• 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!

Map: Where Ebola is likely to go next

Tameamea

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
77
Reaction score
54
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
risk_of_ebola_spread.0.jpg

To develop these estimates, researchers used a computer model that tracks the frequency of international traffic to different countries, the progression of the disease in already affected countries, and the incubation time and other aspects of Ebola. The estimates will be updated as the epidemic continues.

Outside of Africa, the risk is relatively high in the UK and France, but thankfully very low in India and China. The more advanced health-care systems in the UK and France are much better equipped to deal with an Ebola outbreak, while less advanced systems in China and particularly India, which also have considerably bigger populations to manage, could struggle to deal with an epidemic.

Map: Where Ebola is likely to go next - Vox

So, here’s a nice article. With a map. I guess, quite descriptive. According to it, though China and India are less prepared to deal with Ebola in the terms of medical care, the disease is more likely to spread to Europe.
What do you think? Do you agree?
 
China is not so bad, but India... that's a huuuuuuuge ****ing problem if it gets into a slum there.

The main thing is that this disease won't end up actually being so much about the disease, because we can contain it, of that I'm confident.

It's the social implications.

As soon as you stop the movement of people (travel bans or people not wanting to travel) the global economy is going to take a huge hit.

We get alot of visitors from China, if they stop coming, we're ****ed, they are THE dominant demographic at the moment.
 
What do you think? Do you agree?
Not really. Ebola is a weak virus. It can be killed by soap and water. It's limited to transmission via bodily fluids. It kills or is gotten over very quickly once it is transmitted to someone. Those that are at risk are pretty much limited to caregivers and medical professionals. Those that are in contact with bodily fluids when working with those who are sick.

Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia are the countries struggling with this as their populations (West central Africa) are the second worst developed populations in the world. No infrastructure what so ever. They're only beaten by the landlocked central African countries (Chad, Niger, DRC, Central African Republic).
 
China is not so bad, but India... that's a huuuuuuuge ****ing problem if it gets into a slum there.

The main thing is that this disease won't end up actually being so much about the disease, because we can contain it, of that I'm confident.

It's the social implications.

As soon as you stop the movement of people (travel bans or people not wanting to travel) the global economy is going to take a huge hit.

We get alot of visitors from China, if they stop coming, we're ****ed, they are THE dominant demographic at the moment.

You're just full of good news aren't you? Anyway, don't worry as long as we have secrets to steal, they'll keep coming.
 
Not really. Ebola is a weak virus. It can be killed by soap and water. It's limited to transmission via bodily fluids. It kills or is gotten over very quickly once it is transmitted to someone. Those that are at risk are pretty much limited to caregivers and medical professionals. Those that are in contact with bodily fluids when working with those who are sick.

Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia are the countries struggling with this as their populations (West central Africa) are the second worst developed populations in the world. No infrastructure what so ever. They're only beaten by the landlocked central African countries (Chad, Niger, DRC, Central African Republic).

That's what alot of people don't understand.

They see all the images over there and think the same thing can happen here, but it literally can't.

1 - Poorest nations of the world.

2 - Almost no healthcare system to speak of

3 - Most of the population is illiterate so they couldn't get information to everyone through media to help curb the spread, during Sierra Leones outbreak and subsequent 3 day lockdown, workers had to go door to door checking for infection and explaining verbally how to stop infection.

4 - we're not going to attack healthcare workers

5 - We're not going to turn people away at the hospital

6 - These countries had virtually no ability to contact trace and isolate

7 - They do not have enough beds

The list goes on and on and on but essentially there's alot of hype, it is a terrifying disease but whats worse is alot of people are using this horrific disease to score cheap political points.

This thing will be beaten but at great cost because of the slow response, the biggest impact of this will be in West Africa and it won't actually be Ebola that will cause most of the suffering.

It has left their already fragile economies in shambles just as they were starting to improve dramatically, people with many others diseases such as HIV and Malaria will go untreated as most resources go to the Ebola Crisis, cross border trade between the three countries (which incidentally is the reason is spread so quickly) has completely died, leaving many farmers without a source of income which will lead to a food crisis, many will starve.

Thats the true impact of this crisis but there will be many lessons to learn from this in how we deal with these kinds of epidemics in the future, because something like this is unprecedented in modern times.
 
Meanwhile, Médecins Sans Frontieres has lost 9 doctors to Ebola and almost 20 more are infected.
 
China is not so bad, but India... that's a huuuuuuuge ****ing problem if it gets into a slum there.

The main thing is that this disease won't end up actually being so much about the disease, because we can contain it, of that I'm confident.

