It's baaaack Ebola - American Doctor in Nebraska

What costs then? Who has died in the US? No one? Then all you are talking about is risk. Which is very low.

a reply to: Phage


Im confused, what do you mean?

...

a reply to: Phage

I only found the edited version of it, but it still is the picture.
www.instagram.com...

a reply to: sylVestere

Ah. An instagram diagnosis from...somebody.

Looks like bug bites to me. But I'm sure that meme is accurate.
www.news.com.au...

edit on 12/30/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Phage
You do know that the mosquitos in Mexico and ECT, carry the same diseases and more.

The illegals get the diseases by the mosquitos.

So what makes you think they don't have it and if they come through the border no one will get hurt?

a reply to: sylVestere

You do know that the mosquitos in Mexico and ECT, carry the same diseases and more.

Not smallpox.

The illegals get the diseases by the mosquitos.

Some, yes. And mosquito borne diseases are...mosquito borne. A wall won't stop mosquitoes.

a reply to: Phage

What costs then? Who has died in the US? All you are talking about is risk, which is very low, not costs.

You don't understand the difference between the risk, in the sense of the likelyhood of a negative outcome; such as a containment breach occuring and the degree of the severity of the outcome should a breach occur?

Lets try this, just throwing a number out there, say there's a 1% chance that Ebola breaches contaiment, that would be the "risk", the cost might be that, again just throwing a number out there, say 500 people were infected and 85% will die. Two different things.

I'm saying, that balanced against the fuzzy benefits you've given, no risk is worth taking.

Now, tell me that you have a decent chance of coming up with a cure, but only if you bring INFECTED people back to Atlanta, I think I could support that.

Not because the odds/risk of a contaiment breach are any lower, but because the potential benefit, a cure of Ebola are is high enough.

Understand?

a reply to: imwilliam

You don't understand the difference between the risk, in the sense of the likelyhood of a negative outcome; such as a containment breach occuring and the degree of the severity of the outcome should a breach occur?

It is you who does not understand what risk means. Nor do you seem to understand how ebola is transmitted, or when someone is contagious. The risk is extremely low that anyone would contract the disease from this woman. The risk is as close to zero as you can get that there would be an outbreak resulting from this woman being held in isolation.

This is not the DRC, nor is it the middle ages.

a reply to: Phage

It is you who does not understand what risk means. Nor do you seem to understand how ebola is transmitted, or when someone is contagious.

Alrighty then . . .

a reply to: Phage


To address what you added to your post:


You said:

It is you who does not understand what risk means

lol and then:

The risk is extremely low that anyone would contract the disease from this woman. The risk is as close to zero as you can get that there would be an outbreak resulting from this woman being held in isolation.

Well, If I don't understand the term "risk" then neither do you since you use it above as I have. "Risk" as in the likelihood of a breach in containment, "risk" as in the likelihood that someone could contract the disease from this woman, and "risk" in the sense of the likelihood of an outbreak resulting from this woman being held in isolation.

So you do understand "risk" in the sense of the likehood of an event occuring exactly as I do. What you don't seem to be able to do is differentiate between the risk/likelyhood of something happening and the relative "cost" if the event actually occurs. You're conflating the "risk" of an event occurring with what's "at risk". I've been more than charitable in trying to explain this too you.

I don't know how to make this more simple. We can accept higher risks (likelihood of occurrence) of a negative outcome if the cost of that negative outcome is lower than we can if the cost of the negative outcome is higher.


You're not providing any compelling reason for taking any risk. What you are providing is a plethora of staw man arguements against the notion that the probablity of an outbreak in this case is likely, an arguement I haven't made, and you've spent the evening attacking.


How very dissapointing.

originally posted by: sylVestere
a reply to: Chadwickus

The immigrants that got caught by the border patrol have been found to have diseases that people thought you couldn't get anymore. If the wall doesn't get built sooner and the immigrants keep rushing in illegally, we could already be in trouble.

A wall is not going to prevent immigrants entering your country. Unless you built a coastal wall extending across the entirety of North America you will not be able to control what gets in or out.

Also Ebola is the least of our concerns. We should be prepared for a pathogen produced in a lab that is immune to most antibiotics.
Nuclear war is too destructive, how else would you destroy a country? chemicals and pathogens.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Good damn it. Last time I took the worst possible outcome as it was explained to me and ran with it. I will not buy into this until over 50 people get infected.

