Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Don't let the "first case in the US" thing fool you, policy makers decided to fly several infected people in from West Africa to try and cure them in the last few months. Additionally idiot journalists have been allowed to run around "covering the story" and then hopping onto planes to fly merrily all over the globe. There was also a recent deployment of US military personnel to the middle of the epidemic, for some god forsaken reason.

Either way, the idea of ebola in a densely populated, shipping/transit/black market hub city like Dallas is a literal nightmare come true.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/30/health/ebola-us/index.html

Just to point out, no one's trying to fool anyone; it says in the article that people with ebola were flown in. It says first case diagnosed in the US, IE, the first case of someone being discovered to have ebola in the US, not being diagnosed with ebola elsewhere and then flown to the US.

But yeah, this definitely a bit disconcerting.

Stock up on ammo and food people

there's two ways this can go.

number one, it'll be fine and sorted and you'll all pretend you were never worried in the first place.

number two, you'll all bleed from every orifice in soggy piles on the street.

I hope people take this wake-up call very seriously.

Bear in mind that Dallas is a major transit hub for air, ground, etc. This includes human trafficking.

Ebola is not especially contagious, and isn't a significant threat to a country with a modern medical apparatus.

The number of people killed by the current outbreak is nearly 3,000, according to the WHO... which is approximately the same number of people the flu kills every month, 12 months a year, each and every year, 87 people a day.

The media hype is well and truly overblown but I guess we don't have enough missing white women to fill the cycle at the moment..

It's also not technically the first case of Ebola in the US, either.

Yeah I was in Dallas two weeks ago... not happy.

If the reports of the dead rising come true hopefully we can watch a fully fledged Zombie apocalypse play out from across the pond.... well until it reaches us and we have to fight them off with gardening equipment. I'll start sharpening my spade.

This isn't really directed at the OP, but it's got me thinking - why do we, as a society, worry about the wrong thing all the time, over and over again?

We worry about sharks, but let our kids play near pools unsupervised. We worry about terrorism even as we bite into 1500 calorie cheeseburgers. We buy guns to guard our houses which don't have smoke alarms or fire extinguishers. We panic about airport security, but drive to work tired, or home from the bar tipsy.

We seem as a people wholly oblivious to the most dangerous things around us.

Controlling ebola outbreaks is much easier in a developed nation.

I think there is nothing to worry about there, unless you happen to be one of the infected people.

 Ouze wrote:
This isn't really directed at the OP, but it's got me thinking - why do we, as a society, worry about the wrong thing all the time, over and over again?

We worry about sharks, but let our kids play near pools unsupervised. We worry about terrorism even as we bite into 1500 calorie cheeseburgers. We buy guns to guard our houses which don't have smoke alarms or fire extinguishers. We panic about airport security, but drive to work tired, or home from the bar tipsy.

We seem as a people wholly oblivious to the most dangerous things around us.

Because we have a legitimate and deep genetic fear of epidemic and pandemic outbreaks.

As for worrying about violence, I wondered the same thing until I lived in a neighborhood where young kids got shot regularly.

I'm with you on the fact that our society is very vulnerable to hysterics, but in the case of a disease like Ebola infecting a major city I am of the opinion that its legit to be VERY concerned.

 Ouze wrote:
Ebola is not especially contagious, and isn't a significant threat to a country with a modern medical apparatus.

The number of people killed by the current outbreak is nearly 3,000, according to the WHO... which is approximately the same number of people the flu kills every month, 12 months a year, each and every year, 87 people a day.

The media hype is well and truly overblown but I guess we don't have enough missing white women to fill the cycle at the moment..

It's also not technically the first case of Ebola in the US, either.

Pretty much this.

Please, before you drive yourself crazy over the irrational fear of this disease, arm yourself with facts and logic. Where this disease is most lethal is parts of the world that are most vulnerable and lack the resources to fight an outbreak. Our military wasn't deployed to the hardest hit regions for "some godforsaken reason," we are there because we have the mobility and resources to build hospitals and command-and-control facilities to organize the effort to combat the outbreak; something the local governments lack.

“Controlling Ebola is not a very sophisticated task,” said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior associate at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “Ebola outbreaks are stopped in their tracks when basic public health measures are in place ... and the United States would not be a hospitable environment for something that spreads exclusively through blood and body fluids.”

The U.S. has been able to handle cases of other deadly diseases like Middle East respiratory syndrome and Marburg virus without retransmission, Adalja said, thanks to a world-class medical infrastructure.

“There was no secondary spread, and those occurred without people being even aware there was a risk,” Adalja said. “Americans should be assured we do infectious control pretty well in the United States.”

source




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Because we have a legitimate and deep genetic fear of epidemic and pandemic outbreaks.

As for worrying about violence, I wondered the same thing until I lived in a neighborhood where young kids got shot regularly.

I'm with you on the fact that our society is very vulnerable to hysterics, but in the case of a disease like Ebola infecting a major city I am of the opinion that its legit to be VERY concerned.

Ebola is not the boogeyman you are making it out to be. Dying from ebolavirus is horrific, there is no denying that, but that doesn't mean you should be concerned because someone in a major city has it.

