OT: Ebola - Global Pandemic?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by paramount on July 31, 2014 - 11:51am

Time to run down to home depot to pick up some masks/respirators?

Time to close the borders?

A repeat of the Spanish Flu Pandemic of 1917-1918 only deadlier?

Or pure hysteria?

http://youtu.be/JnQVUf775VE

Ebola 2014

Submitted by outtamojo on October 4, 2014 - 7:31pm.

This is the sound of an institution throwing two employees under the bus.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5931780

Submitted by scaredyclassic on October 4, 2014 - 7:53pm.

I'm worried about a lot of stuff but not this for some reason.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on October 4, 2014 - 7:54pm.


How will the talking heads explain this version of Ebola?

Submitted by zk on October 4, 2014 - 8:50pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:

How will the talking heads explain this version of Ebola?

What version?

Submitted by zk on October 4, 2014 - 8:55pm.

CA renter wrote:

So, the notion that you have to be "digging around" in a sick/dead patient's blood, feces, urine, saliva, teardrops, etc. is a bit naive, IMHO. Apparently, it doesn't take much contact with bodily fluids, and it can be transmitted via very casual contact, like carrying a pregnant woman with the disease to a taxi, or decontaminating a chair. And to claim that it's not airborne, as if the virus dies suddenly when mucus/saliva is forcefully expelled from the body by a cough or sneeze, seems a bit too optimistic.

Digging around? Who said anything about "digging around?"

I wouldn't call carrying somebody or decontaminating a chair "very casual contact."

To claim it's not airborne seems optimistic? Based on what? Your uneducated anecdote about how it might spread if someone sneezes?

Submitted by Zeitgeist on October 4, 2014 - 10:16pm.

"So Ebola is far less contagious than the flu or the cold and there is no reason to worry unless you are in “direct physical contact” with someone who has it. On the other hand, 'if you’re within 3 feet” of someone who has it, that’s a situation we’d want to be concerned about.'”

"As Gupta noted, CDC itself states that being within approximately 3 feet of an Ebola patient or shaking his or her hand entails 'some risk.'”

http://twitchy.com/2014/10/01/bombshell-...

That version.

Submitted by CA renter on October 5, 2014 - 1:19am.

Zeitgeist wrote:
"So Ebola is far less contagious than the flu or the cold and there is no reason to worry unless you are in “direct physical contact” with someone who has it. On the other hand, 'if you’re within 3 feet” of someone who has it, that’s a situation we’d want to be concerned about.'”

"As Gupta noted, CDC itself states that being within approximately 3 feet of an Ebola patient or shaking his or her hand entails 'some risk.'”

http://twitchy.com/2014/10/01/bombshell-...

That version.

I'd say that decontaminating a chair is not "direct physical contact" with a sick person, too.

Sorry, but they cannot say for sure exactly what is necessary in order to contract this virus. Until we know *for sure,* then we have to assume the worst case scenario, IMO.

Submitted by CA renter on October 5, 2014 - 12:21am.

zk wrote:
CA renter wrote:

So, the notion that you have to be "digging around" in a sick/dead patient's blood, feces, urine, saliva, teardrops, etc. is a bit naive, IMHO. Apparently, it doesn't take much contact with bodily fluids, and it can be transmitted via very casual contact, like carrying a pregnant woman with the disease to a taxi, or decontaminating a chair. And to claim that it's not airborne, as if the virus dies suddenly when mucus/saliva is forcefully expelled from the body by a cough or sneeze, seems a bit too optimistic.

Digging around? Who said anything about "digging around?"

I wouldn't call carrying somebody or decontaminating a chair "very casual contact."

To claim it's not airborne seems optimistic? Based on what? Your uneducated anecdote about how it might spread if someone sneezes?

Decontaminating a chair isn't "causal contact"? Then what is casual contact, in your opinion? And if someone can pick up this disease by touching an object that was touched by a sick person (supposedly, it can live on a surface for many days), what makes you think it can't live in the air when someone coughs or sneezes in your face?

Submitted by Zeitgeist on October 5, 2014 - 12:34am.

“The CDC is asleep at the wheel,” Mobley charged today on “Your World.”

"Mobley told Neil Cavuto that he went through international customs last night, and there was no thermal screening. He said he was simply asked whether he had tobacco or alcohol with him."

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/10/02/cdc...

Submitted by CA renter on October 5, 2014 - 1:21am.

zk wrote:
CA renter wrote:

So, the notion that you have to be "digging around" in a sick/dead patient's blood, feces, urine, saliva, teardrops, etc. is a bit naive, IMHO. Apparently, it doesn't take much contact with bodily fluids, and it can be transmitted via very casual contact, like carrying a pregnant woman with the disease to a taxi, or decontaminating a chair. And to claim that it's not airborne, as if the virus dies suddenly when mucus/saliva is forcefully expelled from the body by a cough or sneeze, seems a bit too optimistic.

