Ebola Information

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Hyperbole. Influenza kills hundreds of thousands worldwide yearly. But, since it's not flu season right now, ebola will have to do for the latest health panic. How many are dying of hunger every day?


I'm actually getting kind of worried about this. Ebola has only a 50 percent survival rate and the Global Elites want population reduction on a global scale. Some lady on PBS News said the outbreak could reach 400,000 cases by December. The virus has an incubation period of 20 days before the person gets sick; and by that time, the person could have gone all over the place spreading the virus. Those 3000 soldiers the administration is sending over there are gonna be coming back to the U.S. at some point.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
“Quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, this health crisis we're facing is unparalleled in modern times,” Aylward told a news conference in Geneva.

Hyperbole. Influenza kills hundreds of thousands worldwide yearly. But, since it's not flu season right now, ebola will have to do for the latest health panic. How many are dying of hunger every day?


Absolutely one of the BEST distractions yet used to pacify the masses....


I don't completely agree with that.

Quote:
Influenza can be deadly, especially for the weak, young and old, or chronically ill.



Ebola on the other hand has a mortality rate of 50%-90% (depending on the strain) and doesn't seem to care if you're a strong healthy young man or an elderly woman with HIV...
 
This might seem a bit shallow, but isn't it mainly spreading in areas where they aren't taught proper hygiene?
 
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
This might seem a bit shallow, but isn't it mainly spreading in areas where they aren't taught proper hygiene?


When I get home from being out in the public, the first thing I do after stepping through the door is wash my hands; how many Americans do that?
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
I'm actually getting kind of worried about this. Ebola has only a 50 percent survival rate and the Global Elites want population reduction on a global scale.

Yes, the survival rate is low, but I'm not so sure about the global elites talk. Even if we accept the idea of global elites, the only way they'd want a population reduction is if they could work those people to death first, as we've seen historically. Systematically eliminating people without getting something out of them in the first place is counterproductive economically, and someone didn't become a member of the "global elite" by missing something that obvious.

Aside from our little tinfoil hat tangent, there are still bigger fish to fry. Ebola kills 50% of the infected. Well, starvation kills 100% of the afflicted. I'm not saying this is an unimportant issue, but the hyperbole is there.

We can all talk about global elites or follow the money or whatever today's buzzword is. The fact remains that the UN and its organizations and departments like to be seen doing something, even if they're not, just like any other bureaucratic organization. This is a fine opportunity for that.
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric

Ebola on the other hand has a mortality rate of 50%-90% (depending on the strain) and doesn't seem to care if you're a strong healthy young man or an elderly woman with HIV...


Please note that mortality rate is from third world countries. We are not quite there yet.

With normal palliative care you can expect a better rate here. Little consolation to the dead.

Merkava, I wash my hands up to 20 times a day! I also never touch my nose, eyes, mouth, etc., as I was trained in the handling of toxic chemicals...
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: The_Eric

Ebola on the other hand has a mortality rate of 50%-90% (depending on the strain) and doesn't seem to care if you're a strong healthy young man or an elderly woman with HIV...


Please note that mortality rate is from third world countries. We are not quite there yet.



No, indeed we're not.
 
I read that after he entered the country from LIBERIA he did in fact seek medical treatment at a clinic but they SENT him home!!...It wasn't until two days later he had entered a hospital.
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4

[font:Verdana]I'm actually getting kind of worried about this. Ebola has only a 50 percent survival rate and the Global Elites want population reduction on a global scale.


oh brother. LOL
 
I'm surprised that no one has asked this question here....

Why would our officials let ANYONE from an area with a KNOWN ebola epidemic into the USA, and allow any of these passengers leave the airport without quarantining them for at least 10 days??

Sorry folks but if this is real it is a deliberate criminal act by your "authorities", and is tantamount to treason and tyranny. The high federal US officials have failed in a blatant way to protect our borders from persons with a nearly 100% fatal virus.

Whomever failed to put in place such needed restrictions for travel to and from the affected area need to be arrested ASAP. This is a crime.
 
http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/20...worker-catch-it

33.gif
The fight against Ebola in West Africa suffered a setback Wednesday. Dr. Sheik Umar Khan, one of the top doctors treating patients, caught the virus, even though he was wearing protective gear.

"Even with the full protective clothing you put on," Khan has said, "you are at risk."
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CourierDriver
http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/20...worker-catch-it

33.gif
The fight against Ebola in West Africa suffered a setback Wednesday. Dr. Sheik Umar Khan, one of the top doctors treating patients, caught the virus, even though he was wearing protective gear.

"Even with the full protective clothing you put on," Khan has said, "you are at risk."

old news
he died july 29
 
Just a note, would you want your spouse having a baby at a hospital where said hospital was loaded up with Ebola patients?? Or just one patient for that matter?
 
Originally Posted By: CourierDriver
Just a note, would you want your spouse having a baby at a hospital where said hospital was loaded up with Ebola patients?? Or just one patient for that matter?

I sure wouldn't prefer it, but the hospital is always full of sick contagious people and a high profile ebola case will have them being very careful. At some point you have to trust that the people know what they are doing, or just stay in bed.
 
For some reason, this reminds me of the Breaking Bad episode where Walt says something to the effect of 'Why would an African virus be in America?"
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
For some reason, this reminds me of the Breaking Bad episode where Walt says something to the effect of 'Why would an African virus be in America?"
Yes,,exactly,, why is that????????????????????
 
A couple of areas of concern that are not being monitored.

1) Anyone travelling from an known (and perhaps adjacent) infected area of Africa should automatically be flagged BEFORE they get on the plane. This should come up like a no-fly passenger right on the computer.

1a) Anyone trying to fly from these infected areas should be sent to a hospital for a check-up immediately to get a baseline on health then quarantined for the 21 days. The person of interest can then be cleared at the hospital and permitted to proceed to fly. The proof will exhibit itself.

2) Anyone travelling from an known (and perhaps adjacent) infected area of Africa should automatically be flagged AFTER they get off the plane. This should come up like a no-fly passenger right on the computer.

2a) Anyone to flying from these infected areas should be sent to a hospital for a check-up immediately to get a baseline on health then quarantined for the 21 days. The person of interest can then be cleared at the hospital and permitted to proceed to enter the population. The proof will exhibit itself.

The procedures I mention are the bare minimum that should be occurring, probably need to have other factors considered like for males where they can still transmit for 7 (147 days or nearly 2 months) weeks after exposure.

When a person travels from this area they should know they are potential carriers and that they will unfortunately be treated as such. They need to know before hand the gravity of the disease and expect scrutiny. These are hard decisions that need to be made to minimize the damage to the healthy populations. 3000+ deaths (and counting) in just a few months is no small matter when its in a known hotspot. Now it has made the leap into a separate uninfected hemisphere, largely composed of people who have no clue how to deal because they thought it would never get here. (even some here on BITOG)

I heard a news bit this morning on CBC where an "official" on disease (microbiologist) said that the risk of passing on this disease is small, its incubation period etc, and that the chance of getting it Ebola as being small if you are careful. Then in the next breath said he had no doubt that it would reach North America that it was just a matter of time....What!? Doctors who are taking all the precautions they can are getting infected. Talk about conflicting info.
33.gif
 
Last edited:
Remember, everyone is an expert, till the xxxx hits the fan, then the back peddling starts, history just keeps repeating itself....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top