Ebola

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
All well and good , doesn't mean those who don't recognize and don't seek treatment won't become infected, nor that the people who publish the type of article you attack have no validity ,they are as credible as any unnamed "experts " source you profess and I would be remiss if I didn't point out that "common sense " dictates caution .
No one wants an apocalypse and FWIW it may be that as the "fictional book" posited the virus has become less virulent in this generation,I doubt anyone knows that either.
I would like you to address your "eat it" point , then are we to assume the Hazmat suits are just unnecessary

Hazmat suits are like condoms, they're not 100%, and if you don't use them right they're even less effective. They're better than nothing of course, and the vast majority, especially those who follow all the proper procedures, don't get the virus.

Of course if people show symptoms its better to be safe than sorry, but its more likely not Ebola, especially if they're not around infected. Like I pointed out, Ebola isn't a threat to the United States at this time. So people running around saying its potentially airborne and going to mutate, aren't using common sense, they're getting caught up in unnecessary hysteria. Again, journalist and those who are not healthcare experts going around hyping up the Ebola threat are not credible sources. For example if you were to use that them in a scholarly journal, you wouldn't get published because peer reviews would tear it apart. However the information out there from experts who are studying are out there, your unwillingness to search and read them does not discredit them. And I don't know what a Clancy novel has to do with this, other than he happened to put Ebola in a book for the story. Are you saying we should ignore what medical experts and scientists who study diseases say and instead base our actions over what a fiction writer wrote many years ago? That's ridiculous.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
And people saying you have to eat the bodily fluids are "showing common sense" ? ALL your cred goes out the window with that bit of histrionics

All I said about Clancy's books was that he wrote about a scenario that was possible, for the virus to mutate to lesser strength,which if you were paying attention instead of in attack mode you would recognize only went to bolster the "we are in little to no danger " position ,are you saying the virus can't do that? What is more ,if you know anything about Clancy you then know that his books were very thoroughly researched and it was strongly suspected he had a mole inside the CIA who gave him info about weaponry and threat scenarios , i.e. biological warfare. Again that is not to say anything more than WHAT HE outlined is possible which you did not refute, you attacked the source instead of the substance,which I'm beginning to notice a pattern of.

NOW , once more you have still based all your contentions upon YOUR testimony of what "peer reviews " would do to the contentions of the sources of the article ,one of which IS an admission in poster form from the CDC.
So far you've brought nothing but what you say others say ,criticized other sources and documented NONE , and made a pretty outlandish claim about what we would have to do to contract the disease ,FAR more outlandish than the idea that if an infected person ,post symptom, sneezes on you ,you are in significant danger, but in your second post I believe you admitted it was possible even though you used the ludicrous eating the fluids meme here is what you said
"For you to catch it that way, you'd have to be near someone who had the virus, then they would have to hack up a bit wet cough, and then you'd have to touch the mucus and spit and then put it in your mouth."
Take a count how many times you touch your face tomorrow ,pass a finger under you nose , eat a bag of chips or a candy bar without washing your hands first .
There are a myriad of ways to pass the virus from an infected contagious person ,every member of my family has had at least two colds since I got my transplant, I've gotten one and until a week ago I'd gotten none ,I remarked to my lead Dr. about it and he said ,it's very likely because you wash your hands a lot ,which I do about 30 times a day.
Whether people need to be alarmed about this or at a higher state of awareness is up to them ,but thus far you have proven none of your negatives , if an Ebola patient sneezes on you ,just don't eat it you'll be fine (y)

US/World
How Do You Get Ebola Virus? Ways You Can (And Can't) Contract The Deadly Disease
Oct 6, 2014 06:28 PM By Dana Dovey@danadovey
ebola.jpg

Simply being in the same room as an Ebola patient is not enough to get you infected. Photo courtesy of Reuters
Comment
How do you get Ebola? I’m sure this question is on everyone’s mind as the virus rapidly becomes an international health emergency. It’s important not to let hysteria get the best of you because, as The Washington Post so eloquently put it, “Fear can spread even faster than the virus.” Ebola is serious and extremely deadly, but like all viruses, the number one risk factor of contracting it is actually coming in contact with someone who has the virus.

