You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 06:42:26 AM

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 2935 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #75 on: October 29, 2014, 10:02:09 AM »
*pinches his brow* okay last comment here because I cannot get my mind around the whole mindset. Sure I agree action -should- have been taken months and months ago. It utterly baffles me that none was taken as I have said here multiple times. But since action was not taken in a timely fashion therefore no action should be taken?
I am not trying to say that no action at all should be taken. What I am trying to say is that what is happening right now is not, as you called it, (quote) responsible action (unquote). From where I sit it is overreaction based on fear - and that will only increase fear. What this situation warrants is a calm, meassured, and reasonable response and that is not what I see in the responses from NY and NJ governments. Fear and panic help no one. Acting in a timely fashion is one thing, acting with undue haste is another, and I see the latter here.

Also, it does not matter one little bit if Dr. Spencer was telling the truth about his movements or not, as long he told the full truth about his movements after he developed the first symptoms. The few pieces of news I have gathered so far do not mention any time frame or state that he moved around while he could have infected anyone.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #76 on: October 29, 2014, 10:14:05 AM »

Also, it does not matter one little bit if Dr. Spencer was telling the truth about his movements or not, as long he told the full truth about his movements after he developed the first symptoms. The few pieces of news I have gathered so far do not mention any time frame or state that he moved around while he could have infected anyone.

 He should have been in quarantine before that when he came back to the US. As it is, because he wasn't, he has put people in danger because he was actually infected.  It's a hell of a lot better to inconvenience some people just as a safety precaution, to make sure, than let potentially infected people walk around spreading the disease. And the doctors and nurses who are a part of the Doctors without Borders should understand that. Do they want to infect people in the US?

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #77 on: October 29, 2014, 10:27:20 AM »
Also, it does not matter one little bit if Dr. Spencer was telling the truth about his movements or not, as long he told the full truth about his movements after he developed the first symptoms. The few pieces of news I have gathered so far do not mention any time frame or state that he moved around while he could have infected anyone.

New York City is a major metropolitan area that is densely populated.  I think I'd be really irritated if I learned that I had come in contact with him somewhere, like the restaurant where he ate, touched utensils and dishes, left behind napkins he used to wipe his mouth and touched a table and chair with those hands he had on his mouth and where he may have sneezed or coughed while he was infected.  I would be more than irritated if he was somewhere a child of mine needed to be.  It would matter quite a bit if there was even a 1% chance of him infecting anyone.  All it takes is one person, one irresponsible, unthinking, selfish, arrogant, egoistical, uncaring and careless person who doesn't want to be inconvenienced, to pass the disease on and possibly kill someone.  As long as the possibility of contagion exists the need for caution must exist and the caution must equal the severity of the disease.

Maybe he did tell the full truth in the end or maybe he lied again or "forgot" to be accurate.  He wouldn't have said anything if the police hadn't investigated his activities using his Metro Card and credit cards to gather evidence.  Even the officer who interviewed him did so by phone rather than come into contact with him. 

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #78 on: October 29, 2014, 10:31:45 AM »
He should have been in quarantine before that when he came back to the US. As it is, because he wasn't, he has put people in danger because he was actually infected.  It's a hell of a lot better to inconvenience some people just as a safety precaution, to make sure, than let potentially infected people walk around spreading the disease. And the doctors and nurses who are a part of the Doctors without Borders should understand that. Do they want to infect people in the US?
At the chance of repeating myself: As long as you do not show any symptoms you can not spread Ebola. Even if you show the first symptoms, chances of spreading Ebola may be slim to none for a day or two.

Carrying the virus in your body does not mean you are "spreading" this disease if you haven't developed any symptoms yet, no matter how much you walk around or interact with other people. Being infected does not automatically put the people around you in any danger. You can be a carrier of Ebola without spreading the disease one little bit. During the incubation stage Ebola is not contagious.

