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.
Hah, well that's you. Personally, if I were to pick a way to go, there are about 100 ways I would rather die than from ebola. Why should I be subjected to this risk because everyone else was too incompetent and politically correct? It is terrifying. Also, if you don't care about yourself, how would you feel about watching a family member get it? A child? Still no biggie?
The odds of dying from the flu are greater then dying from ebola.
The odds of dying from the flu are greater then dying from ebola.
That is correct now, however, the mortality for ebola is significantly higher. The flu kills about 2% of patients. Ebola kills 70% of those it infects. We have many options with flu. Very few for Ebola.
The odds of dying from the flu are greater then dying from ebola.
I've had the flu a number of times in my life and I've never ended up in the hospital (knock on wood!), in critical condition, with sky-high fever and non-stop bloody vomiting and diarrhea. I had some fever and body aches for a few days, and a cough for another week or two. I was fine, relatively functional, and not praying for speedy death.
How many people do you know that have gotten the flu, stayed home drinking warm fluids for a few days, and then were fine?
How many people with ebola do you think can say that?
The flu has a small chance of landing you in a hospital, mainly if you're elderly or immunocompromised. Ebola has a close to 100% chance of you landing in a hospital in awful condition, and 70% of death.
I dunno about you, but I'll take my chances with the flu.
I've had the flu a number of times in my life and I've never ended up in the hospital (knock on wood!), in critical condition, with sky-high fever and non-stop bloody vomiting and diarrhea. I had some fever and body aches for a few days, and a cough for another week or two. I was fine, relatively functional, and not praying for speedy death.
How many people do you know that have gotten the flu, stayed home drinking warm fluids for a few days, and then were fine?
How many people with ebola do you think can say that?
The flu has a small chance of landing you in a hospital, mainly if you're elderly or immunocompromised. Ebola has a close to 100% chance of you landing in a hospital in awful condition, and 70% of death.
I dunno about you, but I'll take my chances with the flu.
I'm sorry. I'm just not scared of contracting ebola. I'm more scared of dying in a plane crash
I wonder what they know that a lot of you folks don't?
If you eat regularly in most hospital cafeterias I am surprised most are not ghost towns in normal times. Some of the food is just as bad as that served to patients on restricted diets! Lousy food cheap coffee, insane hours and fatigue are the lot of most nurses, interns and residents who don't get to eat in the senior staff dinning areas.
I've had the flu a number of times in my life and I've never ended up in the hospital (knock on wood!), in critical condition, with sky-high fever and non-stop bloody vomiting and diarrhea. I had some fever and body aches for a few days, and a cough for another week or two. I was fine, relatively functional, and not praying for speedy death.
How many people do you know that have gotten the flu, stayed home drinking warm fluids for a few days, and then were fine?
How many people with ebola do you think can say that?
The flu has a small chance of landing you in a hospital, mainly if you're elderly or immunocompromised. Ebola has a close to 100% chance of you landing in a hospital in awful condition, and 70% of death.
I dunno about you, but I'll take my chances with the flu.
There are a significant number of people in Africa who have antibodies to Ebola but no history of an Ebola like disease, so not everyone who gets the virus gets sick from it.
"Finally, some people may be resistant to Ebola infection entirely, if they have a mutation in a gene called NPC1. Studies show that, when researchers take cells from people with the NPC1 mutation and try to infect them with Ebola in a laboratory dish, these cells are resistant to the virus."
The finding is so far a correlation. Cause and effect has not been determined.
Take a flu shot and reduce the chance you'l have to deal with flu at all.
This whole issue of restricting travel from the impacted areas is a curious one. If on the surface it seems logical to implement then why NOT. There has to be a REASON. One that does not involve a conspiracy theory or hurting folks' feelings, for sure.
I get that encumbering the movements of relief workers by banning commercial flights is counterproductive. Too, local governments and economies still need to function.
But why not restrict visas? Why the seeming stone-walling with no clear explanations? In the end it seems simple:
Like it or not (and sometimes I do NOT, at least here), we are ONE world. We are one world for trade, one world for climate/environment, and one world for Ebola.
If Ebola spirals further out of control in these countries, every effort will be needed to prevent a breakdown in government leading to anarchy and further retarding the effort to fight it in situ. If this fails there will be an inevitable flood of Ebola-carrying refugees across borders. The more affluent the are, the further they will run - with Ebola almost certainly reaching countries like India and China.
This cannot happen. The local governments must remain in power. The local militaries in control. It is they, the elite, who almost certainly hold the existing multiple entry visas to the United States. Remove those, de-stabilize the local power structure, and the whole house of cards starts falling.
(Here, wonder who the "mystery" patient is in Emory? My vote is a high-ranking Liberian or W. African national.)
Ebola HAS to be fought in Africa with the rest of the world trying to mop up the inevitable spill over. It's not pretty, but it's reality.
I'm pretty sure that's the real reason there are U.S. troops there right now to ensure that the governments remain somewhat stable. I know there has been a lot of handwringing over it, but this is one thing I think Obama did right. We can't send aid workers without security. They've already killed other aid workers over there, and believe the whole outbreak was started by the United States to test out new medicines. And that's the normal people. The really crazy ones are burning people as witches.
I would hope that they could seriously curtail travel and force mandatory quarantine before being allowed to roam about the country. I'm not talking about self-reporting temperatures and expecting the CDC to check up on them every once in a while, but real quarantine. They used to do it before the age of vaccines.
Returning the troops could be simple. Bring them back in small numbers and quarantine them. Do not let their families know they are back until the safe number of days has passed.
They could be given 21 days R&R in quarantine with enough movies and beer to keep them happy for the duration.
I do not think our soldiers are expected to take care of patients. They are there to help build tent hospitals. Security is not their primary mission, but of course they could do it if it became needed.
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.
