppl were infected in a city of 20 million people and there have been no new cases in over 42 days, double the incubation period. Stop listening to the news and start listening to doctors and scientists who have more of a clue than Fox and CNN news broadcasters. Cool heads prevail.

 

This is how Nigeria did it. No genocide neccessary.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-20/ebola-how-nigeria-averted-a-nightmare-in-densely-populated-lagos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Nigeria 20 people had it. In Liberia and Sierra Leone it's out of control and even according to the WHO the number of cases reported is drastically smaller than the realistic number. They expect between 5-10,000 new cases per week over the coming months. Now you're a smart guy Osiris, do you really believe they have the ability to contain it there for long? Let's not try to be idealistic. Let's be realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure you understand what genocide is. It's not killing a minority of highly virulent contagious disease ridden people who are going to die in 70+% of cases so that the vast majority don't die right along with them. That's not genocide.

 

I can't believe you are seriously arguing for killing off thousands of people because they are sick and have a poor prognosis. Glad doctors take the Hippocratic Oath. And yes, being that I work with people who actually research and have studied Eboloa and other viruses for years and have attended their talks, I do believe it can be contained to the region it is currently is in. I've said it three times already, the reason it is spreading there is due to social and cultural factors specific to the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contained to the region killing how many? You're essentially advocating sentencing the well to a horrible painful blood puking death. There's already thousands and thousands of cases. Every new one up to 5-10,000 a week increases the odds that it will mutate and spread further out of control. I'd rather they contain it but you don't send soldiers in harms way to contain. If you send them there its one mission only. Kill it. Kill it with fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...