Reply With Quote
Since when are all bowlers in Brooklyn African?
Extremely racist assumption of you.
Since when are all bowlers in Brooklyn African?
Extremely racist assumption of you.
Not paying attention.
Well, that is my point. The CDC FAQs are making absolute statements that are, in my opinion, outright lies. They don't trust the public, with some good reason, to understand the difference between "no chance" of infection, and "very little" chance of infection. And, the court case has embolden people to be their own monitors and voluntarily look out for the well-being of the masses over themselves. That will probably not work out well, and if there are millions of cases of Ebola in the world, and we begin to learn more and more about it, we will probably begin to see how it propagates itself in several ways, some of them via asymptomatic means. The persistence of the virus for 60 days after recovery, in semen, should be a little alarming. But, I know that since I was young, young men have totally matured, and every young gentleman chasing tail in bars will voluntarily disclose to their desired that they are still only 40 days into recovery, and that they won't be able to blow their load into some gals mouth because that could put her in danger. We learned from the AIDS epidemic that people, when left alone, are totally responsible.
But, Skull makes note of the gray area, where the CDC let the gal fly with a temp of 99. Symptomatic, according to what I've read, is 100.x. So they are telling me that she was shedding 0 virus at 99 degrees. I find it very unlikely, but possible. Still not very prudent to let her get on a plane. And, she was being responsible. During a widespread infection, we'll have plenty that will not be.
You realize the CDC is scrubbing their websites to remove anything that might be true, but could cause panic by an uneducated reader, right?
Liberal websites like The Daily Kos, HuffPo, and maybe reddit, have been holding their feet to the fire over this.
If you guys don't trust the scientists or the CDC or the Kenyan's administration when they tell you that quarantine is unnecessary for people who have tested negative for Ebola, why are you quick to believe that a 21 day quarantine is sufficient? If the experts are all morons and/or have an agenda, maybe the quarantine should be for 1 year. , maybe the only way to protect you from Ebola is to shoot people who you think might have Ebola, regardless of what the tests say.
Once you throw the science out of the window and respond based on extreme fear/prejudice, why not go all the way and nuke half of Africa to protect your freedoms.
Chris Christie, of course, is the only honest guy here, right? No way he would ever mislead people to get some political capital, would he?
Hey, the article says that Americans, after recent events at the Dallas hospital, may be OVER-REACTING. That doesn't sound like fear-mongrring to me, but whatevs, if you need to dismiss the source, you will find a way. I get it.
Because she hasn't tested positive, yet, doesn't mean she's not positive. Thus, the quarantine. And, respiratory symptoms caused by other conditions is stated because sneezing and coughing is not a symptom by itself. But, realize the other condition could be hayfever, dust, etc. She doesn't have to have any "serious" condition to sneeze. Also, I have never based the point I am trying to make on the notion that I think she is infected. What I think about that doesn't matter. She is from a hot zone, and an abundance of caution should be taken, not minimal precautions. I, contrary to what is being painted about my comments, am not fear mongering. I don't believe she is infected. I don't believe she is necessarily going to infect anyone else. But, being lackadaisical about things will leave more openings for error, just like in the Dallas hospital. She probably won't infect anyone, but one of the hundreds that are coming back from these hot zones eventually might, and you can guarantee that people will be wondering why stricter controls were not put on their movements if that happens. Hindsight is 20/20. If you call for it prematurely, you're a fear-mongering idiot, if you don't do it and it causes a problem later, you are a lax incompetent beaureucrat. The virus doesn't care about our politics.
I am not suggesting this is going to be World War Z. Someone referred to it as a slow-motion train wreck, and I liked that analogy. Unfortunately, we may just be at the very beginning. Hopefully it doesn't turn into an AIDS type of epidemic, or worse.
Regarding how difficult it is to get:
"A single air traveler from Liberia to Lagos managed to infect 11 people directly, and 8 more indirectly. The Nigerian CDC was able to contain the outbreak, but it involved the efforts of hundreds of people tracing 900 contacts, and in the end 8 people died. A quarantine is a small price to pay to avoid situations like this."
He was symptomatic, but this still flies in the face of what Obama recently stated in his public address, that you can't get it from a guy riding a bus. Not only can you, but you and 18 more people can get it from that guy.
I'll post some more interesting articles later.
Last edited by littlecoyotecoin; 11-01-2014 at 10:03 AM.
You may be overreacting.
That is where you stand then. The conspiracy sites posted here are making statements that are, in my opinion, outright lies.
