SECOND Dallas Hospital Worker Tests Positive for Ebola

US Conservative said:

There are several liberal dems, including Cuomo who have been calling for a flight restriction, are they fear mongering?

Click to expand...

These are political talking points rather than sensible disease-control measures. It's been said by various specialists that flight restrictions don't work. First, we do not at this time have direct flights from the affected countries. Second, even if we banned these flights, people would just get around it by flying first to some other country. During the SARS epidemic several countries tried to adopt flight restrictions and it didn't work at all for them. Australia for instance stopped, screened, and quarantined thousands of people at millions of expenses, and were unable to spot a single case in that program, which was then a huge amount of wasted time and money.

But of course, it sounds very good for political talking points to yell out loud that the lousy president is not protecting American's health by not implementing flight restrictions. It resonates well with the public because the members of the public are not experts and don't know or don't believe that flight restrictions don't work.

GreatNews2night said:

These are political talking points rather than sensible disease-control measures. It's been said by various specialists that flight restrictions don't work. First, we do not at this time have direct flights from the affected countries. Second, even if we banned these flights, people would just get around it by flying first to some other country. During the SARS epidemic several countries tried to adopt flight restrictions and it didn't work at all for them. Australia for instance stopped, screened, and quarantined thousands of people at millions of expenses, and were unable to spot a single case in that program, which was then a huge amount of wasted time and money.

But of course, it sounds very good for political talking points to yell out loud that the lousy president is not protecting American's health by not implementing flight restrictions. It resonates well with the public because the members of the public are not experts and don't know or don't believe that flight restrictions don't work.

Click to expand...

So, in your opinion, preventing people who have been to ebola country recently, from coming to the US, will have no effect of the probability of additional Ebola cases in the US?

It is counter intuitive. Please explain.

GreatNews2night said:

Why is it absurd to compare Ebola to the flu? They are both viral infectious diseases, if you haven't noticed. It's a valid point to make, that such a killer like the flu that decimates 30,000 Americans per year doesn't seem to scare anybody and there are many who refuse the flu shot thanks to completely ignorant views (such as thinking that it causes autism), while they cry out loud about Ebola, a disease that has killed one foreigner so far in America, and infected some four or five careless health workers (including the NYC doctor who came back from Guinea and tested positive today). Now, another huge fear-mongering will happen in New York, and all the conservatives will come hard on the president, and then as it happens in these cases, the doctor is perfectly isolated at an Ebola-designated facility (Bellevue Hospital), just as isolated is his girlfriend, and after 21 days you'll all realize that the fear-mongering was for nothing and nobody else got the virus from this doctor.

Click to expand...

Outside of the obvious, the flu has been with us for a while now, and we have a vaccine for it, that some refuse it, is their choice. But, the fear behind Ebola, is that we know relatively little about it, or its possibility to mutate to airborne...And there is NO vaccine for it...Add to that the fact that we keep getting told different stories about this thing as it gets worse and worse. First there was no way we would see a case here, then we have a case but it is contained and treated, then there was NO possibility of anyone coming here and infecting anyone here, and guess what that happened...Now we are told that security against this is tightened, and another case pops up....My God...Do we really have to wait until Ebola kills as many as the flu, or God forbid gets airborne, and starts spreading without people carrying it in? Why aren't we being told the truth?

So, you go ahead and take comfort in your denial if you wish, I will continue to think that our so called "controls" are not yet strong enough.

Misterveritis said:

So, in your opinion, preventing people who have been to ebola country recently, from coming to the US, will have no effect of the probability of additional Ebola cases in the US?

It is counter intuitive. Please explain.

Click to expand...

It's because we CAN'T prevent them from coming here through flight restrictions.
Like officials in African countries that didn't adopt restrictions said, it's best to have people coming legally and be screened, monitored, and tracked, than to try to enforce a blanket prohibition, in which case people will get around it and sneak in undetected, and untraceable.

