You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 10:15:09 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Ebola and media coverage  (Read 2936 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #25 on: October 17, 2014, 08:09:11 PM »
It makes sense from a security perspective. An outright ban on travel from the afflicted areas provides an entirely false sense of security. It doesn't prevent anyone from travelling if they really want to, just adds another leg to their trip - and erases them as possible carriers. And since we know a ban is in place, we don't need to worry about (and can't justify to the public) screening people, right?

I think we all agree that at least at this point in time the threat from ebola is minimal. Having said that in reference to your point Ephiral I seriously hope someone is monitoring things like pass ports and immigration a bit more intently than that. If all one has to do to evade detection is fly to another country first I fear there are much larger issues at hand than ebola.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #26 on: October 17, 2014, 08:10:15 PM »
Honestly, my perspective is that if you're concerned about your personal safety, drive more carefully next time you're in a car. It'll do much more for you than thinking about Ebola. So far the only contaminations that have occurred within the US are two healthcare professionals who treated a misdiagnosed patient. Similar cases of misdiagnosis are extraordinarily unlikely at the moment, with the current levels of awareness and the CDC running ongoing investigations. Future ones should be handled correctly.

America, despite the problems of its healthcare system, is not in the same situation as the countries in which outbreaks have occurred. The affected countries simply do not have the ability to treat these diseases, they have insufficient beds for the numbers of patients meaning that many infected are not being housed correctly resulting in further spreading.

Medical research is continuing on the disease and being fast-tracked because of the severity of the African outbreak. The vaccine has already been made by Glaxosmithkline, it's just currently being tested for approval but they're confident enough to have prepared large batches of it ready to be sent to Africa once it is approved.

You've had one incident with three people affected. There is an organization with 15,000 people and a 7 billion dollar budget currently taking care of the situation. I think you're going to be okay.

A nifty web app/website someone created that tells you how far away the closest Ebola case is from your home.

7,802 miles from me.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #27 on: October 17, 2014, 08:13:34 PM »
I think we all agree that at least at this point in time the threat from ebola is minimal. Having said that in reference to your point Ephiral I seriously hope someone is monitoring things like pass ports and immigration a bit more intently than that. If all one has to do to evade detection is fly to another country first I fear there are much larger issues at hand than ebola.
The only way this supposition holds is if all potential carriers are citizens of the afflicted countries, travelling via normal means, and/or the borders of the afflicted nations are 100% secure and non-porous. It's a very bad idea to make your security depend on someone who is completely outside your control doing everything right.

Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #28 on: October 17, 2014, 08:31:22 PM »
I am not saying I think there is perfection, but like I said I really hope someone is watching a tad more closely than the assumption your are offering up implies. Because to hell with ebola  I am worried about the fellow with methel ethel death in his suitcase and a plan for mass murder.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #29 on: October 17, 2014, 08:35:30 PM »
My assumptions are merely that people don't like the government wasting resources on screening for things they already think they're safe against, and that not all ebola carriers will necessarily be easily traceable to the affected areas. Those are... pretty basic assumptions, all things considered.

Offline lilhobbit37

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #30 on: October 17, 2014, 08:48:33 PM »
A few fun facts we were given at work:

Ebola is not contagious until you have developed symptoms.

For the first 3 days after symptoms develop, the virus is relatively weak and it is still difficult to contract the virus.

After 3 days, the virus grows exponentially in strength.

The virus survives on surfaces for hours.

It survives in the bodily fluids for days.

It survives in the body (including the corpse) for weeks.

It survives in the semen after recovery for 2-3 months.

Just some fun facts to think about, and think about how hard it actually is for an everyday joe to contract the virus outside of the hot zones.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2014, 10:42:20 PM »
The only way this supposition holds is if all potential carriers are citizens of the afflicted countries, travelling via normal means, and/or the borders of the afflicted nations are 100% secure and non-porous. It's a very bad idea to make your security depend on someone who is completely outside your control doing everything right.

 Quarantining5 the affected regions is still a prudent step to take by cutting down on one way to stop possible infected from coming here.

