• 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!

Breach of protocol led to Ebola outbreak

tosca1 said:
Are we sure it isn't airborne yet? Or, some people are highly susceptible to get it compared to others?

Duncan was sweating and having diarrhea prior to his second hospital visit. How come the people living with him didn't get it, yet nobody's wearing any elaborate protective gears?
Click to expand...

If it was airborne they would all have been symptomatic by now.
 
tosca1 said:
How many times have we had an ebola outbreak of THIS MAGNITUDE? Why is World Health Organization so concerned?
Did WHO compare that virus you menationed with ebola?
Click to expand...

One nurse?
 
tosca1 said:
How many times have we had an ebola outbreak of THIS MAGNITUDE?

Why is World Health Organization so concerned?

Did WHO compare that virus you menationed with ebola?

Okay....I'm curious. What virus is that?
Click to expand...


I expect Deuce is talking about the Flu virus.

It kills multiple times more people then the ebola virus does, but we are not shutting down the world because of it. It is multiple times more contagious, admittedly its mortality rate is orders of magnitude lower then Ebola
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I expect Deuce is talking about the Flu virus.

It kills multiple times more people then the ebola virus does, but we are not shutting down the world because of it. It is multiple times more contagious, admittedly its mortality rate is orders of magnitude lower then Ebola
Click to expand...

And thats the problem, its like saying the Spanish flu epidemic was just the flu. Well-it was the flu virus, but it had a much higher mortality and even healthy adults without immunocompromise were susceptible.

40K die here each year from community acquired pneumonia (as much as traffic accidents) but its amongst a specific group and has been largely marginalized.
 
US Conservative said:
Only in the case that they actually contracted the disease.
Click to expand...

Sharing a confined space with a symptomatic patient over several days with no protection, an airborne disease would be highly transmissible, yet didn't. Even though ebola is droplet borne, it's mildly surprising they escaped it. (so far)
 
Manc Skipper said:
Sharing a confined space with a symptomatic patient over several days with no protection, an airborne disease would be highly transmissible, yet didn't. Even though ebola is droplet borne, it's mildly surprising they escaped it. (so far)
Click to expand...

Charming anecdote but that is not evidence that its not transmissible outside of direct contact.

This is basic scientific method. These are the assumptions the general population makes. :doh
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I expect Deuce is talking about the Flu virus.

It kills multiple times more people then the ebola virus does, but we are not shutting down the world because of it. It is multiple times more contagious, admittedly its mortality rate is orders of magnitude lower then Ebola
Click to expand...


Obviously, WHO does not equate ebola with the flu virus, otherwise they wouldn't be making this claim:


The World Health Organization called the Ebola outbreak “the most severe, acute health emergency seen in modern times”

Ebola the most severe health emergency in modern world: WHO - The Globe and Mail




Furthermore, we've got flu vaccines for some strains, whereas we've yet to have an effective one for ebola.
 
Last edited:
US Conservative said:
Thousands in Africa.
Click to expand...

Which has a poor health care system, underfunded governments that can not control the outbreak, or identify who has it to quarantine them. With that only a few thousand people have died, in countries with millions of people. If it was very contagious, tens if not hundreds of thousands would have caught it by now

The US has one of the best medical systems in the world, a well funded government that can identify and quarantine infected people. Only one person in the US has caught Ebola, a nurse who by all accounts came in direct contact with the bodily fluids of the infected patient, most the contact being in her eyes, nose, mouth or cut on the skin., The other people the infected patient came into contact has not to our knowledge caught Ebola. It is not an outbreak at this time, as only one other person caught it
 
US Conservative said:
Charming anecdote but that is not evidence that its not transmissible outside of direct contact.

This is basic scientific method. These are the assumptions the general population makes. :doh
Click to expand...

Droplet transmission is not direct contact.
 
tosca1 said:
Obviously, WHO does not equate ebola with the flu virus, otherwise they wouldn't be making this claim:


The World Health Organization called the Ebola outbreak “the most severe, acute health emergency seen in modern times”

Ebola the most severe health emergency in modern world: WHO - The Globe and Mail
Click to expand...

It is a severe crisis, it is dangerous, especially in third world countries with poor health care systems and poor governance. If it can get into say into the slums of Lagos, then the number of infected and dead could go much higher.

As it stands it is not much of a threat to the US, if a real outbreak does occur in the US, a few hundred might die. Less then the number who die from the flu in a year
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
It is a severe crisis, it is dangerous, especially in third world countries with poor health care systems and poor governance. If it can get into say into the slums of Lagos, then the number of infected and dead could go much higher.

As it stands it is not much of a threat to the US, if a real outbreak does occur in the US, a few hundred might die. Less then the number who die from the flu in a year
Click to expand...

It's hard to be reassured when we know AIDS and HIV are still going rampant in the US despite all efforts to defeat it. Sharing needles alone will spread ebola!
 
tosca1 said:
It's hard to be reassured when we know AIDS and HIV are still going rampant in the US despite all efforts to defeat it. Sharing needles alone will spread ebola!
Click to expand...

Aids and HIV take a very long time to kill most infected individuals, who can transmit the disease without being symptomatic.

To spread Ebola requires a symptomatic person, who at that time would look and act very sick. Ebola will be far harder to spread then HIV has been. Because the infected will be to sick to go and infect others
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Aids and HIV take a very long time to kill most infected individuals, who can transmit the disease without being symptomatic.

