Ebola challenge 'biggest since Aids'

[bkkcanuck8]

Well it would be a once in a lifetime investment opportunity....

If you think in such terms, perhaps, I've never thought about it.

I am a glass half-full person, not a glass half-empty person.... And yes, I have a "gallows humour" bone in me (I would have previously used black humour, but it is not politically correct these days). Also being on the edge of the financial industry, you begin to observe the absurdity in everyday things. Life insurance companies are all about absurdity.... If you lose an arm - nothing, if you lose an arm and a leg - big payout, if you die from drowning in a flood - nothing, but in a fire double indemnity..... And loan companies - oh, you need money - then we can't lend to you.... but if you did not NEED it we would be happy to lend to you....

I have also been one of those politically incorrect people that is not worried about "human" caused global warming, because I got tired of the absurdity of people treating it like a faith and not as a science (when someone says - it is settle science and therefore should never be questioned - it has become a faith). Simply put, I have faith in mother nature and a self-correcting biosystem.

If this virus turns out to be really bad as some have portended..... the climate scientists should be ecstatic.... global warming solved - source of problem eliminated.... Not to mention other scientists have been warning of overpopulation.... wow a 2-for... two problems solved with one virus...

Edited October 11, 2014 by bkkcanuck8

[bkkcanuck8]

I was mistaken on Dallas - no second case.... so a really badly handled ebola case makes it to the United States using a plane full of passengers, gets the runaround while highly "contagious" and there is no secondary infections.....

[bkkcanuck8]

I must read different articles than you. And you must have a different idea as what casual contact means... Being close to an Ebola infected person who has symptoms means any expelling of saliva in small droplets when talking or sneezing or coughing for any reason....

Interesting reading (but it is only a blog post):

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/09/30/ebola-will-not-become-airborne-and-here-is-why

Ebola does not infect the tissues it would need to infect to make its way into a sneeze or cough. That would require a major change.

Edited October 12, 2014 by bkkcanuck8

[JDGRUEN]

Dallas, TX ... Presbyterian Hospital Health Care Worker test POSITIVE for the Ebola Virus -- has fever...

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/news/releases/20141012.aspx

[JDGRUEN]

I must read different articles than you. And you must have a different idea as what casual contact means... Being close to an Ebola infected person who has symptoms means any expelling of saliva in small droplets when talking or sneezing or coughing for any reason....

Interesting reading (but it is only a blog post):

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/09/30/ebola-will-not-become-airborne-and-here-is-why

Ebola does not infect the tissues it would need to infect to make its way into a sneeze or cough. That would require a major change.

Yes - but despite your personal experience of never coughing or sneezing -- anyone who has gone to a movie theater and at a quite moment before - during the movie one hears coughing and even sneezing for miscellaneous... Plus just the act of talking will expel droplets of saliva -- for instance in a crowded airplane the guy next to you leans over and says a few words - asks a question... or wipes his mouth or nose with his hand and places it on the arm rest... and of course I have to mention the part about vomiting - maybe even right in your face on a bus or a train .... then the trip to the bathroom - has diarrhea and he cannot control it -- gets it on his hands and clothes -- gives it to you by accidental touching a few minutes as you partially stand up to let him through to the window seat... IT HAPPENS...

Edited October 12, 2014 by JDGRUEN

[bkkcanuck8]

I must read different articles than you. And you must have a different idea as what casual contact means... Being close to an Ebola infected person who has symptoms means any expelling of saliva in small droplets when talking or sneezing or coughing for any reason....

Interesting reading (but it is only a blog post):

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/09/30/ebola-will-not-become-airborne-and-here-is-why

Ebola does not infect the tissues it would need to infect to make its way into a sneeze or cough. That would require a major change.

Yes - but despite your personal experience of never coughing or sneezing -- anyone who has gone to a movie theater and at a quite moment before - during the movie one hears coughing and even sneezing for miscellaneous... Plus just the act of talking will expel droplets of saliva -- for instance in a crowded airplane the guy next to you leans over and says a few words - asks a question... or wipes his mouth or nose with his hand and places it on the arm rest... and of course I have to mention the part about vomiting - maybe even right in your face on a bus or a train .... then the trip to the bathroom - has diarrhea and he cannot control it -- gets it on his hands and clothes -- gives it to you by accidental touching a few minutes as you partially stand up to let him through to the window seat... IT HAPPENS...

It may HAPPEN, but it is statistically insignificant. If you have a cold or flu, you sneeze, wheeze and cough regularly throughout the day..... most people that cough or sneeze have a virus that causes those symptoms.... so even if the person coughs or sneezes, and even if the infection is contained in that aerosol dispersal (which apparently is not high at all), not all contact causes transmission -- basically your now at a fraction of a percent of all coughs or sneezes would contain the virus and it would be dead within a narrow timeframe. So if the cold basically transmits to 10 people through this method you are talking about a statistically insignificant number of people that would contract the disease this way (if at all possible). Not all fluids act the same way - blood is obviously the most efficient transmission fluid.

