Ebola (3 Viewers)

[jon_mx]

Why do you always characterize everyone on the opposite side of the debate by the extremes instead of what they actually say. Your tactics are beyond horrible.

I assume this is rhetorical, no?

Obviously, so it was not unexpected that Tim would continue with horrible arguements to justify his false characterizations.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Shader/Ham> Can we get some math updates please?

 

[fatness]

Fears about Ebola have reached a fever pitch in recent days. Hazmat crews boarded a plane in Boston. Traffic was halted near the Pentagon when a woman fell ill on a bus. And at Cleveland's airport -- several days after infected nurse Amber Vinson had passed through -- passenger Tamika Freeman was still worried.

"It was a huge scare," said Freeman. "You know, I'm pregnant. A lot of people touch each other."

Vinson was in Ohio to plan for her wedding. Now the bridal shop she visited is temporarily closed, the workers on voluntary quarantine.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-panic-in-us-spreading-much-faster-than-disease/

 

[timschochet]

Why do you always characterize everyone on the opposite side of the debate by the extremes instead of what they actually say. Your tactics are beyond horrible.

I assume this is rhetorical, no?

Obviously, so it was not unexpected that Tim would continue with horrible arguements to justify his false characterizations.

let me repeat: what I wrote was an entirely accurate characterization of your argument. There is no difference between the hysteria described in the article and the hysteria that you described as reasonable caution. Both are the result of uninformed fear.

 

[Doug B]

Duncan family quarantine is up in a couple of days. That's good news although I can't understand how the nurses got it and they didn't.

A lot of people out there wonder about this, but there's no mystery about it. Empirically, it's just turning out that ebola doesn't spread through the typical social means the way colds and flu do.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

I just took a large 401k loan knowing I'll never have to pay it back because I'll be deads0r. Genius amiright?

 

[The Commish]

Perhaps not as rhetorical as you thought jon

 

[jon_mx]

Why do you always characterize everyone on the opposite side of the debate by the extremes instead of what they actually say. Your tactics are beyond horrible.

I assume this is rhetorical, no?

Obviously, so it was not unexpected that Tim would continue with horrible arguements to justify his false characterizations.

let me repeat: what I wrote was an entirely accurate characterization of your argument. There is no difference between the hysteria described in the article and the hysteria that you described as reasonable caution. Both are the result of uninformed fear.

You seriously don't understand the difference in a country where there are three cases and all of them are put in isolation and all people who had any contact are being closely monitored.....vs. poor countries where most people are left untreated, taken care of by family members who are not trained or properly protected and dead bodies being discarded into rivers. They really don't even know how many cases there are in places like Liberia. It is a different world and the threat of the virus being spread there is very real and the extent is unknown. The situation there is out of control. We must isolate the problem as much as possible and help them eliminate it at the source before it spreads elsewhere. Trying to compare the situation that is going on in the US to West Africa is asinine and you know it.

 

[jon_mx]

Yep....it is exactly the same.

Liberia

The WHO says the outbreak in Liberia is by far the most worrisome.

Approximately 2,500 people have died there, according to health officials, but that figure is almost certainly higher. Some families are reportedly hiding deaths to circumvent the government's mandatory cremation policy.

"The true number of deaths will likely never be known, as bodies in the notoriously poor, filthy and overcrowded West Point slum, in the capital, Monrovia, have simply been thrown into the two nearby rivers," the WHO said last month.

According to the organization, new cases are increasing exponentially and there are many more patients than beds.

Further complicating efforts there, health workers have threatened to strike over pay and unsafe working conditions.

"I don't want to strike, but the President (of Liberia) has to listen," said Moses, the doctor. "You don't want to have angry people knocking at your doors during this kind of emergency situation, so the President has to listen and act very fast."

Sierra Leone

In terms of sheer numbers, Sierra Leone is second hardest-hit by the Ebola outbreak. Close to 1,200 people have died there.

Among the dead are doctors and nurses, which slows down the country's capacity to respond.

Every district is affected, according to Doctors Without Borders, or MSF. The government has put five districts under quarantine, preventing people from leaving the area, the humanitarian organization said.

MSF also said it was seeing more orphaned children in its centers and a lack of caregivers.

