Maybe this can put some of the Ebola hysteria into perspective? Nah, who am I kidding...

So it looks like Unprotected Sex with Multiple partners of Both sexes still running rampant over there. Never learn

(10-20-2014 09:13 AM)mlb Wrote:  Maybe this can put some of the Ebola hysteria into perspective? Nah, who am I kidding...

And just what perspective would that be?

You're so high and mighty, how about actually making a point, instead of pretending to?

(10-20-2014 10:02 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  And just what perspective would that be?

You're so high and mighty, how about actually making a point, instead of pretending to?

I'm pretty sure the point was made. There is no reason to be freaking out about Ebola like many are here (and elsewhere). Even in West Africa where the medical arena is nothing like here in the United States it isn't a major killer. Even with their death rituals that leave them with a higher risk of infection it isn't anywhere close to the rampant killer that people here continue to push.

Here's another one for you...

http://news.yahoo.com/nigeria-declared-e...BureoF3GVB

They essentially isolated the patient. This disease can be contained and eradicated... there is no reason to create panic.

So : 1) Allow Africans to use DDT to kill mosquitos: Malaria problem solved!
2) DDT = More food in harsh conditions!! (Of course, you have to keep the corrupt govt's from claiming all the farmland *cough*South Africa!*cough*.). But Hunger should not be on this list. (as it's not a communicable disease)

3) Tuberculosis and Syphillis.. okay they've got to work on how to prevent this one.

4) Again, my only issue with the number they listed for Ebola is that they've had more reports of death by Ebola, then they've had "reported" cases. So it's kind of hard to determine just what the correct number is.

(10-20-2014 09:13 AM)mlb Wrote:  Maybe this can put some of the Ebola hysteria into perspective? Nah, who am I kidding...

What will be dramatic is posting this chart side-by-side with the corresponding chart from six months in the future. That will indeed put in perspective how effective the international response to the Ebola outbreak in Africa has been, because one way or the other, Ebola will no longer be at the bottom of this chart.

(10-20-2014 10:05 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 10:02 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  And just what perspective would that be?

You're so high and mighty, how about actually making a point, instead of pretending to?

I'm pretty sure the point was made.

Yeah, that's some solid logic right there.

Quote:There is no reason to be freaking out about Ebola like many are here (and elsewhere). Even in West Africa where the medical arena is nothing like here in the United States it isn't a major killer.

You misunderstand the data. Which is what I figured your point was, but I'm courteous enough to ask and not just assume.

Quote:They essentially isolated the patient. This disease can be contained and eradicated... there is no reason to create panic.

And what happens if the government refuses to isolate patients?

Oh right, you willfully miss the point.

(10-20-2014 10:17 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  And what happens if the government refuses to isolate patients?

Current protocol calls for isolation. It works. It will work here. Stop panicking.

(10-20-2014 10:05 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 10:02 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  And just what perspective would that be?

You're so high and mighty, how about actually making a point, instead of pretending to?

I'm pretty sure the point was made. There is no reason to be freaking out about Ebola like many are here (and elsewhere). Even in West Africa where the medical arena is nothing like here in the United States it isn't a major killer. Even with their death rituals that leave them with a higher risk of infection it isn't anywhere close to the rampant killer that people here continue to push.

Here's another one for you...

http://news.yahoo.com/nigeria-declared-e...BureoF3GVB

They essentially isolated the patient. This disease can be contained and eradicated... there is no reason to create panic.

Nigeria had one patient. Infectious disease grows exponentially at this stage...

Here's another link, citing concerns from the same CDC that also managed to isolate the outbreak stemming from one patient, albeit less competently than the health authorities from a third world nation... This link is from September 23. Thomas Duncan was diagnosed with Ebola on September 30, one week later (just for perspective).

CDC: Ebola could infect 1.4 million in Liberia and Sierra Leone by end of January - The Washington Post

They are in the same neighborhood as the others. It is possible as long as we continue on with the right protocol. It is not a panic situation.

