Ebola, coming to a place near you soon!

and have Corporate USA have Corporations loose millions if not billions of dollars as a result, thus impacting Obama's already low levels of public acceptance?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/travel-ban-flights-ebola-111961.html

So the FAA chief is telling us that banning flights will not solve Ebola problems, of course not, it would create lots of problems for FAA lobbying revenues.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A flight ban on countries with a collective GDP of less than 10 billion dollars isn't going to be able to stand up to the travel industry alone much less all of the other industries which would be affected by a pandemic.

And we ca see how well the failure to ban travel is working out. Two people infected and more will likely become infected.

If another INFECTED TRAVELER shows up in America it will be very bad for Americans, Obama and Democrats. How many people need to die for political correctness?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

fair question and I am a tad embarrassed.

In the rapid research that I did yesterday the definition of Ebola came up in this context:

Question:
What is the history of the Ebola River? Where does the word "Ebola" come from?
Answer:
"Yes, Ebola means "black" and the disease, Ebola, is named after the River Ebola that runs through Zaire (now called the Democratic Republic of Congo) where this deadliest of the 5 strains of Ebola, Ebola Zaire genus, was discovered/identified. Very fitting..."Black River" or Ebola River...as the orifices of the body may bleed like a "black river" when in the hemorrhagic stages of this disease. Level 4 pathogen...comparable to a "red alert"...deadly."
unqualified and unable to be verified... sorry about that...
source : http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-history-of-the-Ebola-River-Where-does-the-word-Ebola-come-from

In my defense, when reading the answer I was impressed by it's inherent qualification and have very little doubt that if further research was carried out it's veracity would be confirmed.
Also it's relationship to Arabic maybe via the local African Arabic and not "Arabic" per see.
My mistake and apologies for posting too impulsively...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

After this is all over, I suggest they rename the river.
And all the Hotels and B and B's that are called things like Ebola View.

 

Well they could, but the Great Grey-Green Greasy Limpopo River (all set about with fever trees) is already taken.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Ebola

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Great Grey-Green Greasy Limpopo​

 

I am still having great difficulty understanding why the virus appears to be generally contained to West Africa.
and now it appears (on the news tonight) the medical staff of one area are thinking of going on strike over pay issues... which is absurd given the situation I would have thought.
Something doesn't stack up...

 

The Great greasy Limpopo looks quire nice.

 

What's in a name? That which we call ebola by any other name... yada yada yada

 

Isnt the real issue stopping the virus before it mutates into a truly airborne disease? And that means a great effort in Africa to contain and stop it FAST.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandso...dly-mutating-as-it-spreads-across-west-africa

 

It means stopping it every where.

 

Has anyone said that the possibility of it becoming airborne is other than remote?
Is it any more likely to become airborne than HIV?

 

Currently, Ebola typically gains entry into the body through breaks in the skin, the watery fluid around the eye or the moist tissues of the nose or mouth. Then it infects various cells of the immune system, which it tricks into making more copies of itself.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-the-ebola-virus-will-go-airborne/

I dont think its comparable to HIV. As far as I know HIV must enter the bloodstream to infect a person, unlike the above where it appears to infect via moist tissue areas. Plus HIV doesnt make you leak body fluids like ebola. At least not as a primary symptom/infection transmission.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/qas.html

 

And what do you suggest?

Edited out question that you answered previously (and I didnt see).

 

Hazmat suits should be used when appropriate. Hubris is rarely appropriate.

At this point, I think it appropriate to use travel bans and quarantines for folks originating from countries where the disease has reached epidemic proportions.

Reason and fact should guide the Ebola response. Unfortunately, this has become politized and political power unfortunately is trumping the public welfare. Both sides of political spectrum have taken up unreasonable positions on the issue.


Fear has taken hold fueled not only by the very real lethality and contagious nature of the disease but also by the perpetual lies or incompetence of those charged with public safety. Honesty can competence from public officials will go a long way in calming public fears. I don't think you can blame the public for their fears when statements made by public health officials have repeatedly been proven wrong (e.g. every hospital can contain Ebola) and given the inconsistent messaging from senior public officials. Just last week, Secretary Kerry said Ebola would become the next "scourge" while Obama is telling people Ebola is no big deal - no worries.

So which is correct, is it the next great scourge or no worries? The public doesn't know, but they see people dying and the disease spreading, and public officials making false and inconsistent statements and taking inconsistent actions.

 

For about a month now CDC And NIH have been telling us the maximum incubation period for Ebola is 21 days. But according to the world health organization that isn't correct. WHO says the 21 day incubation covers 95% of Ebola victims. That leaves 5% who manifest their disease later than 21 days. The WHO standard is 42 days.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ebola-who-cites-cases-longer-incubation-period-42-days-1470326

 

The good news:

1) No more Ebola cases have surfaced in the US.

2) Obama has appointed an Ebola czar to coordinate the Ebola fight.

3) Obama has created an Ebola military fast reaction force to go any where at any time to fight the disease.

4) Vaccines and treatments for Ebola are making breathtaking advances.

Bad News:

He still has not stopped issuing travel visas. So the nation remains at risk of another Duncan. And the incubation period for the disease well exceeds the 21 days for 5% of infected individuals.

 

I'll add three more:
5) He still has not stopped issuing travel visas, so US aid workers are still able to get in and out.
6) The panic over Ebola seems to be dying down. CNN has moved Ebola stories down from the banner to story #5, which is "Ebola hysteria: An epic overreaction."
7) Although many airlines have cancelled flights to West Africa, Brussles Airlines is still flying aid workers in and out, and Paul Allen has donated $3 million to maintain a charter air service.

 

While I think that's probably true, at least from the American perspective (it's less true in Liberia), it's kind of ironic to have CNN saying it.

It's precisely CNN, along with the rest of its national media peers, that got the public so wound up in the first place, with several days of breathless non-stop end-of-the-world coverage. Now they seem to be implicitly sneering at their own viewers for taking what CNN said seriously.

 

Definitely. And not just CNN; FOX, MSNBC, CBS etc all have a habit of hyping everything from presidential elections to starlet scandals and then saying "we disapprove of all this hype! Where's the restraint, the deliberation?"

 

Did CNN report anything incorrectly? And the western press is much larger than CNN. MANY American get their news from overseas (e.g. BBC, Aljazeera).


Unlike Putin's Russia, the Western press is free.