If flight restrictions COULD prevent people from coming here, then I'd be for them. The sad reality is that they can't. THEY. JUST. DON'T. WORK. This has been proven over and over in other epidemics.

So, flight restrictions are nothing more than a political talking point the Right is using to attack the president. They are ineffective and actually can backfire.

GreatNews2night said:

It's because we CAN'T prevent them from coming here through flight restrictions.
Like officials in African countries that didn't adopt restrictions said, it's best to have people coming legally and be screened, monitored, and tracked, then to try to enforce a blanket prohibition, in which case people will get around it and sneak in undetected, and untraceable.

If flight restrictions COULD prevent people from coming here, then I'd be for then. The sad reality is that they can't. THEY. JUST. DON'T. WORK. This has been proven over and over in other epidemics.

So, flight restrictions are nothing more than a political talking point the Right is using to attack the president. They are ineffective and actually can backfire.

Click to expand...

We can simply STOP issuing them VISA'S.

Its that simple

j-mac said:

Outside of the obvious, the flu has been with us for a while now, and we have a vaccine for it, that some refuse it, is their choice. But, the fear behind Ebola, is that we know relatively little about it, or its possibility to mutate to airborne...And there is NO vaccine for it...Add to that the fact that we keep getting told different stories about this thing as it gets worse and worse. First there was no way we would see a case here, then we have a case but it is contained and treated, then there was NO possibility of anyone coming here and infecting anyone here, and guess what that happened...Now we are told that security against this is tightened, and another case pops up....My God...Do we really have to wait until Ebola kills as many as the flu, or God forbid gets airborne, and starts spreading without people carrying it in? Why aren't we being told the truth?

So, you go ahead and take comfort in your denial if you wish, I will continue to think that our so called "controls" are not yet strong enough.

Click to expand...

I'm not in denial, I'm following this situation very carefully. First of all - the odds that Ebola will suddenly turn airborne are miniscule, according to all serious scientists. Look, has HIV ever turned airborne? What about hepatitis B? What about hepatitis C? Viruses that are only transmitted by bodily fluids tend to remain so. Therefore, all the airborne talk is nothing other than hysteria and fear-mongering. Ebola is NOT airborne. Ebola DOES NOT propagate easily in a developed country that has a decent health system and can isolate contacts. Look, not even the family of Mr. Duncan contracted Ebola from him, much less the general public that had no contact with him. Only two nurses of the 170 some people in the hospital who got in contact with him and treated him directly, contracted the disease, apparently through not following proper protocol. Learning from this mistake, the protocol has been tightened up. I won't be surprised if no health care worker contracts it from the NY doctor, now that the protocol is tight. Emory Hospital, Nebraska, and the NIH hospital in Maryland, all successfully treated Ebola patients and no health care worker got sick there (because they were following proper protocol, unlike a small community hospital in Dallas).

Were there mistakes made? Yes, this disease shouldn't be treated in unprepared small community hospitals by well-meaning, but poorly trained nurses. The two victims of this mistake are now Ebola-free. From now on I believe things will be tighter.

So, get this in your head: THERE IS NO OUTBREAK OF EBOLA IN THE UNITED STATES! One foreigner died. He did not receive the treatments our fellow Americans have been receiving (which is ethically questionable but that's another story). ALL fellow American citizens who contracted Ebola while trying to help patients, have been successfully treated and got cured.

In view of all of the above, don't you think that the fear has been excessive?

Can you say in all confidence that the people who spread the fear, fan the fire, and yell out loud that Obama is trying to bring down America by not restricting flights, aren't actually speaking from a political agenda? Be honest, can you?

Fenton said:

We can simply STOP issuing them VISA'S.

Its that simple

Click to expand...

Yep. That works. :roll: Ask the 11 million illegals we have in this country (and counting; probably more), how efficient not having a visa was, to prevent them from coming here.

Look, no Western democracy has banned visas from Ebola-affected countries. None. You guys think our president is stupid and has evil intentions for not doing it. Are you saying then that ALL the presidents and prime ministers of ALL Western democracies are stupid and have evil intentions?