All major health institutes and experts around the world agree on that. It's a proven fact. If Dr. Spencer had spit on everyone in Times Square before he developed any symptoms he would not have done more than aggrevate and piss off a lot of people. Going bowling or eating out while you are a carrier without any symptoms of the actual disease is not a risk to public health.

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 #79 on: October 29, 2014, 10:37:13 AM »

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #80 on: October 29, 2014, 10:45:51 AM »
All it takes is one person, one irresponsible, unthinking, selfish, arrogant, egoistical, uncaring and careless person who doesn't want to be inconvenienced, to pass the disease on and possibly kill someone.
Just so I don't misunderstand you: Are you accusing Craig Spencer of all/some/one of those character traits?

Even the officer who interviewed him did so by phone rather than come into contact with him.
Maybe that's because Spencer is in isolation and not allowed visitors? I don't see how the fact that he was questioned by phone makes any difference. Now that Mr. Spencer has come down with Ebola not having any more direct contact with him is, of course, a prudent choice, but I fail to see how that is relevant to his movements before he came down with Ebola, his personal activities, or quarantine protocols for those who may be (non-infectious) carriers.

 ---------------------------------------

*sighs* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
*sighs too*

Frankly, I think that is completely irrelevant to the debate about the justification for quarantine meassures. If you worry about that you might as well quarantine everyone because no one knows what dastardly mutation to the common cold any one of us might soon breed. I can see no justification whatsoever for taking half-assed meassures that ignore scientific fact, and I see even less justification for them when we drift into the realm of maybe-one-day instead of dealing with the facts on the ground and basing rational, appropriate meassures on what is known and proven.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 10:57:41 AM by Cassandra LeMay »

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #81 on: October 29, 2014, 11:07:55 AM »
Just so I don't misunderstand you: Are you accusing Craig Spencer of all/some/one of those character traits?
Yes.  Any of them that apply.  Unless you are constantly testing your blood you don't know for sure you aren't contagious.  Hence the need for quarantine.  When people start thinking they know better everyone else the become a danger to us all.  This is the reason the places the good doctor visited are being bio-scrubbed.  How do we know he wasn't contagious?

Quote
Maybe that's because Spencer is in isolation and not allowed visitors? I don't see how the fact that he was questioned by phone makes any difference. Now that Mr. Spencer has come down with Ebola not having any more direct contact with him is, of course, a prudent choice, but I fail to see how that is relevant to his movements before he came down with Ebola, his personal activities, or quarantine protocols for those who may be (non-infectious) carriers.
As I said who knows when he became contagious?  Him?  Yes he finally got around to reporting his condition when he needed medical care.  By then he was contagious and he was still in the public sector and a source of infection.  He's really no better than those parents who send children with measles and chicken pox off to school because all the other kids are going to get sick anyway.   

Offline Zakharra

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #82 on: October 29, 2014, 11:35:10 AM »
At the chance of repeating myself: As long as you do not show any symptoms you can not spread Ebola. Even if you show the first symptoms, chances of spreading Ebola may be slim to none for a day or two.

Carrying the virus in your body does not mean you are "spreading" this disease if you haven't developed any symptoms yet, no matter how much you walk around or interact with other people. Being infected does not automatically put the people around you in any danger. You can be a carrier of Ebola without spreading the disease one little bit. During the incubation stage Ebola is not contagious.

All major health institutes and experts around the world agree on that. It's a proven fact. If Dr. Spencer had spit on everyone in Times Square before he developed any symptoms he would not have done more than aggrevate and piss off a lot of people. Going bowling or eating out while you are a carrier without any symptoms of the actual disease is not a risk to public health.

  That's irrelevant They can still carry the disease and it can manifest later in a place that there isn't any proper medical care, or the person ends up still going out and either deceiving themselves, or just flat out lying about it like the one doctor.  This is Ebola, the doctors and nurses should expect to be quarantined to make sure they are 100% free of the disease and outside of the 21 day potential infection/symptoms range. People are wonderful as deceiving themselves that they aren't sick or ill or having any problem at all.