Offline TaintedAndDelishTopic starter

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2014, 01:35:59 AM »

I think more attention needs to be paid to ensuring that medical staff and those who clean up are fully protected. The virus will no doubt make it past our defences no matter what we do, and when it does, we are going to be depending on the medical community. If they start dying off or leaving their professions for safer jobs ( ones that pay the same but without the risk of dying),  then we're going to have a major problem and few to help combat it.




Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2014, 09:48:20 AM »
Well, taking steps for medical staff is a good idea. As for the argument that there should not be action taken to quarantine we have a saying in the hills that applies to my feelings about that assertion. That dog wont hunt.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #34 on: October 18, 2014, 01:41:39 PM »
I think more attention needs to be paid to ensuring that medical staff and those who clean up are fully protected. The virus will no doubt make it past our defences no matter what we do, and when it does, we are going to be depending on the medical community. If they start dying off or leaving their professions for safer jobs ( ones that pay the same but without the risk of dying),  then we're going to have a major problem and few to help combat it.

 That can be done with an air quarantine. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Both can easily be done.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2014, 01:46:26 PM »
That can be done with an air quarantine. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Both can easily be done.

*nods*  Many methods that would help with containment are mutually beneficial, rather than being mutually exclusive.

Offline Drake Valentine

  • Architect of Worlds
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: In the Deepest Depthes of Your Twisted Mind
  • Gender: Male
  • Making Your Darkest of Fantasies a Reality
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2014, 10:56:43 AM »
Not to stray a bit off topic.

But, wasn't there a movie that came out a few years ago something like this? I mean, I am sure the movie wasn't about the 'Ebola' virus, but it was about some sort of deadly virus that had spread everywhere which had surviving citizens in fear of their lives of things they may touch. >.>

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2014, 11:22:25 AM »
There was a novel called 'The Hot Zone', which detailed events (mostly accurate) around the discovery of the Reston variety of Ebola.  I actually worked in a call center not-too-far from the site several years after the event.  It's purportedly being made into a TV miniseries.  (Which seems like an utterly brilliant idea.  Novels rarely survive the transition to film.)

There was a movie in 1995 called Outbreak, which features a virus somewhat similar to Ebola, but after a little more looking, you're probably thinking of the move 'Contagion' from 2011.

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #38 on: October 19, 2014, 03:30:33 PM »
The ebola coverage isn't even about science, it's about ratings and in some cases scoring political points. People in the media, and politicians especially, should STFU and do what medical professionals are saying, which is increase preparedness, not close borders, etc etc.

Offline TaintedAndDelishTopic starter

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2014, 06:21:46 PM »

I found a few interesting videos that give a glimpse into what life life is like in Monrovia Liberia. I thought it would be interesting to get a better idea of the differences between these areas and the US just to help put things into perspective.

The first video is about 18 mins long and covers topics such as sanitation, bush meat, and prostitution.



The second one shows an escaped Ebola patient walking through a crowded area in Monrovia. What's interesting about this clip is that it shows that not everyone in Liberia is oblivious to Ebola as the media sometimes seems to portray. Some news reports have depicted the people there as dirty and ignorant. While the city is clearly lacking resources, you can see that the people in this video are properly dressed and clearly aware and concerned about the threat that this patient poses.

Also, the struggle to get the patient back into the van poses much more risk of physical contact than just changing a pair of contaminated gloves and gown as in the Dallas incident. Towards the end, you see the medial workers literally forcing him into the back of their truck, then climbing in - presumably to keep him from getting out again.




Offline Caehlim

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #40 on: October 19, 2014, 07:21:21 PM »
Here's a rather nice photo I came across recently.


Offline Caehlim

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #41 on: October 22, 2014, 03:16:35 AM »

Offline Drake Valentine

  • Architect of Worlds
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: In the Deepest Depthes of Your Twisted Mind
  • Gender: Male
  • Making Your Darkest of Fantasies a Reality
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #42 on: October 22, 2014, 07:47:48 AM »
There was a novel called 'The Hot Zone', which detailed events (mostly accurate) around the discovery of the Reston variety of Ebola.  I actually worked in a call center not-too-far from the site several years after the event.  It's purportedly being made into a TV miniseries.  (Which seems like an utterly brilliant idea.  Novels rarely survive the transition to film.)

