Any possible dangers of widespread infection aren't going to come from people flying over here in closely quarantined conditions. The danger is people who are flying and don't know they have it, like the guy in Texas. Or the healthcare worker who treated him, HAD A FEVER, and got permission to fly on a commercial flight! Those first two workers didn't come over here in commercial flights. Things were closely under control iwth specialized hospitals with people who knew how to handle it. That Texas hospital made several key mistakes. Like sending the infected person home one time - even knowing he came from a region that had Ebola. Regular hospitals may not be ready to handle Ebola cases. It is the people who aren't screened properly and come over that give me cause for concern. And the improperly trained healthcare system. NTW, My sister and her family came back from a trip to Spain THROUGH Texas on the day that healthcare worker came flew. And my sister had a cold. I was a bit worried until I verified the flight in question came in from Cleveland, not Spain.
by actually volunteering your bringing in resources and makeshift facilities. if they're volunteering then the volunteers don't deem it as necessary risk
Volunteering resources and makeshift facilities isnt going to stop it in impoverished areas. The virus is too deadly for this The point/concept is not being understood: Highly deadly disease + impoverished area = Mass Epidemic/Mass death/Unavailable medical relief http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1978/Vol56-No2/bulletin_1978_56(2)_271-293.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yambuku http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/history/chronology.html#one
Ebola isn't going to spread out on control in the West and if you want to stop this current outbreak, the only place you can do it is in Africa.
i never said it is going to stop it in impoverished areas but it will stop the spread to other areas you might not realise but tracking and quarantine is very helpful in stopping the spread in africa. do you want it to just mess up all of central africa because its not your country and might (which it wont) spread to your country in massive way. strong sympathy.
In my opinion, it won't matter in the long run if this current epidemic gets stopped in Africa or not. Nature will come up with something else. What happens in the natural world is that when any animal population exceeds the available territory, they either expand their territory, or diseases spread rampant due to the overcrowded conditions until the population is back down to a sustainable level. This is true of any species, including ours. Since we've pretty much run out of room for expansion, nature will continue creating virulent diseases in an attempt to bring down our overcrowded numbers. Our high level of technology has so far been able to ward off everything that has come along. Hopefully it will be able to continue to do so long enough for us to develop a simple way to expand our territory to other suns. Without being able to expend our territory, nature will eventually come up with something that our technology can't handle, and will knock our population down to a more sensible level.
I think it's likely going to be misuse of the few anti-biotics we have over a large population that will be a big problem (unless we fund phage therapy which isnt going to happen with current drug testing guidelines)
It could be thought of as nature's way for a virus to evolve. Many physicians do not like prescribing antibiotics as a virus will develop a new strain to adjust http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1978/Vol56-No2/bulletin_1978_56(2)_271-293.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yambuku http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/history/chronology.html#one[/QUOTE]
I'm reading the book Xenocide (1991), the third novel in the Ender's Game series of books by Orson Scott Card. If a planet is infected by virus and any life form from that planet travels to another planet can kill that planet completely, should human being have the right to destroy that planet for the safety of the universe? It's a very deep philosophical question and I don't know any correct answer for that. Just like the movie "Ender's Game", does the human being have the right to kill the entire alien race just because the alien race may have the potential to kill the entire human race? We don't know what will happen in the future. Should we prevent a problem from happening as much as we can? or should we allow the problem to happen and try to find solution later? If we - can control the situation a year from today, people will say that we may just worry too much today. - cannot control the situation a year from today, people will say that why didn't we be more careful a year before?
I'm just making sure I'm gellin' with you here, but are you advocating the genocide of areas that are the sources of easily containable diseases? Cause yeah, we got a ton that are killing more people than ebola these days.
Of course the "Xenocide" is just a science fiction book. IMO, we should not allow any patients to move outside of Dallas. One city like Dallas is bad enough. To allow people to move outside of Dallas just make no sense to me. If I'm sick, I want to stay away from the rest of my family. It's just common sense. To prevent a problem from happening is much easier than to let the problem to happen and then try to find solution for it. Why can't we just define a small area in Dallas to be the problem area, don't let anybody to enter and leave that area until the problem has been solved completely? Why do we need to drag the rest of the US into this?
Personally, I feel much safer with patients moved into some other facility where the healthcare workers are equipped and trained to deal with this disease. Again I point out that hospital made several key mistakes. Mistakes that led to potential exposure past when it needed to be by sending the guy home. AND exposing the healthcare workers by not training them or equipping them with proper safety gear. And let's not forget one of those healthcare workers was told it was safe to fly in a commerical flight AFTER getting a fever treating the ebola patient! I would much rather those patients be safely and intelligently moved to a facility that knows better than the ones in that facility in Dallas. Two patients moved to a special facility. Moved by plane from another country...........no one else infected. One patient in Dallas, two people catch the disease............. This makes you feel safer? Keeping it in Dallas?
@martialman - how do viruses evolve out of antibiotics?! Surely you mean antiviral? At YKW - Europeans took smallpox and other diseases to America and the pacific islands. It killed most the Hawaiian natives.
You make it sound like nature has put a lot of thought into this! If nature really was that determined to reduce human overcrowding, then surely pandemics would originate in densely crowded parts of the world, like Holland or England, rather than in places like West Africa?
it makes me cringe when people anthropomorphise nature. Nature isn't trying to kill you. Nature isn't trying to reduce the world's population. Nature isn't a thing.
Did not state that they evolved out of antibiotics, I stated that as a virus will develop a new strain to adjust. (Which I stand corrected on using the term-virus along with antibiotics) But I would like to make it clear, that we are talking about a infectious disease Therefore, I would like to state that for types of infection, the bacteria develops “antibiotic resistance” and “bacterial resistance” Mother Nature