 As we have seen at least one person has come back and then developed symptoms, so the 21 day quarantine only makes sense. To let them roam free is irresponsible and bluntly, stupid as hell. With an infectious disease like this, you don't take chances. So better they be inconvenienced for 3 weeks than potentially spread a very nasty disease all over the place. But if you don't want to quarantine them for awhile, how about sending the next few doctors or nurses coming back to live with you for 3 weeks. Would you feel safe then? I wouldn't and I wouldn't put my family at risk until -after- the 21 days had passed.

 It honestly seems like you're saying that we should not error on the side of safety in this matter, that we should let people who can be infected even if they are not showing symptoms, to roam around free and only quarantine them if they show symptoms, but I again point out that people are masters at self deception or would just flat out lie like the doctor did when he knew he was spreading it..  It seems like you would rather put everyone else at risk than take just one additional step to make 100% sure they are clear and free of the disease.


Offline 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 #83 on: October 29, 2014, 11:39:00 AM »
There seems to be a lot of 'false dilemma' arguing going on here:

False Dilemma 'Black & White Thinking' - wherein two options are presented and one is discredited when three or more options are in fact available. "We can't drink the sour milk, so we'll have to have orange juice today." When there is a perfectly good water faucet nearby, for example. The third option needs to be present in order for this to be a fallacy - you can either have read this paragraph or you haven't, but see also the excluded middle.

As far as I could see, Cycle was not advocating the elimination of quarantine.  Rather, simply providing the simple and humane additions of heat and hygiene - additions that would have been easily procured with minimal cost or delay.  (Possibly even no delay.)  Prudent measures - not panic measures should be the order of business.

On the mutation front:  This might be worthwhile reading.  To summarize it, mutations are random, and just as likely to be disadvantageous to the virus as they are advantageous.  Changing means of transmission involves a multitude of alterations to the viral RNA, not just a single faulty copy.  Also, the last time an Ebolavirus went airborne (at a research lab in Reston, Virginia, I might add), it was accompanied by a profound loss of lethality to humans.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #84 on: October 29, 2014, 11:43:55 AM »
Yes.  Any of them that apply.  Unless you are constantly testing your blood you don't know for sure you aren't contagious.  Hence the need for quarantine.  When people start thinking they know better everyone else the become a danger to us all.  This is the reason the places the good doctor visited are being bio-scrubbed.  How do we know he wasn't contagious?
Unless you have some close, personal knowledge of Craig Spencer all I can see here are assumptions about his character based on a few sketchy news pieces. That is not a solid basis for a debate. Making assumptions about someone's character without knowing the person in question is nothing I can possibly argue against, however much scientific facts I throw into the ring. Neither does the fact that the places he went to are being "bio-scrubbed" (whatever that means) argue against my point that the authorities are overreacting. I see nothing here that proves that this "bio-scrubbing" isn't anything more than panic and political actionism.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #85 on: October 29, 2014, 12:14:30 PM »
There seems to be a lot of 'false dilemma' arguing going on here:

As far as I could see, Cycle was not advocating the elimination of quarantine.  Rather, simply providing the simple and humane additions of heat and hygiene - additions that would have been easily procured with minimal cost or delay.  (Possibly even no delay.)  Prudent measures - not panic measures should be the order of business.

  I got no problem with making sure they are comfortable while in quarantine, but I do think it would be prudent to make sure they are 100% past the incubation period.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #86 on: October 29, 2014, 12:15:09 PM »
... but I again point out that people are masters at self deception or would just flat out lie like the doctor did when he knew he was spreading it.
I would have been willing to argue all the points you made and explain my point of view on this matter until this point.

What you are saying here boils down to accusing Craig Spencer of knowingly spreading Ebola to the population of New York and I can see absolutely not one single basis in fact for a claim like that.

