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 hope you're right about Ebola. The problem is, who really knows? You seem so confident that the risk is low to the general population. Didn't the CDC predict 1.5 million cases of Ebola in West Africa by year's end? It would seem to be that Ebola is not contagious until symptoms are present, so no one on Duncan's plane would be at risk. But once symptoms are present, it's highly contagious and that's when it's likely to spread to more people. Moreover, there's a possibility it could be transmitted by airborne droplets, much like the flu. The r-nought value of Ebola is not very high, but that's beside the point. Even if every carrier only gives it to 2 others, the growth in the disease could be exponential. 2 becomes 4, then 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, etc...
Exactly correct.
I think many here are coping using non-logical thinking. I guess that's fine as we all shouldn't turn into worry warts as much of this is out of the hands of most people. But to brush it all off as "we are in good hands" I think is grossly naive.
And right, people have to brush up on the term exponential growth.
Duncun's entry into the united states had zero issues/no problem
it was the misdiagnosis of the medical team (and not paying attention to west africa) that is the issue
don't worry about the mode of transport, worry about education and training of medical staff
The initial mis-diagnosis is a problem, but not the major one.
The major one is the infected close care nurse. And this might have happened whether or not Duncan was initially quarantined. It still seems that no one else is developing Ebola due to the first mistake.
But if the nurse and her boyfriend are showing us all an even higher risk than presumed by the CDC, that is much more of a dilemma.
Ebola is not so contagious. But extremely infectious.
And those are different.
It takes close contact at the right time to spread it, so this limits who, when and how someone might get it. But it takes so few actual Ebola organisms to cause infection, and that makes it so infectious.
Soooooo, since you believe that any Nation that has Ebola should have all air traffic shut down from there I must assume you are ready to stop all flights in AND out of this Nation since we have a case of it here, and as the many over-reactors here believe that must mean there are many more cases that just have not geminated here yet, we are a Plague Nation, quarantine the USA!
Me thinks some have not really thought out the results of their statements
I wouldn't cry over it.
If travel was temporarily shut off for the purpose of stopping the spread of a deadly disease, I would respect that decision. Certainly a lot more than the decision to do absolutely nothing, as is the case right now.
As of now, I feel uneasy about my husband having to travel even to other states for business trips. If anything I would be relieved if travel was suspended and he didn't have to.
Soooooo, since you believe that any Nation that has Ebola should have all air traffic shut down from there I must assume you are ready to stop all flights in AND out of this Nation since we have a case of it here, and as the many over-reactors here believe that must mean there are many more cases that just have not geminated here yet, we are a Plague Nation, quarantine the USA!
Me thinks some have not really thought out the results of their statements
I think there's a big difference between a country with a few known cases vs countries with an epidemic going on. I think it's common sense/prudent to play the %'s and ban connecting/direct flights from infected countries, preventing those with passports from these countries from traveling here via any means.
For myself, I wouldn't be comfortable being on a flight with people from countries where this thing is spreading fast. Sounds like you would have no problem with that. Your choice. Darwin rules.
Gotta love the last part of the article about the human smuggling networks. Good grief.
Let me get this straight. A US 4 star General heard second hand from someone who works at some US embassy that he came across 2 men attempting to cross by foot from Costa Rica into Nicaragua. When asked where they came from and were headed, they replied Liberia enroute to the U.S.
Guess this embassy worker and general never heard of Liberia, Costa Rica.
Let me get this straight. A US 4 star General heard second hand from someone who works at some US embassy that he came across 2 men attempting to cross by foot from Costa Rica into Nicaragua. When asked where they came from and were headed, they replied Liberia enroute to the U.S.
Guess this embassy worker and general never heard of Liberia, Costa Rica.
I wasn't there nor were you so we don't know for sure. I agree. But you seem to find it impossible for human smuggling to occur over the border based on your comment? Let me try....
I'd be more interested on your comments on the heart of the article from the General from the Pentagon?
I see Zuckerbergs giving 25 Million to Fight Ebola
Bravo.
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.
