Should DOD shoot Ebola plane down?

No they all say that it is behaving exactly like it always has. Exactly as expected. This latest outbreak is bigger maybe due to bigger populations where it's located or more mobility of the citizens. 97% is something to scoff at? You really want to focus on a 3% variance? If my life were at stake I'd jump for joy at a 97% survival rate. I'd be happy as a clam if I had a 97% chance of winning a contest. I'd hang the test I got 97% correct on my refrigerator door. 97% man.


a reply to: ~Lucidity

I guess it was worth saying twice if your secure in your convictions. I won't post my answer twice however. LOL.a reply to: ~Lucidity

Yesterday I was FOS for reporting what I was seeing and hearing on CNN because I didn't link to info. Today I link info from several sites and I'm still FOS? I can't win can I?

All we can do is stay calm, keep abreast on the situation and if the need arises, take the steps we can to protect ourselves. If and when that need arises.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Up to 90%. This current outbreak is averaging about 60%. Still nothing to sneeze at. (No pun intended) .
This is scary enough without extremist views being put forth. I know you got the figure off WHO but still you left out the "up to" part. Why?

a reply to: violet

I didn't leave out any top part. I took one bullet point out of this:

Key facts

Ebola virus disease (EVD), formerly known as Ebola haemorrhagic fever, is a severe, often fatal illness in humans.

EVD outbreaks have a case fatality rate of up to 90%.

EVD outbreaks occur primarily in remote villages in Central and West Africa, near tropical rainforests.

The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission.

Fruit bats of the Pteropodidae family are considered to be the natural host of the Ebola virus. Severely ill patients require intensive supportive care.

No licensed specific treatment or vaccine is available for use in people or animals.

At any rate the figures are fluctuating.

I don't think it should be downplayed. It would be a horrible thing to die of or to have your loved ones succumb to.

a reply to: Xeven

No. Because Ebola is not an airbourne disease and can be more easily contained than, for example SARS or pig flu. It is only contracted the same way HIV is - though contact with bodily fluids. Albeit victims produce more bodily fluids (vomiting, bleeding) making contraction by those in close proximity more likely.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657
Sanjay Gupta is not a virologist.
Killed with Lysol? Do you have a source for this, besides what Sanjay keeps saying

a reply to: violet


nfections.

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO DISINFECTANTS: Ebola virus is susceptible to sodium hypochlorite, lipid solvents, phenolic disinfectants, peracetic acid, methyl alcohol, ether, sodium deoxycholate, 2% glutaraldehyde, 0.25% Triton X-100, β-propiolactone, 3% acetic acid (pH 2.5), formaldehyde and paraformaldehyde, and detergents such as SDS (20, 21, 31-34).

PHYSICAL INACTIVATION: Ebola are moderately thermolabile and can be inactivated by heating for 30 minutes to 60 minutes at 60ºC, boiling for 5 minutes, gamma irradiation (1.2 x106 rads to 1.27 x106 rads), and/or UV radiation (3, 6, 20, 32, 33).


From this website


www.phac-aspc.gc.ca...


www.ask.com...

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: violet


nfections.

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO DISINFECTANTS: Ebola virus is susceptible to sodium hypochlorite, lipid solvents, phenolic disinfectants, peracetic acid, methyl alcohol, ether, sodium deoxycholate, 2% glutaraldehyde, 0.25% Triton X-100, β-propiolactone, 3% acetic acid (pH 2.5), formaldehyde and paraformaldehyde, and detergents such as SDS (20, 21, 31-34).

PHYSICAL INACTIVATION: Ebola are moderately thermolabile and can be inactivated by heating for 30 minutes to 60 minutes at 60ºC, boiling for 5 minutes, gamma irradiation (1.2 x106 rads to 1.27 x106 rads), and/or UV radiation (3, 6, 20, 32, 33).


From this website


www.phac-aspc.gc.ca...


www.ask.com...

I found something else on this page at health canada regarding it being AIRBORNE !!

This is why I don't think we should be shrugging it off , until they DO know

MODE OF TRANSMISSION: In an outbreak, it is hypothesized that the first patient becomes infected as a result of contact with an infected animal (15). Person-to-person transmission occurs via close personal contact with an infected individual or their body fluids during the late stages of infection or after death (1, 2, 15, 27). Nosocomial infections can occur through contact with infected body fluids due to the reuse of unsterilized syringes, needles, or other medical equipment contaminated with these fluids (1, 2). Humans may be infected by handling sick or dead non-human primates and are also at risk when handling the bodies of deceased humans in preparation for funerals, suggesting possible transmission through aerosol droplets (2, 6, 28).