Couldn't it be because they are listening to the experts who say that attempts to prevent international travel have never stopped any epidemic from spreading and often made it worse?

What is needed is screening, monitoring, quarantining of contacts, and this is actually being done.

We are a country of 330 million people. We had 2 of our citizens contracting the disease here (thanks to some temporarily loose protocol which by now has been fixed), and a handful of doctors and missionaries who contracted the disease over there while trying to help. ALL our citizens recovered.

So much for your horrible outbreak.

Of course, the more you cry out loud that the sky is falling, the better the Right will do in the upcoming elections, so, I won't be surprised if I continue to hear the fear-mongering.

GreatNews2night said:

It's because we CAN'T prevent them from coming here through flight restrictions.
Like officials in African countries that didn't adopt restrictions said, it's best to have people coming legally and be screened, monitored, and tracked, then to try to enforce a blanket prohibition, in which case people will get around it and sneak in undetected, and untraceable.

If flight restrictions COULD prevent people from coming here, then I'd be for them. The sad reality is that they can't. THEY. JUST. DON'T. WORK. This has been proven over and over in other epidemics.

So, flight restrictions are nothing more than a political talking point the Right is using to attack the president. They are ineffective and actually can backfire.

Click to expand...

And flight and other travel restrictions make it harder to get aid and workers and supplies to the region, and that's where the outbreak will have to controlled.

GreatNews2night said:

Yep. That works. :roll: Ask the 11 million illegals we have in this country (and counting; probably more), how efficient not having a Visa was, to prevent them from coming here.

Click to expand...

So you're telling me, a West African, who is not yet symptomatic but who has ebola, has the time to some how get into Mexico WITHOUT a Visa, pay a Coyote and then make it accross the Southern border before succumbing to Ebola ?

Are you friken serious ? Now you're just reaching

"So, in your opinion, preventing people who have been to ebola country recently, from coming to the US, will have no effect of the probability of additional Ebola cases in the US?

It is counter intuitive. Please explain."

GreatNews2night said:

It's because we CAN'T prevent them from coming here through flight restrictions.

Click to expand...

Why not? Explain why, when everyone who comes here must have permission, do you believe that we cannot stop potentially Ebola-infected people from coming here. Just say no.

Like officials in African countries that didn't adopt restrictions said, it's best to have people coming legally and be screened, monitored, and tracked, than to try to enforce a blanket prohibition, in which case people will get around it and sneak in undetected, and untraceable.

Click to expand...

In your opinion how many of the 150 per day that we currently allow in would come if they had to walk in? One? Two? Five?

If flight restrictions COULD prevent people from coming here, then I'd be for them. The sad reality is that they can't. THEY. JUST. DON'T. WORK. This has been proven over and over in other epidemics.

Click to expand...

Really? Not giving permission for 150 potentially Ebola-infected people per day from coming here would not keep them out? This is political for you isn't it? It would work just fine if we did it. But if we close the "aerial" border because of this disease then we should and could close the land borders to the invaders from our south. But you and president Obola want to change the nature of the electorate and the way to do that is to import the poorest, sickest people available. You and president Ebama have brought us Ebola and several strains of the enterovirus.

So, flight restrictions are nothing more than a political talking point the Right is using to attack the president. They are ineffective and actually can backfire.

Click to expand...

This is completely nonsensical. I know that you already know this.

JasperL said:

And flight and other travel restrictions make it harder to get aid and workers and supplies to the region, and that's where the outbreak will have to controlled.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. I don't believe you. I don't believe you believe you. You may go there. I encourage you to do so. Just don't plan on coming back until after you have been out of ebola country for a while.

If you are American you can pay to be isolated for three weeks. If you are not you may not come here for much longer.

GreatNews2night said:

Yep. That works. :roll: Ask the 11 million illegals we have in this country (and counting; probably more), how efficient not having a visa was, to prevent them from coming here.

Click to expand...