 

[bagger]

I have no issue with parents taking little Johnny out of school. If the facts aren't clear (which haven't been in the majority of reporting) I would rather my kids stay at home and look like a kook then have it turn out someone messed up the reporting of African counties they were at and my kid get Ebola even if it was. .00000001 chance it was somehow "throw up in your child's mouth day" at elementary school.

With that said I would understand that's a complete overreaction but wouldn't really care.

 

[Fennis]

I have no issue with parents taking little Johnny out of school. If the facts aren't clear (which haven't been in the majority of reporting) I would rather my kids stay at home and look like a kook then have it turn out someone messed up the reporting of African counties they were at and my kid get Ebola even if it was. .00000001 chance it was somehow "throw up in your child's mouth day" at elementary school.

With that said I would understand that's a complete overreaction but wouldn't really care.

if you are concerned about the .00000001 chance of something terrible happening to your kid. I have some really, really bad news for you.

 

[timschochet]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

 

[timschochet]

I have no issue with parents taking little Johnny out of school. If the facts aren't clear (which haven't been in the majority of reporting) I would rather my kids stay at home and look like a kook then have it turn out someone messed up the reporting of African counties they were at and my kid get Ebola even if it was. .00000001 chance it was somehow "throw up in your child's mouth day" at elementary school.

With that said I would understand that's a complete overreaction but wouldn't really care.

its one thing to pull your own kid out of school. If you want to be silly and panicky with your own child, that's your business. The problem is when parents like you start demanding that other children be removed from your school, because their parents were in Liberia, etc. That's when it gets ugly.

 

[fatness]

In Payson, Arizona, paranoia ignited after word spread that a missionary who had traveled to Liberia on a church trip was spending three weeks under a self-imposed quarantine with his wife and four children. The missionary, Allen Mann, strung yellow caution tape and a "No Trespassing" sign around his front door and left a bucket in the yard for neighbors to drop off food and treats for his children.

While most neighbors understood there was scant risk that Mann, 41, had carried the disease home, rumors nevertheless coursed around town that he had tested positive for Ebola and would soon be medically evacuated. Mann said an anonymous commentator on a local news website had suggested burning down his house.

"People had this lynch-mob mentality," he said.

nuts

 

[sn0mm1s]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

It isn't difficult to catch. If it was difficult to catch you wouldn't need to treat people in a hazmat suit. You wouldn't need airlocks and several stages of decontamination to study the virus.

 

[fatness]

Pastor Tim Wulah and his Friends in Jesus Church have been working extensively to collect supplies and send them to West Africa.

But now, their work is being met with an ignorance he finds difficult to believe.

“Ignorance leads to stigmatization and sometimes it borders stupidity,” Wulah said. “You go places and it’s like, ‘Oh, where you from? Liberia? Oh Ebola!’ Because what it is, if they hear your accent, then the questions come.”

Wulah said he’s been getting phone calls, some of which are down right hysterical.

“(One person called and said he had heard there’s) this African church (which) is full of Ebola, is it true? I kinda laugh about it. But you know the person was serious,” Wulah said.

http://fox40.com/2014/10/19/pastor-aims-to-separate-facts-from-ebola-hysteria/

 

[the moops]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

It isn't difficult to catch. If it was difficult to catch you wouldn't need to treat people in a hazmat suit. You wouldn't need airlocks and several stages of decontamination to study the virus.

amazed that it hasn't killed all if Africa yet

 

[timschochet]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

It isn't difficult to catch. If it was difficult to catch you wouldn't need to treat people in a hazmat suit. You wouldn't need airlocks and several stages of decontamination to study the virus.

Medical professionals treat all viruses the same way at first, especially ones like this with a high mortality rate. But actually yes it is very difficult to catch. All you need to do is look at few people have caught it, even in Western Africa, and then compare that to the histories of measles, smallpox, influenza, etc. which I did in this thread a few days back. All of those were murderous diseases which spread like wildfire and killed millions of people. This is nothing like that.