In the laboratory, infection through small-particle aerosols has been demonstrated in primates, and airborne spread among humans is strongly suspected, although it has not yet been conclusively demonstrated (1, 6, 13). The importance of this route of transmission is not clear.



Poor hygienic conditions can aid the spread of the virus (6).

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: Xeven

No. Because Ebola is not an airbourne disease and can be more easily contained than, for example SARS or pig flu. It is only contracted the same way HIV is - though contact with bodily fluids. Albeit victims produce more bodily fluids (vomiting, bleeding) making contraction by those in close proximity more likely.

Except nobody is sure about this

MODE OF TRANSMISSION: ....airborne spread among humans is strongly suspected, although it has not yet been conclusively demonstrated (1, 6, 13). The importance of this route of transmission is not clear.

Source

a reply to: violet

I'm not advocating down playing anything. I've educated myself on the available facts about Ebola and I am repeating them here. What I am not doing is locating the worst case scenario and stating this is the most likely to occur. I am not posting that we are on the verge of a world wide plague. I'm certainly not posting that this is bioengineering designed to reduce the population. What I am doing is trying to show that though serious this will in all likelihood never affect the lives of most of us. I'm trying to calm people down and show them that they are safe. That this disease will probably never get anywhere near them.
I am guessing that these facts are not of interest to you. Your choice. I choose to go about my daily life like I always have.

Surely you're not advocating euthanasia on humans? I sure hope that's not what you're supporting.
Put a famaliar face on that victim and then state this again.


l reply to: frugal

Not conclusively demonstrated. Suspected. These terms are enough to get most theories thrown into skunkworks on these boards but now because it supports the scare monger agenda it's valid and important information?
What about all the rest of that information that doesn't support the fear monger agenda? Oh that's the baby that gets thrown out with the bath water. I guess I know the caliber of individuals I'm trying g to educate. a reply to: violet

a reply to: AutumnWitch657
Please do not assume I am panicking. I'm not!
Don't lump me in with others who are panicking.
I am also looking at facts or whatever other scientists have said. Not just going by one source.

Regarding the facts of this disease, it's not fully understood as of yet.

I have found and posted ( maybe in other threads) several reliable sources ( Health Canada being one) stating it has a strong possibility to be airborne. Of course this could be wrong and it also could be wrong with other scientists saying it is not. Best to be on the safe side.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Not conclusively demonstrated. Suspected. These terms are enough to get most theories thrown into skunkworks on these boards but now because it supports the scare monger agenda it's valid and important information?
What about all the rest of that information that doesn't support the fear monger agenda? Oh that's the baby that gets thrown out with the bath water. I guess I know the caliber of individuals I'm trying g to educate. a reply to: violet

There is no need to insult my intelligence, or call me a fear monger and you are NOT an educator on this either.
Just because you've read up or watched on tv , loads of info, does not make you an expert!

Please try to be civil and not call names

ETA
I can post whatever I like on here, if you think my posts belong in skunk works, alert a mod.

You think we should only post info from one viewpoint. Doing otherwise is subject to name calling

I said I was trying to educate in that I'm supplying information. I guess that does make me an educator. How do you come up with I'm not an educator? Sure I am. I always have been same as I've ways been a student. I'm considered intelligent by my friends family and co-workers. They always ask me first. They pretty much respect what I say. I certainly don't get. You got a source for that? When I relay information to them. They usually say thanks.
Only on this website where people can hide behind their screens do I get such disrespect. In the real world where it matters people know I know my stuff.
t reply to: violet

I didn't call anyone names. I said the information supports a fear monger agenda. I also didn't say your post belongs in skunkworks. And I never claimed to be an expert. a reply to: violet

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
I said I was trying to educate in that I'm supplying information. I guess that does make me an educator. How do you come up with I'm not an educator? Sure I am. I always have been same as I've ways been a student. I'm considered intelligent by my friends family and co-workers. They always ask me first. They pretty much respect what I say. I certainly don't get. You got a source for that? When I relay information to them. They usually say thanks.
Only on this website where people can hide behind their screens do I get such disrespect. In the real world where it matters people know I know my stuff.
t reply to: violet

Oh , I am considered intelligent as well in the real world.

I find your attitude to be condescending.

I do not wish to debate this further.

Fine with me. Have a great day. a reply to: violet