- This topic has 212 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
zk.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 4, 2014 at 7:11 PM #778421October 4, 2014 at 7:31 PM #778422
outtamojo
ParticipantThis is the sound of an institution throwing two employees under the bus.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5931780October 4, 2014 at 7:53 PM #778423scaredyclassic
ParticipantI’m worried about a lot of stuff but not this for some reason.
October 4, 2014 at 7:54 PM #778424Zeitgeist
Participant[img_assist|nid=19178|title=
How will the talking heads explain this version of Ebola?|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=300|height=288]October 4, 2014 at 8:50 PM #778426zk
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist][img_assist|nid=19178|title=
How will the talking heads explain this version of Ebola?|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=300|height=288][/quote]What version?
October 4, 2014 at 8:55 PM #778427Participant[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]
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?
October 4, 2014 at 10:16 PM #778430Participant“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.’”
That version.
October 5, 2014 at 12:21 AM #778432CA renter
Participant[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]
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?[/quote]
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?
October 5, 2014 at 12:34 AM #778434Participant“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.”
October 5, 2014 at 1:19 AM #778431Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]”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.’”
That version.[/quote]
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.
October 5, 2014 at 1:21 AM #778435Participant[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]
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?[/quote]
And the “digging around” part was in response to this.
[quote=zk]…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.[/quote]
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?
October 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM #778436Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]”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.’”
That version.[/quote]
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.
October 5, 2014 at 7:26 AM #778437Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Zeitgeist]”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.’”
That version.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.
October 5, 2014 at 7:33 AM #778439Participant[quote=CA renter]
I’m not really using the term literally,[/quote]
No, but you were misrepresenting what I said and then calling me naive for having said it.
[quote=CA renter]
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?[/quote]Other non-casual contact.
October 5, 2014 at 10:44 AM #778438Participant[quote=CA renter]
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?[/quote]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.
[quote=CA renter]what makes you think it can’t live in the air when someone coughs or sneezes in your face?[/quote]
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.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.