How You Can Become Infected
Direct Contact With A Symptomatic Patient

In order to get Ebola, you have to come into direct contact with bodily fluids of a person who is infected with the virus and already symptomatic. Ebola is caused by a family of viruses calledfiloviridae, and like all viruses in this family, can only be spread through person-to-person transmission. “For the average person, the risk is low,” a U.S. doctor who specializes in infectious disease but preferred to remain anonymous because he/she did not have permission to speak with the media, told Medical Daily. “Urban health care workers may be a little bit more at risk, but I don’t think your average community clinic is.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Ebola is spread by direct contact with blood and bodily fluids, including but not limited to: urine, saliva, sweat, feces, vomit, breast milk, and semen. Also, not all these bodily fluids are as potent as others. For example, while blood and feces are usually quite abundant with the virus, other fluids such as saliva and sweat are much less likely to carry the virus. To become infected, these fluids must enter your body through either broken skin or through a mucous membrane, such as those found in the eyes, nose, or mouth. “If they don’t have a fever, they are not shedding the virus,” the doctor told Medical Daily.

The Dead
It is unknown how long the Ebola virus can remain alive on dead bodies, but experts predict that it may takes months before the virus is completely deactivated on an infected corpse. This is why so much emphasis has been placed on immediate disposal of contaminated cadavers.

Contaminated Objects and Materials
Another unfortunate aspect of Ebola is that the virus is quite efficient at living outside of the human body. This is why it’s possible to get the virus from non-organic materials. You can get Ebola from infected objects, such as needles or syringes, that have been contaminated with the infected bodily fluids of an Ebola patient.

NPR reported that the virus can remain alive outside a body for weeks, but environmental conditions such as heat and oxygen weaken the virus. Sweat transferred onto inanimate objects is also far less likely but not completely ruled out. “It’s not zero percent but it's low. It depends on the length of time. They did not find the virus in the environment from people touching objects the majority of the time,” explained the infectious disease specialist to Medical Daily.

How You Cannot Become Infected
Food

The only cases where it's known to be spread by food is through the handling of infected raw bush meat. “If it’s cooked or smoked, there is essentially zero risk,” Daniel Baush, an associate professor of tropical medicine at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, told The Washington Post. “You have to have contact with the relatively fresh blood or bodily fluids of the animal.”

Although illegal, bush meat does continue to be sold in and outside of Africa. Still, as Baush explained, the preparer is the only one in danger of bush meat contamination, since the meat sold abroad has already been dried or prepared. Due to this, it’s fair to conclude that, in general, traditional African dishes pose next to zero threat.

Water
Ebola is also not spread through water. According to NPR, the virus is deactivated within minutes of being in water. Dr. Alan Schmaljohn, a virologist at the University of Maryland, explained to NPR that this is because, unlike bacteria, viruses are not as resilient outside of the host. Each Ebola virus is encased in an envelope taken from the outer surface of a membrane of a host cell, and water does not provide a rich enough environment to allow this. This means that water supplies are in no danger or accidental (or intentional) Ebola contamination.

A Plane or Other Closed Airspaces
Ebola is not spread through the air, so merely being in the same room as an Ebola patient is of no consequence. Ebola can only spread through water droplets too large to become airborne, NPR reported. An infected individual would have to sneeze directly in your face, and their fluids would need to enter your eyes, mouth, or nose in order for there to be even the slightest chance of contamination. As for traveling; “If you’re sitting next to them or you're touching them — but usually you don’t touch people on a plane — it’s less likely,” the infectious disease doctor explained.

While the chances of being infected by Ebola on a plane or through another method of travel are not exactly zero, they are extremely low. In 1995, researchers followed 173 family members of 27 infected people. Seventy-eight of those had no direct contact with the infected member and had only been exposed to the virus through the air. None of these family members contracted Ebola.

