Ebola

Are you worried?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • No

    Votes: 8 50.0%
  • Maybe so

    Votes: 7 43.8%

  • Total voters
    16
#1
A quick note - I don't recommend this topic for members prone to health/death-related anxiety. Please proceed at your own risk. (:

Ebola is a deadly virus that broke out in West Africa recently...the largest EVD outbreak in history; and a few recent incidents are causing it swirl around the news. You can get the scoop here:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/28/ebola-potential-to-spread/13267909/
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ebola-spreading-africa-land-us/story?id=24747965
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...k-in-history-heres-why-you-should-be-worried/

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

I'm curious to hear thoughts on this. Are you concerned? Do you believe worldwide spread is truly "low risk"? How should the US/world go about preventing it? Could it be used as a weapon? Is this the beginning... *dramatic outlook* ...of the...END? :faint:

Discuss! :o
 

philitup

The Internet Champion!
#2
It is such an interesting topic to me. I will never count out the idea of a world wide spread virus, but I would think that something like this would've already happened. But either way, I think we all can agree that we don't want this to become a seriously wide spread thing.
 

Valkyrie

Not so Active Member
#3
Since we're more intelligent today and have much more technology than many, many years ago, I think there should be something done about it. First thing, there should be a vaccine to prevent people from getting it. The first country that should get the vaccine is Africa since they were recently plagued with it months ago. However a vaccine would take long to invent, like what happened when H1N1 virus was spreading in 2010 (I think), and they didn't have a vaccine until the next year.

Another thing that could be done is to prevent all American tourists from going to West Africa. We can't have that disease coming here, that would be awful. People going over there could put a risk of getting infected, and when they come back, it'll just spread. But what we need is something that will kill the disease, a medicine that can be accessed by everyone who's at risk or in the incubation period before it can start to affect the body. Hopefully in the following years this will be minimized and not such of a big deal, like how diseases that were first out breaking are now under control.
 

†_Beast_†

l'antico vampiro
#4
And people are just surprised now, in 2014 about Ebola because of what the media is reporting about those dying from it? This is nothing new and there will always be viruses and some that are meant to be more deadly than others...and many viruses have been created and spread by mankind's stupid mistakes in the past. Mistakes that are still being made and continue to be made so it should come as to no surprise to anyone that this happens. Ebola was first given its name in the 1970's when some of its strands were discovered as being a potentially dangerous disease due to what was happening to some human beings who fell ill. Long story short, when it comes down to it.....lol....it's called pestilence for a reason and it's not a matter of when, it’s a matter of how many will be killed.

To quote a few things from above: (no I'm not picking on you - just pointing out a few things)

"Since we're more intelligent today ...and have much more technology than many years ago..") - ....What??......I'm certain you didn't mean to put it that way because I highly doubt you actually believe that lol. Technology simply builds upon itself and is handed down to other beings, the blue prints for many things to be developed further. Things are built upon by others efforts in almost all circumstances. It doesn't mean the human race has suddenly become more intelligent as time continues to pass on - I.E. such as the idea that human beings are somehow more intelligent in this era. If anything, the development of too much technology can dull the human being to rely on their intellect to figure things out instead of a piece of technology to do it for them. The level of the plausible IQ spectrum in human intelligence hasn't changed. Technology has changed yes, but not a humans IQ range.

"but I would think that something like this would've already happened. But either way, I think we all can agree that we don't want this to become a seriously wide spread thing." - It will happen because it's meant to happen. Why do you think human beings aren't immune to viruses, even non-deadly ones? I don't think some people have any clue what pestilence will cause in the end. It will be worse than world war two and those still living will die very painful deaths.

"How should the US/world go about preventing it? Could it be used as a weapon? Is this the beginning..." The United States mainly concerns itself with the United States even though the US is perceived to be the "world police" as they say; it’s mainly when something is directly affecting its own country/citizens and economy. Yes. It could be used as a weapon. Time and time again, chemical warfare has and will be used by beings. The sad thing is more people would be concerned about manufacturing it as a weapon rather than finding suitable antibodies to fight the virus inside a human beings normal immune system.
 
#5
"Since we're more intelligent today ...and have much more technology than many years ago..") - ....What??......I'm certain you didn't mean to put it that way because I highly doubt you actually believe that lol. Technology simply builds upon itself and is handed down to other beings, the blue prints for many things to be developed further. Things are built upon by others efforts in almost all circumstances. It doesn't mean the human race has suddenly become more intelligent as time continues to pass on - I.E. such as the idea that human beings are somehow more intelligent in this era. If anything, the development of too much technology can dull the human being to rely on their intellect to figure things out instead of a piece of technology to do it for them. The level of the plausible IQ spectrum in human intelligence hasn't changed. Technology has changed yes, but not a humans IQ range.
It's a nitpick, but it has to be made.