From all I know making such a claim is nothing more than .... Bravo Sierra. In fact, accusing Craig Spencer of knowingly spreading Ebola could be grounds for an accusation of defamation.

I am sorry if I am sounding a bit tired and aggressive here, but I am both.

I will repeat myself one more time: Self-monitoring and reporting yourself to health providers within a few hours of the onset of possible symptoms is a reasonable and effective measure to stem the spread of Ebola. If the health authorities are worried they can very well send people home and put them under "house arrest" with monitoring once or twice a day. When in doubt put a monitoring device on them to track their movements. Isolation and quarantine for someone who does not show any symptoms of Ebola are not necessary.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 12:21:05 PM by Cassandra LeMay »

Offline Zakharra

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #87 on: October 29, 2014, 12:58:19 PM »
I would have been willing to argue all the points you made and explain my point of view on this matter until this point.

What you are saying here boils down to accusing Craig Spencer of knowingly spreading Ebola to the population of New York and I can see absolutely not one single basis in fact for a claim like that.

From all I know making such a claim is nothing more than .... Bravo Sierra. In fact, accusing Craig Spencer of knowingly spreading Ebola could be grounds for an accusation of defamation.

I am sorry if I am sounding a bit tired and aggressive here, but I am both.

I will repeat myself one more time: Self-monitoring and reporting yourself to health providers within a few hours of the onset of possible symptoms is a reasonable and effective measure to stem the spread of Ebola. If the health authorities are worried they can very well send people home and put them under "house arrest" with monitoring once or twice a day. When in doubt put a monitoring device on them to track their movements. Isolation and quarantine for someone who does not show any symptoms of Ebola are not necessary.


  I don;t believe that's an acceptable option and should be ignored in this regard. We have one doctor who is infected who flat out lied about it and only contacted, or was contacted by authorities -after- he was showing symptoms, and he had been out in public while showing symptoms. And as far as I know, he admits it. I am listening on the radio to audio of the nurse who was quarantined and she is flat out -refusing- to self quarantine herself because she doesn't want to be inconvenienced, not because she think s she is safe, but mostly because she thinks she is being inconvenienced. She has 6 days or so left on her 21 day period since last contact (as I understand it).

 I fail to see why you don;t think it would be a prudent safety issue to just do the quarantine. 21 days isn't that long, especially compared to the time they have likely already been over there. That 21 days can provide proof they -aren't- infected and contagious. It's a simple step and hardly invasive or bothersome since they can leave after the 21 days is over. Hell. We and other nations keep animals in a 6 month quarantine (I believe) just to check for such things, 21 days? That's nothing. I'd think they would agree just to be on the safe side and for peace of mind for everyone.

Offline Cycle

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #88 on: October 29, 2014, 01:23:45 PM »
No argument on that Oniya, it is just that is not what I am hearing in this whole angle of argument. What I am hearing is we need to construct extensive facilities........yada, yada.

Really?  Huh.  I'm pretty sure I was pointing out that the poor woman didn't have heat, a shower, and a real toilet and suggesting that the government should think about putting such things into the tent before they toss people in them for three weeks... 

And I don't know why you think my posts are leftist-leaning.  Maybe you didn't notice but I'm critical of both New Jersey and Connecticut's quarantine plans?  (Malloy up in Connecticut is a Democrat and his plan is to lock Boyko up but let him have free use of the apartment washing machine.  Nice logic there!)



As for the more general discussion of whether we should quarantine all the travelers from that region for three weeks, I have to go with what medical science tells us:  transmission requires contact with the bodily fluids of a symptomatic individual.  Duncan's fiancee doesn't have Ebola.  Or those people on the plane or the cruise ship.  And I can't believe that none of those people had any casual contacts with the infected/possibly infected individuals.

So maybe medical science knows something about Ebola and we should consider what they have to say?


Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #89 on: October 29, 2014, 01:35:20 PM »
  I don;t believe that's an acceptable option and should be ignored in this regard.
That is for you to decide.

Me, I would rather base my opinion on facts, not believes.

If Craig Spencer knew he could spread Ebola and lied about it I am with you in villifying him, but the news I have seen on that are not very clear. I would prefer to keep an open mind and give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, instead of making rock-solid statements just yet. If you have any good, reliable sources, please state them. A single radio station is not a solid source in my book, given all the fear-mongering surrounding Ebola right now.  If you have any definite information on this, please cite your sources and link to them.

If the best counter argument to the facts I provide is "I do not believe you, therefore I will ignore your facts" I am out of this topic. All I can see here now is half-baked information about a single individual useed to support meassures that affect a whole lot of people and stir up panic where no panic is warranted, given the whole science behind this disease.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 01:37:26 PM by Cassandra LeMay »


Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #91 on: October 29, 2014, 02:08:49 PM »
http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/ebola-doctor-lied-about-his-nyc-travels-police/

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/29/new-york-city-doctor-with-ebola-reportedly-lied-about-his-movements-in-city/

http://twitchy.com/2014/10/29/report-hero-ebola-doctor-lied-to-the-nypd-said-hed-self-quarantined/

http://www.libertynews.com/2014/10/bombshell-nycs-1st-ebola-patient-dr-craig-spencer-initially-lied-about-his-movements-around-the-city/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102132467
The number of sources quoted alone means very little when all of them reference the same NYPost article as their source. And that article is darn scant on details. A strong number of links does not make for a strong arguments if all the links point to one single source that comes with very little detail and pretty much no facts at all. No matter how many links there are, that number alone does not make a source reliable if all the links point to the same - unproven - source.

Even Fox News (in a video coming with the article you linked) admits that Dr. Spencer took his temperature every few hours. Where they go completely wrong is adding to that "yet despite the risk".

There was no risk.

If he took his temperature every few hours and acted on those readings - as he did, from all we know - There Was No Risk!

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 #92 on: October 29, 2014, 02:15:58 PM »
This is where I say once again that dog won't hunt and have a nice day.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #93 on: October 29, 2014, 03:02:02 PM »
That is for you to decide.

Me, I would rather base my opinion on facts, not believes.

If Craig Spencer knew he could spread Ebola and lied about it I am with you in villifying him, but the news I have seen on that are not very clear. I would prefer to keep an open mind and give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, instead of making rock-solid statements just yet. If you have any good, reliable sources, please state them. A single radio station is not a solid source in my book, given all the fear-mongering surrounding Ebola right now.  If you have any definite information on this, please cite your sources and link to them.

If the best counter argument to the facts I provide is "I do not believe you, therefore I will ignore your facts" I am out of this topic. All I can see here now is half-baked information about a single individual useed to support meassures that affect a whole lot of people and stir up panic where no panic is warranted, given the whole science behind this disease.

  From what you're saying, they should be able to walk off the plane and test themselves. No hospital or other people, but just them doing their own checks and that is good enough for you. From what I understand, by the time you start showing symptoms, you're already contagious. It sounds kind of a little late at that time to start worrying about not infecting people by then.

I can't accept that as viable. There is a good chance they could be infected. The doctor was infected, and contagious. I fail to see why it's not reasonable to have them wait 3 bloody weeks to make 100% sure they are clean of the disease.  That eliminates any doubt of the matter. It's also prudent and eases the fears or possible fears of the public and officials.