There was a movie in 1995 called Outbreak, which features a virus somewhat similar to Ebola, but after a little more looking, you're probably thinking of the move 'Contagion' from 2011.

Yussssh, Contagion, was it. Great movie. ^^ Time to refresh and watch up on it.

But in other news.

I find this
portion
   Avoid direct contact with sick patients as the virus is spread through contaminated body fluids
    Wear protective cover for eyes
    Clothing and clinical waste should be incinerated and any medical equipment that needs to be kept should be decontaminated
    People who recover from Ebola should abstain from sex or use condoms for three months

Because we all know condoms will keep you safe from catching Ebola during intimacy with possible contagious people.  ::)
of that news page amusing.


 

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #43 on: October 22, 2014, 07:50:32 AM »
That's because you may still have viral load after recovery, according to what I was reading.

Offline Lilias

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #44 on: October 22, 2014, 04:31:34 PM »

Offline Drake Valentine

  • Architect of Worlds
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: In the Deepest Depthes of Your Twisted Mind
  • Gender: Male
  • Making Your Darkest of Fantasies a Reality
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #45 on: October 23, 2014, 01:48:56 AM »

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #46 on: October 23, 2014, 01:51:46 AM »
Yea, but Ebola has a 42 day incubation period.

 http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/10/who-report-ebola-has-42-day-incubation-period/
That link leads to an article on NaturalNews - you're basically quoting the Daily Mail of health websites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaturalNews

Note the bit where they're promoting homeopathic herbal treatments as an effective means of curing Ebola. The quote they've based that article on is probably horrifically out of context.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 01:53:14 AM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #47 on: October 23, 2014, 02:59:10 AM »
Yea, but Ebola has a 42 day incubation period.

As the WHO website states:

Quote
Recent studies conducted in West Africa have demonstrated that 95% of confirmed cases have an incubation period in the range of 1 to 21 days; 98% have an incubation period that falls within the 1 to 42 day interval.

First of all, the 42 days comes from the WHO guideline that a country can be declared free of Ebola if no new case has been registered within the last 42 day. That does not mean that the maximum incubation period is actually 42 days. In almost all cases the incubation period happens to be 21 days or shorter. Doubling that strikes me as a "safety margin" that does not, in itself, say anything about the maximum incubation periode. If the WHO actually assumed that the incubation periode could be as long as 42 days that would not leave any margin for error or late reporting of new cases when declaring a country Ebola-free after 42 days with no new infections. I find it difficult to believe that the WHO would do that.

Second, the three percentage points more in the 1-42 days range would be just as true if those extra three percent of cases had an incubation periode of 22 or 23 days. Statistics can be funny like that, and a small variance to the generally accepted 21 days as the maximum incubation periode seems reasonable and natural to me, as it might be very difficult to narrow down when someone actually caught the disease. Unless you constantly monitor someone day-in, day-out, determining when an infection actually happened could boil down to educated guesses, especially in cases where someone has been around carriers for several days. Did he catch it on the first day, the second, the third of his contact with infected people? If you assume it was the first day and he falls sick 23 days later you would assume a 23 day incubation periode. But perhaps he got it only on the third day and you would be back to the 21 day range most cases fall into.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 03:05:31 AM by Cassandra LeMay »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #48 on: October 23, 2014, 07:16:52 AM »
Looking at the specific percentages that they give, I'm thinking those are simply the 2- and 3- standard deviation ranges.  As in 95% of all cases fall within 2 standard deviations of the mean.  The 42 day case is almost certainly outlier data.

Offline Florence

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #49 on: October 24, 2014, 03:58:24 AM »
That's because you may still have viral load after recovery, according to what I was reading.

Is it immature that, given the context, my first thought was to make a viral 'load' joke?