Humans are more intelligent now. Assuming IQ is even a reasonable measurement, we've reset the IQ bell curve multiple times in recent history, to keep 100 as the average. Not because we started to fall below 100, but because we kept moving above it. The numbers show that IQ hasn't budged, but that's what a "quotient" is all about. Beyond intelligence, more of us are literate and educated than at any point in human history.

And there are more of us than ever before, too. More minds will come up with more new ideas and test more of them.

The technology argument is nonsense. I can Google to find physics equations, but I can't Google "what's the best way to cure a virus?" If anything, technology allows people to take their minds off of redundant factual information, so that people can instead focus on the things that computers are too dumb to handle; namely, imagine and communicate.
 

†_Beast_†

l'antico vampiro
#6
I guess we'll have to go a little further for some people on that topic...lol. More human beings on this planet, on average attending schools has nothing to do with the overall "avg" of human intelligence in the world. Obviously as the population ^ grows, 6 billion plus etc. you will have more people attending school - that's a given. Also, the job world dictates that they want you to have a piece of paper and a certain level of educational background to get certain jobs for that purpose of one's own financial security and as a way to "weed out" competition. That means more people will attend further schooling. It does not mean human beings have nor will become suddenly more intelligent. This has nothing to do with the level of human intelligence as it being suddenly "higher" as opposed to recent history etc. Your other point won't matter in time if technology continues along the line and point of letting computers do everything for you. You cannot convince me for one the spectrum of ones IQ (intelligence quotient), that human beings are somehow smarter in this era and will continue to get more intelligent as opposed to other eras of time just because they've continued to improve on current technology and are more literate with more beings attending school. Those are given facts with jobs and more people on the planet. Technology will continue to be built upon itself. I'll reiterate again with technology, the problem will come when that technology goes too far for human beings. When they don't have to rely upon themselves for thought and free will in itself. When it can also be taken away then. To think for yourself, that's what a human being has that is truly special. You shouldn't lose that. Nobody should, you were created to be given free thought and will. Not to have a computer or robot think for you.

Let's be blunt though ~
Funny, it went from Ebola to human beings somehow becoming smarter....right...if anything technology is making people dumber. For example - if you wanna say "On avg." 9 times out of 10 when you talk to someone who cannot have a conversation without looking ( ) up on google or developed an ability to think things through for themselves because of that reliance on tech, such as something as simple a crow can do and then somehow believe that it's from an era called "the grey days" (yes I've heard 'students'/kids/teens say that), when color "somehow" didn't exist.... lol ...I know that's just an example around this part of the country in the U.S. but really people need to learn moderation with technology too because if it gets to the point where human beings start abusing it and only relying on it; obviously it takes away from the point of you being something that isn't just a primate.... and then people wonder why they are looked upon as being cattle or sheep by others in the real world...heh. Truth be told, the world in this era has not shown me anything to believe that human beings are smarter now with bigger brain capacity as opposed to another time. On avg. it has shown just that thus far, the opposite.
 
#8
It would be easy to say I'm not worried because I'm not directly affected or it hasn't become widespread and/or rampant as of yet, but as part of my education requires I've learned that disease and illness is much more prevalent than most of us are actually aware of unless of course you work in healthcare or just happen to know. It's just a matter of the fact. For example, most people over the age of 65 are more prone to contract tuberculosis (a terrible lung condition caused by something as simple as bacteria where it becomes hard to breathe) but anyone can have it. It can be latent (contained in the body) or active (spreading through the rest of the body). Some can have it without even knowing it. Like with any other disease or illness, it depends on the person's body and how it reacts and copes (that's why the importance of good hygiene and health meaning good diet, exercise, lifestyle is often emphasized so your immune system - your body's defense can do the best it can), adherence to and type of treatment, doctor-patient relationship. Those variables are main components on whether you can overcome or simply just survive an acute (less than 6 months) or chronic (more than 6 months) condition, and if you make it better or worse. Hepatitis is a great example caused by a virus. HIV causing AIDS, etc. All happening right now on a global scale, have been and will continue because some bacteria and viruses thrive naturally as a part of life though not necessarily good for us. I've only hit the top of the iceberg, and pretty sure I'll be learning a lot more this fall in microbiology lol.