So that is what it comes to. We both have our own opinions. Mine based on the CDC, and research done by the people I work with (Doctors, Nurses, etc). Your opinions come from your sources. We are going to have to agree to disagree. That is part of being American. You know, land of the free. If you really wanna be safe, you should go to Canada. They are giving into the fear, might be the place to go.
The point is no one knows much about this disease or if it mutates - why not be safe than sorry. The states are willing to pay each person whatever they would earn at their job. Stay home, read, enjoy a 3 week vacation courtesy of the state. Why risk even the possibility of developing a fever while on a subway and infecting others. The ever changing CDC protocols:
Close contact is defined as being for a prolonged period of time while not wearing appropriate PPE within approximately 3 feet (1 meter) of a person with Ebola while the person was symptomatic i.e. subjective fever or measured temperature ≥100.4°F/38°C OR any of the following:*
severe headache
muscle pain
vomiting
diarrhea
stomach pain
unexplained bruising or bleeding
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/exposur...-exposure.html
Who really knows whether a 100.3 or a 100.4 fever is contagious? The true test is whether you're (or your spouse/children) willing to sit beside an infected person and risk them sneezing on you. It is not worth the risk when they can easily stay home. This nurse is just seeking attention with her lawsuit, etc. - the common sense thing to do is relax at home for 3 weeks. The CDC has changed its stance on ebola being transmitted through droplets, and as the NY Post reports: [3]
The city's first Ebola patient initially lied to authorities about his travels around the city following his return from treating disease victims in Africa, law-enforcement sources said. Dr. Craig Spencer at first told officials that he isolated himself in his Harlem apartment -- and didn't admit he rode the subways, dined out and went bowling until cops looked at his MetroCard the sources said.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047457_eb...#ixzz3HqMaezGT
The safest route is to do what Australia and Canada have done - ban travel from Ebola countries. What I don't get is that the military is undergoing 3 week isolation/quarantine before coming back to the States. If the troops have to do it, why not the general population (especially health care workers who have worked closely with Ebola patients). After all, the troops are only supposed to be setting up hospitals and beds but they do the 3 week isolation.
Last edited by rmt; 11-01-2014 at 01:45 PM.
I will post some more sources. However, you're calling a Nobel Prize winner in the field a quack, basically, just because he is quoted in a couple of websites that may or may not be of questionable nature. Of course, if they have an agenda of some sort (I am not really familiar with either of the two sites that quoted him, I just relayed the articles...), they will quote the people that support that agenda. Their credibility, or lack thereof, shouldn't necessarily impugn his.
The same site that I think you are dismissing as a quack conspiracy site now has a second Nobel Prize winner in a related field (physiology or medicine) that supports Christie's in-home quarantines, but not hospital quarantines.
"However, Doherty did favor Christie’s plan to require in-home quarantine for those healthcare workers exposed to Ebola but not showing any symptoms such as fever."
That's two Nobel Prize winners in Medicine or Physiology that are choosing cautious quarantine regimens, and at least the first admits that one reason is because we do not have the data to show who is infectious at what stages. Some of our evidence is based on Macaques that were injected, which may have different rates of transmittance than humans, as well as the site of infection being important, as well. More on that, later.
Still, all I hear as evidence from you are the doctors from work, and the CDC. Better make sure that doctor from work was not an osteopath, or Chump will dismiss him. The CDC has already screwed the pooch so many times and is scrubbing/"revising" their websites, it's Keystone Cop-ish. The recent testimony was in itself contradictory.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf...tensifies.html
Of course, Chump will dismiss this Nobel Prize Winner's opinion, too, because he got his Nobel Prize before 1996, rendering it meaningless. His current work in immunology, etc, irrelevant because he is quoted by a site Chump finds inferior.
Last edited by littlecoyotecoin; 11-01-2014 at 01:58 PM.
Highly unlikely. Not surprisingly, you confuse an interest in the topic as some sort of fear. My life won't change much more from this than it did from the AIDS epidemic. I made it though that quite bountifully. In an off chance, I may even profit from the over-reaction that will come. Mixed feelings.
The military is inherently conservative. Plan for the worst, hope for the best, etc. They don't have to worry about votes and legacy, etc. It is totally hypocritical and contradictory that the troops will be doing it, but others coming from the hot zones will not be. You are right to be confused by the mixed message. We should let those thousands of troops mingle. That would be the right thing to doI am sure that will not increase the overall rate of transmission at all if we adopt a general policy like that, letting people from hot zones mingle freely and self-report. I mean, they do that in Africa.