Touch
Merely touching an infected individual, as previously explained by the infectious disease doctor, carries an extremely low risk for Ebola transmission, and as mentioned, the virus needs to spread from bodily fluids to open wounds or mucous membranes. Traditional burial habits in many of the infected areas include practices such as using a common bowl for ritual hand-washing and kissing the corpse’s face, The Daily Beast reported. Also, in many cultures the body is buried dangerously close to the deceased’s family. It is these traditions, not mere skin-to-skin touching, that has so quickly accelerated the viruses spread
 
Last edited:

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Ingestion is more than just eating. Also according to the article you just posted, but not the bolded parts, Ebola is in fact not easy to transmit and your chance of infection via most of the potential ways are actually quite low. Which would only further support my "the chance of pandemic in the US is quite low, and thus the hysteria is unwarranted" claim.

Peer reviews is what gives scholarly and scientific journals their credibility, because as other experts review them they either support what is said, as they too have gotten the result/or conclusion using the same methods, or they correct them and the journal is updated, or they aren't published. That is what peer reviews are, its not "my testimony" of what they are, that is what they are, that's why they are legitimate sources to get information from. If you discredit them for whatever reason that doesn't make them wrong. That's essentially text book cold cognitive bias, ignoring relevant information, and putting a lot of weight (anchoring) to an unimportant aspect... Or saying that a dead fiction author has good information in one of his novels.

That doesn't mean Clancy was a bad guy or a stupid guy, or didn't put research into his books. However he was a fiction writer, and thus he was able to take certain liberties with facts to progress the story and increase tension for the reader. I've already mentioned how hard and expensive it is to weaponize Ebola, so in the context of being relevant or possible its really not. The Soviet Union tried when they were a super power and was unable to do so, it is incredibly expensive and required an advanced state to both afford the amount of Ebola and to have the tools and knowledge to manipulate it (which top scientists in the best medical programs have difficulty doing)... To weaponize Ebola you'd need essentially to be an advanced western nation, and even then it would be hard. So I'd venture that the UK, Japan, Australia or Germany, etc aren't looking to attack us. Insurgency groups don't have the means to do so, and in the past groups have tried and failed miserably. The only real chance of weaponizing Ebola would to get people to essentially go on a kamakazi mission, willingly get the virus, and then go around and vomit on people. Obviously it wouldn't be very effective where we could contain the threat, arrest the person, and treat the very few people they were able to actually infect. Such as the United States. Even if Clancy is saying that it just mutates to become weaker (which doesn't make much sense), it still doesn't mean anything because we're discussing what actually happens according to scientists. Its the same reason we don't consult Star Trek fanboys when discussing NASA missions of exploration. There's fiction and there's science.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
Isis is easily well funded enough to weaponize the stuff, HOWEVER I'm sure there are more economical bio warfare alternatives.
Don't know why you are so hung up on the Clancy reference ask some of your peer reviewed unnamed sources how inaccurate he was , Star Trek is fantasy, Clancy is so near non fiction sometimes you wonder if people like the Russians invading the Ukraine wasn't a plan he read directly from CIA briefs ,it happened in the book Command Authority.

Either way ,you still think we have to eat the stuff? Or are you going to keep avoiding that clear misrepresentation?
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
ISIS is easily well funded enough to weaponize Ebola? Are you kidding me? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while, are you saying that they are better funded and able than the Soviet Union during the height of the cold war? That's either a very big miscalculation of the ability/funding of ISIS or a severely misunderstanding of Ebola, or both. You're essentially saying a somewhat new terror organization has more ubderstanding and control over Ebola than the entire global north and their combined medical ability.

I'm "hung up" on Clancy because you continue to turn to him as a source of authority, trying to discredit peer reviewed scientific journals by him. Which is a misunderstanding of how science works and what peer reviewed journals are or how they work. Obviously they don't have comments on how "inaccurate" Clancy is because he's a fiction writer. It doesn't matter how "close" to non fiction he is, he's still fiction. Fiction is fiction, nonfiction is nonfiction. It's not a sliding scale. He set his books during many real scenarios going on, and that's part of what made him so successful. That means nothing though, because as he was a fictional writer, he could afford to take liberties with his books, and thus to take his work as some sort of scientific proof is incredibly misguided. No, the Russians didn't invade Ukraine because they read about it in a Clancy book, no Ebola didn't suddenly become easy to control and weaponize because it's in a Clancy book, no there's no multinational special operations group running around saving the world from bioterror groups, he is a fictional writer.