Digging around? Who said anything about "digging around?"

I wouldn't call carrying somebody or decontaminating a chair "very casual contact."

To claim it's not airborne seems optimistic? Based on what? Your uneducated anecdote about how it might spread if someone sneezes?

And the "digging around" part was in response to this.

zk wrote:
...In Africa, where this disease is actually a problem, they frequently perform rituals after people die. Rituals that involve exposing themselves to the bodily fluids of the dead. That's the main reason it spreads so much there. And that's the reason there isn't a realistic chance that it'll be widespread anywhere else (at least anywhere else where they don't regularly subject themselves to sick/dead people's bodily fluids).

If you're the type who always sees storm clouds gathering or an apocalypse coming, this is a perfect opportunity for you to panic. But nothing is going to happen to you. There will be no pandemic.

I'm not really using the term literally, but if "rituals on/with dead people" is the primary way of spreading this disease, then how to you explain the cases where people were not "performing rituals" on dead people?

Submitted by zk on October 5, 2014 - 7:20am.

Zeitgeist wrote:
"So Ebola is far less contagious than the flu or the cold and there is no reason to worry unless you are in “direct physical contact” with someone who has it. On the other hand, 'if you’re within 3 feet” of someone who has it, that’s a situation we’d want to be concerned about.'”

"As Gupta noted, CDC itself states that being within approximately 3 feet of an Ebola patient or shaking his or her hand entails 'some risk.'”

http://twitchy.com/2014/10/01/bombshell-...

That version.

Yeah, regarding the "3 feet" he talks about "looking at each case individually" and "erring on the side of caution." And to you that appears to mean... well, it's hard to say what you appear to mean, because you're quite vague in your statements. But it seems that you take what he says and infer that the danger is more than what "they" are letting on. It seems like you (and a lot of other people) are taking in information, cherry picking the worst (and misinterpreting it to sound even worse) and ignoring everything else.

Submitted by zk on October 5, 2014 - 7:26am.

CA renter wrote:
Zeitgeist wrote:
"So Ebola is far less contagious than the flu or the cold and there is no reason to worry unless you are in “direct physical contact” with someone who has it. On the other hand, 'if you’re within 3 feet” of someone who has it, that’s a situation we’d want to be concerned about.'”

"As Gupta noted, CDC itself states that being within approximately 3 feet of an Ebola patient or shaking his or her hand entails 'some risk.'”

http://twitchy.com/2014/10/01/bombshell-...

That version.

I'd say that decontaminating a chair is not "direct physical contact" with a sick person, too.

Sorry, but they cannot say for sure exactly what is necessary in order to contract this virus. Until we know *for sure,* then we have to assume the worst case scenario, IMO.

No, decontaminating a chair is not "direct physical contact." But that's not the only way to catch it. If that chair was full of blood (likely if it had and ebola patient in it for some time), that's another way. A chair full of blood is a long way from a sneeze droplet. And it does take a certain amount of the virus to make it contagious.

Perhaps we have to assume the worst case scenario considering what we DO know about the virus. But to assume the worst possible scenario considering that ANYTHING might be true of this virus is ludicrous. If we assume that it turns into a virus like in the movie outbreak, then we would immediately have to close our borders and take many other steps that could easily ruin the world economy. That would be rather paranoid and unnecessary.

Submitted by zk on October 5, 2014 - 10:44am.

CA renter wrote:

Decontaminating a chair isn't "causal contact"? Then what is casual contact, in your opinion? And if someone can pick up this disease by touching an object that was touched by a sick person (supposedly, it can live on a surface for many days), what makes you think it can't live in the air when someone coughs or sneezes in your face?

Decontaminating a chair, if it's full of blood, is not casual contact.

A chair with blood on it is more than just "an object that was touched." It's an object that has a large amount of bodily fluids on it.

CA renter wrote:
what makes you think it can't live in the air when someone coughs or sneezes in your face?

Science.

Edit: After further research, apparently it might be possible to get it if someone sneezes directly into your face and gets enough fluids in your eyes or mouth or nose. But that's not the same as the virus being truly airborne, and it's not an easy- or common-enough method of transmission to result in a widespread outbreak.

Submitted by zk on October 5, 2014 - 7:33am.

CA renter wrote:

I'm not really using the term literally,

No, but you were misrepresenting what I said and then calling me naive for having said it.

CA renter wrote:

but if "rituals on/with dead people" is the primary way of spreading this disease, then how to you explain the cases where people were not "performing rituals" on dead people?

Other non-casual contact.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on October 5, 2014 - 1:52pm.

Hey zk guess what I am thinking since you are psychic.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on October 5, 2014 - 2:14pm.