 

[jon_mx]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

You understand Liberia is not controlling the problem. It is in their rivers. People are not reporting it. People are unknowlingly in contact with people as people are not being cared for. It is impossible for people to know if a person has been in contact. According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks. Even if it is at 0.05% of the population, you let 1,000 in, that makes it about a 50% possibility one of them has the disease. This is not the same as an irrational concerned with someone commuting through Texas. Your analogy is asinine.

 

[Tom Servo]

nuttery

Meanwhile in Mississippi, a rumor emerged that Principal Lee Wannik of Hazlehurst Middle School had traveled to Nigeria, prompting swarms of parents to remove their children from the school on Wednesday.

In fact, he had been attending his brother's funeral in Zambia, which is on the other side of Africa from Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone where the disease has wreaked havoc.

Families at a nearby high school also filled out forms requesting a temporary absence for their child, telling journalists they would 'rather be safe than sorry'.

Zambia is thousands of miles from Nigeria and even further from Liberia.

Officials revealed the teacher at Strong Elementary School in Strong, Maine, was placed on mandatory 21-day leave after going to an educational conference and staying in a hotel 9.5 miles from Texas Health Presbyterian, where 'patient zero' Thomas Eric Duncan was diagnosed and treated before he died.

She was one of five million people who commute through the Texas city.

However, the school cited 'parents' concerns' and ordered the teacher to remain in isolation for three weeks - the incubation period for Ebola, Portland Press Herald reported.

I blame ignorance of geography rather than fear. Bunch of publicly educated morons.

 

[Tom Servo]

I love that all the panicky people are starting to post that they were in fact the calm ones.

Time for us to panic?

This.

 

[timschochet]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

You understand Liberia is not controlling the problem. It is in their rivers. People are not reporting it. People are unknowlingly in contact with people as people are not being cared for. It is impossible for people to know if a person has been in contact. According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks. Even if it is at 0.05% of the population, you let 1,000 in, that makes it about a 50% possibility one of them has the disease. This is not the same as an irrational concerned with someone commuting through Texas. Your analogy is asinine.

What do you mean it's in the rivers?

 

[sn0mm1s]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

It isn't difficult to catch. If it was difficult to catch you wouldn't need to treat people in a hazmat suit. You wouldn't need airlocks and several stages of decontamination to study the virus.

Medical professionals treat all viruses the same way at first, especially ones like this with a high mortality rate. But actually yes it is very difficult to catch. All you need to do is look at few people have caught it, even in Western Africa, and then compare that to the histories of measles, smallpox, influenza, etc. which I did in this thread a few days back. All of those were murderous diseases which spread like wildfire and killed millions of people. This is nothing like that.

We have known about this virus for decades. There are more contagious diseases - and diseases that are easier to spread. However, there are very few diseases now that are as easy to spread with such a high mortality rate. Ebola is not *difficult* to catch. You don't need to be engaging in a high risk activity. You just need to come into contact with someone infected. If it was difficult to catch nurses and US healthcare workers wouldn't be getting sick when they are wearing full suits. It wouldn't matter if two square inches of bare skin is exposed on their neck (or whatever the latest claim is). If it was difficult to catch - we would know exactly *how* said healthcare workers got infected.

 

[matuski]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

You understand Liberia is not controlling the problem. It is in their rivers. People are not reporting it. People are unknowlingly in contact with people as people are not being cared for. It is impossible for people to know if a person has been in contact. According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks. Even if it is at 0.05% of the population, you let 1,000 in, that makes it about a 50% possibility one of them has the disease. This is not the same as an irrational concerned with someone commuting through Texas. Your analogy is asinine.

Seriously stop posting this nonsense.. you are only reinforcing that you are as clueless as ever.

 

[matuski]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

It isn't difficult to catch. If it was difficult to catch you wouldn't need to treat people in a hazmat suit. You wouldn't need airlocks and several stages of decontamination to study the virus.

Medical professionals treat all viruses the same way at first, especially ones like this with a high mortality rate. But actually yes it is very difficult to catch. All you need to do is look at few people have caught it, even in Western Africa, and then compare that to the histories of measles, smallpox, influenza, etc. which I did in this thread a few days back. All of those were murderous diseases which spread like wildfire and killed millions of people. This is nothing like that.