In Africa it is still a rather slow growing pandemic that would easily be stopped with proper behaviour of the people, which unfortunately is hindered by custom and superstition. As mentioned before the breaking out of patients from quarantine, the stealing of all the contaminated supplies such as blankets and sheets taking all those infected, and all those items home. The fear of medical specialists. Then even if this were not the case there are the hard-held death rights which have still continued to be practiced such as sharing drinks with the dead, the kissing of the corpse, etc. Even with this worst case scenario it is only infecting between 1.5 to 2 people for each person infected. If this were a seriously airborne or aerosolized virus - it would be a worldwide pandemic of epic proportions right now. From an individual perspective it is scary, from a pandemic perspective in western countries - it is not....

As a side note: It is a really bad time to suffer from necrophilia

Edited October 12, 2014 by bkkcanuck8

[Jingthing]

It is not slow moving. It is moving more quickly than than can be managed. To say this will be "easy" to stop is a piece of massive disinformation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/10/04/how-ebola-sped-out-of-control/

The people in charge of stopping the Ebola epidemic will have to do something that they have not been able to accomplish: They must be even more aggressive, more ruthless and more persistent than the virus - a mindless and implacable force carrying out its own genetic instructions.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Jingthing

[bkkcanuck8]

It is not slow moving. It is moving more quickly than than can be managed. To say this will be "easy" to stop is a piece of massive disinformation.

It is slow moving but still geometric progression. Flu would be a worldwide pandemic of 10s of millions of infected people, SARS would likely be less than that in the millions (of which 15% - 20% would be dead), the fact is that this infection started late in 2013... If you see this infection continuing in Dallas in 3 months, which if it follows African infection rates would have infected around 30+ people (which I consider rather a slow rate) then my viewpoint might change.... but even then I would have lots of time to panic then.

Causing mass hysteria over this would be a disservice, concern/caution yes - but not time to panic.

If you really believe what you are saying, open up a trading account and short-sell everything that would be hurt by massive depopulation.

Edited October 12, 2014 by bkkcanuck8

[Jingthing]

I didn't say panic. But denial talk about the risk now at the source, Africa, and panic will be a minor concern compared to what might happen. The time is now for global aggressive action still mostly in Africa. These countries can't handle this alone. The help is not enough.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Jingthing

[bkkcanuck8]

I didn't say panic. But denial talk about the risk now at the source, Africa, and panic will be a minor concern compared to what might happen. The time is now for global aggressive action still mostly in Africa. These countries can't handle this alone. The help is not enough.

Yes, aggressive action - drop a few nuclear weapons to sterilize the area.... Get rid of life and the virus dies.

[Jingthing]

I didn't say panic. But denial talk about the risk now at the source, Africa, and panic will be a minor concern compared to what might happen. The time is now for global aggressive action still mostly in Africa. These countries can't handle this alone. The help is not enough.

Yes, aggressive action - drop a few nuclear weapons to sterilize the area.... Get rid of life and the virus dies.

OK, I'm finished responding to you. Have a nice evening.

[bkkcanuck8]

Aggressive action can sometimes backfire -- killing off the rats during the black plague caused the flees to flee and spread the bubonic plague more rapidly.

The same thing could happen if you take rash action and cause more people to flee in search of safety and food....

[bkkcanuck8]

I didn't say panic. But denial talk about the risk now at the source, Africa, and panic will be a minor concern compared to what might happen. The time is now for global aggressive action still mostly in Africa. These countries can't handle this alone. The help is not enough.

Yes, aggressive action - drop a few nuclear weapons to sterilize the area.... Get rid of life and the virus dies.

OK, I'm finished responding to you. Have a nice evening.

Yes, I was being facetious -- but back in history genocide was a common "aggressive" action that was used fairly regularly. We are more limited in our aggressive action because we have to take into account the humanity of the solution. Closing borders to Africa completely -- isolating it that way could be as destructive as dropping neutron weapons on the affected areas.

Edited October 12, 2014 by bkkcanuck8

[bangon04]

On the bright side. The planets over population problem will be sorted out.

but the weapons industry will be very disappointed, because there will be less demand for wars and genocide... always a downside to every progress

[Scott]

On the bright side. The planets over population problem will be sorted out.

but the weapons industry will be very disappointed, because there will be less demand for wars and genocide... always a downside to every progress

Oh, I wouldn't worry, when there was only Able and Cain, one killed the other, so there will always be a demand for weapons.

[bkkcanuck8]

Here's How Nigeria Beat Ebola

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/nigeria-ebola-cdc

And Nigeria does not have the same resources to fight ebola that the US does.....