 However I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I'm for mandatory quarantining for 21 days from possible last contact of people from those areas of Africa to remove any doubt in the matter. You are not, so agree to disagree.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #94 on: October 29, 2014, 06:20:13 PM »
Another reason why I am somewhat sceptical about tests like this (even if they work as advertised) is what I would like to call the "blinded by science" factor. What if this gizmo works? Would donors in the West invest millions and more millions to provide these diagnostic kits to every country in Africa? If they did, how long would it take for ... "diagnosis fatigue" (for lack of a better words on my part) to set in? The early stages of Ebola share a lot of symptoms with many more common diseases (e.g. malaria). How long would it take for people to just ignore these tests because they would too often come up negative? And could a test kit like this not become a cop out for Western nations who will spend their aid money on what they see as a "magic bullet" in the fight against Ebola, instead of spending their money on what is really needed - and will do a lot more than just help against Ebola - i.e. a good health infrastructure and health education in African countries? A test in a lab may take longer - and cost more - but a well-equipped lab can do a lot more than just help diagnose Ebola. In so far I see a good solid lab as the better alternative to what strikes me as a "one trick wonder pony".

I have to admit that I'm not particularly familiar with the various countries in Africa, so there's a lot of supposition in my post here. However even within my own country, most pathology labs are within the main cities with outlying areas being forced to transport samples to and from outlying regional and rural districts. I expect the utility of these devices to be in remote communities, where due to a lack of infrastructure it may take a day or two to actually get these samples to where they need to be. However a positive identification of Ebola on site by a simple portable device such as this, could allow for the local government to justify the use of resources and begin investigation and quarantine precautions earlier.

I think that the concerns you identify are definitely important ones, but I think there's also a risk of applying centralized western models to other countries which may lack the infrastructure to use them in the same fashion we do. Also Africa (if I can generalize to an entire continent like this) tends to have a more rural population with less urban concentration, relying more heavily on labour intensive agriculture. From what I've seen in terms of the aid in Ethiopia, providing equipment with portability and field use can be vital for jumping the gap between the well established technological areas and the more remote, agricultural ones that are separated from infrastructure.

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 #95 on: October 29, 2014, 08:17:23 PM »
Wow, I go away and come back to see all this talk about isolation tents.

No offense, but ya'll make it sound like secluding people in 'concentration camps.'  Which I already lost respect in Fox News when they made a similar suggestion.

As for mutation, it is doubtful Ebola will go airborne. There have been no contact viruses documented as of yet of going airborne and vice-versa.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/03/ebola-answering-10-basic-questions

It has also almost been a month and not many other new cases have been rising of victims, only those assumed to be infected. Ebola can only spread after the incubation period and most mutations that may happen will often weaken a virus of its initial ability when it may adapt new ones.

And I still say the common yearly flu kills more people a year worldly.

Yea, Ebola did a nice wiping overseas, but you also have to think that the people over there do not have the same amount of medical facilities or proper nutrition as those over here in the States. Therefore it makes treating and maintaining that disease that much harder.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/29/health/ebola-us-recovery/index.html




Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #96 on: October 30, 2014, 02:32:51 AM »
Yea, Ebola did a nice wiping overseas, but you also have to think that the people over there do not have the same amount of medical facilities or proper nutrition as those over here in the States. Therefore it makes treating and maintaining that disease that much harder.
And lets not forget that West Africa was unprepared for an Ebola outbreak because all other major outbreaks of the past happened in Central Africa. The current outbreak is as far from previously known cases as... I would guess about as far as Miami is from Maine, in a part of the world where most people do not travel beyond the very local area. While there is one strain of Ebola native to West Africa, the Ivory Coast (or Tai Forest) strain, that made its last appearance in 1994 among the local chimpanzees, with a grand total of exactly one human infection (someone who performed an autopsy on the dead animals and who made a full recovery).

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #97 on: October 30, 2014, 02:29:04 PM »
Interesting article here

Offline TaintedAndDelishTopic starter

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #98 on: October 31, 2014, 04:49:27 AM »
I don't know for a fact, but I imagine that if Ebola hit London instead of the US, there would be a proportional about of alarm in London. The same would go for any other country with access to up to date news and electronic communication. Yes, news about Ebola hitting America is far more concerning to Americans than news about Ebola hitting some under developed country in Africa (where we don't exactly of swarms of news reporters who can just drive over and interview someone ). To suggest that this makes us self absorbed is pushing it a little. At least, that's the impression that I got from the article. We care about this because it is on OUR doorstep and it has the potential to sour OUR lives. Who else wouldn't feel the same way if it was on their own doorstep?