Now you're arguing a different point. You're implying that it would difficult to get, which is an entirely different matter. I will redirect to the initial claims that an asymptomatic person can't transmit it, not that if they are asymptomatic it's MORE DIFFICULT to transmit, which is mostly true.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...c-information/
"CNN reported at one point that you can get Ebola only after a person is symptomatic, and (in the same story) at any time a person is infected even if they are not symptomatic. It is probably the case that as long as Ebola is in a person’s system, they can spread it."
Make sure to blast this guy as a conspiracy quack, instead of a Harvard professor and biological anthropologist that has worked in the Congo for several years.
http://www.amazon.com/Greg-Laden/e/B009ROI5JI
More to come, only because you asked for them.
Well then it's even less likely someone is going to blood in someone else's mouth.
Nice.
Africans ate bushmeat chimps which turned into Aids in humans.
Africa sucks
Not sad. Smart. Along with New Zealand and Australia.
Fook the WHO and the UN and all the one world globalist morons. A nation has a right to protect its self-interests and the safety of its citizens from outside threats.
Bravo Canada! Good to see at least SOME nations (including half a dozen in West Africa, btw) understand the first rule of epidemiology.
Now, is the Associated Press a charlatan, right-wing, conspiracy website, or can I post a link from them?
When they report the scientists running simulations, and arriving at this number, are they fear-mongering and over-reacting when their simulations arrive at a number far greater than one that I would have guessed at?
Best case scenario 1-2 more in 2014, to a worst case scenario of 130 by the end of the year. Most likely every major city will see a handful of cases by the end of the year. That's what a group of top infectious disease experts say.
Not fear mongering me, who would have guessed a worst-case scenario at about 10-20, maybe.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...11-01-10-25-24
Handfuls!
I thought only black people get it
Nothing to see here, move along...racists. You don't want to bleed to death out of your every organ? What are you, a bigot?
http://americanthinker.com/articles/...psychosis.html
Correct.
You three or four guys probably don't want to read anymore, but you begged for them and I'll keep supplying them...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-scienti...--finance.html
"(Reuters) - Even as government officials express confidence that researchers know the key facts about Ebola, many questions crucial to preventing an outbreak in the United States remain unanswered, scientists told a workshop at the National Academy's Ins ute of Medicine in Washington on Monday."
"Virtually all the unknowns have practical consequences, participants emphasized, making it foolish and perhaps dangerous to base policy on weak science."
"But penetration through intact skin has not been definitively ruled out, said hemorrhagic-fever expert Thomas Ksiarek of the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), who co-led a session on Ebola's transmission routes."
"Another crucial question is whether the virus can be spread by people who do not show symptoms. For months public officials in the United States and elsewhere have insisted it cannot.
But the possibility of such "subclinical transmission" remains very much open, said Dr. Andrew Pavia, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah.
Nor do experts know whether the infectious dose of virus depends on how it enters the body, Pavia said.
Etc, etc. Many, many more to come.
I will repeat the claims from you guys...
Claim 1: "Scientists are in lock-step agreement that the nurse did not need to be in quarantine..." Thus far, you have several that agree she should be in quarantine, one Nobel Prize winner that agreed with Christie, and a second Nobel Prize winner that agreed that she should be in home quarantine, but not at a hospital, as well as several other less prominent people that agree (not all I have shared with you as of yet...)
Claim 2: "Scientists are in lock-step agreement that aysmptomatic individuals are non-infectious." Here's yet another, in addition to those that I have supplied (and more that are yet to come), from Reuters via Yahoo source from a doctor of infectious diseases that tells you outright that the science to make that claim is far from definitive. Maybe he got his degree before 2000, so Chump will throw him out with the two Nobel Prize winners. Or, maybe because he is chief of PEDIATRIC infectious diseases, he'll be dismissed by you guys. He seemed to be important to be attending the conference in Washington, but I guess you guys have higher standards.
I have no agenda, political, or otherwise. I am just interested in the science, and know that, unfortunately, those two claims were false from the get-go. I have no problem being wrong. I was wrong about the federal judge's ruling, but should have not been so confident a federal judge would back a state decision when it was adversarial to the federal position. Politics got in the way, even though in their decision they concluded she was "some risk". In a different environment, that risk may have been deemed enough to uphold. But, it wasn't in this environment. I was wrong about that, and feel I should have known better. However, that really isn't about the science, but a judge's interpretation of it...
Science that scientists are not in agreement about.
Science that, if you have any shred of integrity, you will have to admit is not as cut and dried as you were claiming, and I am hardly done with citing sources or examples of differing opinions from people in the field.
Last edited by littlecoyotecoin; 11-03-2014 at 08:53 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
