• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who: Ebola moving faster than control efforts

1750Texan said:
It is dumber to not care for them and learn as much as we can. Fear is dumb. People in our modern age thought AIDS could be picked-up from toilet seats and door knobs.

fear is dumb.
Click to expand...

Your premise is not dumb, but I would like to modify it by saying that 'irrational' fear is dumb. There is cause for concern of the disease escaping into the environs of Georgia and spreading. Concern: not dumb.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
`
When I hear or see medical scientists saying things like this: "Ebola Outbreak 'Not in the Cards' for U.S., CDC Director Says"....."not in the cards".....weasel words, doublespeak. That sends up all sorts of red flags to me at least. I can understand the use of such language on a population that is pretty much dumbed down, in order to avoid panic, but some of us are not that ignorant.

A far as it turning into an airborne mutation, according to virologist Beth Levine, M.D., director of virology research in the infectious diseases division at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons;

"Single amino acid mutations can change the tropism [the residential preference] of a virus" in some experimental situations, but there haven't been any examples of such mutations actually occurring in nature, changing a virus from a bloodborne or bodily fluid route of transmission to a respiratory route."

So, says Dr. Levine, "The media's claim is not totally without scientific basis. But there are no precedents for it, and it's unlikely.

"I think it's irresponsible to raise that concern," she added - source ​

Key word; "unlikely". Linguistically it lacks a high degree of certitude and that sounds more like a PR statement as opposed to something factual.

Logic dictates that a prudent person be aware of the myriad of possibilities such a disease may entail and plan accordingly.
`
Click to expand...

It is unlikely that you will be killed by falling airplane parts. But logic dictates that a prudent person be aware of this risk and take actions to mitigate it. Might I suggest living in a cave?

Chance of being killed by falling airplane parts. 1 in 10 million. That's unlikely. But possible. So now you have something else to fret about. You needn't thank me. I was just trying to help.
 
PeteEU said:
Er that is exactly what I wrote..
Click to expand...

PeteEU said:
-- When people die in most west African countries --
Click to expand...

PeteEU said:
-- Have you been following the news at all? All the stations have reported that one of the reasons that it is hard to contain is because people in the remote villages dont trust western doctors who came around the time that ebola showed its face and hence are being blamed for bringing it.

As Ebola spreads in Africa, some blame health workers - World News Report
Click to expand...

Key words highlighted; doesn't justify saying it as a generalisation. It's like some country hick bumpkin here in the west and saying he or she represents the viewpoint of all in a country or worse still - a section of a continent. If I found a UK country bumpkin who thought all Danes were blonde and good looking would that mean all Western Europeans thought all Danes were blonde and good looking?

Dibbler said:
Click to expand...


God, don't reporters have a duty to research the story they are telling? Ebola requires close physical contact with a sufferer to be contagious. This report and the youtube video is just playing on the fears of the ignorant.
 
Last edited:
Dibbler said:
Click to expand...


1750Texan said:
It is dumber to not care for them and learn as much as we can. Fear is dumb. People in our modern age thought AIDS could be picked-up from toilet seats and door knobs.

fear is dumb.
Click to expand...


Lol ! What !??

The " care " for Ebola patients is IV hydration. That can bs done in Africa

We can " learn " about the disease without transporting two walking talking live cultures back to the States.
 
Last edited:
1750Texan said:
Because all pathogens mutate. It is the reverse...it is highly unlikely that this virus does not mutate. A pathogen does not have to be airborne to be highly contagious.
Click to expand...

Mutations are low, random, and in most cases, are either neutral or harmful.

VERY few pathogens/viruses/what-have-you mutate at lightning speed (HIV I believe is a good example).

My question was is Ebola one of these pathogens that mutates at such a speedy rate, I want to see the evolution o the virus because people seem to be assuming that this is some super disease that can just instantly become airborne.
 
Ebola spreads in countries with very poor public health systems (usually war torn countries). There would not be 700 plus deaths in an ebola outbreak in a modern industrialized nation. For example, just because there was a cholera epidemic in Nigeria does not mean that Seattle is at risk for one.

The concern with Ebola is the number of horrible deaths it could cause in the third world, not that it will break out and become some kind of a global pandemic. It would quickly be contained in any developed nation.
 
Dibbler said:
Click to expand...


