Fear-bola more contagious than ebola

a reply to: Char-Lee

The difference being that someone who terrorizes themselves for entertainment usually understands that what is currently making them scared isn't real. Their terror hinges on the ability to suspend disbelief long enough to take in the material, process it, then be scared; but once they are done experiencing the terror, they reinstate their suspension of disbelief and go on knowing that what they just saw/experienced wasn't real. They do this to get the endorphin rush that comes from being scared.

Someone who actually lives in a constant state of fear, letting the world tell them to fear everything is truly a perplexing puzzle. Why the energy wasted on such endeavors? You accomplish nothing by being scared and may even INHIBIT your chances of survival if there is really a need to do something. Being calm in the face of danger or uncertainty is the BEST way to go about overcoming obstacles or the unknown. And even if the thing they are currently afraid of has been completely blown out of proportion (like Ebola), you just get yourself worked up in a tizzy and your real life productivity suffers as a result. Nothing good comes of this fear.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: intrptr

How many people do YOU know personally that have Ebola or were in bodily fluid contact with someone who was?

Actually, I could conceivably have encountered the lab supervisor prior to her departure as I had people in the restaurant I help manage who were on that cruise ship. Thankfully that has turned out to not have been what it could have; lab accidents do happen and when it is a level 4 pathogen one has to take extraordinary precautions to ensure it remains contained:

Almost all of these viruses are classified as Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) pathogens and as such must be handled in special facilities designed to contain them safely. VSPB operates one of the world's few BSL-4 laboratories.

Unless I am mistaken, the lab at the hospital in Dallas is not one of the "world's few BSL-4 laboratories," and as a result not properly equipped and trained in the handlng of such dangerous infectious disease; reports that the pneumatic tube systen was used to transport Duncan's samples comes to mind.

Granted the probability is low, but for me it is much greater than you are inferring in the above quoted post.



Just had an interesting conversation (about to make a post in my inside information thread) with one of my servers wh works for Carnival on the weekends, so there is me and he who may have had contact with a secondary contact.

We read and listen, and the more you hear the more confusing it becomes.
Is it serious?
Is it blown up by media hype?
Is there nothing to worry about?
It's beginning to sound like nobody really knows exactly what it is we are dealing with.....

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

1) All of the past outbreaks of Ebola have been in a local area, usually in one country. This has gone beyond what all has occurred in the past. Each time there has been a prior outbreak; there was a new strain that was usually discovered. While you are correct that the sovereign rights need to be preserved, the other point is that the three main countries have been begging for help and resources, and have gotten very little until now. And as it has been shown, people have gotten out of the infected countries and ultimately could have spread it to other countries in Africa.

2) While no one who has been brought back to the USA for treatment died, however, that was under the control over the CDC. The one case, in Dallas, is a good indicator of what the end results would be if not strict guidelines are adhered to. The man did lie to get out of Liberia, he did have contact with people who had Ebola, he did come to the USA, and he did indeed die from it in a Dallas Hospital. And 2 nurses, who were in contact with him, have come down with this disease, one who broke quarantine. And then was the people who Duncan was living with, quarantine was broken at least 2 times by them. And then there was the doctor who was in contact with the photographer, the one who came down with Ebola, and she decided to break quarantine. That in itself should be criminal. The voluntary quarantine is not working, if people break it when they feel the need to do such.

3) I don’t think that the USA is prepared to or capable of dealing with an outbreak of a level 4 biohazard. If anything the studies indicate the opposite, and these were done in the 1950’s by the US government to study what would happen and how the response would be, including how far it would go. This was part of the MK Ultra series of testing conducted by the US military and the CIA. And at that time frame the hospitals and clinics were flooded by people who were sick and could not identify the cause. Even during the outbreak of the flu in the early 1900’s the US was ill prepared for the disease and thousands died from it, and the hospitals had no way of stopping such, or even showing any preparation for such.


4) I would disagree with you, the federal government, like any and all disasters, tend to be behind the issue, and are having to quickly catch up with the problem and threat. This is not something that should be monkeyed around with and ultimately we are just seeing the first start of such. The governments protocols are not enough. The top scientists in this field of research, from the CDC to the WHO, to doctors in other countries, all seem to wear suits that are what you would see when it comes to dealing with a biohazard. The protocols they use to keep safe, is a bit on the extreme but it seems to keep them alive. And as sad as it is, the only organization that is capable of dealing with this kind of an outbreak, would the US Army, as that is part of the equipment that is in a standards soldiers gear. That mop suit, is hot, heavy but is designed to protect the person wearing it, from head to toe from all biological and chemical hazards. And that is what the medical persons should be using when dealing with those who have ebola or are suspected of coming in contact with such, keeping them isolated and under strict quarantine, is the only real way to be absolutely sure. And if you think that this is extreme, I would point to an actual case: Firestone.

