BBC News - Why Ebola is so dangerous - http://m.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26835233 I wonder the governments of world are prepared enough to defend..... I afraid it will spread through airlines from west Africa
its not even airborne and its still highly contagious!...with no cure and a mortality rate that varies from 60 to 90%...
Well, the thing with Ebola is there is no sufficient treatment, cure, or vaccine for it. It is highly contagious and obviously has a ridiculously high mortality rate. Either way, since we have very little to combat this with, the chances of our governments and countries being prepared for treatment of it? At this point are nil. I see them being way more prepared for the quarantine and destruction of infected remains to keep the spread minimal and contained. I think the real question to be asked here is, with something so horrible why are we still giving people questionairres? It has a 21 day incubation period and you're giving people who could possibly be infected and not know it a written test if they aren't having symptoms? Why haven't we started drawing blood from all of these possible infected and those around them to rule it out completely? Is that not the correct way to keep it contained?
I wonder why aid workers are allowed to leave those countries! They can have ebola for 2-3 weeks without symptoms...they should be forced to stay in the countries they volunteered to be in!
Ebola death toll tops 1,200... Ebola Kills Another 84 in West Africa Over 3-day Period August 19, 2014: The World Health Organization said another 84 people have died in West Africa as a result of the Ebola virus, bringing the death toll from the epidemic to 1,229.
If I recally correctly to transmit ebola one must come in contact with a sick person's blood or body fluids, sharps that have infected body fluids or infected animals blood or body fluids. Also someone who is sick with ebola probably cant travel anywhere, unless they were carried in some form. Doesn't sound like something that you get on an airplane...
As a doctor would you restrain a person against their will and forcibly take blood from them? Is survival worth any price?
With proper treatment the mortality rate drops below >25%. Ebola is not "highly contagious". Ebola is not airborne. As long as you are not getting the infected victim;s blood on you, why is everyone freaking out?
Depending on the situation and how much of a threat it is, yes I would. I don't understand a price there? What's the price? Taking away the right for someone to say 'No, I'm not giving you a blood sample.' when there is potentially complete state annihilation to be caused at the hands of a disease? I don't see that as a price. If anything, logic would say that people would want to know if they have it (so why should there even be an assumption that a mass number of people would decline the sample?) and that it would be unanimous that the rest of our citizens would want those people to be tested, regardless, as well. People here have killed people for much more ignorant things than self-preservation.
It is what the Right wing noise machine does. Scare em and fire em up. "Them" people are just around to ruin the "Great" Americans life. - - - Updated - - - sounds about the same as HIV.
Blood, bodily fluids, I am not terribly interested in splitting hairs. Are you handling the bodily fluids of Ebola victims? Are you also this worried about contracting HIV/AIDS? - - - Updated - - - This isn't a partisan issue. People on both sides do not understand Ebola, modes of transmission, so they are scared. The left wing media isn't helping much.
World wide flu deaths: 250,000-500,000 people a year. US flu deaths: 3,000 - 49,000 people a year. Ebola: 2,500 *since 1979*. Some 13,160,000 have died to the flu since 1979 (based on 376,000 deaths a year). For every world wide death by Ebola since 1979, there are 14,285 deaths to the common flu. For every world wide death by Ebola since 1979, there are 1,286 US motor accident fatalities per year. For every world wide death by Ebola since 1979, then are 10 US drowning deaths per year. Ebola has been in the US laboratories and universities since the 1970's. The presence of Ebola in the US is not new... and the news is treating it as if is... Ebola is not readily spread, certainly not like the flu. Probably time to look at facts instead of hysteria. [video=youtube_share;5BxUHe8v4Pw]http://youtu.be/5BxUHe8v4Pw[/video]
I don't think it's as simple as that, there's an ethical debate there that's obvious to anyone well-versed in normative ethics. Would make an ideal example for debate between consequentialist and deontological ethics. Whether the rest of the citizenry wants them tested is irrelevant to the scenario, rules-based ethics makes no concessions to democracy. The issue is not that so many people would deny a sample that you'd have a hard time actually taking the blood samples. Most people consider the ability to refuse medical procedures (perhaps including blood tests) as an inviolable right. Medicine is really quite insistent on all this "do no harm" stuff [hr][/hr] So yeah, I'll as you this: is there any right you consider so inviolable that you'd rather let the human race die out? The right to not be killed without cause? If stopping the spread of a virus required that you preemptively killed off everyone with AB+ blood - would you do it? This is an extreme example - I'm trying to assess where you are on this issue.
I have only heard ebola and smallpox on Fox and right wing talking heads on radio, that is why I thought that. But you might be right, I am surrounded by RWers.
Doubtful. I trust western medical technology to stop it. They've done pretty good so far, as long as they are dealing with westerners who believe in germ theory. - - - Updated - - - Ebola isn't contagious before the symptoms appear.
And you have some magic knowledge about exactly when those symptoms will appear? In each individual???????
No panic, even if there is no definitive cure, Ebola is less dangerous than rabies. The death rate in case of contagion by Ebola is above 60%, while the death rate in case of contagion by rabies is above 90%. Moral of this? Better to get Ebola than rabies ...
It's not like you go from well to sick and contagious in just a few minutes. Once the symptoms start, the contagiousness starts gradually. Basically, until the fever and headaches from Ebola are present, it's not contagious. The news media has done a good job of setting people into a frenzy over Ebola. The people getting sick from it are exposed to blood and vomit and diarrhea from the infected folks. I don't know about you, but I pretty much stay away from those things, unless I have to clean up after family...... It's pretty easy to recognize. They aren't getting sick from sneezes or touching a doorknob. Again, if a case appears in America, we have little to worry about. Modern medical technology works very well, and we know how to use it. It's not magic that causes Ebola to spread. http://www.vox.com/2014/7/30/5948995/why-ebola-would-never-get-this-bad-in-america http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/.../why-youre-not-going-to-get-ebola-in-the-u-s/ http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/eb...s-air-travelers-need-know-about-ebola-n173366