SouthernDemocrat said:
Ebola spreads in countries with very poor public health systems (usually war torn countries). There would not be 700 plus deaths in an ebola outbreak in a modern industrialized nation. For example, just because there was a cholera epidemic in Nigeria does not mean that Seattle is at risk for one.

The concern with Ebola is the number of horrible deaths it could cause in the third world, not that it will break out and become some kind of a global pandemic. It would quickly be contained in any developed nation.
Click to expand...


It continues to be an issue in third world Countries because the locals continue to practice risky behaviours, even after they've been warned.

They know fruit bats carry the disease, but they continue to catch, slaughter and eat fruit bats.

They know washing their dead can lead to Ebola spreading but they continue to wash their dead.

But when it spreads they want WHO and the American CDC to step in.
 
Yeah, not good. This is an example of why a globalized world comes with steep consequences. If ebola becomes a pandemic, life will be spent in interesting days. Why? The measures that would be taken: quarantining the sick from the healthy which is equally true from the opposite: quarantining the healthy from the sick.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Ebola spreads in countries with very poor public health systems (usually war torn countries). There would not be 700 plus deaths in an ebola outbreak in a modern industrialized nation. For example, just because there was a cholera epidemic in Nigeria does not mean that Seattle is at risk for one.

The concern with Ebola is the number of horrible deaths it could cause in the third world, not that it will break out and become some kind of a global pandemic. It would quickly be contained in any developed nation.
Click to expand...

That isn't true. The danger of Ebola is the long incubation period and the lethality. A person with Ebola in New York City could infect hundreds or thousands of people before they even know they are sick, and those they infect could do the same before the first person becomes symptomatic. The only thing that fights Ebola is quarantine which they are just as capable of doing in Africa as they are in the US.
 
jmotivator said:
That isn't true. The danger of Ebola is the long incubation period and the lethality. A person with Ebola in New York City could infect hundreds or thousands of people before they even know they are sick, and those they infect could do the same before the first person becomes symptomatic. The only thing that fights Ebola is quarantine which they are just as capable of doing in Africa as they are in the US.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it is true, but I actually read somewhere (no, I don't have the link) that Ebola is only contagious when the person is already having symptoms, therefore if this is true the long incubation period would be less of a problem, no?
 
GreatNews2night said:
I'm not sure if it is true, but I actually read somewhere (no, I don't have the link) that Ebola is only contagious when the person is already having symptoms, therefore if this is true the long incubation period would be less of a problem, no?
Click to expand...

OK, I did find the link; the article does say that it's only when someone is having the symptoms that person can spread the virus to others. So, during the incubation period the person is not infecting others.

What Actually Happens When A Person Is Infected With The Ebola Virus
 
jmotivator said:
That isn't true. The danger of Ebola is the long incubation period and the lethality. A person with Ebola in New York City could infect hundreds or thousands of people before they even know they are sick, and those they infect could do the same before the first person becomes symptomatic. The only thing that fights Ebola is quarantine which they are just as capable of doing in Africa as they are in the US.
Click to expand...

Not hardly. You are talking about countries that have been torn by decades of civil war, with extremely weak and corrupt government institutions, and no public health system to speak of. If you think countries where the vast majority of human waste is simply washed down the side of streets, are capable of implementing effective quarantines, then you are pretty naive.

This is the kind of place that Ebola becomes an epidemic in:

slum-480x319.jpg
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Not hardly. You are talking about countries that have been torn by decades of civil war, with extremely weak and corrupt government institutions, and no public health system to speak of. If you think countries where the vast majority of human waste is simply washed down the side of streets, are capable of implementing effective quarantines, then you are pretty naive.

This is the kind of place that Ebola becomes an epidemic in:

View attachment 67170563
Click to expand...

Normally, I would agree, until I read this statement from the chief of the World Health Organization.

WHO chief Margaret Chan told leaders that the response of the three countries to the epidemic had been "woefully inadequate", revealing that the outbreak was "moving faster than our efforts to control it".

"If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences can be catastrophic in terms of lost lives but also severe socio-economic disruption and a high risk of spread to other countries," Chan said.

West Africa seeks to seal off Ebola-hit regions
Click to expand...
 
grip said:
Normally, I would agree, until I read this statement from the chief of the World Health Organization.
Click to expand...