We have known about this virus for decades. There are more contagious diseases - and diseases that are easier to spread. However, there are very few diseases now that are as easy to spread with such a high mortality rate. Ebola is not *difficult* to catch. You don't need to be engaging in a high risk activity. You just need to come into contact with someone infected. If it was difficult to catch nurses and US healthcare workers wouldn't be getting sick when they are wearing full suits. It wouldn't matter if two square inches of bare skin is exposed on their neck (or whatever the latest claim is). If it was difficult to catch - we would know exactly *how* said healthcare workers got infected.

Another clueless post.

Please go educate yourself about the facts regarding ebola and the two nurses who contracted it.

 

[matuski]

IT IS IN THEIR RIVERS

 

[UniAlias]

Praying real hard that Ebola doesn't make it to the ocean.. We're all screwed then, think of all the coastal towns.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

It isn't difficult to catch. If it was difficult to catch you wouldn't need to treat people in a hazmat suit. You wouldn't need airlocks and several stages of decontamination to study the virus.

amazed that it hasn't killed all if Africa yet

The situation in Africa is far from over. It doesn't spread rapidly because it isn't airborne... however it is very contagious if you come into contact with someone. There is a critical mass required to turn a disease like this into an epidemic. It usually burns itself out in remote areas because that is where we think the reservoirs for the disease are. This time it is different because Ebola has gotten a foothold in a large population center. For something similar to occur n the US, that number would have to be pretty high - I don't see us ever reaching it, travel ban or no travel ban. I have stated numerous times in this thread though - that despite those in charge stating the average hospital can handle Ebola patients - the average hospital can't handle Ebola patients. Apparently, after two nurses have gotten sick, the powers at be now agree with me and have moved them to special hospitals specifically designed to treat such patients.

 

[jon_mx]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

You understand Liberia is not controlling the problem. It is in their rivers. People are not reporting it. People are unknowlingly in contact with people as people are not being cared for. It is impossible for people to know if a person has been in contact. According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks. Even if it is at 0.05% of the population, you let 1,000 in, that makes it about a 50% possibility one of them has the disease. This is not the same as an irrational concerned with someone commuting through Texas. Your analogy is asinine.

Seriously stop posting this nonsense.. you are only reinforcing that you are as clueless as ever.

So sorry....just quote the World Health Organization. You know, that right-wing kook organization.

22 September 2014 ¦ GENEVA - Unless Ebola control measures in west Africa are enhanced quickly, experts from the WHO and Imperial College, London, predict numbers will continue to climb exponentially, and more than 20 000 people will have been infected by early November, according to a new article in the New England Journal of Medicine released 6 months after WHO was first notified of the outbreak in west Africa.

Yeah, real clueless d-bag.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

It isn't difficult to catch. If it was difficult to catch you wouldn't need to treat people in a hazmat suit. You wouldn't need airlocks and several stages of decontamination to study the virus.

Medical professionals treat all viruses the same way at first, especially ones like this with a high mortality rate. But actually yes it is very difficult to catch. All you need to do is look at few people have caught it, even in Western Africa, and then compare that to the histories of measles, smallpox, influenza, etc. which I did in this thread a few days back. All of those were murderous diseases which spread like wildfire and killed millions of people. This is nothing like that.

We have known about this virus for decades. There are more contagious diseases - and diseases that are easier to spread. However, there are very few diseases now that are as easy to spread with such a high mortality rate. Ebola is not *difficult* to catch. You don't need to be engaging in a high risk activity. You just need to come into contact with someone infected. If it was difficult to catch nurses and US healthcare workers wouldn't be getting sick when they are wearing full suits. It wouldn't matter if two square inches of bare skin is exposed on their neck (or whatever the latest claim is). If it was difficult to catch - we would know exactly *how* said healthcare workers got infected.

Another clueless post.

Please go educate yourself about the facts regarding ebola and the two nurses who contracted it.

I know all about the facts of Ebola - you are the one who is clueless here. How did she catch Ebola if you know so much? Enlighten us with your boundless knowledge.