There was some suggestion too that Duncan got less attention because he was black, and that the news media ( the same folks covering the Ferguson riots) are not really interested in black people.  I disagree with this. Up until Duncan died, the CDC was making it sound like everything was under control, and that Ebola in the US was no big deal. It was somewhere around that time that he died and two nurses who claimed to be following protocol got sick, that eyebrows were raised. From my perspective, it seemed likely that the CDC was downplaying the story in order to placate us. This contraction put their credibility in question.

There have been numerous comments both here and in the news media about the mayor's decisions to mandate a quarantine not being based on science. While the decision to quarantine is very aggressive, it makes logical sense. If you separate the people who might have the disease form the rest of the population for that 21 day period, then you greatly reduce the chances of them contaminating someone *should they have the virus*.

Is this "not based on science" because politicians made this decision and not doctors? Do only the decisions and ideas of doctors count as being "based on science? "  The decision on whether or not to quarantine has more to do with risk management than anything else. Those politicians who made this call were not comfortable with the same level of risk that the CDC was comfortable with and took a step to curb that risk to a more desirable level. It could very well be that the folks are the CDC have much bigger balls when it comes to dealing with diseases. That does not mean that the rest of the world must accept the same level of risk.

As for my earlier comment about the doctor in NY who felt "tired", but decided to go out bowling and whatnot only to be feverish the next day, here's my source. I agree that I should have said "tired" instead of "crappy", but given the context, I think he should have known better and should have erred on the side of caution. There is no shame in adding a margin of error.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/nyregion/craig-spencer-is-tested-for-ebola-virus-at-bellevue-hospital-in-new-york-city.html?_r=0

From the article: ( bold emphasis my own )

Quote
Dr. Spencer began to feel sluggish on Tuesday but did not develop a fever until Thursday morning, he told the authorities. At 11 a.m., he found that he had a 100.3-degree temperature and alerted the staff of Doctors Without Borders, according to the official.

Quote
Dr. Spencer, 33, had traveled on the A and L subway lines Wednesday night, visited a bowling alley in Williamsburg, and then took a taxi back to Manhattan.

I agree, Dr. Spencer could not spread the disease if he was not symptomatic, but by having the virus in his body and being out in public, he introduce risk.

* What if something happened to him while out in public that delayed him from getting home for a few days?
* Or if he got mugged and stabbed
* Or what if he was a less than responsible person and got so drunk that he blacked out, woke up the next morning and started puking and having the shits?

While he may be a responsible, upstanding citizen, the decision on how to manage this risk needs to take into account the fact that not everyone will be responsible and act wisely.

Offline MHaji

Re: Ebola and media coverage
« Reply #99 on: October 31, 2014, 11:11:40 AM »
Quote
I can't accept that as viable. There is a good chance they could be infected. The doctor was infected, and contagious. I fail to see why it's not reasonable to have them wait 3 bloody weeks to make 100% sure they are clean of the disease.  That eliminates any doubt of the matter. It's also prudent and eases the fears or possible fears of the public and officials.

This does a lot of harm in the name of "easing fear." It creates a disincentive for any doctor or nurse who has the training to go to Sierra Leone and fight the disease, or even briefly consult for hospitals there. There's a huge need for doctors and nurses in affected countries, and effectively telling doctors that "When you get home, we'll lock you up for a few weeks even if you're 100% asymptomatic just in case, on the basis of political posturing rather than scientific advice" is a good way to get people not to go.

The tremendous media fearmongering around Ebola is absolutely unconscionable.