5) www.npr.org...

Bottom line on this, what Firestone did, in a country that was ravaged by Ebola, to protect their workers, was implement strict, almost draconian efforts to prevent the outbreak and spread of this to its workers. It put in manpower by building isolation and hospital, used Hazmat suits, used to clean up biohazardous wastes and put in protocols that were tougher than what the CDC has implemented. And the number of cases that has hit their work force, a population of 80,000, only 50. The numbers there show that this works.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Coming into contact with someone with Ebola doesn't mean you are going to get Ebola. You contact it through bodily fluid secretion. So I see that you were fine. So what's the problem?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Coming into contact with someone with Ebola doesn't mean you are going to get Ebola. You contact it through bodily fluid secretion. So I see that you were fine. So what's the problem?

Moving the goalposts much?

Body fluid secretion, you know, as in saliva?

Saliva that gets left on glasses, utensils, plates, etc. Which, in a restaurant, are handled by servers, bussers, and managers while interacting with guests; often times in much closer proximity than 3 feet.

So the problem is, as I mentioned in my prior post, and many people I know could have come in to body fluid contact with a person who recently had the potential to have been exposed to Ebola.

With something as potentially dangerous as Ebola, one does not want to take even the slightest chance of making even a small amount of indirect contact; or at least, I don't want to take that chance though you may be willing to.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Look, I'm not trying to say that there is no danger. I'm just trying to say that MOST of the fear and paranoia surrounding this epidemic is blown WAY out of proportion.

Yes, there are precautions that need to be taken. Yes, this is a serious disease. Yes, it is highly contagious. But just because those are all yeses doesn't mean that we need to go run around screaming like lunatics. Which is what the go to method seems to be right now.

They push flu shots every single treat. They're even available at the grocery store so people don't have to make a trip to the doctors office.
This year isn't any different.
Me, I've never had the flu and I'm 57 years old. I never had a flu shot either.
If they do develops a vaccine for Ebola it won't be given to Americans. We're at an incredibly low risk. The nation's in west Africa who are and have been subject to outbreaks will be offered the vaccine. reply to: dianajune

Contained it? No it's not contained. What ended it in Nigeria was not border closings it was close monitoring of anyone who came in contact with Patrick Sawyer. It was tracking down and watching all people who were at risk.
A border is just a point on a map. There are not gates and guards. There are no fences defining a regions beginning or end. How do you close a border? If someone has a notion to get in they're going to get in. Our east coast has miles and miles of unguarded beaches. To the north there is three thousand plus miles of border with Canada. Most of it is remote or rural or wilderness. To the west there is the same issue as the east coast and God knows we can't control the influx from the south. What good would a federal mandate do? a reply to: dianajune

I understand the fear. It's a horrible disease and its from a region of the globe that most of us here in the west know so very little about. It's normal to fear what we don't understand.
The thing is there is clinical information about Ebola available . Lots of good reliable information. Then there are people who for what ever reason like to strike fear in the hearts of others and will do it through exaggerating the dangers or giving wrong information and even making stuff up. It's hard to separate fact from fiction in some instances because the fear mongers often sound well educated and knowledgeable about it all.

I sent a PM to you.


@ reply to: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Char-Lee

The difference being that someone who terrorizes themselves for entertainment usually understands that what is currently making them scared isn't real. Their terror hinges on the ability to suspend disbelief long enough to take in the material, process it, then be scared; but once they are done experiencing the terror, they reinstate their suspension of disbelief and go on knowing that what they just saw/experienced wasn't real. They do this to get the endorphin rush that comes from being scared.

Someone who actually lives in a constant state of fear, letting the world tell them to fear everything is truly a perplexing puzzle. Why the energy wasted on such endeavors? You accomplish nothing by being scared and may even INHIBIT your chances of survival if there is really a need to do something. Being calm in the face of danger or uncertainty is the BEST way to go about overcoming obstacles or the unknown. And even if the thing they are currently afraid of has been completely blown out of proportion (like Ebola), you just get yourself worked up in a tizzy and your real life productivity suffers as a result. Nothing good comes of this fear.

