Page 2 of 7
Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 1:38 pm
by Malcolm
Gloves, goggles, long pants, mask, long sleeves. Done. You're protected. Make sure you don't fall into a puddle of blood or mucous.
Hell, a $1.50 disposable rain poncho will do the trick.
Edited By Malcolm on 1412444341
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:46 am
by Vince
Saw an interview with one of the doctors from Samaritan's Purse (the group with the infected doc mentioned earlier in the thread). Turns out they aren't certain that the doc got Ebola from the regular hospital. They are just "pretty sure" of that at this point.
One thing the doctor did say which you aren't really hearing much of is that this time with the outbreak in Africa, it's spreading much further and faster than ever before. He didn't mention the expanded time between infection and showing symptoms this time around (was around 7-10 days, now it's 21 days) which I'm sure is allowing it to travel further before the carrier gets laid up. All he said was, "something's different this time".
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:20 am
by Malcolm
All he said was, "something's different this time".
Not different enough to make it airborne. Real diseases to worry about.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:45 am
by Vince
Malcolm wrote:All he said was, "something's different this time".
Not different enough to make it airborne.
Real diseases to worry about.
Mortality of bubonic plague is 1-15%
1918 flu was 20% (and Ebola has been much more active in recent years)
Ebola's best rates right now are about 50% in areas with better than average health care. 90% has been closer to the running average.
Until we know what IS different, guesses about what ISN'T different are just that. Guesses. Not that I think it's likely that it's airborne, but we're being extremely reckless. British Airs and France have placed travel restrictions on flights. Guess who doesn't have an Ebola case in their countries currently?
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:14 am
by Malcolm
Mortality of bubonic plague is 1-15%
When treated.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:34 am
by Vince
Malcolm wrote:Mortality of bubonic plague is 1-15%
When treated.
Yeah, and that of Ebola has been between 50-90% when treated.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:27 pm
by TPRJones
Vince wrote:It would be a pretty easy place to get contaminated.
Do you often have other people's blood and mucus put into your open wounds or mucous membranes at your place of employment? Because that sounds nasty.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:42 pm
by GORDON
Ever see one of those videos that shows how a person's sneeze will pretty much fill up a room with mucous droplets?
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:57 pm
by TPRJones
True, but still, ick. They really should sneeze into their sleeve or something.
Edited By TPRJones on 1412730503
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:19 pm
by GORDON
Yeah, they should.
Just saying.
I was thinking today how interesting it would be.... since the ebola survival rate has been pretty much 0 in the past, what if it will remain dormant in your system even if you survive it? What if you become a permanent carrier, and we just don't know it yet? Just one of those unknown unknowns I mentioned earlier.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:42 pm
by Vince
GORDON wrote:Ever see one of those videos that shows how a person's sneeze will pretty much fill up a room with mucous droplets?
That. And a simple cough travels about 5 feet. I think the sneeze is 13-17.
Saw a news article where they were quoting one of the early Ebola doctors saying he wouldn't rule out the notion that this strain is living a short time air borne because this one is traveling much faster and further than the Ebola he studied was capable of doing. He said this one is passing way too easy.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:47 pm
by TPRJones
Even at it's historical worst, 10% of those infected survived it. Usually it's better than that. It's never been pretty much 0.
Two strains have been found to persist in semen for several weeks in survivors, but not forever. So there's a window of time afterwords that can be of concern. More studies need to be done. But there haven't been any cases on record of infection due to interaction with a survivor long-term, so I bet such a study would find that after at most a few months the virus is completely gone. But that's just speculation based on currently known history.
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:41 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:39 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:37 am
by GORDON
To me this whole thing appears to be filled with stupid but I will just address a few lines of it:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion....utbreak
When a wildfire breaks out we don't fence it off. We go in to extinguish it before one of the random sparks sets off another outbreak somewhere else.
Since he decided to use that metaphor, I will respond in kind: people who fight wildfires build fire breaks all the time.
We don't want to isolate parts of the world, or people who aren't sick, because that's going to drive patients with Ebola underground, making it infinitely more difficult to address the outbreak.
Yes, we do. Why wouldn't we? Who cares if they go underground? There isn't even any more of the cure in the USA, the first guy who got ebola used it all up. I know it is a radical suggestion but keep the people with the deadly, organ-melting disease way the fuck away from me.
It could even cause these countries to stop working with the international community as they refuse to report cases because they fear the consequences of a border closing.
Don't care. Fuck them and the border. When they can keep their citizens from bathing in each others diseased bodily fluids, then we can talk about border crossing privileges.
Anyway. My point is, I don't agree with his reasons.
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:03 am
by Vince
Those are all some of the most stupid suggestions I've ever heard and have to wonder who's telling these guys to say this stupid shit or threatening them. No one is suggesting we don't help these countries. They're suggesting we restrict the casual travel in and out of them, at least to the US. It's just plain stupid.
Apparently the mothers back in the old days that had their kids go play with the kid that developed chicken pox so their kids got infected were doing it wrong. They should have kept their kids AWAY from the infected kids, because that's how you spread a disease.
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:45 am
by GORDON
Vince wrote:Apparently the mothers back in the old days that had their kids go play with the kid that developed chicken pox so their kids got infected were doing it wrong. They should have kept their kids AWAY from the infected kids, because that's how you spread a disease.
"The Great Brain," by J.D. Fitzgerald, if I recall the author's initials correctly. Stories about a christian family in a very Mormon town in the 1800's. I read those books to my kid a couple years ago. They spread the chicken pox among their kids in exactly that way because getting it as kids would be fine, but getting it as an adult could be fatal.
Edited By GORDON on 1412955958
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 12:08 pm
by Vince
Yeah, I knew they used to do that and the why. When I was in college I had class with a guy that got it as an adult. He was out for quite a while. Bad stuff for an adult.
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 1:38 pm
by TheCatt
I loved those books as a kid.
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:03 am
by Vince
Medical person that was involved with the treatment of Thomas Duncan becomes 2nd person in US to get Ebola. I'll feel somewhat better if it turns out they were involved in his first visit to the ER when they thought there was no way he had Ebola.