And enterovirus and tuberculosis are here with a vengeance. And this is the democratic party's fault for issuing the invitation. It is president Ebama's fault. He deserves to pay the price for the enterovirus deaths.

Look, no Western democracy has banned visas from Ebola-affected countries. None. You guys think our president is stupid and has evil intentions for not doing it. Are you saying then that ALL the presidents and prime ministers of ALL Western democracies are stupid and have evil intentions?

Click to expand...

I don't really care what other countries do. We do not need to follow other corrupt nations. Yes, The One on the golf course is an evil man. Even if he did the right thing and stopped granting visas to potentially Ebola-infected people from coming here, he would still be evil. He is inherently evil.

Couldn't it be because they are listening to the experts who say that attempts to prevent international travel have never stopped any epidemic from spreading and often made it worse?

Click to expand...

Lemmings.

What is needed is screening, monitoring, quarantining of contacts, and this is actually being done.

Click to expand...

This is a good second line of defense. Step one is to stop the obvious suspects from coming here.

We are a country of 330 million people. We had 2 of our citizens contracting the disease here (thanks to some temporarily loose protocol which by now has been fixed), and a handful of doctors and missionaries who contracted the disease over there while trying to help. ALL our citizens recovered.

So much for your horrible outbreak.

Click to expand...

We have been lucky. Let's hope we continue to be lucky. Let's also stop granting visas to people who have recently been in Ebola country.

Of course, the more you cry out loud that the sky is falling, the better the Right will do in the upcoming elections, so, I won't be surprised if I continue to hear the fear-mongering.

Click to expand...

I wonder how many people have actually arrived here with Ebola.

Misterveritis said:

Ah, I see. I don't believe you. I don't believe you believe you. You may go there. I encourage you to do so. Just don't plan on coming back until after you have been out of ebola country for a while.

If you are American you can pay to be isolated for three weeks. If you are not you may not come here for much longer.

Click to expand...

Well, I could believe health experts and those who have been involved in multiple outbreaks of various diseases and do this kind of thing as a career, OR random partisan internet guy and ignoramuses on cable news and talk radio.

It's a tough decision but I'll go with the experts.

And, yes, I believe me. Can't imagine any point of lying on a debate forum. There's always going to be someone on the other side of the issue.

You packed alot in here, so I am going to break it up a bit to address it properly...

GreatNews2night said:

I'm not in denial, I'm following this situation very carefully. First of all - the odds that Ebola will suddenly turn airborne are miniscule, according to all serious scientists.

Click to expand...

This is a disturbing opening, and one that may be your opinion but not one that anyone looking for rational discussion of the situation would consider as well meaning debate...First, You personally can't speak to the odds, you are not a trained physician, or virologist as far as I know. Second, your use speaking to "all serious scientists" is dismissive blather that makes one roll their eyes...IOW, if a scientist doesn't say what you believe you dismiss them as un-serious...Shame on you.

Look, has HIV ever turned airborne? What about hepatitis B? What about hepatitis C? Viruses that are only transmitted by bodily fluids tend to remain so.

Click to expand...

Every viral disease is different, and acts differently. It is crazy to think that because HIV isn't airborne, that another can't become airborne. That is a silly comparison.

Therefore, all the airborne talk is nothing other than hysteria and fear-mongering. Ebola is NOT airborne.

Click to expand...

Maybe some of it yeah....I for one am not at this point overly concerned that the cases we see in America will become airborne, or out of control, but that doesn't mean that it never could, or that at some point this could get away from officials, and part of the concern today is that we are not being told the truth.

Ebola DOES NOT propagate easily in a developed country that has a decent health system and can isolate contacts.

Click to expand...

Good. But I doubt that the disease differentiates between 1st world, and 3rd world...But I am glad you brought up contacts. This is what I am talking about here...People like this NY Doc. comes back in, and goes for a run, goes to work out, goes bowling, and takes an Ubercar around...Now they say they are contacting 4 people, but who the hell knows? It is irresponsible not to have him have had to identify, and be stopped BEFORE he had the chance to act in the irresponsible manner he did.

