View Single Post
      10-27-2014, 12:19 PM   #64
Dalko43
Captain
166
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
The number is somewhat uncertain, but your low estimate is just fine. It doesn't change the point at all.

Number of people infected here with the flu. Millions, it's highly contagious. Number of people who die of the flu every year. 23,000.

Number of people infected here with Ebola. 2, both health care workers in close contact, who likely did not have adequate protection. No one has been infected through casual contact. It's not very contagious, at all. Number of people infected here who've died. Zero. The survival rate so far is 100%.
A lot more people do die from the flu...how many of them are elderly and have weak immune systems or other diseases that exacerbate that illness would be a good question to answer. But I don't disagree with that statistic of 23k people dying annually (at least its more truthful than what you claimed earlier).

However that does not mitigate the threat of Ebola. It is actually very contagious, albeit in a different sort of way from the flu. That's why so many aid workers have contracted the virus despite having worn protective gear.

It also does have a much higher mortality rate (50% versus the Flu's sub 1%) and no known cure, unlike the Flu...which is why Ebola presents a bigger threat than the Flu. Honestly I think any sane person would chose to have the Flu rather than have Ebola.

We have actually had one person die here in the US:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0HX1OK20141008

So the survival rate in the US is not 100%, and even if it was, that is not indicative of the disease's overall damage potential. You are greatly misrepresenting the threat of Ebola when you say bullshit like that.

I have no worries of a country-wide Ebola epidemic, but let's be real...Ebola is a more dangerous virus to to have than the Flu.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
To say these problems are even remotely comparable is silly. Ebola fear is being whipped up by unscrupulous journalists and politicians for their own personal gain. It's beyond shameful. People should not buy into it.
As I have said before, there is some amount of political finger-pointing going on here, but that doesn't mean that this Ebola crisis is totally without risks or dangers. It is a contagious virus with a high probability of killing those it infects (nearly 5000 deaths in West Africa in the span of a few months).

To compare the lethality of the Flu to that of Ebola (or to suggest that the Flu is more deadly than Ebola) is insane on your part. If you truly are a scientist as you claim to be, you are discarding your professional credibility in favor of propagating a political narrative. Remember when you said how you 'preferred numbers to rhetoric' in an earlier post?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Meanwhile, the irrational madness continues, with its willful ignorance of the science and the experts. Quarantines. This is like closing your eyes and saying a problem has disappeared. Clearly, the best way to protect America is to fight Ebola at its source, in Africa. Volunteers are a key tool. To discourage them via an unjustified and onerous quarantine is counter productive to keeping us safe. There could be a procedure where they monitor their temperature and report it. Or something else that's reasonable and justified.

Do you really want our defense against Ebola to be governed by that expert in medicine and infectious disease, Chris Christie?

The volunteers should be greeted as heroes on their return, not abused.
You really like regurgitating other people's opinions don't you?!? Quarantines are recommended for just about every type of contagious disease/virus.

Quote:
WHO does not advise families or communities to care for individuals who may present with symptoms of Ebola virus disease in their homes. Rather, seek treatment in a hospital or treatment centre staffed by doctors and nurses qualified and equipped to treat Ebola virus victims.
Quote:
People are infectious as long as their blood and secretions contain the virus. For this reason, infected patients receive close monitoring from medical professionals and receive laboratory tests to ensure the virus is no longer circulating in their systems before they return home.
Quote:
What is the treatment?

To help control further spread of the virus, people that are suspected or confirmed to have the disease should be isolated from other patients and treated by health workers using strict infection control precautions .
From the World Health Organization's website concerning Ebola treatment.

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/faq-ebola/en/

Who would you rather listen to, a professional political operative like Ron Klaine, who has no medical background, or the World Health Organization?

If the world governments are worried about discouraging would-be volunteers from going overseas to help the infected regions, they should set up a government sponsored program that would handle transportation to/from the infected regions and monitor/screen the volunteers as they depart and return to ensure no spread of the virus.

This whole argument that Ebola-infected people should be allowed to move around in the public, unrestricted, is horseshit! One accident or negligent exchange of fluids/blood and you have the potential for many more infected people.

But I enjoy responding to your ill-informed, politically-motivated posts, so please keep it up!

Last edited by Dalko43; 10-27-2014 at 04:59 PM..