(10-20-2014 10:32 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 10:17 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  And what happens if the government refuses to isolate patients?

Current protocol calls for isolation. It works. It will work here. Stop panicking.

What works here for 1 patient - or 20 that enter the country at the same time - does not have anything to do with whether there are 4000 deaths or 1.4 million in Africa. If and when that happens, it is almost certain that it will spread to other countries, regardless of airline policies.

(10-20-2014 10:32 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 10:17 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  And what happens if the government refuses to isolate patients?

Current protocol calls for isolation. It works. It will work here. Stop panicking.

Who's panicking? I mean this isn't anything serious like global warming.

But you're just busy with another leftist spin b/c you don't get the facts.

(10-20-2014 10:53 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Who's panicking? I mean this isn't anything serious like global warming.

But you're just busy with another leftist spin b/c you don't get the facts.

I'm more likely to die from influenza than Ebola. That is a fact. Ebola is fairly hard to pass on to others, that is a fact.

I'm not the person who thinks a President should be impeached over following the best available medical advice out there, that's you.

(10-20-2014 10:56 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 10:53 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Who's panicking? I mean this isn't anything serious like global warming.

But you're just busy with another leftist spin b/c you don't get the facts.

I'm more likely to die from influenza than Ebola. That is a fact. Ebola is fairly hard to pass on to others, that is a fact.

I'm not the person who thinks a President should be impeached over following the best available medical advice out there, that's you.

I'm planning to start a lessons learned thread, but one of the problems with the case here in Dallas is that they were making decisions based on the best medical advice when they should not have been.

(10-20-2014 11:11 AM)I45owl Wrote:  I'm planning to start a lessons learned thread, but one of the problems with the case here in Dallas is that they were making decisions based on the best medical advice when they should not have been.

What should they do? Base it on faith?

(10-20-2014 11:14 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 11:11 AM)I45owl Wrote:  I'm planning to start a lessons learned thread, but one of the problems with the case here in Dallas is that they were making decisions based on the best medical advice when they should not have been.

What should they do? Base it on faith?

No, Reason. Considerations about economic costs, public perceptions, etc. If you make decisions based on best medical considerations, you allow a nurse who has treated an ebola patient to fly on an airplane, because - even if she later comes down with Ebola - it's almost certainly safe for her and the public for her to be in public places unless her fever is elevated. But, only if you don't care about the cost of the airplane that is later grounded and schools that are closed due to public fears that you failed to account for. After all, you don't have to pay those costs - someone else does. You can also allow a lab worker that handled an Ebola patient's blood to go on their cruise (presumably they had already paid for it). You don't have to worry about the hundreds or thousands of other passengers wasting their time and money, not to mention the costs incurred by Carnival - that has nothing to do with medical outcome, therefore the sound medical advice is to allow them to get on the cruise.

The CDC is not a doctor's office. They are in the business of managing outbreaks and public reactions to them. They should know better than to have allowed any of those things to happen.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/health/ebo...?hpt=hp_t1

(10-20-2014 12:50 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/health/ebo...?hpt=hp_t1

By Saeed Ahmed and Dorrine Mendoza,

Why the hell should I care what these two think?

(10-20-2014 12:50 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/health/ebo...?hpt=hp_t1

And this really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is the incidence in Africa, even though we've already drifted off-topic.

I really don't like arguing against both sides of an issue when it seems like there's only a small handful that agree with me to begin with. It doesn't bother me a bit if no-one agrees with me, but I usually like to be on one side or the other...

(10-20-2014 02:05 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:50 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/health/ebo...?hpt=hp_t1

And this really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is the incidence in Africa, even though we've already drifted off-topic.

I really don't like arguing against both sides of an issue when it seems like there's only a small handful that agree with me to begin with. It doesn't bother me a bit if no-one agrees with me, but I usually like to be on one side or the other...

Heck, I find myself arguing against both sides on what seems like the vast majority of issues around here. I have righties calling me a lefty and lefties calling me a righty.