Look, not even the family of Mr. Duncan contracted Ebola from him, much less the general public that had no contact with him. Only two nurses of the 170 some people in the hospital who got in contact with him and treated him directly, contracted the disease, apparently through not following proper protocol.

Click to expand...

Thank God...I believe that was pure luck.

Learning from this mistake, the protocol has been tightened up.

Click to expand...

So they say. We shall see.

I won't be surprised if no health care worker contracts it from the NY doctor, now that the protocol is tight. Emory Hospital, Nebraska, and the NIH hospital in Maryland, all successfully treated Ebola patients and no health care worker got sick there (because they were following proper protocol, unlike a small community hospital in Dallas).

Click to expand...

I hope you're right...The problem is that when you're wrong, the people you were wrong about will die.

Were there mistakes made? Yes, this disease shouldn't be treated in unprepared small community hospitals by well-meaning, but poorly trained nurses. The two victims of this mistake are now Ebola-free. From now on I believe things will be tighter.

Click to expand...

They are Ebola free as far as you know right now...There is some speculation within the scientific community that the incubation period may be longer than 21days...

So, get this in your head

Click to expand...

Don't talk to me like that...You don't know me, and wouldn't talk like that to my face so knock it off or we are done, Got it?

One foreigner died. He did not receive the treatments our fellow Americans have been receiving (which is ethically questionable but that's another story). ALL fellow American citizens who contracted Ebola while trying to help patients, have been successfully treated and got cured.

Click to expand...

That you know of...I hope you're right.

In view of all of the above, don't you think that the fear has been excessive?

Click to expand...

I think the so called "fear" has been hyped by liberals looking to label, mock, and stifle real concern...

Can you say in all confidence that the people who spread the fear, fan the fire, and yell out loud that Obama is trying to bring down America by not restricting flights, aren't actually speaking from a political agenda? Be honest, can you?

Click to expand...

No more than liberals ready to scream racism at every FUBAR situation that proves our government dropped the ball, especially as you alluded to earlier in this post alone...

Is this a scary disease? You bet. Are we in danger of walking out of the house and contracting Ebola tomorrow? No...But that doesn't mean that we need smug, arrogant, dismissive bull**** from liberals that think they know it all, and to date sure look like every damned thing catches them by surprise.

j-mac said:

First, You personally can't speak to the odds, you are not a trained physician, or virologist as far as I know. Second, your use speaking to "all serious scientists" is dismissive blather that makes one roll their eyes...IOW, if a scientist doesn't say what you believe you dismiss them as un-serious...Shame on you.

Click to expand...

See your double standard. You made assumptions about my knowledge of virology or lack thereof, and then you say this:

Don't talk to me like that...You don't know me

Click to expand...

Well, you also don't know me. I assure you, I know a lot more about virology than you assume. Since I don't believe in pulling rank and talking about personal expertise in the Internet because nothing can be proven (this is an anonymous site and I certainly prefer to keep my private information, well, private), I won't say more; but I will say this: you are *completely* wrong when you assume I don't know my virology.

Every viral disease is different, and acts differently. It is crazy to think that because HIV isn't airborne, that another can't become airborne. That is a silly comparison.

Click to expand...

You are wrong. Viruses can be clustered in classes and within the classes they do behave similarly. I repeat, Ebola is NOT an airborne virus, and significant chances that it will become one only exist in the wild dreams of non-serious scientists who want publicity. Ebola is not a new phenomenon. It's been around, and it is not airborne. Period.

No more than liberals ready to scream racism at every FUBAR situation that proves our government dropped the ball

Click to expand...

I'm only slightly liberal. In this Ebola "crisis" however I can clearly see what the Right is doing, and it isn't pretty.

----------

Edit: Oh, and I forgot:

You said:

But I doubt that the disease differentiates between 1st world, and 3rd world...

Click to expand...

Oh wow. And *I'm* the one who doesn't know virology and epidemiology, in your opinion.

