Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[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.
Participant[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?
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?
Participant[quote=spdrun]Interesting question: Ebola combined with flu season. Could the flu symptoms (coughing, sneezing, etc) aerosolize the germ?[/quote]
Ebola is not transmittable as an aerosol. Having the flu won’t change that. Only a mutation would change that.
Participant[quote=Aecetia][img_assist|nid=19156|title=Worst case scenario|desc=Black Swan Event|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=56][/quote]
Only if the virus mutates significantly. Otherwise, that’s not a possible scenario.
Participant[quote=outtamojo]
Signs of systemic failure do not bode well for not just Ebola. Faith in institutions is paramount to containment and lack of it contributed greatly to its spread in Africa.[/quote]I’m not sure what “signs of systemic failure” and “faith in institutions” mean. But what contributed greatly to the spread of ebola in Africa is rituals involving touching dead bodies in a way that subjects persons to that dead person’s bodily fluids. Those are rituals that Americans are educated enough to avoid (or maybe, in some cases, just lucky enough not to regularly participate in).
I don’t think I understand the desire to be afraid of ebola or of armageddon in general. I wonder if maybe there’s an excitement factor involved. I think a lot of people are excited to be afraid of ebola or nuclear war or the christian armageddon or the collapse of capitalism or whatever world-changing thing it is they’re afraid of.
If you want to be afraid of a germ, might I suggest you be afraid of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. That is ten thousand times more likely to kill you than ebola, and the threat is growing. Not as exciting as ebola. But way more dangerous.
There are people out there lounging in the sun or eating big macs or not exercising or driving like idiots or riding their bikes on the road and at the same time freaking out about ebola. That doesn’t make any sense at all. Any of those habits are thousands of times more likely to kill you than ebola.
Heck, not flossing is more likely to kill you than ebola.
Participant[quote=outtamojo]”Not transmittable until symptoms appear” reminds me of how in the space of 1 minute or seconds milk
can go from ok to sell to not ok to sell. The paranoids have earned their day imo.[/quote]Not sure how the paranoids have earned their day when not a single person in the U.S. has caught ebola here. That’s a long way from a widespread outbreak.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Let’s say the man was throwing up at the hospital the first time he went (pretty likely), or that someone might have come into contact with is blood, saliva, feces, or urine while he was there. It seems pretty likely that this might have happened.
Then this person (or people) go home to their loved ones, go to work, go to restaurants and other establishments, etc., and the disease is spread. Some of those people, or the people with whom they’ve had contact, might also have traveled to other cities or states, spreading it there.
It seems pretty contagious, based on what I’ve read. Even healthcare professionals who are taking extreme precautions are getting sick. Just the fact that someone made it here with the disease, even though they are trying to be vigilant about passengers who are traveling from the disease-riddled countries, is extremely frightening.[/quote]
It’s only extremely frightening if you don’t really understand or if you’re prone to scaring easily or if you’re always seeing storm clouds gathering or armageddon coming.
The virus isn’t transmittable until symptoms appear. And then only through contact with bodily fluids. I could continue with scientific facts, but people like to be scared, I guess. In the next year, a hundred times more people will die in the U.S. of diseases you never heard of and aren’t afraid of than will die from ebola that they caught in the U.S.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]Confirmed, I am a complete paranoid whack Job, but anyway,
They are saying up to 80 people could have been exposed to this guy and his family.Also a possible case in Hawaii.[/quote]
“They are saying” and “up to” don’t add up to much.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
You have to admit, zk, that this doesn’t look good. How many people have come into contact with this person’s blood, saliva, feces, urine, semen, etc.? From there, nobody knows how it could play out. Did they get a hazmat team, experienced in handling this type of situation, to clean up the vomit? What about when he used the bathroom in the airport or this apartment, or in any restaurants, stores, etc. that he might have visited when he first got to the U.S.? Did a lot of friends/relatives come by to visit while he was sick?Just too little info to know how this will play out, one way or another.[/quote]
Depends what you mean by “doesn’t look good.” If you mean that it portends a possible widespread outbreak, then I do not agree. If you means that we should be afraid, I don’t agree.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]Yep most likely I am paranoid,
After he was sent home from the emergency room the first time
DALLAS (Reuters) – Two days after he was sent home from a Dallas hospital, the man who is the first person to be diagnosed with Ebola in the United States was seen vomiting on the ground outside an apartment complex as he was bundled into an ambulance.
“His whole family was screaming. He got outside and he was throwing up all over the place,” resident Mesud Osmanovic, 21, said on Wednesday, describing the chaotic scene before the man was admitted to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital on Sunday where he is in serious condition.[/quote]
If anything in that article makes you fear a widespread outbreak (or believe that “that’s what they want you to believe”), then you are paranoid.
Not kidding at all.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]OK sure or maybe that’s what they want you to believe.
Just kidding sort of.[/quote]
You’re paranoid.
Just kidding sort of.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]Bump
It’s here!![/quote]It’s here. But not for long. And not really in a way that’s worthy of two exclamation points.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Well, scaredy, the price is never right. It seems that some Piggs may choose to “make a tradeoff for the sake of their family” to live in the path of of the likes of “Slaughterhouse Cyn” Rd. off SR-67…
[/quote]Which Piggs would that be?
You’re like a polarizing radio talk show host with that attempt at “debate.” You take a person’s comments/ideas (people make tradeoffs for their families) and turn them into “people make tradeoffs for their families and live in deadly places.” Now, your average idiot who listens to polarizing talk show hosts, they can’t see that what you’ve just done is bullshit. They just start thinking that anybody who makes a tradeoff when buying a house is willing to risk the lives of their kids. They think, “man, what horrible people.”
But you’re on piggington. Not only are most people here smarter than that, but also you can’t just cut them off and have them not say anything more, like a radio host can. So, if you come up with weak, lame bullshit like the above (and like pretty much everything you’ve come up with on this thread, from your incorrect understanding of how economic obsolescence relates to buying and selling a home near a freeway to your defensive, puffed up bragging about your local schools (which, according to you, should be meaningless anyway since “CA public school districts can basically place your student anywhere they have room for them so school placement is essentially out of a parents’ control”) to your shrill harping about other schools to your hilarious contention that your feelings weren’t involved to your unsubstantiated claim that my arguments were circular to your assumption that people buy new homes near a freeway because they insist on newer construction), then people will call you on it. As you can see.
And yet you try. You are to be commended for your perseverance. I look forward to your next comment (although I must admit that I’m looking forward even more to my response to your next comment).
-
AuthorPosts
