Ebola virus outbreak

Canis Lupus

smash wrote: »

The rate at which is spreads is the issue. HIV is only contracted through the exchange of certain bodily fluids and doesn't cause the same kind of sickness as Ebola. It's a virus that causes a sickness which spreads, incubates and kills a lot faster than HIV.


It's nothing to do with outbreak, there are scientists who are worried because it spreads so fast and every time it spreads it mutates.

*shrugs* like I said I'm no expert but I haven't read anything to suggest it will be the first virus to mutate to airborne so it's not really on my concern radar.

Maximus Alexander

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Can you catch HIV from touching a surface and then touching your face? Or from being within 3 feet of a person with HIV? No, ebola is a lot easier to catch than HIV.

From http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/questions-rise-on-preparations-at-hospitals-to-deal-with-ebola.html?referrer=

Again, as scary as that all sounds:

http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20894 wrote:

The effective reproduction number, Rt, of Ebola virus disease was estimated using country-specific data reported from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone to the World Health Organization from March to August, 2014. Rt for the three countries lies consistently above 1.0 since June 2014. Country-specific Rt for Liberia and Sierra Leone have lied between 1.0 and 2.0. Rt<2 indicate that control could be attained by preventing over half of the secondary transmissions per primary case.

Rt for HIV is estimated between 2 and 5. It presumably helps that people with ebola are visibly pretty horribly ill, or else dead whilst contagious, while people with HIV aren't, so you're less likely to douse yourself in an ebola victim's bodily fluids.

Either way, the result is that someone with HIV infects more people than someone with ebola, yet after a few decades we haven't all become infected.

As tragic as it is for the victims, the number of people who have contracted or died of ebola is beyond minuscule when compared with other diseases. It's great that the WHO, the UN and the CDC are taking it seriously and responding as necessary to prevent it spreading, but the media frenzy is leaving some people with the impression that we're on the verge of a global pandemic that with wipe out half the population. Thankfully that's not realistic at all.

I am pie

Canis Lupus wrote: »

That's why I used words like potentially and conjecture. There was a failure in equipment or protocol somewhere along the line either way.



Because I've no time to listen to how 'the man' is lying to us. That's what the CT forum is for.

I don't think we are talking about "the man" , a term which you have inserted into the discussion, or anyone "lying" , again a fairly emotive term.

It's not beyond the balance of probability that the medical teams working in a myriad of different conditions are still analysing the current epidemic and understanding the transmission method.

It's hardly appropriate for them to publish every unproven suspicion they may have and it's not impossible that post epidemic they may publish discoveries related to the transmission method. In fairness I have yet to see a crystal clear definition of that process and indeed have read a variety of contradicting reports.

Is that really tin foil hat material? I don't believe so and the lack of a concrete definition of the transmission process outside of reposted newspaper articles certainly contributes.

smash

Canis Lupus wrote: »

*shrugs* like I said I'm no expert but I haven't read anything to suggest it will be the first virus to mutate to airborne so it's not really on my concern radar.

Not even the link I posted there a while ago?

Osterholm and other experts couldn't think of another virus that has made the transition from non-airborne to airborne in humans. They say the chances are relatively small that Ebola will make that jump. But as the virus spreads, they warned, the likelihood increases.

ceadaoin.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Again, as scary as that all sounds:



Rt for HIV is estimated between 2 and 5. It presumably helps that people with ebola are visibly pretty horribly ill, or else dead whilst contagious, while people with HIV aren't, so you're less likely to douse yourself in an ebola victim's bodily fluids.

Either way, the result is that someone with HIV infects more people than someone with ebola, yet after a few decades we haven't all become infected.

As tragic as it is for the victims, the number of people who have contracted or died of ebola is beyond minuscule when compared with other diseases. It's great that the WHO, the UN and the CDC are taking it seriously and responding as necessary to prevent it spreading, but the media frenzy is leaving some people with the impression that we're on the verge of a global pandemic that with wipe out half the population. Thankfully that's not realistic at all.

Well people with HIV have more time to spread the virus as you can live for years with HIV and still be reasonably healthy. It also needs a lot more of the virus to enter your blood to infect you. There you have a doctor stating that ebola is more contagious than HIV and hepatitis. So far thomas Duncan has infected 2 people. If the reports of the way the hospital managed his case are true then there are bound to be more. It's rare for a healthcare worker to become infected with any of the other viruses mentioned from simply treating a patient.

I thought we were past the point of stating that you have to 'douse yourself in an ebola victims bodily fluids' to become infected. A cursory reading of the facts will clarify that.