Try this:

An index case happens in West Africa. It rapidly spreads to family members. People don't use hospitals. No resources exist to isolate people, who live in dire sanitary conditions. People die like flies. The dead are touched extensively by family members in their rituals. Many more people contract it. The disease spreads like wild fire. Ignorant masses break into hospitals and take the patients out of hospitals, think the infection is a joke. Meanwhile more than half the health care providers die of the disease. Soon thousands of cases develop and it's projected that by January the number of new cases will reach 10,000 per week. Mortality is at 70%.



The virus makes its entrance in America. One case infects two nurses out of the 170 people who cared for the patient. The two nurses are treated with advanced experimental medications and the serum of recovered patients. In a matter of days the virus is gone from their bodies and they recover. ALL other Americans similarly treated survive (a death rate of 0% as compared to 70% in Africa). No general public spread is seen.

OK... according to you there is no epidemiological difference between transmission rates and mortality in the first world and third world, huh? :roll:

And then... you question *my* knowledge of these matters.

Good one. :lamo

Tell me another good joke, please.

GreatNews2night said:

See your double standard. You made assumptions about my knowledge of virology or lack thereof, and then you say this:


Well, you also don't know me. I assure you, I know a lot more about virology than you assume. Since I don't believe in pulling rank and talking about personal expertise in the Internet because nothing can be proven (this is an anonymous site and I certainly prefer to keep my private information, well, private), I won't say more; but I will say this: you are *completely* wrong when you assume I don't know my virology.


You are wrong. Viruses can be clustered in classes and within the classes they do behave similarly. I repeat, Ebola is NOT an airborne virus, and significant chances that it will become one only exist in the wild dreams of non-serious scientists who want publicity. Ebola is not a new phenomenon. It's been around, and it is not airborne. Period.


I'm only slightly liberal. In this Ebola "crisis" however I can clearly see what the Right is doing, and it isn't pretty.

Click to expand...

First off, I didn't chastise you with puffed chest Internet tough talk...So your attempt to pull the double standard crap doesn't fly...Second you completely failed to address the talking point crap you spew in speaking of "non serious" scientists and such, then DO IT AGAIN...Amazing...Third, as for pulling rank you have a point in it being the internet, and little can be proven, but I think it is easy to read the writing of an educated man, and I am sorry if I am assuming, but your writing doesn't smack of Dr. or professional in the ID field to me, it does however speak of someone trying to be clever and sound like they know what they are talking about when doing little but spewing liberal talking points...That's just my opinion....Oh, and save the attack, it doesn't matter to me what you think.

Ontologuy said:

It's also possible that the two healthcare workers were contaminated when Duncan first walked into the hospital on Thursday, September 25th, as they began showing symptoms well within the 2 to 21 days incubation period since Duncan's first visit.

There are only 2 out of 76+ healthcare workers who treated Duncan who've come down with Ebola so far.

If the hospital procedures were insufficient, it is reasonable to think that many more people who treated Duncan once he was hospitalized would have shown symptoms by now.

This points more to contracting the virus from Duncan's initial visit, when only a few workers might have been both on duty and serving duty in the ER at the time.

Click to expand...

2 Out of 76+ sounds good...

But, from a epidemiological tracking model point of view, you look at it from a Case (Infected Person) and its Offspring Cases.

So 1->2->4->8->16...

Now, as Epidemics go, that's not bad at all.

More common are 1->16->256->4096.

Still, for the hospital treatment to be practical, It actually has to be less than Unity.

1->0.5->0.25

Meaning, that only one of every two cases creates a new case.

Anything above unity, from an Epidemic Control perspective, is a recipe for disaster.

-

JasperL said:

Well, I could believe health experts and those who have been involved in multiple outbreaks of various diseases and do this kind of thing as a career, OR random partisan internet guy and ignoramuses on cable news and talk radio.

It's a tough decision but I'll go with the experts.

And, yes, I believe me. Can't imagine any point of lying on a debate forum. There's always going to be someone on the other side of the issue.

Click to expand...