It's the social implications.

As soon as you stop the movement of people (travel bans or people not wanting to travel) the global economy is going to take a huge hit.

We get alot of visitors from China, if they stop coming, we're ****ed, they are THE dominant demographic at the moment.

China could be a disaster as well. A large portion of the Chinese people live is squalor and poverty. Also, China being China, the Communist party leaders might see Ebola as a solution to their population problems.
 
China could be a disaster as well. A large portion of the Chinese people live is squalor and poverty. Also, China being China, the Communist party leaders might see Ebola as a solution to their population problems.

Even the Central Committee isn't that callous.

China, unlike India doesn't have as much an endemic problem with governmental incompetency and I am confident the Chinese can formulate an overall national strategy to control any outbreak that can occur.

India is the real problem.

If it gets there, we're in deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep ****.
 
Even the Central Committee isn't that callous.

They certainly have a history of being so callous... they see it as practical.

China, unlike India doesn't have as much an endemic problem with governmental incompetency and I am confident the Chinese can formulate an overall national strategy to control any outbreak that can occur.

Well sure, but that solution, should an outbreak occur, will be wide spread quarantine zones. Which invariably mean that those in the quarantine zones will simply die, for the most part.

India is the real problem.

If it gets there, we're in deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep ****.

I agree that India would be amazingly terrible if Ebola made it to the slums. China has the political will to let large groups of people die in order to cease the outbreak in its tracks and the army to enforce it. India is lacking in both regards.
 
They certainly have a history of being so callous... they see it as practical.

Dude if you're talking about Maos time... than you better stop playing the game because there's just no comparison from that time to modern China.

Well sure, but that solution, should an outbreak occur, will be wide spread quarantine zones. Which invariably mean that those in the quarantine zones will simply die, for the most part.

It would not be like that, I believe they will be able to isolate and contract trace pretty effectively and China does have alot more experience with disaster management and a much better healthcare system than Indias.

I agree that India would be amazingly terrible if Ebola made it to the slums. China has the political will to let large groups of people die in order to cease the outbreak in its tracks and the army to enforce it. India is lacking in both regards.
\

I disagree that, that is the way the Chinese will deal with the problem, because again it is not as infectious as some of you are making it out to be.

Again though, I stress this that the reason why we will be ****ed is not so much because of the disease itself, but its social implications.

If the worlds second most populous country and the worlds 10th largest economy gets this disease in a big way, inter-state trade and international trade could collapse, travel in and out will cease and it'll hit the global economy in a huge way.
 
Even the Central Committee isn't that callous.

China, unlike India doesn't have as much an endemic problem with governmental incompetency and I am confident the Chinese can formulate an overall national strategy to control any outbreak that can occur.

India is the real problem.

If it gets there, we're in deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep ****.

Yes, Chinese strategy: bring in the tanks. Just kidding, they also set up detention centers.

Dude, they can't even sort out their air.

China is exposed because if it hits in the major population centers on the east coast of China (pacific coast) it is going to be massive. China also has tons of slums. And there is a huge black market, well, not black market as you would imagine it, but shops, vendors and service providers of all sorts that nobody regulates. If it hits it in the middle of village in god knows where, no problem.

India is also exposed for the correct reasons you stated and because of their cultural norms. They don't kill rats, they bathe in the rivers in common and they usually have very large families within a very small space.

And in Europe there is 1 reason why it could be very bad, and it's also a reason that applies to China and India and one that the USA doesn't have to worry about: public transport. For once, the USA's complete disregard for energy efficient, pro-enviromental methods of transportation pays off. In Europe and china and India, public transport is huge. Granted, in china and india things are always more crowded than in europe but in europe it gets pretty crowded. I've been a sardine in a bus quite often. Granted, eastern europe not the same as western europe.

It's why I have bought both gloves and masks and carry them on my person (so not wear them ,but have them with me) at all times when I'm going out these days. For one, to avoid the flu season (which I failed at, I am currently sick, last days of my flu -> granted, i got my flu at work not on the bus) and to avoid other diseases should they make their appearance.
 
Ebola is a virulent virus. It can survive outside the body for several days, allowing those who touch contaminated surfaces to infect themselves days after the fact. Also given the fact that it takes around 10 days to show symptoms after infection---the risk for a pandemic is obvious. As about 50 percent of invected indivduals die---the lethality of the virus helps to contain the spread somewhat.