Canis Lupus

I am pie wrote: »

I don't think we are talking about "the man" , a term which you have inserted into the discussion, or anyone "lying" , again a fairly emotive term.

It's not beyond the balance of probability that the medical teams working in a myriad of different conditions are still analysing the current epidemic and understanding the transmission method.

It's hardly appropriate for them to publish every unproven suspicion they may have and it's not impossible that post epidemic they may publish discoveries related to the transmission method. In fairness I have yet to see a crystal clear definition of that process and indeed have read a variety of contradicting reports.

Is that really tin foil hat material? I don't believe so and the lack of a concrete definition of the transmission process outside of reposted newspaper articles certainly contributes.

But then I wasn't quoting you. I was quoting Peist who said:

I have a feeling we arent being told the full story re transmission.

and

So i think the view that we are being told the entire truth on this could be viewed as naive in the near future. let's face it, they lie to us about most things, why not this?

There's a distinct difference between his and your posts. One is lack of knowledge and the other is intentional misinformation.

Crane

smash wrote: »

Not even the link I posted there a while ago?

Of course the likelihood increases. The likelihood increases for every virus that is allowed to spread and mutate in its spreading. This still does not suggest that ebola will be the first virus to mutate and change its form of transmission.

Another quote from the article you mention:

"Speculation that Ebola virus disease might mutate into a form that could easily spread among humans through the air is just that: speculation, unsubstantiated by any evidence."

I am pie

Canis Lupus wrote: »

But then I wasn't quoting you. I was quoting Peist who said:



and



There's a distinct difference between his and your posts. One is lack of knowledge and the other is intentional misinformation.

It would be nice to see some concrete information to fill that knowledge gap, it would certainly quash the wild speculation.

WakeUp

Crane wrote: »

Does anyone have any idea where we might read an intelligent and measured forum discussion of this outbreak? On boards.ie or elsewhere? Every few days (as stated above) the airborne, doomsday etc scenarios get rebooted in this thread, perhaps by people just opportunistically clicking on the thread rather than following it properly. Makes for a pretty frustrating read - neither 'side' (pessimistic vs optimistic outcome of the outbreak) gets a proper airing as a result.

Creative Juices wrote: »

I agree. I am surprised there isn't another ebola thread somewhere for people that are more "clued in". This is After Hours. I remember when the Malaysian Airlines flight disappeared, there were 2 threads - 1 in AH and 1 in Aviation. The latter was full of informed debate, the former was full of nutjobs.

so why dont the pair of you know it alls start your own thread then? seems like you have it both figured out .considering this thread isnt intelligent enough for you and you two are so "clued" in. when will you be bestowing your obvious wealth of knowledge on this topic upon the rest of us? if this thread isnt up to your all knowing and knowledgeable standards, and you arent going to start your own , you might find more "intelligent" "clued in" debate here. your superior levels and all that.

Canis Lupus

smash wrote: »

Not even the link I posted there a while ago?

They say the chances are relatively small that Ebola will make that jump. But as the virus spreads, they warned, the likelihood increases.

Yeah but do we have even a best guess at that chance in numbers? He doesn't mention anything really just that the chance increases. So I could say for example the current chance for it to 'go airborne' is .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% and in a years time with all the new cases it will increase to .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. Not really scary is it. That article really reads more like making news for the sake of it.

I'll just repeat I'm not concerned. If you want to be, go right ahead.

smash

Crane wrote: »

Of course the likelihood increases. The likelihood increases for every virus that is allowed to spread and mutate in its spreading. This still does not suggest that ebola will be the first virus to mutate and change its form of transmission.

Another quote from the article you mention:

"Speculation that Ebola virus disease might mutate into a form that could easily spread among humans through the air is just that: speculation, unsubstantiated by any evidence."

Yes it's speculation and yes it does not mean it will be the first virus to mutate but the bottom line is that the likelihood increases all the time.

Crane

WakeUp wrote: »

so why dont the pair of you know it alls start your own thread then?

I am not even nearly a know-it-all. That's why I'm seeking out a thread by know-it-alls (or know-nearly-everythings). There is a lack of measured response on this thread; what discussion there is descends into petty squabbling the like of which you are trying to engage me in right now.

WakeUp

Crane wrote: »

I am not even nearly a know-it-all. That's why I'm seeking out a thread by know-it-alls (or know-nearly-everythings). There is a lack of measured response on this thread; what discussion there is descends into petty squabbling the like of which you are trying to engage me in right now.

nah Im just calling you out on your condescending bullsh1t. you and your mate. with your combined 75 post count history or whatever. though stick around. thats if the thread is up to your almighty "clued in" standards.