I am sure you will go where your heart leads you. If you believe that preventing potentially Ebola-infected people from selecting the US as a flight destination will magically have an impact on people going to Ebola country then no one will be able to follow your logic nor convince you of the error of your ways.

It may be my own failings. You do not appear to be stupid. The only other thing I can think of is intentional dishonesty.

Maybe like Obola/Ebama and the Democrats you want to keep our borders open so you can change the electorate to one more of your liking.

j-mac said:

First off, I didn't chastise you with puffed chest Internet tough talk...So your attempt to pull the double standard crap doesn't fly...Second you completely failed to address the talking point crap you spew in speaking of "non serious" scientists and such, then DO IT AGAIN...Amazing...Third, as for pulling rank you have a point in it being the internet, and little can be proven, but I think it is easy to read the writing of an educated man, and I am sorry if I am assuming, but your writing doesn't smack of Dr. or professional in the ID field to me, it does however speak of someone trying to be clever and sound like they know what they are talking about when doing little but spewing liberal talking points...That's just my opinion....Oh, and save the attack, it doesn't matter to me what you think.

Click to expand...

He had an infection once...

JasperL said:

And flight and other travel restrictions make it harder to get aid and workers and supplies to the region, and that's where the outbreak will have to controlled.

Click to expand...

Here we go again with this pitiful excuse.

j-mac said:

Is this a scary disease? You bet. Are we in danger of walking out of the house and contracting Ebola tomorrow? No...But that doesn't mean that we need smug, arrogant, dismissive bull**** from liberals that think they know it all, and to date sure look like every damned thing catches them by surprise.

Click to expand...

Liberals care less about serious situations until they become nearly uncontrollable.
Example? Obama and his slow military response to ISIS' spread across Iraq and Syria.

Roadvirus said:

Liberals care less about serious situations until they become nearly uncontrollable.
Example? Obama and his slow military response to ISIS' spread across Iraq and Syria.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I think that at the end of an 8 year stint in power, when they are at the end of their destructive terms, they set this **** up so that when the next Republican President gets in they can just blame it all on them....

j-mac said:

First off, I didn't chastise you with puffed chest Internet tough talk...So your attempt to pull the double standard crap doesn't fly...Second you completely failed to address the talking point crap you spew in speaking of "non serious" scientists and such, then DO IT AGAIN...Amazing...Third, as for pulling rank you have a point in it being the internet, and little can be proven, but I think it is easy to read the writing of an educated man, and I am sorry if I am assuming, but your writing doesn't smack of Dr. or professional in the ID field to me, it does however speak of someone trying to be clever and sound like they know what they are talking about when doing little but spewing liberal talking points...That's just my opinion....Oh, and save the attack, it doesn't matter to me what you think.

Click to expand...

It's almost funny how wrong you are about my supposed lack of expertise (and it is even funnier when we consider your blunder about infectious diseases behaving the same way in the First an Third worlds. As for my writing, English is not my primary language so I'm naturally less articulate in it. It's actually the fifth language that I learned. Oh well, you won't believe it either, and like you, I couldn't care less. Have a nice day, sir.

GreatNews2night said:

It's almost funny how wrong you are about my supposed lack of expertise (and it is even funnier when we consider your blunder about infectious diseases behaving the same way in the First an Third worlds. As for my writing, English is not my primary language so I'm naturally less articulate in it. It's actually the fifth language that I learned. Oh well, you won't believe it either, and like you, I couldn't care less. Have a nice day, sir.

Click to expand...