If not, I really don't care.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: JBIZZ

Ebola is possibly an excuse to steal resources in Northern Africa. It wouldn't surprise me if those who have Ebola were given it through prior vaccinations.

Interesting take.

Those getting Ebola, Re typically be the ones who will be digging those resources out of the ground, the labour.

Why would you kill off your cheap labour?

I think they get Ebola not from digging holes but rather from eating infected monkeys or possibly humans. Congo is famous for cannibalism.

I have been watching the Ebola news in Africa for the past month. I don't think it's going to go away. It will probably spread and clean the slate in that continent. The animals were meant to roam freely there in peace. The USA should set up a hospital in gitanamo bay to house these ill and contagious doctors. Ask your self what do farmers do when a deadly disease hits their farm? Mad cow disease, bird flu.... the animals are quaranteened or killed to stop the spread. Bleach is sprayed everywhere. This is what is practical to save the herd or flock. Some issues are just unresolveable in life. What is practical must be done. This disease is incurable mostly and is not something to mess around with.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: imwilliam

You don't understand the difference between the risk, in the sense of the likelyhood of a negative outcome; such as a containment breach occuring and the degree of the severity of the outcome should a breach occur?

It is you who does not understand what risk means. Nor do you seem to understand how ebola is transmitted, or when someone is contagious. The risk is extremely low that anyone would contract the disease from this woman. The risk is as close to zero as you can get that there would be an outbreak resulting from this woman being held in isolation.

This is not the DRC, nor is it the middle ages.

Perhaps there is minimal risk for holding a single person in quarantine. By this definition, no disease is dangerous.

The truth is that Ebola is one of the most lethal viruses on earth. If escaped into the population, it would be very dangerous. You have stated minimal risk maybe 6 or 7 times now but that is only for this one limited case.

Ebola survives in the body even after the infected victim recovers. On dry surfaces, like doorknobs and countertops, the virus can survive for several hours. However, in body fluids, like blood, the virus can survive up to several days at room temperature. cdc.gov

My girlfriend was working at Hazelton Research in Reston, VA when Ebola first appeared in the US. It scared the hell out of those people. They ended up euthanizing 450 monkeys, sterilized the place, then razed it to the ground. Ebola Reston: A look back at the monkey house

The more people brought here, the more risk there is for something to go wrong. This is why we generally don't fly infected people here to treat them. If it was so minimal as you imply, we would be bringing many back for treatment.

a reply to: toms54

My girlfriend was working at Hazelton Research in Reston, VA when Ebola first appeared in the US. It scared the hell out of those people. If it was so minimal as you imply, we would be bringing many back for treatment.

Thank you for this. This is exactly what I meant from my initial OP.

a reply to: Phage
A wall will not stop mosquitos but down in Mexico the diseases are high.

So if theirs a lot of immigrants coming in with those diseases then their is a high chance that we can get sick from them.

Because the hospitals they go to, to get checked. And the ones that cross the border to our city's and neighborhoods.

We still can get those diseases

Yes people in America have diseases, but they are not out running in neighborhoods or having baby's, and It's different diseases we have in America too.

If people with diseases go out anywhere and have highly contagious diseases then of course their is a chance many people can get the same disease.

The wall isn't just going to help diseases outbreaks but it will help so no more illegals from coming in and making us pay taxes for them.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: imwilliam

But in the case of Ebola, the stakes are just too high.

But the risks not so much, in a modern medical environment.

The first case in this outbreak was reported 6/1/18. The rate of new cases being reported is still increasing per reporting period. The case fatality ratio is 60%. And this is after 6 months of containment efforts by the the WHO using the best and most modern equipment and methods available. I agree there is a difference between using those equipment and methods here as opposed to in the DRC. However, in the DRC the outbreak is not limited to small under-developed villages. It is also in one of the largest cities in the area.

I am not hitting a panic button here, but I do believe it wouldn't take much to turn this in to a disaster. As long as new cases continue to be reported containment is obviously failing. Without containment a disease like this can wreck havoc in a densely populated area like the city of Butembo. We are fortunate it hasn't happened yet. Hopefully that trend will continue.