First US Ebola Patient Dies

"Thomas A. Duncan, who became ill with Ebola after arriving from West Africa in Dallas two weeks ago, succumbed to the virus today (Sunday), reports Reuters. Duncan was fighting for his life at a Dallas hospital on today after his condition worsened to critical, according to the director of the US Centers for Disease Control."

israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/305795#.VDGxtfldXEA

Not verified yet...

And on another ebola topic: "Frieden also said that, in theory, a sneeze or cough could spread the virus from someone experiencing Ebola symptoms. 

Officials had previously downplayed this possibility, focusing on direct contact with bodily fluids. 
There are certainly theoretical situations where someone sneezes … and you touch your eyes or mouth or nose," and catch the virus from any transmitted particles, he said. 

“[But] realistically you can say what may be theoretically possible as opposed to what actually happens in the real world," he added. 



http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/219...

Submitted by joec on October 5, 2014 - 5:48pm.

Yeah, it's all pretty stupid with the whole cough/sneeze thing. I read that you can't contract it via cough or sneeze, but when I sneeze or cough, I tend to do it with my open mouth so crap flies out.

It's also reported that saliva, sweat can transmit it. That makes surfaces where a sick person might be (hot/chills leading to being SWEATY) a possible location for transmission.

All in all, better safe than sorry and avoid getting coughed at or touching random surfaces if you can avoid it.

Submitted by zk on October 5, 2014 - 6:06pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
Hey zk guess what I am thinking since you are psychic.

I don't know what you're thinking, but I know what you're speaking: Gibberish.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on October 5, 2014 - 7:35pm.

See no evil

zk wrote:
Zeitgeist wrote:
Hey zk guess what I am thinking since you are psychic.

I don't know what you're thinking, but I know what you're speaking: Gibberish.


Your world view is simplistic.

Submitted by CA renter on October 5, 2014 - 9:07pm.

zk wrote:
CA renter wrote:

I'm not really using the term literally,

No, but you were misrepresenting what I said and then calling me naive for having said it.

CA renter wrote:

but if "rituals on/with dead people" is the primary way of spreading this disease, then how to you explain the cases where people were not "performing rituals" on dead people?

Other non-casual contact.

No, I'm not calling you naive. I'm calling the theory naive.

Submitted by zk on October 5, 2014 - 10:00pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
See no evil
zk wrote:
Zeitgeist wrote:
Hey zk guess what I am thinking since you are psychic.

I don't know what you're thinking, but I know what you're speaking: Gibberish.


Your world view is simplistic.

I'm very curious to hear why you think that.

Submitted by zk on October 5, 2014 - 10:19pm.

CA renter wrote:

No, I'm not calling you naive. I'm calling the theory naive.

What "theory," exactly, are you calling naive?

Submitted by CA renter on October 6, 2014 - 12:46am.

zk wrote:
CA renter wrote:

No, I'm not calling you naive. I'm calling the theory naive.

What "theory," exactly, are you calling naive?

Here is my quote:

CA renter wrote:

So, the notion that you have to be "digging around" in a sick/dead patient's blood, feces, urine, saliva, teardrops, etc. is a bit naive, IMHO. Apparently, it doesn't take much contact with bodily fluids, and it can be transmitted via very casual contact, like carrying a pregnant woman with the disease to a taxi, or decontaminating a chair. And to claim that it's not airborne, as if the virus dies suddenly when mucus/saliva is forcefully expelled from the body by a cough or sneeze, seems a bit too optimistic.

Also, "casual contact" means contact that isn't sexual or where one wouldn't consciously expect fluids to be exchanged. And the story about the journalist didn't say anything at all about the chair being soaked in any blood or bodily fluids. While I'm guessing a patient had used the chair, bodily fluids were not mentioned, and they made a point to say that safety measures were in place.

If someone picks their nose or sneezes into their hand, and then holds onto a stair rail or touches a door handle, it sounds like that's enough for transmission. This sounds very much like a highly contagious disease.

Remember, the govt was telling people that the air was safe to breathe after the Sept 11 attacks, even when they knew otherwise. We have no reason to blindly believe what they are telling us. Their #1 job is to prevent panic and chaos, not necessarily to ensure our safety. If you need evidence of this, just look at the stories above about the guys with the pressure washer and the hiring of private "hazmat" guys from Illinois to decontaminate the apartment -- where four people had been living with soiled sheets and towels -- FIVE days after this man was diagnosed.

Submitted by harvey on October 6, 2014 - 6:51am.

CA renter wrote:
Remember, the govt was telling people that the air was safe to breathe after the Sept 11 attacks, even when they knew otherwise. We have no reason to blindly believe what they are telling us.

Although CAR is arguing that public-sector employees are untrustworthy, I think that there are occasions where they do tell the truth.