 

[Harry Manback]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

You understand Liberia is not controlling the problem. It is in their rivers. People are not reporting it. People are unknowlingly in contact with people as people are not being cared for. It is impossible for people to know if a person has been in contact. According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks. Even if it is at 0.05% of the population, you let 1,000 in, that makes it about a 50% possibility one of them has the disease. This is not the same as an irrational concerned with someone commuting through Texas. Your analogy is asinine.

Seriously stop posting this nonsense.. you are only reinforcing that you are as clueless as ever.

So sorry....just quote the World Health Organization. You know, that right-wing kook organization.

22 September 2014 ¦ GENEVA - Unless Ebola control measures in west Africa are enhanced quickly, experts from the WHO and Imperial College, London, predict numbers will continue to climb exponentially, and more than 20 000 people will have been infected by early November, according to a new article in the New England Journal of Medicine released 6 months after WHO was first notified of the outbreak in west Africa.

Yeah, real clueless d-bag.

Um...is that a news article from a month ago?

 

[3C's]

Praying real hard that Ebola doesn't make it to the ocean.. We're all screwed then, think of all the coastal towns.

We're talking West Africa here. Where all the hurricanes start. Surely one of them is a carrier. I feel even more sorry for Bermuda now.

 

[jon_mx]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

You understand Liberia is not controlling the problem. It is in their rivers. People are not reporting it. People are unknowlingly in contact with people as people are not being cared for. It is impossible for people to know if a person has been in contact. According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks. Even if it is at 0.05% of the population, you let 1,000 in, that makes it about a 50% possibility one of them has the disease. This is not the same as an irrational concerned with someone commuting through Texas. Your analogy is asinine.

Seriously stop posting this nonsense.. you are only reinforcing that you are as clueless as ever.

So sorry....just quote the World Health Organization. You know, that right-wing kook organization.

22 September 2014 ¦ GENEVA - Unless Ebola control measures in west Africa are enhanced quickly, experts from the WHO and Imperial College, London, predict numbers will continue to climb exponentially, and more than 20 000 people will have been infected by early November, according to a new article in the New England Journal of Medicine released 6 months after WHO was first notified of the outbreak in west Africa.

Yeah, real clueless d-bag.

Um...is that a news article from a month ago?

Umm....and the one I posted earlier from CNN was from ONE DAY ago....

 

[Fennis]

Ebolicane!

 

[UniAlias]

Ebolacane does have a nice ring to it.

 

[matuski]

This time it is different because Ebola has gotten a foothold in a large population center.

It is garbage like this that promotes further garbage.

What foothold are you referring to? Not one person (as in none at all) who was not in direct contact with Duncan's bodily fluids has been infected.

That number again would be zero.

 

[the moops]

According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks.

Liberia has some lousy exponents

 

[jon_mx]

Praying real hard that Ebola doesn't make it to the ocean.. We're all screwed then, think of all the coastal towns.

We're talking West Africa here. Where all the hurricanes start. Surely one of them is a carrier. I feel even more sorry for Bermuda now.

They are throwing Ebola infected bodies into rivers in Nigeria, documented by the World Health Organization. The virus does not survive long in water, but it still survives for several minutes.

 

[matuski]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

You understand Liberia is not controlling the problem. It is in their rivers. People are not reporting it. People are unknowlingly in contact with people as people are not being cared for. It is impossible for people to know if a person has been in contact. According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks. Even if it is at 0.05% of the population, you let 1,000 in, that makes it about a 50% possibility one of them has the disease. This is not the same as an irrational concerned with someone commuting through Texas. Your analogy is asinine.

Seriously stop posting this nonsense.. you are only reinforcing that you are as clueless as ever.

So sorry....just quote the World Health Organization. You know, that right-wing kook organization.

22 September 2014 ¦ GENEVA - Unless Ebola control measures in west Africa are enhanced quickly, experts from the WHO and Imperial College, London, predict numbers will continue to climb exponentially, and more than 20 000 people will have been infected by early November, according to a new article in the New England Journal of Medicine released 6 months after WHO was first notified of the outbreak in west Africa.

Yeah, real clueless d-bag.

Now verify the math.

Oh, and help us out with the river thing?

 

[matuski]

According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks.

Liberia has some lousy exponents

Why did you have to go and help jon jon out like that.

We were about to have a whole lot of fun with him trying to back this up.

 

[jon_mx]

You understand Liberia is not controlling the problem. It is in their rivers. People are not reporting it. People are unknowlingly in contact with people as people are not being cared for. It is impossible for people to know if a person has been in contact. According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks. Even if it is at 0.05% of the population, you let 1,000 in, that makes it about a 50% possibility one of them has the disease. This is not the same as an irrational concerned with someone commuting through Texas. Your analogy is asinine.

What do you mean it's in the rivers?

Yes, jonny, please explain this.

Families are dumping ebola victims in the water because they can not afford the manatory cremation costs. The virus can survive for a time in the water. Enough to be passed to some kid playing it the water.

 

[sn0mm1s]

This time it is different because Ebola has gotten a foothold in a large population center.

It is garbage like this that promotes further garbage.

What foothold are you referring to? Not one person (as in none at all) who was not in direct contact with Duncan's bodily fluids has been infected.

That number again would be zero.

Maybe you lack reading comprehension, are trolling, or just are really this stupid. Go look at the context in which I posted that and get back to me.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

IT IS IN THEIR RIVERS AND FINGERNAILS!

updated

 

[the moops]

Praying real hard that Ebola doesn't make it to the ocean.. We're all screwed then, think of all the coastal towns.

We're talking West Africa here. Where all the hurricanes start. Surely one of them is a carrier. I feel even more sorry for Bermuda now.

They are throwing Ebola infected bodies into rivers in Nigeria, documented by the World Health Organization. The virus does not survive long in water, but it still survives for several minutes.

Nigeria was just declared Ebola free you dimwit

 

[matuski]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

It isn't difficult to catch. If it was difficult to catch you wouldn't need to treat people in a hazmat suit. You wouldn't need airlocks and several stages of decontamination to study the virus.

Medical professionals treat all viruses the same way at first, especially ones like this with a high mortality rate. But actually yes it is very difficult to catch. All you need to do is look at few people have caught it, even in Western Africa, and then compare that to the histories of measles, smallpox, influenza, etc. which I did in this thread a few days back. All of those were murderous diseases which spread like wildfire and killed millions of people. This is nothing like that.

We have known about this virus for decades. There are more contagious diseases - and diseases that are easier to spread. However, there are very few diseases now that are as easy to spread with such a high mortality rate. Ebola is not *difficult* to catch. You don't need to be engaging in a high risk activity. You just need to come into contact with someone infected. If it was difficult to catch nurses and US healthcare workers wouldn't be getting sick when they are wearing full suits. It wouldn't matter if two square inches of bare skin is exposed on their neck (or whatever the latest claim is). If it was difficult to catch - we would know exactly *how* said healthcare workers got infected.

Another clueless post.

Please go educate yourself about the facts regarding ebola and the two nurses who contracted it.

I know all about the facts of Ebola - you are the one who is clueless here. How did she catch Ebola if you know so much? Enlighten us with your boundless knowledge.

Since I work in the facility, I have decent insight.

So here is the shocker - she "caught" ebola by coming into contact with Duncan's bodily fluids!

Glad I could lead you through that.

 

[matuski]

This time it is different because Ebola has gotten a foothold in a large population center.

It is garbage like this that promotes further garbage.

What foothold are you referring to? Not one person (as in none at all) who was not in direct contact with Duncan's bodily fluids has been infected.

That number again would be zero.

Maybe you lack reading comprehension, are trolling, or just are really this stupid. Go look at the context in which I posted that and get back to me.

Not one.

 

[Tom Servo]

Ebolacane does have a nice ring to it.

Coming in June 2015 to SyFy.

 

[matuski]

Ebolacane does have a nice ring to it.

Coming in June 2015 to SyFy.

Ebolnado.

 

[jon_mx]

According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks.

Liberia has some lousy exponents

Obviously the meaning of a constant growth rate and what it can mean is lost upon the ignorant.

 

[timschochet]

I'm quite sure Jon meant Liberia. But even so, the notion that Ebola could last in the river long enough for somebody to catch it seems inane even by your standards, Jon. Do you have a medical expert who has stated the danger of this? Or evidence that this has happened ?