Canis Lupus

WakeUp wrote: »

nah Im just calling you out on your condescending bullsh1t. you and your mate. with your combined 75 post count history or whatever. though stick around. thats if the thread is up to your almighty "clued in" standards.

I've three times your posts. Is my opinion more valid than yours?

Peist2007

Canis Lupus wrote: »

That's why I used words like potentially and conjecture. There was a failure in equipment or protocol somewhere along the line either way.



Because I've no time to listen to how 'the man' is lying to us. That's what the CT forum is for.

"the man" ? Why does every counter argument have to reference conspiracy theories in order to discredit it? There are people catching this disease wearing full protective gear. You admit you have no idea how that nurse got it and are speciulating. I think it is reasonable to ask questions seeing how the line used is that Ebola is difficult to catch. It certainly doesnt seem to be. How do you think we will all fare without protective suits? Sure keep believing what you're told. Will be a lot easier for the authorities if everyone does that.

Peist2007

I am pie wrote: »

I don't think we are talking about "the man" , a term which you have inserted into the discussion, or anyone "lying" , again a fairly emotive term.

It's not beyond the balance of probability that the medical teams working in a myriad of different conditions are still analysing the current epidemic and understanding the transmission method.

It's hardly appropriate for them to publish every unproven suspicion they may have and it's not impossible that post epidemic they may publish discoveries related to the transmission method. In fairness I have yet to see a crystal clear definition of that process and indeed have read a variety of contradicting reports.

Is that really tin foil hat material? I don't believe so and the lack of a concrete definition of the transmission process outside of reposted newspaper articles certainly contributes.

I think people confuse "tin foil hat" with "opposing opinion" - a childish tactic used to discredit.

Peist2007

Canis Lupus wrote: »

But then I wasn't quoting you. I was quoting Peist who said:



and



There's a distinct difference between his and your posts. One is lack of knowledge and the other is intentional misinformation.

Intentional misinformation? Point out where i have intentionally misinformed people. Go on. Anything i have said is my own opinion and i am simply asking questions. You have admitted a few posts up that your "definite" statements on this are you speculating. You're a child.

Peist2007

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I've three times your posts. Is my opinion more valid than yours?

No it isnt because you present it as fact. Spring Onion did the same and was called out on it. Your clear arrogance prevents you from admitting you know as little as the rest of us

WakeUp

*shrugs* like I said I'm no expert but I haven't read anything to suggest it will be the first virus to mutate to airborne so it's not really on my concern radar.

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I've three times your posts. Is my opinion more valid than yours?

stating the thread lacks "intelligence" and isnt "clued in" enough. as those two posters stated that is just condescending boll0x, in my opinion of course. if that is infact what they think of the thread then what are they doing here reading it. on this topic no your opinion isnt more relevant to mine. no more than mine is more valid than yours. Im no expert either.

Canis Lupus

Peist2007 wrote: »

"the man" ? Why does every counter argument have to reference conspiracy theories in order to discredit it? There are people catching this disease wearing full protective gear. You admit you have no idea how that nurse got it and are speciulating. I think it is reasonable to ask questions seeing how the line used is that Ebola is difficult to catch. It certainly doesnt seem to be. How do you think we will all fare without protective suits? Sure keep believing what you're told. Will be a lot easier for the authorities if everyone does that.

Peist2007 wrote: »

I think people confuse "tin foil hat" with "opposing opinion" - a childish tactic used to discredit.

I'll quote you again:

I have a feeling we arent being told the full story re transmission.

and

So i think the view that we are being told the entire truth on this could be viewed as naive in the near future. let's face it, they lie to us about most things, why not this?

There's no ambiguity here with what you said. The 'powers' are intentionally lying to us. Like I said there is a CT forum for that rubbish and is tinfoil hattery, not an opposing opinion.

If you were to suggest like IaP suggested that there might be a lack of knowledge in how the virus transmits I'd be fine with that because hell, it might be true (although I have no particular inclination at this time to not believe the general consensus that has been published already).

WakeUp

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I'll quote you again:

If you were to suggest like IaP suggested that there might be a lack of knowledge in how the virus transmits I'd be fine with that because hell, it might be true (although I have no particular inclination at this time to not believe the general consensus that has been published already).