Ebola is just another thing on the horribly endless list of what lurks, can spread and kill us. We can die from something as simple as staying in the heat for too long - heat stroke, freezing to death, fatty deposit or gas bubble in the bloodstream, 6 minutes without oxygen to the brain, and much much more. Fortunately healthcare providers are required to learn about how to take standard precautions such as proper hand hygiene and wearing personal protective equipment correctly (ventilation masks are worn to prevent droplets from someone with tuberculosis who's coughing and infectious from entering the body). Something so simple like not washing your hands and not being wary of where and what you touch can spread a communicable disease and cause illness in you or someone else if you happen to be infected or catch the microorganism responsible for it. Proper use of equipment and reporting through documentation is also emphasized of course. Many people die a year especially in hospitals due to healthcare harm not necessarily due to the workers but cracks in the system.

Although we are never going to be entirely free from disease or illness death in general, we can use our resources wisely such as the internet, people we know who work in healthcare, the news to learn what we can do to protect ourselves/know what's going on. Meanwhile, medical researchers, scientists, the government I'm sure has some sort of minimum works to make sure the public is educated as needed and working on improving ways to better protect ourselves.

All in all, it is what it is and only further knowledge (the important facts more so general concepts are better to learn) and reassurance that all that can be done is being done can ensure somewhat confidence of the control of Ebola, or any virus, disease causing illness. Better safe than sorry, but we're never entirely safe especially from death. From a simple blood clot, spread of a nasty virus, a car accident...that's why life shouldn't be taken for granted. Wouldn't stress about disease or dying, just be aware and try to understand what's going on to the best of your ability. It's the rather sad but inevitable part of life.
 
#9
In Texas a man had gotten Ebola, and he was released from the hospital with Ebola still, and 18 people were exposed. Obama is planning to send 4,000 troops over to Africa to help the people with Ebola, do you think that was the right choice, or maybe Africa should go on a quarantine? Ebola was also found in Spain, and some other countries. What do you think is the best choice for everyone on what to do about Ebola?
 
Last edited:

Jasmine

Well-Known Member
#10
People need to chill, honestly. People only care about this outbreak because Americans have been exposed, and the media's just making the whole situation 10x worse. There have been recent outbreaks in the past decade or so with more deaths, but less cases (at this point, only about 1/2 of those infected during this outbreak - which has been almost a year - have died), but no one cared because Americans didn't come in contact with it. The whole thing is a shame. The media has people scared to death when the truth is that most people won't even come in contact with someone who's been around the virus. (We had a case evacuated to our neighboring state and the news decided to do a report about it... the fact that people were terrified is ridiculous.)

Most people don't even know anything about Ebola, other than that it's a deadly virus. For example, if people knew that Ebola virus causes a disease known as Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF - which hasn't been proven to be spread through air; it's only spread through bodily fluids of infected humans or animals), and that EHF is incredibly fast acting (the incubation period varies pretty drastically, but one could die between 7-14 days of contracting the virus or after the incubation period due to multiple organ failure), they would realize the likelihood of the outbreak spreading to America, or even becoming a worldwide epidemic (or pandemic, whatever you want to call it), is incredibly low. Or perhaps if people knew the suspected origins of the virus, they wouldn't be freaking out so badly. The misconceptions people have are ridiculous... I understand that everyone doesn't have a medical background or access to someone with one, but anybody can research something. It's not difficult.

Regardless though, the outbreak needs to be stopped/kept under control, and if more troops will help end the outbreak sooner, then that's a good thing. By the way, he only pledged 4,000; they haven't all been sent yet. There's only a couple hundred there right now. I believe they're currently making space for more soldiers right now. And honestly, these troops might be the very thing that help contain the virus. Here's hoping that that's what happens. What we really need is a cure, but that will probably be a while coming. I do expect one eventually though.
 
#11
People need to chill, honestly. People only care about this outbreak because Americans have been exposed, and the media's just making the whole situation 10x worse. There have been recent outbreaks in the past decade or so with more deaths, but less cases (at this point, only about 1/2 of those infected during this outbreak - which has been almost a year - have died), but no one cared because Americans didn't come in contact with it. The whole thing is a shame. The media has people scared to death when the truth is that most people won't even come in contact with someone who's been around the virus. (We had a case evacuated to our neighboring state and the news decided to do a report about it... the fact that people were terrified is ridiculous.)

