ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2014 03:24 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Thack's got a dry sense of the absurd.

Cool
Quehoniaomath
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2014 03:24 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
Thack's got a dry sense of the absurd.


why?
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2014 03:27 pm
I'm pulling the plug on this. Andrei and ossobucco have the right idea.
ossobuco
 
  4  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2014 03:29 pm
@maxdancona,
I sound like hall monitor - crabby, because this is one thread I'd like to see stay sane, however we think, agree or disagree, and discuss. Q doesn't fit that description.
Quehoniaomath
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2014 03:31 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
Q doesn't fit that description.


Because?

If you want me out I will go, if you give me one good argument.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2014 03:32 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Yes. Trust me. Also about the other things like fluoride.

As ehBeth said, dry sense of the absurd.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2014 03:39 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
No, stay, per favore.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2014 03:47 pm
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUTsWEJDKAvPNS7eMCB4JfSINOYfvc42jgQiDPfQ0ILMHg5jL5sw
0 Replies
 
katsung47
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2014 04:58 pm
Ebola Outbreak Planned Years Ago! What Do You Think The Millions Of “Coffin Liners” Are For?

Wednesday, October 1, 2014
“An award-winning Texas scientist was given a standing ovation after he advocated the extermination of 90 per cent of the Earth’s population by an airborne Ebola virus.”

Pianka began his speech by condemning anthropocentrism, or the idea that the human race occupies a privileged position in nature. He exclaimed, “We’re no better than bacteria!”

“After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, ‘We’ve got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.’ “

http://beforeitsnews.com/agenda-21/2014/10/ebola-outbreak-planned-years-ago-what-do-you-think-the-millions-of-coffin-liners-are-for-1026.html
roger
 
  4  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2014 05:04 pm
@katsung47,
C'mon KIM CHEE!
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2014 06:36 pm
How big is the problem?

In 2012, 10,322 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1
Of the 1,168 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2012, 239 (20%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.1
Of the 239 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2012, over half (124) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.1
In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.4
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2014 06:42 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
And...all of which are totally irrelevant.

The size of the Ebola outbreak currently is ...is not the issue. It's how big it can become...very quickly. and that it requires swift action NOW. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa, prevention of the spread needs the help of the richer more able nations.

This is a matter of being pro-active, making sure that hospitals stick the proper procedures, testing and reporting, and seeing to it that the powers-that-be are doing everything humanly possible to prevent this from becoming pandemic. the infection rate and spread in USA and NA can be minimized with proper action.
bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2014 07:14 pm
@Ragman,
I believe in keeping my threats in perspective. I am much more concerned with drunk drivers than I am in coming into contact with Ebola patients in the last two or three days of their lives plus my cultural background doesn't doesn't require me to wash my dead.

Not getting Ebola even in a breakout area is not a difficult task.

I prefer my precautions to be weighted towards more likely events.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2014 01:27 am
@JPB,
OK - We disagree on the motivation for Biden's comments and the comments of people like him.

Regardless of his motivation, his comments were idiotic. There is a lot more to fear from another 9/11 than personal injury or death,(and this is exactly what he was talking about) and despite Max's confidence, another attack on such a scale will set this country into a tailspin. Not one we cannot pull out of, but one that will disrupt and impact the lives of most Americans.

There is zero reason to panic, no matter how great the risk, but "panic" is being used by Max and others to describe reasonable as well as irrational fear. There is already reporting concerning possible plans by ISIS to use Ebola in a terrorist attack against America. I don't know if they have any actual evidence of this or it's just logical speculation, but introduce humans willing and capable of using the virus as a weapon, and all the assurances concerning the way it spreads naturally have a hole in them.

A lot of people are calling for a ban on inbound flights from the nations currently beset by Ebola, and this is being called a reaction of panic. We were told by our president that Ebola was not going to be brought to the US by one of these flights, and lo and behold, one did. (Another good reason not to tell people there is zero risk - if it's proven false, it trashes your credibility when you have something sensible to say about the matter).