Right, in those countries the outbreak is moving faster than the efforts to control it because you have war torn countries, with no public health systems, and grossly under-resourced WHO trying to contain it. The same scenario would not happen in nations like the USA, Canada, or France.
 
Papa bull said:
It is unlikely that you will be killed by falling airplane parts. But logic dictates that a prudent person be aware of this risk and take actions to mitigate it. Might I suggest living in a cave?

Chance of being killed by falling airplane parts. 1 in 10 million. That's unlikely. But possible. So now you have something else to fret about. You needn't thank me. I was just trying to help.
Click to expand...

You're more likely to be killed by frozen airline poo. Just sayin'. They jettison that **** at high altitude. :mrgreen:
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Key words highlighted; doesn't justify saying it as a generalisation. It's like some country hick bumpkin here in the west and saying he or she represents the viewpoint of all in a country or worse still - a section of a continent. If I found a UK country bumpkin who thought all Danes were blonde and good looking would that mean all Western Europeans thought all Danes were blonde and good looking?


God, don't reporters have a duty to research the story they are telling? Ebola requires close physical contact with a sufferer to be contagious. This report and the youtube video is just playing on the fears of the ignorant.
Click to expand...

Well, you don't have that right, so sounds like you are part of that problem you describe. Ebola only requires contact with the FLUIDS of an infected person. Contact with a "sufferer" not required.
 
GreatNews2night said:
I'm not sure if it is true, but I actually read somewhere (no, I don't have the link) that Ebola is only contagious when the person is already having symptoms, therefore if this is true the long incubation period would be less of a problem, no?
Click to expand...

That is what the CDC director said. Of course, just like AIDS, the story is softened for the public lay person.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Not hardly. You are talking about countries that have been torn by decades of civil war, with extremely weak and corrupt government institutions, and no public health system to speak of. If you think countries where the vast majority of human waste is simply washed down the side of streets, are capable of implementing effective quarantines, then you are pretty naive.

This is the kind of place that Ebola becomes an epidemic in:

View attachment 67170563
Click to expand...

Again, Ebola epidemics are due to the slow incubation. Patients are infectious for days before they become symptomatic. The reason there isn't Ebola in the US is because Ebola isn't native to the US. The reason Ebola usually doesn't spread is because of the poverty in the regions where Ebola outbreaks happen. There is little chance for it to escape the region before the host dies.

Why this is different is because it has broken out in a more mobile population, and infected people have traveled long distances before being symptomatic. If it has spread to the US we might not know it for a week or more.
 
clownboy said:
That is what the CDC director said. Of course, just like AIDS, the story is softened for the public lay person.
Click to expand...

AIDS in the 1970s spread VERY slowly due to the lack of mobility in the populations where it started. It eventually reached populations on major waterways and began to spread much faster. This Ebola outbreak was on airplanes within a month.
 
Overall, think its a bad idea. The type of treatment used for Ebola can pretty much be provided anywhere.

Just hope and they likely will take all precautions, particularly for those providing care to them. If I were one of the caregivers, I wouldn't even leave the facility until they recover or they're dead and was 100% positive I wasn't symptomatic.
 
And these were missionaries, as much as I respect believers and love religious philosophy, mixing religion and medical science is....dumb, dumb, dumb...

 
jmotivator said:
Again, Ebola epidemics are due to the slow incubation. Patients are infectious for days before they become symptomatic.
Click to expand...

This doesn't seem to be true. All the sources are saying that patients are only infectious when they are actively having symptoms.
 
Dibbler said:
And these were missionaries, as much as I respect believers and love religious philosophy, mixing religion and medical science is....dumb, dumb, dumb...

Click to expand...



As a Christian I think thats Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Right, in those countries the outbreak is moving faster than the efforts to control it because you have war torn countries, with no public health systems, and grossly under-resourced WHO trying to contain it. The same scenario would not happen in nations like the USA, Canada, or France.
Click to expand...

The USA, Canada and France have a much better chance of containing an outbreak but to say an epidemic on some level wouldn't happen is not a certainty.

Some viruses like Epstein-Barr, Hep C and HIV stay circulating within the population for a long time. Once a pathogen gets into the wild it's very hard to contain.
 
GreatNews2night said:
This doesn't seem to be true. All the sources are saying that patients are only infectious when they are actively having symptoms.
Click to expand...

From the WHO:

"People are infectious as long as their blood and secretions contain the virus. "

So starting from infection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom