SEARCH for 30,000 potential 'victims' of Ebola outbreak spawned by one victim.

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
It is not airborne, I wish people would stop spreading that lie. It's only airborne in that it can be trapped in a fluid that can say.. be coughed or sneezed and inhaled by someone else. That is NOT airborne. If it where, this would already be a worldwide pandemic.




posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
It is not airborne, I wish people would stop spreading that lie. It's only airborne in that it can be trapped in a fluid that can say.. be coughed or sneezed and inhaled by someone else. That is NOT airborne. If it where, this would already be a worldwide pandemic.


I wish people would stop quibbling and derailing every.single.thread on ebola over this subject of "airborne-vs-airborne-aerosols." The fact is, this disease is one of the (if not THE MOST) scariest out there today; folks here on ATS are trying to share relevant info on it and how to best react to it and prepare themselves if needed, and every single discussion thread on it ends up in a war about what "airborne" or "aerosol" or whatnot is *defined* as, *medically* defined as, etc. *I* wish people would just drop it and agree that none of us has the cojones to claim we'd be totally cool to share a hospital room with an ebola patient, let alone getting into the reasons why they use negative-pressure isolation units for quarantining even *suspected* ebola patients. Maybe it's necessary, maybe it's an overabundance of caution-----none of us lowly forum members know for sure, and we sure as hell aren't going to figure it out for 100% sure on an internet forum.

Can we please let this "airborne" thing go, y'all? If you (the *royal* "you", not anyone in particular) feel sure it's 100% "not airborne" (whatever your definition is), then great. Feel safe and move on from litigating that opinion in every single thread. If "you" feel like it *is* airborne, then great, express that and stop trying to convince others of your opinion regardless of how much evidence you have to support it, because you will never convince someone who disagrees about it that you're right, and you'll just get post-banned or get the thread shut down. We are ALL going to believe whatever we want to believe. If the mods feel like someone is violating T&C and spreading blatant lies, they'll deal with it if you just report a post you find grossly out-of-line. Otherwise, back away from the keyboard for a few hours and realize that this site has members of every single opinion under the sun, and we are not litigating a court battle here. No one "wins" with ebola, and no one "wins" an ATS thread.

Please, let's just let it go. Please. I beg you, all. I come to ATS for the widely-varied crowd-sourced research, and so do many others. And now, ebola is being turned into a "UFC Rookie" fight, and it's stupid. Start an "airborne vs not-airborne" thread if you need to still hash this out; otherwise, let it the eff go. PLEASE.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
There is nothing wrong with trying to be factually accurate when talking about a virus like this. It's in fact, better that people know exactly what to expect, than to start throwing out ridiculous comments with no basis in fact. There is in fact, an airborne vs. not thread somewhere around here, but I'll still correct when I see it stated otherwise. Why do you have an issue with that? Would you prefer people blow stuff out of proportion and just make crap up about this virus as they go?

This virus not being airborne is NOT an "opinion" as you state. It's a FACT. If you want to prove otherwise, by all means, take it up with WHO, CDC, etc. It's NOT AIRBORNE. There is no reason to flip out when someone brings this FACT to light.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: loam

Viruses thrive in certain environments. Considering Ebola emerged in Africa it would be safe to assume that it is acclimated to that environment. Bring it somewhere cold and odds are it would die out rather quickly.


With it moving to a different climate and different environment in terms of carriers, wouldn't you think that would provide an ideal situation for the virus to evolve or mutate? Viruses evolve much quicker than higher organisms.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
There is nothing wrong with trying to be factually accurate when talking about a virus like this. It's in fact, better that people know exactly what to expect, than to start throwing out ridiculous comments with no basis in fact. There is in fact, an airborne vs. not thread somewhere around here, but I'll still correct when I see it stated otherwise. Why do you have an issue with that? Would you prefer people blow stuff out of proportion and just make crap up about this virus as they go?

This virus not being airborne is NOT an "opinion" as you state. It's a FACT. If you want to prove otherwise, by all means, take it up with WHO, CDC, etc. It's NOT AIRBORNE. There is no reason to flip out when someone brings this FACT to light.


It may be a FACT now as far as we know. Ebola is an RNA virus. They evolve very quickly. And like most organisms, the evolution process is usually sped up when introduced to a new environment in order to adapt and survive. If this virus evolves to become airborne which is possible (not sure how probable), and/or mutates some other horrible characteristic, then I think it would be better to consider the consequences and how to deal with them before the FACT rather than after or during.





new topics
 
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join