"Viruses can change at a very fast rate. Viruses make more of themselves, the only known way a virus can make more of itself is by taking over the host cell. The virus have to develop quicker then their host cell. If the virus doesn't develop quicker then their host, the host would develop to where a virus wouldn't be able to take over other cells. The viruses have to stay ahead of the game to survive. Viruses have to have their host around to make more of themselves. Every new cell will have a copy of the virus in it causing the virus to spread quickly. The virus changes in the same way that it spreads, when the infected cell reproduces sometimes they're are not always exact copy's somethings are left out or added to the virus causing it to mutate over time. The mutation can cause the virus to die or become even stronger. Mutation is when the DNA or RNA of the genetic material is being changed. The ability to change from one host to the next or one organism to the next is one characteristic that has given the flu virus a long life and almost impossible to destroy. Mutations happen when the DNA of a single cell gets changed. One problem with viruses spreading and changing is having to have a fresh host to take over. Viruses can also spread and mutate during fertilization. The virus mutates in only the egg or sperm cell so when the cell starts to reproduce it will be infected with the virus."

https://sites.google.com/a/fivestarschools.org/how-does-a-virus-change/

Hmmm...I am not sure what your training is, but I'm pretty sure that no where in that explanation did I see that a virus considers how advanced a country is in its goal of mutating....Mabey you need more training.

j-mac said:

"Viruses can change at a very fast rate. Viruses make more of themselves, the only known way a virus can make more of itself is by taking over the host cell. The virus have to develop quicker then their host cell. If the virus doesn't develop quicker then their host, the host would develop to where a virus wouldn't be able to take over other cells. The viruses have to stay ahead of the game to survive. Viruses have to have their host around to make more of themselves. Every new cell will have a copy of the virus in it causing the virus to spread quickly. The virus changes in the same way that it spreads, when the infected cell reproduces sometimes they're are not always exact copy's somethings are left out or added to the virus causing it to mutate over time. The mutation can cause the virus to die or become even stronger. Mutation is when the DNA or RNA of the genetic material is being changed. The ability to change from one host to the next or one organism to the next is one characteristic that has given the flu virus a long life and almost impossible to destroy. Mutations happen when the DNA of a single cell gets changed. One problem with viruses spreading and changing is having to have a fresh host to take over. Viruses can also spread and mutate during fertilization. The virus mutates in only the egg or sperm cell so when the cell starts to reproduce it will be infected with the virus."

https://sites.google.com/a/fivestarschools.org/how-does-a-virus-change/

Hmmm...I am not sure what your training is, but I'm pretty sure that no where in that explanation did I see that a virus considers how advanced a country is in its goal of mutating....Mabey you need more training.

Click to expand...

So, let's get this straight. You google stuff. I have professional training in it. Who should we believe? Tough question, let me think... mmm.... I'll go with me.

Yes, virus can mutate. The flu virus for example has different strains every year as it mutates. It doesn't change the way it is transmitted, though. Again, get this: it is highly unlikely that the Ebola virus will become airborne. Impossible? No. Likely? Not at all.

The virus doesn't "consider" anything. It doesn't think (you are too funny!). What changes is the epidemiology of transmission, making an epidemic or a minor outbreak behave radically differently in a Third World versus a First World country. You saying it doesn't matter is a *collossal* blunder, and for a person who makes this blunder to be putting down my training and knowledge of the topic is rather hilarious.

I don't expect you to believe me because it doesn't fit your political agenda. Once this situation blows over and the United States does not get an Ebola African-like epidemic (it won't) then maybe you'll look back and realize that your concerns are foolish in epidemiological terms. They aren't foolish in political terms, though, since they are likely to get voters to refrain from voting for the candidates you don't want to see elected, in a week. In this sense, do run around yelling that the sky is falling because yes, it does favor your side and yes, it's reasonable (although irresponsible) to do it - just, don't pretend it is realistic, or else *you* look foolish.

Meanwhile the second nurse is free from the virus so the only two cases of US transmission are over and no general public outbreak has happened which should give you pause (like I said, in developed country with decent medical facilities and isolation regulations, Ebola has a really hard time spreading like wild fire as it does in Africa).

Unfortunately the United States is becoming an anti-Science country. Too bad. People pay attention to bad pop science - "Oh my God, the virus will become airborne, we're doomed" - and ignore good science - the one that indicates that this virus has been around for a while and has not become airborne, and likely won't.

No, I don't need any more training, thank you. I hold two doctoral degrees, it's more than enough training.