Roller coasters and thrill rides come to mind. I love roller coasters, but at the top of that big drop I'm scared witless even though I know that at the bottom I'll most likely be ok. Watching a scary movie or reading a scary book gets right to the heart. Those are fears that most people like.
Someone who lives in fear is harder to understand. There are people with debilitating phobias and those fears are real to them. Then there's the people who just don't trust and they fear things like this disease because they feel like they are not in control or that their well being is in the hands of others and those others are not doing things the way they think things should be done. I think there are a lot of the last kind here on the boards. We will continue to see people over react to the threat and we will see people doing stupid things because of it.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Good point. I hadn't thought about that. It of course doesn't make their irrational behavior acceptable, but it does help me see things from their point of view. I will always have the opinion that one must ALWAYS remain calm in the face of uncertainty though. Letting your emotions dictate your behavior is a recipe for disaster.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
No one would ever fall in love if they didn't let their emotions lead them some of the time. LOL.
In the case of things like this and in the face of any perceived danger I agree it's better to keep your head. Accumulate as much information as you can and act from a standpoint of knowledge not fear.
Walk calmly to the exits don't run screaming into a door that opens in.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm one of the "fear mongering fools" and have engaged in a great deal of "armchair research" so I "know just enough to be dangerous but not enough to understand."

I've said numerous times tha Ebola alone won't do us in, and I know that there are successful examples of it being dealt with, but when you throw incompetence and corruption into the mix the disease has the potential to do a great amount of damage to our society.

Things would get worse from second and third order effects (food shortages, work stoppages, etc) far before the disease affected large numbers of people, but those effects would only assist in it's spread.

Duncan's entire family (and the unrelated males who lived there?) are reported as Ebola free.

Two nurses who treated him have not shared in their luck.

If I lived in Ohio, I would be more than a little concerned.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm one of the "fear mongering fools" and have engaged in a great deal of "armchair research" so I "know just enough to be dangerous but not enough to understand."

I've said numerous times tha Ebola alone won't do us in, and I know that there are successful examples of it being dealt with, but when you throw incompetence and corruption into the mix the disease has the potential to do a great amount of damage to our society.

Things would get worse from second and third order effects (food shortages, work stoppages, etc) far before the disease affected large numbers of people, but those effects would only assist in it's spread.

Duncan's entire family (and the unrelated males who lived there?) are reported as Ebola free.

Two nurses who treated him have not shared in their luck.

If I lived in Ohio, I would be more than a little concerned.

I don't understand how Duncan's family, who had closer contact than those nurses, would not get infected. Nope....not a one. Not that I'd wish that on anyone, it just doesn't make any sense.

Not much news on Amber Vinson. One report I read said she's weak but it doesn't say if she's in good condition, fair or what.

And absolutely nothing on either Amber's fiance or Nina's boyfriend. Or Nina's dog.

The lack of news makes me very suspicious. So does the lightning-quick Ebola testing they give travelers to this country. If they get tested at all. The patients in Chicago were declared not infected even w/o any testing. The patient in Newark was declared Ebola-free with whatever tests they used, even though he went to hospital just yesterday.

Ebola testing takes several days. It can't be rushed.

I smell a rat.

a reply to: dianajune

That is because you do not understand how it is transmitted. Ebola is most contagious when the victim is near or at death due to the amount of virus in their system. So the nurses dealt with Mr Duncan when he was far more contagious then his family did.

originally posted by: blargo
a reply to: dianajune

That is because you do not understand how it is transmitted. Ebola is most contagious when the victim is near or at death due to the amount of virus in their system. So the nurses dealt with Mr Duncan when he was far more contagious then his family did.

So you brush off what this poster is saying as ignorance...............I agree the Duncan family and the lack of information around them is odd. It is also strange they can determine if someone disease free with quick glance.



You do realize Duncan was very sick before going into the hospital the 2nd time. You are in fact the one not understanding.

a reply to: dianajune



I agree that no news on either boyfriend is odd. But I do have a report on Nina's dog: The dog is doing well so far, they have just sent the dog's stool away to a lab to be tested for the virus so we should know in a week for the results. (Not sure why it takes so long) Bentley is happy, playing and looking good.

originally posted by: blargo
a reply to: dianajune

That is because you do not understand how it is transmitted. Ebola is most contagious when the victim is near or at death due to the amount of virus in their system. So the nurses dealt with Mr Duncan when he was far more contagious then his family did.

I understand enough to know that by the time you reach the projectile vomiting and uncontrollable diarrhea stage you are in the late stages and shedding significant amounts of virus.

originally posted by: SubTruth



So you brush off what this poster is saying as ignorance...............I agree the Duncan family and the lack of information around them is odd. It is also strange they can determine if someone disease free with quick glance.



You do realize Duncan was very sick before going into the hospital the 2nd time. You are in fact the one not understanding.

Yes I do brush it as ignorance. Ebola gets more viral as time passes. Just like none of the healthcare workers that treated him the first time got sick. Ebola has been described that way and the evidence seems to support that. When you say:

I don't understand how Duncan's family, who had closer contact than those nurses, would not get infected. Nope....not a one.

The nurses had very close contact and it has been reported not enough protection and Mr Duncan was far more contagious in the hospital then at home.

He was still almost a week before death when he was finally admitted..