Logically, you should be exponentially more concerned about influenza.

 Ouze wrote:
This isn't really directed at the OP, but it's got me thinking - why do we, as a society, worry about the wrong thing all the time, over and over again?

We worry about sharks, but let our kids play near pools unsupervised. We worry about terrorism even as we bite into 1500 calorie cheeseburgers. We buy guns to guard our houses which don't have smoke alarms or fire extinguishers. We panic about airport security, but drive to work tired, or home from the bar tipsy.

We seem as a people wholly oblivious to the most dangerous things around us.

Emphasis of the media?

EDIT

Interesting thought though. Might be worth a topic of its own.

My heart bleeds for people that have to deal with an outbreak in their home region, but I don't agree with the policy choice to send thousands of young men and women into an epidemic. Nor do I think that people should be allowed to visit the areas of an outbreak and then hop on a plane back to Des Moines Iowa without so much as a blood screening.

And I do sincerely hope that a week from now my gut level reaction to this looks completely silly.

As long as our men and women going overseas don't engage in some of the typical local behavioirs that result in transmission of the virus, such as:

handling the bodies of the freshly dead - teeming with the virus - without gloves or face protection

kissing or touching the skin of the body at the wake

burying the bodies right next to where they are living

they'll probably be OK. I don't think they'll do any of that stuff.



There is some info you can read, if you like, here.

 Ouze wrote:
As long as our men and women going overseas don't engage in some of the typical local behavioirs that result in transmission of the virus, such as:

handling the bodies of the freshly dead - teeming with the virus - without gloves or face protection

kissing or touching the skin of the body at the wake

burying the bodies right next to where they are living

they'll probably be OK. I don't think they'll do any of that stuff.

Thats not my point. I don't think they should be there in the first place. I question the ethical foundation of a policy choice to send them there. I don't think it serves the interest of national security, nor does it serve the interest of the individual soldiers. I'm just a guy on a forum though, so my opinion doesn't count for much in this sort of thing.

We send our troops on humanitarian missions all the time, earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis, etc... why is this different?

 Ouze wrote:
We send our troops on humanitarian missions all the time, earthquakes, typhoons, why is this different?

Because earthquakes and typhoons don't follow you home?

 Ouze wrote:
We send our troops on humanitarian missions all the time, earthquakes, typhoons, why is this different?

Because there is an enormous difference between an infectious vector and an earthquake from both an outcomes based and psychological standpoint.

You know they're not actually treating patients, right?

I'm pretty sure that ebola can only be spred via bodily fluids. (IIRC)

I'll post this again, in case it was missed - if you don't know much about Ebola there is good, easy to read info here.

The CDC speech just announced that there are a "handful of confirmed exposures" (boy that "first case in US" line changed fast) and that the infected guy flew into the country on an international flight. Yes, he was on the plane while infected.

Thanks Ouze .

 Ouze wrote:
You know they're not actually treating patients, right?

Again, you're missing my point. Why on earth are we sending our young men and women into an epidemic? Thats crazy.

Because they are equipped to greatly assist with lessening the epidemic, while being trained to not infect themselves.

Ebola is not especially dangerous. They're not touching patients or bodies. They are building field hospitals and training African healthcare workers. So, they are going to do a lot of good, without being in any special danger.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
You know they're not actually treating patients, right?

Again, you're missing my point. Why on earth are we sending our young men and women into an epidemic? Thats crazy.

To help. If this was the back plague, then we would not be, but this is a disease that is only spread via bodily fluids.

 Ouze wrote:
Because they are equipped to greatly assist with lessening the epidemic, while being trained to not infect themselves.

Ebola is not especially dangerous. They're not touching patients or bodies. They are building field hospitals and training African healthcare workers. So, they are going to do a lot of good, without being in any special danger.

Why are we sending soldiers to build hospitals in Africa? We have more than enough need for infrastructural reinforcement of our own country. I'm not not seeing anything in this about why on earth we should open up young men and women to infection by a disease that scares the living crap out of most of the world.

Lets revisit this after the first case of a US service person becoming infected. If it never happens then you're totally right, and I really hope that is the case.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
The CDC speech just announced that there are a "handful of confirmed exposures" (boy that "first case in US" line changed fast) and that the infected guy flew into the country on an international flight. Yes, he was on the plane while infected.

Infected, yes, infectious, no. He was on the plane September 20th, and wasn't sick until the 28th. He wasn't communicable while on the flight.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Lets revisit this after the first case of a US service person becoming infected. If it never happens then you're totally right, and I really hope that is the case.

Way ahead of you

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
We send our troops on humanitarian missions all the time, earthquakes, typhoons, why is this different?

Because earthquakes and typhoons don't follow you home?

Earthquakes and Typhoons don't spread if you ignore them, but diseases do. Seems to me there's more threat from infected non-citizens flying in on commercial air traffic than from troops returning from a humanitarian mission, who will be getting tested and trained in avoidance. If Ebola continues to spread in africa, its only a matter of time before refugees (liekly not the legal kind) carry it to the rest of the world.