Please lookup what ingestion means, trying to distort my argument in an attempt to make yours credible doesn't work. Unless you have some real facts and real statistics from real scientific journals, I'm going to assume you don't have any credible arguments and we're done.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
ISIS is easily well funded enough to weaponize Ebola? Are you kidding me? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while, are you saying that they are better funded and able than the Soviet Union during the height of the cold war? That's either a very big miscalculation of the ability/funding of ISIS or a severely misunderstanding of Ebola, or both. You're essentially saying a somewhat new terror organization has more ubderstanding and control over Ebola than the entire global north and their combined medical ability.

I'm "hung up" on Clancy because you continue to turn to him as a source of authority, trying to discredit peer reviewed scientific journals by him. Which is a misunderstanding of how science works and what peer reviewed journals are or how they work. Obviously they don't have comments on how "inaccurate" Clancy is because he's a fiction writer. It doesn't matter how "close" to non fiction he is, he's still fiction. Fiction is fiction, nonfiction is nonfiction. It's not a sliding scale. He set his books during many real scenarios going on, and that's part of what made him so successful. That means nothing though, because as he was a fictional writer, he could afford to take liberties with his books, and thus to take his work as some sort of scientific proof is incredibly misguided. No, the Russians didn't invade Ukraine because they read about it in a Clancy book, no Ebola didn't suddenly become easy to control and weaponize because it's in a Clancy book, no there's no multinational special operations group running around saving the world from bioterror groups, he is a fictional writer.

Please lookup what ingestion means, trying to distort my argument in an attempt to make yours credible doesn't work. Unless you have some real facts and real statistics from real scientific journals, I'm going to assume you don't have any credible arguments and we're done.
You said EAT ,own it or don't.
And BTW I have seen NO sources from you everything you've posted has been unsourced ,everything, you are not a "credible source " you are spouting nothing more credible than CLANCY.
And FWIW you can weaponize Ebola by pharisis of infected blood in a super soaker, crude but effective and very inexpensive in the hands of suicide terrorists
 
Last edited:

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
They're all over google, do a little actual research. Youre making the outlandish claims, I've stated things that are easily googled, such as it's not airborne, all but 2 cases in the states have ended with the people recovering, and one of those two is stable and looking good, and weaponizing and controlling Ebola is expensive, difficult, and the Soviet Union failed to do so. On that point, no, spraying Ebola blood on people is not an effective method of bioterrorism. They wouldn't be able to infect many people, those people would be easily identified and treated, and whoever did it would be caught in a matter of minutes.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
They're all over google, do a little actual research. Youre making the outlandish claims, I've stated things that are easily googled, such as it's not airborne, all but 2 cases in the states have ended with the people recovering, and one of those two is stable and looking good, and weaponizing and controlling Ebola is expensive, difficult, and the Soviet Union failed to do so. On that point, no, spraying Ebola blood on people is not an effective method of bioterrorism. They wouldn't be able to infect many people, those people would be easily identified and treated, and whoever did it would be caught in a matter of minutes.
Oh but it would be effective ,with a few super soakers of infected blood you could overload the healthcare facilities in a major city . As I said BTW operated BY suicide operatives,so whether they get caught isn't an issue ,even though you have no idea whether they would, look how long it took to catch the Boston Bombers,which is another way infected blood could be spread.
And once again all you offer is YOUR testimony which is no better than here say, you were a mod for a while yet you link nothing you want cred do some work to prove your postion instead of saying what other people say is "bullshit" because you know different ,you are not an authority ,I have quoted authorities with credentials you have substantiated nothing except that you're adamant and without any credential, so you're just shouting.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
You quoted a fictional writer, that is not authority. A person who has Ebola infects in average, 1-2.5 others. Even spraying super soakers around would not "overload" medical centers, especially in such an advanced democracy as ours where we can move them to different locations as needed. If you actually did research you would see those sources, which is how I know you haven't done so.