Most people don't even know anything about Ebola, other than that it's a deadly virus. For example, if people knew that Ebola virus causes a disease known as Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF - which hasn't been proven to be spread through air; it's only spread through bodily fluids of infected humans or animals), and that EHF is incredibly fast acting (the incubation period varies pretty drastically, but one could die between 7-14 days of contracting the virus or after the incubation period due to multiple organ failure), they would realize the likelihood of the outbreak spreading to America, or even becoming a worldwide epidemic (or pandemic, whatever you want to call it), is incredibly low. Or perhaps if people knew the suspected origins of the virus, they wouldn't be freaking out so badly. The misconceptions people have are ridiculous... I understand that everyone doesn't have a medical background or access to someone with one, but anybody can research something. It's not difficult.

Regardless though, the outbreak needs to be stopped/kept under control, and if more troops will help end the outbreak sooner, then that's a good thing. By the way, he only pledged 4,000; they haven't all been sent yet. There's only a couple hundred there right now. I believe they're currently making space for more soldiers right now. And honestly, these troops might be the very thing that help contain the virus. Here's hoping that that's what happens. What we really need is a cure, but that will probably be a while coming. I do expect one eventually though.
thanks for explaining that more thoroughly, I hadn't really known much about the disease itself
 

Jasmine

Well-Known Member
#12
thanks for explaining that more thoroughly, I hadn't really known much about the disease itself
Yeah, a lot of people don't. That's what the media needs to be doing - explaining what actually happens with the disease.

Another thing is that I haven't heard of anyone trying to find the source of the outbreak. It seems like everyone's more focused on containing the disease and has forgotten that it has a source... Just doesn't make sense to me. And if countries really wanted to eliminate the possibility of the disease spreading to other countries, I'd have thought many would have made it mandatory that people flying in from those regions of West Africa would be required to be watched in a hospital for at least 2-3 weeks. The CDC only "reminds" Americans coming from there to monitor their symptoms (though 5 airports are doing "Ebola screenings"). It just seems like a lot more could be done. I don't get why it isn't being done by those who are supposed to be "professionals".
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#13
Further adding to Jasmine (full disclaimer, it's 3:19 AM, and I didn't really read the whole thing so this may be a tad repetitive):

Ebola is a virus. The disease it causes, Ebola Haemorrhagic Fever (or Ebola for short) is one of a family of diseases that are ONLY spread through direct contact with bodily fluids such as blood, cerebrospinal fluid, some other fluids i can't name here, etc. There's a debate over whether it can be spread through sweat, but most medical professionals believe it can't be (or would be EXTREMELY rare).

Further adding - they know (or think they know) who Patient Zero was. Although that doesn't really help with containing it now, nor preventing it in the future. The Ebola virus loves to hang out in animals that just so happen to be common in the region and then when it gets a chance it pops into a human. During the burial of their loved one, family members and friends catch the disease. Outbreak starts.

The big problem with Ebola fear is, like most other problems, media hype over it. Ebola is no worse overall than diseases that are currently in the US, yet for some reason it's a bigger deal?
 

acebatonfan

Well-Known Member
#14
I feel like the media is freaking out more about Ebola than the Entrovirus D68, when the entrovirus is more of an issue on US soil.

I am a person who panics very easily when cold and flu season kicks up; something as simple as a common cold can kill me (through ketoacidosis) if I do not carefully monitor my blood sugar and ketone levels when I am not feeling well. I believe that the common cold I experienced the week before my diabetes diagnosis was what sent me into DKA and what ultimately got me diagnosed when I did. Quite frankly, I am more afraid of Entrovirus D68, which is more of an imminent threat to me, than Ebola.

This might be very extreme, but if people are freaking out about Ebola in the US, then the US needs to close the borders to all people coming from those highly-infected countries. They can easily deny entrance to people whose passports have one of the infected countries as their home country, and they can easily quarantine people who have been to one of those infected countries within the past 28 days until the incubation period has passed.

Ebola is reminding me of the multitudes of infections that I created on Plague Inc. With its low infectivity and high lethality, I wonder if this virus will survive in first world countries unless it mutates and causes its infectivity to increase (through the air instead of through bodily fluids). I read somewhere that it's customary in West Africa to avoid medical intervention, and there are rituals at death that expose other people to the bodily fluids of a person affected with Ebola (thus increasing the infectivity in that country).
 
#15
In response to a couple of things brought up above:

Like most viruses, diseases, etc in 3rd world or underdeveloped countries, the source is typically animals who then pass it on to humans.