To spread Ebola requires a symptomatic person, who at that time would look and act very sick. Ebola will be far harder to spread then HIV has been. Because the infected will be to sick to go and infect others
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Same MO. Spread through bodily fluids.

Needle-sharing will be something to contend with.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Which has a poor health care system, underfunded governments that can not control the outbreak, or identify who has it to quarantine them. With that only a few thousand people have died, in countries with millions of people. If it was very contagious, tens if not hundreds of thousands would have caught it by now

The US has one of the best medical systems in the world, a well funded government that can identify and quarantine infected people. Only one person in the US has caught Ebola, a nurse who by all accounts came in direct contact with the bodily fluids of the infected patient, most the contact being in her eyes, nose, mouth or cut on the skin., The other people the infected patient came into contact has not to our knowledge caught Ebola. It is not an outbreak at this time, as only one other person caught it
Click to expand...

The way you appear to think is truly amazing. As amazing as it is horrifying.
 
Hey,
I was thinking long-term:
Should an island like country should close there borders and do not allow any immigrant to enter their territory in fear of Ebola virus
But the reality is, I realize a total blockade is impossible and, the moment word gets out that the island is Ebola-free, people will try to go there, bringing the disease with them.
But there is also one fact that one immigrant can save the people inside. What do you think? Let me know. Thank you
 
HonestJoe said:
I don't think they are 100% sure but it seems like the most likely explanation by far.

They know plenty. A mutation of Ebola making it just "more contagious" still wouldn't explain the nurse contracting if all the protective measures were followed to the letter. A mutation that would allow it to somehow circumvent such measures would likely affect a lot more than just one of the many staff who will have treated him.

I also get the sense what we're being told is to try to avoid panic. That doesn't mean what we're being told is untrue though. Trying to avoid panic is a good thing. Trying to create it is not.

I don't think there are any measures the general public need to take beyond normal hygiene and common sense. What are you suggesting?
Click to expand...

By far compared to what? It hasn't been compared to anything else from what I've read. Maybe their protocol needs to be looked at if it's that easy to breach. They talk about other people treated her, but how much contact did they actually have.

What is the OP suggesting? I didn't see any.

I'm suggesting that if they don't know what they're doing, you'll never know about it till the **** hits the fan.
 
US Conservative said:
Im inclined to agree-we should ban travel from these west african nations for 90 days after the last known patient has recovered or died.
Click to expand...

I more or less agree but anyone from that region should be allowed into America if they pass a supervised 21 day isolation (which apparently is the length of time that the virus incubates) before leaving the west African region in question.

I realize not many people can afford to do that.

But those that can should not be kept out of America if they offer no health threat.
 
US Conservative said:
Heres my view-Closing entry from a country currently experiencing the greatest health threat since HIV is warranted. Im not saying people can't go there, Im saying they should not be able to come here. Just until the pandemic with a 50-90% mortality rate dies down.

Beyond that, the current plan has demonstrably failed-that says enough for me.
Click to expand...


To what advantage to the US is it necessary to give visas to ANYONE from infected African nations?

If Obama doesnt act, his legacy will be that the was the ebola president.
Click to expand...


It is a huge advantage to the United States and its citizens to continue to play a role in assisting those in Western Africa to fight Ebola and develop technology to deal with the disease.

1st world countries have a small set of advantages over African societies due to:

* Better general health and nutrition
* Better hospital care and vital health support in IV fluids, secondary infect anti-biotics, crash carts and vitals monitors
* Better education in germ theory and methods of block contagion ( it seems this is now true only for SOME Americans )
* Better organization of military and police to enforce quarantines when needed
* Better Radio and Telecom to spread word of an outbreak
* Better personal hygiene and fresh water sources
* Cultural practices less likely to spread disease

But we also have areas of our society which leave U.S. MORE vulnerable to Ebola:

* A much more mobile society
* A high population density society ( except for Nigeria )
* A much more Politically Correct Society


This later, are likely to prove far more deadly to 1st world countries, than any advantage by the former.

Our advantages only work if the percentage of our population which is infected stays below a threshold were we can apply things like IV Fluids.

Like I said, Obama wants us to suffer just like the 3rd world.
Click to expand...

But we WON'T suffer Ebola as a 3rd world country.

We are a 1st world country, which means we are a much, much more mobile society. We will suffer Ebola like a 1st World Country.

That means if Ebola goes over a threshold of number of simultaneous cases, it will exceed our ability to use advanced medicine to deal with the outbreak, and overload our medical system.

The disease will then leverage off of our higher mobility, and we will suffer as a 1st world nation, a much, much higher level of rate of spread, percentage of infected, and mortality rate.

Ebola is, in the long term, if we are not very careful, a much bigger risk to America or any 1st world country, than it is to a third world country!

---------------------------

We are not living in Isolation, and never will be able to keep Ebola from our country completely.

Staying involved in the battle against Ebola in Africa, gives U.S. the opportunity to develop : Immunizations, Cures, Treatment Protocols, Study methods of transmission...

We Benefit greatly from staying involved, we just need to do it CAREFULLY!

We are NOT doing it Carefully right now, we are doing Politically Correctly!

-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom