Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have family that do mission trips to various poor countries. They take 2-4 weeks of vacation time to go. They don't have another 3 weeks of vacation for a quarantine that is medically unnecessary. They risk losing their jobs over that.
Or, they have the issue that when they come back, if they are in a medically unneccessary quarantine, they can't go to their granddaughter's dance recital, their grandson's school play, or their niece's wedding. They can't go to the grocery store, out to dinner with their spouse, or to the library to pick up a book.
Their lives are upended...for no good reason.
I don't understand why people who have risked death to save people in Africa that they do not know want to go to dance recitals or school plays or enjoy fine dining establishments mere days after their arrivals back home. It does not make sense. Are they that much in denial of their chances of being infected? Yada Yada, you are not infectious until you have symptoms. That might well be true. It might even be true that even after the onset of symptoms you are not infectious for 72 hours. Well... you know what... if you have a blackout while driving, you are going to lose your license for TWO YEARS. No one is taking the chance on your having another one no matter how low the risk of that happening. Some of these Ebola transmissions are so subtle and baffling that no one really knows for certain what and what cannot be possible with respect to Ebola transmission. Absolutely, pay people during their quarantines, I would even suggest that 3 weeks is excessive and should be no more than 10 days. Absolutely allow reasonable movement around the neighborhood but when we start to get CASUAL. When we start to ignore the threat posed by close contact with Ebola as these medical people have had. We sow the seeds of what we don't know. How could that possibly be a good thing.
Completely agree. I am not ashamed to admit that I am undeducated, uninformed and scared about something I don't understand. Sue me. Australians are just as ignorant apparently. Is the decision to risk the public safety out of ignorance better than to err on the side of hyper-caution? Who says? You? Who are you? What are your credentials?
It is never better to do anything out of ignorance than reality. The reality is that there have been 2 people in this country who have been infected here, those people were in contact with a symptomatic person at the most infectious stage of the disease.
You wouldn't listen to me even if I was an epidemiologist or doctor or scientist, which I am not, nor do I play one on TV, so what does it matter who I am? There are plenty of people who have experience with this disease, who have studied the disease, who have far more experience than most of us ever will have, those people are out there telling the public about the disease, the information is out there for you, but you aren't going to read it or listen to it, you and others would prefer to remain ignorant and uneducated.
I have family that do mission trips to various poor countries. They take 2-4 weeks of vacation time to go. They don't have another 3 weeks of vacation for a quarantine that is medically unnecessary. They risk losing their jobs over that.
Or, they have the issue that when they come back, if they are in a medically unneccessary quarantine, they can't go to their granddaughter's dance recital, their grandson's school play, or their niece's wedding. They can't go to the grocery store, out to dinner with their spouse, or to the library to pick up a book.
Their lives are upended...for no good reason.
Part of the job, God's work takes sacrifice, and we can pay for time off if the U.S. deems it necessary to send doctors over there. It's a lot cheaper than treating Ebola patients.
Can someone explain to me why Africa is still fighting with this disease (and seemed to be getting better actually) and not completely wiped out by Ebola if it is as crazy as some posters seem to believe?
I don't understand why people who have risked death to save people in Africa that they do not know want to go to dance recitals or school plays or enjoy fine dining establishments mere days after their arrivals back home. It does not make sense. Are they that much in denial of their chances of being infected? Yada Yada, you are not infectious until you have symptoms. That might well be true. It might even be true that even after the onset of symptoms you are not infectious for 72 hours. Well... you know what... if you have a blackout while driving, you are going to lose your license for TWO YEARS. No one is taking the chance on your having another one no matter how low the risk of that happening. Some of these Ebola transmissions are so subtle and baffling that no one really knows for certain what and what cannot be possible with respect to Ebola transmission. Absolutely, pay people during their quarantines, I would even suggest that 3 weeks is excessive and should be no more than 10 days. Absolutely allow reasonable movement around the neighborhood but when we start to get CASUAL. When we start to ignore the threat posed by close contact with Ebola as these medical people have had. We sow the seeds of what we don't know. How could that possibly be a good thing.
H
Plus I might add, send them to the designated Ebola hospitals, and stop expecting local hospitals to get use to this. They can't afford it.
O.k. it was only a theory. But... I don't know... it cannot be the best thing to leave it to our superior medical infrastructure to pull sick people back from the brink when they get sick. There is a reason that very little is said about what exactly goes on in those two weeks of intensive care while someone with Ebola is getting "supportive care". I'll remind you, they had to clean vomit off of a ~14' celing in one case. And even less is said about the medical bills that get racked up during that time. Nothing is said about the possible permanent liver, kidney or brain damage that an Ebola survivor can expect. I've seen what passes for "successes" by our superior medical infrastructure. NO THANK YOU, I would rather not get ill and have to be "saved". Is that so hard to understand? Is it really so hard to understand why people, lots of people, in their ignorance, and fear, wonder why we would invite possible Ebola virus into virgin populations?
Can someone explain to me why Africa is still fighting with this disease (and seemed to be getting better actually) and not completely wiped out by Ebola if it is as crazy as some posters seem to believe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
*******s. All it tells us is that Ebola isn't going to be as virulent in a country that is as far from the Equator as the affected areas are. Period. Africans have collectively saved many more people than the U.S. has. It isn't because of our superior anything. Such arrogance. We've been given the cosmological equivalent of a magic Talisman and we are wasting its powers. Eventually, with no further attention or alterations to our foreign policy an Ebola carrier will cause considerable loss of life and monetary damages to the U.S. economy. Its like wearing a bulletproof vest and walking across a shooting range. Bulletproof vests are exactly that. Vests. What is really needed if you are going strolling across 15 lanes of live fire is full on battle armor. Even then the best practice is to avoid situations of concentrated projectile load. Equipping hospitals with frontline PPE, good. Making doctors and nurses more confident that they can treat Ebola patients with minimal risk to themselves, great. Staunching the supply of new infections by means of quarantines and/or travel bans, priceless.
H
This explains it well. Who knows is your answer. There will be theories shortly.
If you believe the rhetoric I can't help you, I don't think people are locking their doors or turning all the lights off. I do think they want travel restrictions and quarantines though, and it's not a leap to think they could be paid for if warranted. It would have been nice if the WHO would have stepped up and done their job from the beginning, why not look into why they dropped the ball, that's why it spread in the first place, they aren't trustworthy, maybe we should change that too. We can change it all, right!
What rhetoric are you talking about?
If you're calling "rhetoric" the opinions of doctors, virologists, pathologists and epidemiologists who collectively have spent hundreds of years studying Ebola and other infectious diseases, then yes, I'm going to believe the "rhetoric."
If you believe the opinions of self-appointed internet experts, based on absolutely nothing but their own musings, then I can't help you.
As far as the WHO, do you think they have a magic wand? They can gather information and advise governments and other agencies about what to do, but they don't have enforcement powers.
How do you think the WHO dropped the ball? What did they have the power to do that they did not do?
Part of the job, God's work takes sacrifice, and we can pay for time off if the U.S. deems it necessary to send doctors over there. It's a lot cheaper than treating Ebola patients.
The rest, ridiculous to me. Part of the job.
This is the problem. It's not their job. It's their volunteer work.
If we make the burden of volunteering so hard, they won't volunteer. It isn't worth the hassle, because it isn't their job.
If they stop volunteering, who is going to help the sick in Africa? One Liberian county has TWO doctors for 89,000 people. If the American and European doctors and nurses stop volunteering - because it isn't their job and they don't have the time or patience for medically unnecessary quarantines - then the people of Liberia and Guinea and Sierra Leone are essentially on their own.
So the epidemic gets worse.
More and more Africans are infected.
People flee the area, cross the porous borders into other African countries, spreading the epidemic.
People with dual citizenship leave the continent, and possibly bring Ebola to Europe or Asia or North America in large numbers.
Now the epidemic is spreading.
WHO and MSF have been pleading for volunteers for months; they know how to contain the outbreak, and they need supplies and trained personnel to make it work.
So why the hell would we make it harder for them to get the trained personnel by unnecessarily complicating their return?
Can someone explain to me why Africa is still fighting with this disease (and seemed to be getting better actually) and not completely wiped out by Ebola if it is as crazy as some posters seem to believe?
You can't really be this ... ... uninformed can you? Honestly, how much worse than 100 deaths a day does something have to be in order to make you think its crazy? Ebola can only spread as fast as human contact. If there were a way to separate uninfected people from infected ones and keep the separation in place for at least 10 days, 21 days even better. We could completely contain the outbreak.
I think it is the extreme agony that Ebola victims experience, the complete loss of control of their bodily functions and the spectacular display of human suffering that it presents to others that make it feared. It does not spread as fast as the flu and it isn't as infectious but... tell the truth... given a choice, wouldn't you rather take your chances with the Flu?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