Do you believe governments are capable of telling lies to the people and withholding information? be it intentionally or because they dont fully understand what is going on. this isnt to say this is what they are doing. but do you believe its possible. or would a government never dream of doing such a thing.

gladrags

Crane wrote: »

Does anyone have any idea where we might read an intelligent and measured forum discussion of this outbreak? On boards.ie or elsewhere? Every few days (as stated above) the airborne, doomsday etc scenarios get rebooted in this thread, perhaps by people just opportunistically clicking on the thread rather than following it properly. Makes for a pretty frustrating read - neither 'side' (pessimistic vs optimistic outcome of the outbreak) gets a proper airing as a result.

http://m.jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_1/ix.long

Good common sense history of the virus and well sourced.

Peist2007

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I'll quote you again:

and

There's no ambiguity here with what you said. The 'powers' are intentionally lying to us. Like I said there is a CT forum for that rubbish and is tinfoil hattery, not an opposing opinion.

If you were to suggest like IaP suggested that there might be a lack of knowledge in how the virus transmits I'd be fine with that because hell, it might be true (although I have no particular inclination at this time to not believe the general consensus that has been published already).

All of that is said in my own opinion. I am entitled to it. There is no deliberate misinformation as it is presented as an opinion. I then go on to explain what i feel is a reasonable basis for that opinion ie nurses in full protective gear are catching this. It's an opinion. It isnt presented as a fact (as you clearly show above) so you are talking out your arse with "intentionally misinforming" and i think you should acknowledge that.

Canis Lupus

WakeUp wrote: »

stating the thread lacks "intelligence" and isnt "clued in" enough. as those two posters stated that is just condescending boll0x, in my opinion of course. if that is infact what they think of the thread then what are they doing here reading it. on this topic no your opinion isnt more relevant to mine. no more than mine is more valid than yours. Im no expert either.

If you have a problem with what he's saying I guess report it rather than calling him out on his post count was all I was pointing out to you.

WakeUp wrote: »

Do you believe governments are capable of telling lies to the people and withholding information? be it intentionally or because they dont fully understand what is going on. this isnt to say this is what they are doing. but do you believe its possible. or would a government never dream of doing such a thing.

Not even going there so don't bother.

WakeUp

Canis Lupus wrote: »

If you have a problem with what he's saying I guess report it rather than calling him out on his post count was all I was pointing out to you.

thats nice of you to point that out to me are you a mod?. but Id rather not report anyone for anything and prefer to say what I have to say to the poster directly as opposed to that. if thats ok with you.

Not even going there so don't bother.

why arent you going there its a simple question. do you believe governments are capable of telling lies and with holding information be it intentionally or otherwise? not sure why you dont want to go there.

Canis Lupus

Peist2007 wrote: »

All of that is said in my own opinion. I am entitled to it. There is no deliberate misinformation as it is presented as an opinion. I then go on to explain what i feel is a reasonable basis for that opinion ie nurses in full protective gear are catching this. It's an opinion. It isnt presented as a fact (as you clearly show above) so you are talking out your arse with "intentionally misinforming" and i think you should acknowledge that.

But then I wasn't talking about you, I was clearly talking about the government(s). IE the information released by them is either faulty through lack of knowledge (what IaP was suggesting and imo can be perfectly reasonable suggestion) or intentional misinformation (what you were suggesting and is rubbish).

Canis Lupus

WakeUp wrote: »

why arent you going there its a simple question.

*whispers* because I see so many of your posts are in the CT forum and I can't be bothered reading posts about government conspiracies.

ProfessorPlum

WakeUp wrote: »

Do you believe governments are capable of telling lies to the people and withholding information? be it intentionally or because they dont fully understand what is going on. this isnt to say this is what they are doing. but do you believe its possible. or would a government never dream of doing such a thing.

Oh come on! The thing is though, that scientists have this habit of publishing all their work in pesky journals, and encouraging the information they've discovered to being read far and wide. So unless you think it's all part of a massive CT involving the scientific community...

Peist2007

Canis Lupus wrote: »

But then I wasn't talking about you, I was clearly talking about the government(s). IE the information released by them is either faulty through lack of knowledge (what IaP was suggesting and imo can be perfectly reasonable suggestion) or intentional misinformation (what you were suggesting and is rubbish).

Witholding information and deliberately misinforming are two completely separate things

WakeUp

Canis Lupus wrote: »

*whispers* because I see so many of your posts are in the CT forum and I can't be bothered reading posts about government conspiracies.

ah ok, so its back to your default CT ad hominem position. you have it all figured out dont you. good stuff.