One must understand that the figures of actual deaths from Ebola in Africa are pure speculation. Outside of a few large cities in Liberia and Sierra Leone, there is no usually no 911 call service, no police, no hospitals. There are no modern CSI teams operating from the corrupt and primative governments there. An entire village in the jungle backwaters there could be wiped-out, and no one in charge would know. There are few paved hiways. Local roadworkers and bandits set up ad-hoc roadblocks to extract bribes for passage. Even short journeys can take days.

Given that the US with its best experts couldn't save an infected alien with Ebola---one can easily project that the death rates in these African ****hole nations is at least three times higher than given. The best strategy should have been to isolate these infected areas and let nature take its course. All trade and travel there should be banned.

Large, dirty cities in the US and Europe where these Africans frequent will be the most likely places to be hit next.


Liberian American organizations estimate there are between 250,000 and 500,000 Liberians living in the United States. This figure includes Liberian residents that have a temporary status, and American of Liberian descent. The metropolitan areas with the largest Liberian immigrant populations are New York and Washington, D.C.; other cities with significant numbers of Liberians include Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Houston and Fort Worth (Texas), Hartford (Connecticut), Los Angeles and Oakland (California), Miami, Minneapolis and Philadelphia. So, as states such as Rhode Island and New Jersey. [6]

Most Liberian Americans live on the east coast of United States (New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina). So, it is thought Rhode Island (specifically Providence) is the state with the largest Liberian population in the country (about 0.4% of the city's population is of Liberian ancestry).[6] Specifically in the western part, most Liberian Americans living on his coast, live in California, especially in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland and Stockton. In fact, the Liberian Community Foundation, in Vallejo, California, estimated that about 4,000 Liberians living in Northern California. Meanwhile, the Liberian Community Association of Southern California, estimates that another 2,000 Liberian Americans live in Southern California.[6] Also Chicago has an important Liberian community because there is the Midwestern Consul General of the Honorary Liberian Consulate.[7] More than 30,000 people of Liberian descent live in Minnesota.[10]
Liberian American - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Given that the US with its best experts couldn't save an infected alien with Ebola---one can easily project that the death rates in these African ****hole nations is at least three times higher than given. The best strategy should have been to isolate these infected areas and let nature take its course. All trade and travel there should be banned.

Large, dirty cities in the US and Europe where these Africans frequent will be the most likely places to be hit next

"Where these Africans frequent"...

****ing hell...

Here's the biggest problem with your strategy, you can't just "isolate" these infected areas and let nature take it's course because if these nations completely fail, the refugee crisis and subsequent spread of infection would be catastrophic especially if it hits Ghana and Nigeria.

Yes the cases are understated, we know this, but the fact of the matter is it's been proven that this disease is not as infectious as some of you are making it out to be.

Senegal and Nigeria have both been able to use contact tracing and isolation of individuals to completely contain Ebola, Mr. Duncan was outside Quarantine for 4 days while infectious and besides the unfortunate nurse who was in very close contact with him, no one else under observation has got the disease.

The best way to protect America, Europe, our livelihoods and the world is to tackle this epidemic at its source or face the consequences.

What you speak of is sheer insanity and thankfully the adults are at the helm and not petulant, political fear mongerers.
 
"Where these Africans frequent"...

****ing hell...

Here's the biggest problem with your strategy, you can't just "isolate" these infected areas and let nature take it's course because if these nations completely fail, the refugee crisis and subsequent spread of infection would be catastrophic especially if it hits Ghana and Nigeria.

Yes the cases are understated, we know this, but the fact of the matter is it's been proven that this disease is not as infectious as some of you are making it out to be.

Senegal and Nigeria have both been able to use contact tracing and isolation of individuals to completely contain Ebola, Mr. Duncan was outside Quarantine for 4 days while infectious and besides the unfortunate nurse who was in very close contact with him, no one else under observation has got the disease.

The best way to protect America, Europe, our livelihoods and the world is to tackle this epidemic at its source or face the consequences.

What you speak of is sheer insanity and thankfully the adults are at the helm and not petulant, political fear mongerers.

A crusader. Good, I would suggest you take the next flight over to Sierra Leone and help them out.

Is there some reason that the leaders of Liberia and Sierra Leone should be let off the hook and have no responisiblity in cleaning up their own mess?

You can bet all the other coutries around them are doing their level best to keep refugees out so their nations will not get the virus.

We can thank fools like Obama, Clinton and the head of our CDC for having the sheer stupidity of letting travelers in with just a temperature check. Risking our troops for countries of no importance is almost as bad.

But I guess Obama is your Jesus and is infallible.

Drink the Kool-Aid.
 
Back
Top Bottom