Remember the swine flu, aka H1N1? They slaughtered thousands of swine in China because that was one of the sources of this flu (although this was really irrelevant and more of a response because people were feeling scared, pressured to do this rather than it being a useful treatment for stopping the spread of H1N1). For ebola, this virus typically resides naturally in bat populations.

And just in case anyone is wondering, the bubonic plague is still carried in rodents (we just have better rodent control in place today, so we don't have outbreaks of this) and rabies again occurs naturally in bat populations. Also consider that swimming in fresh water exposes you to all kinds of crazy bacteria and viruses like leptosporosis, giardia, cryptosporidium, hepatitis A, and many others. We have quite a few much more communicable diseases closer to home that people should worry about.

Hope this helps people be a little bit more informed about things :)
 

Jasmine

Well-Known Member
#16
Further adding to Jasmine (full disclaimer, it's 3:19 AM, and I didn't really read the whole thing so this may be a tad repetitive):

Ebola is a virus. The disease it causes, Ebola Haemorrhagic Fever (or Ebola for short) is one of a family of diseases that are ONLY spread through direct contact with bodily fluids such as blood, cerebrospinal fluid, some other fluids i can't name here, etc. There's a debate over whether it can be spread through sweat, but most medical professionals believe it can't be (or would be EXTREMELY rare).

Further adding - they know (or think they know) who Patient Zero was. Although that doesn't really help with containing it now, nor preventing it in the future. The Ebola virus loves to hang out in animals that just so happen to be common in the region and then when it gets a chance it pops into a human. During the burial of their loved one, family members and friends catch the disease. Outbreak starts.

The big problem with Ebola fear is, like most other problems, media hype over it. Ebola is no worse overall than diseases that are currently in the US, yet for some reason it's a bigger deal?
By source, I meant finding out how it's being spread by these animals - like which ones are infected? Since it's thought to come from fruit bats (or they're thought to be natural carriers/hosts), for example, veterinarians should be over there examining all types of animals and the crops and stuff that these animals come in contact with. That's how I'm thinking patient zero would've gotten it in the first place - perhaps an infected animal's feces got into some crops or something.

Even this article mentions how they still don't know how the child got the virus. I would think veterinarians would be looking into that, but I haven't heard anything about it yet.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#17
@Jasmine that's all good and well, but really a waste of time and money. We can't eradicate Ebola like we did smallpox - simply because it'll still be hiding in African animals. As such, it's not really a high priority to go that far back, because it won't change anything now.
 

Jasmine

Well-Known Member
#18
@Jasmine that's all good and well, but really a waste of time and money. We can't eradicate Ebola like we did smallpox - simply because it'll still be hiding in African animals. As such, it's not really a high priority to go that far back, because it won't change anything now.
Not really. It's worth the time and effort, just as much as sending 4,000 troops over there is. If they can at least isolate or hypothesize which animals are infected, that can help contain it. Who's to say all these people that are infected now are being infected ONLY by relatives or others with the disease? The fact is, if you don't know the source, it very well could still be infecting people.
 

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#19
Not really. It's worth the time and effort, just as much as sending 4,000 troops over there is. If they can at least isolate or hypothesize which animals are infected, that can help contain it. Who's to say all these people that are infected now are being infected ONLY by relatives or others with the disease? The fact is, if you don't know the source, it very well could still be infecting people.
I mean, we "eradicated" polio, yet there's still cases of it in rural places. Same with most other diseases that were "eradicated". We'll never be able to fully eradicate anything with our current world-state. The best we can do is contain outbreaks (which we aren't really succeeding at right now), and then during times of non-outbreak, research the disease so that next time it can be stopped sooner, until it can be stopped AT patient zero.

Just my opinion tho
 

Jasmine

Well-Known Member
#20
I mean, we "eradicated" polio, yet there's still cases of it in rural places. Same with most other diseases that were "eradicated". We'll never be able to fully eradicate anything with our current world-state. The best we can do is contain outbreaks (which we aren't really succeeding at right now), and then during times of non-outbreak, research the disease so that next time it can be stopped sooner, until it can be stopped AT patient zero.

Just my opinion tho
That's the point. At this rate, if the source(s) is/are still active, there's no point in even trying to contain the disease anymore. If too many (meaning a majority) of animals become infected and continue to infect more people, it's pointless... there's no way they can contain such an outbreak without at least knowing one for sure source. The more people infected, the more workers will be needed over there and the more workers needed over there actually increases the chance of this becoming a pandemic. That's precisely why it's at least worth looking into.
 
Top