Past Ebola outbreaks have been self-containing in that they have occurred in rural areas and kill so many of it's victims that eventually the disease puts an end to itself. This time around it has reached urban centers where, regardless of how difficult it is to transmit, wider spread transmission is more likely. The more people going to and from the affected areas, the less chance there is for the disease to run its course.

I'm not suggesting that the people in these West African countries be left to die for the benefit of the rest of the world, but banning inbound commercial flights would not do do. I have heard numerous experts stating that we shouldn't ban these flights, but none can offer a reason beyond saying its not necessary. Obviously if the ban had been in effect before Mr. Duncan arrived in American, Ebola would not have come to Dallas.

Whether or not it is appropriate to prevent commercial air traffic between the US and these countries to prevent a relative handful of deaths is a worthy question, but no one wants to frame it in this way, because no one wants to publicly say that the commercial air traffic with Liberia or Sierre Leone is more important than the lives of a handful of Americans who might die from contracting Ebola. So instead they insinuate that simply calling for a measure that implies a handful of American deaths are more significant than the air traffic, is an expression of panic.

If from the start they had said that with the extent of global transportation there was a pretty good chance that Ebola would find its way here, but it is actually less dangerous to the general public than several other potentially deadly diseases that can just as easily or more easily be carried here from foreign lands, they would have had a better chance of keeping the threat in context with the American people, but their first reaction is to treat us like children...Daddy will never let anything happen to you so go back to sleep and don't worry.

When you tell someone something that is proven not to be true: Ebola won't come here on a plane from Africa, or ER staffs throughout the country are trained to immediately identify potential Ebola cases and will jump on the case right away, you've created a logical reason for people to mistrust everything else you say: Ebola is not airborne, it can't possibly spread like the flu.

When the assurances of experts are needed to prevent overreaction to a situation, it obviously doesn't help to undermine those assurances by having been proven wrong on prior ones. When the one's that have proven wrong were based on fanciful or condescending zero risk-like statements, you've shot yourself in the foot.

And to the extent that they are implementing safety precautions, largely to calm the fear of citizens (medical screening of inbound passengers from these countries) it doesn't have the desired effect when it is obviously an attempt at applying a psychological band-aide to the public's psyche. People are not stupid. If there is a reason to screen these passengers in 5 US airports, why isn't there a reason to screen them in all US airports?

If they are incompetent when it comes to allaying fears, why would we believe they are competent in dealing with the disease when it actually presents itself?



hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2014 01:37 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Past Ebola outbreaks have been self-containing in that they have occurred in rural areas and kill so many of it's victims that eventually the disease puts an end to itself. This time around it has reached urban centers where, regardless of how difficult it is to transmit, wider spread transmission is more likely. The more people going to and from the affected areas, the less chance there is for the disease to run its course.

We dont know why. The experts claim that there was a delay in reporting and then response which is the full reason but the experts have so far been spectacularly wrong about this outbreak. Even now we are getting a death rate range 50-80% which is the same as " we dont know". why not, how hard can this be?.

In anycase it does not look like the mortality rate is normal this time, which likely means that the current mutations are significantly different from past versions. A part of that change might be that it transmits easier. I figure we will get some decent data, maybe 2-3 years from now.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2014 07:22 am
The government makes it snow so that salt needs to be put down on the roads. This is an agreement with auto companies to keep people buying cars more often
Quehoniaomath
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2014 08:20 am
@thack45,
Quote:
The government makes it snow so that salt needs to be put down on the roads. This is an agreement with auto companies to keep people buying cars more often


???


well, they do make rain to make floods! and do make droughts! This is very true!

Quehoniaomath
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2014 08:48 am
Quote:
Part of the difficulty (and appropriate public concern) that the powers-that-be (CDC, etc.) should be focused on how this disease mutates and will mutate in the future.


They, CDC etc, know everything there is to know because 'theý' do make this themselves!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Ebola: Science vs. Mass Hysteria - Discussion by maxdancona
The CDC has it all wrong. - Discussion by maxdancona
Ebola In Dallas. - Question by mark noble
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ebola in The USA
  3. » Page 15
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 10:23:11