Submitted by zk on October 6, 2014 - 7:04am.

CA renter wrote:

Also, "casual contact" means contact that isn't sexual or where one wouldn't consciously expect fluids to be exchanged. And the story about the journalist didn't say anything at all about the chair being soaked in any blood or bodily fluids. While I'm guessing a patient had used the chair, bodily fluids were not mentioned, and they made a point to say that safety measures were in place.

In both the carrying of the woman and the decontaminating of the chair, you’re assuming a lack of bodily fluids. It’s those kinds of assumptions that lead to your invalid conclusions. It doesn’t make sense to use those examples to conclude that the virus is easier to transmit then “they” are telling you it is when you don’t really know what the situation was.
CA renter wrote:

If someone picks their nose or sneezes into their hand, and then holds onto a stair rail or touches a door handle, it sounds like that's enough for transmission. This sounds very much like a highly contagious disease.

“Sounds like” doesn’t seem like much to go on. What makes it “sound like” to you that holding a stair rail after sneezing into your hand is enough to spread the disease?
CA renter wrote:

Remember, the govt was telling people that the air was safe to breathe after the Sept 11 attacks, even when they knew otherwise. We have no reason to blindly believe what they are telling us. Their #1 job is to prevent panic and chaos, not necessarily to ensure our safety. If you need evidence of this, just look at the stories above about the guys with the pressure washer and the hiring of private "hazmat" guys from Illinois to decontaminate the apartment -- where four people had been living with soiled sheets and towels -- FIVE days after this man was diagnosed.

No doubt some mistakes were made. But I don’t see how that translates into “the government is hiding things from us to a degree that makes a large –scale outbreak something to worry about.”

Unless you have a propensity to see these kinds of things where there is nothing. Conspiracy theorists and paranoids of all stripes are constantly seeing some massive, horrible, world-changing, armageddon-type event on the horizon, but they don't seem daunted by the fact that they're basically always wrong.

Submitted by Aecetia on October 6, 2014 - 11:31am.

"...but they don't seem daunted by the fact that they're basically always wrong."

You know what they say, "Never say never and always avoid always."

Submitted by outtamojo on October 6, 2014 - 1:22pm.

Medical staff in Texas must be better practitioners of Standard Precautions - or, very lucky indeed. This one in Spain caught it from a known patient. My heart goes out to her and her family.
And no, Spain is not about to be wiped from the face of the Earth but nonchalance should not be the order of the day.

http://news.yahoo.com/first-outside-afri...

Submitted by zk on October 6, 2014 - 1:38pm.

outtamojo wrote:
Medical staff in Texas must be better practitioners of Standard Precautions - or, very lucky indeed. This one in Spain caught it from a known patient. My heart goes out to her and her family.
And no, Spain is not about to be wiped from the face of the Earth but nonchalance should not be the order of the day.

http://news.yahoo.com/first-outside-africa-nurse-spain-hospital-contracts-ebola-174043185.html

Concur. Nonchalance greatly increases the chance of new cases of the disease.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 6, 2014 - 8:01pm.

Anthony Fauci, going on 74, of NIH, has been on our TV screens for decades now. He still looks the same. He must be doing something right to stay in good health.

Submitted by CA renter on October 7, 2014 - 2:05am.

harvey wrote:
CA renter wrote:
Remember, the govt was telling people that the air was safe to breathe after the Sept 11 attacks, even when they knew otherwise. We have no reason to blindly believe what they are telling us.

Although CAR is arguing that public-sector employees are untrustworthy, I think that there are occasions where they do tell the truth.

Wise Piggs have told me not to engage with you because of the way you troll and distort other posters' words, but I'm going to (regretfully, I'm sure) ignore their advice, once again.

I've never said that public sector employees are untrustworthy. Your claim here is another perfect example of your intentional distortions.

The people who come up with the propaganda spread via the MSM are rarely public employees. And those who are "public employees" are not boots-on-the ground workers or union members; they are at the very top of the hierarchy. They are usually elected officials or their appointees, and they are the mouthpieces of those who control the government...these politicians and their corporate masters are NOT union members (making this clear because your intention is always to disparage the unions and union employees).

Yes, some (almost always high-placed) govt officials lie to the public, but it's usually because their are doing the bidding of their corporate masters and the financial elite. FYI, public officials are distinct from public employees in most cases:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-s...

Just so you can better understand the conversations, when I refer to "the government," I'm referring to public officials and their appointees (and, by default, their corporate masters). When referring to public employees, I use the following terms: public (sector) employees, public sector unions (or union members), boots-on-the-ground workers, etc. When I'm writing about public sector employees as it pertains to a particular group, I usually refer to their particular jobs/titles (teachers, cops, firefighters, nurses, librarians, etc.).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.