Should DOD shoot Ebola plane down?

originally posted by: VashKonnor
a reply to: Xeven

So how did all these well trained professionals become infected?

They were working in a zone that didn't have nor followed the complete chain of procedures. They didn't get contaminated from their own mistakes, someone else made a mistake and they basically got screwed.

Someone did a mistake and they ended paying for it.

Well that is sad. I hope none of our people make mistakes now that it is on our soil. Human error is the rule not the exception. I would not advocate shooting them down. I just do not think it was a good idea to bring it here and that title got attention. I have learned over the years that a thread title can make the difference of a hearty discussion and a dead thread.I also do care for their safety and appreciate that they spend their lives helping others. I do not think it was worth the risk no matter how small. They could have recovered over there and then returned. It seems he was recovering fairly quickly already anyway from the care he got over there.

a reply to: olaru12

What's transparent? What things don't go unnoticed? I don't see what or how being a new member had to do with anything.

All I'm saying is that the big wigs who run everything wouldn't do a damn thing without having a good reason to do it. How do you think the patriot act came about?

If being new makes me an idiot then so be it. Don't ridicule me. Be the mature one and correct me if I'm wrong. That way the next time I open my mouth I might know what I'm talking about.

originally posted by: PurpleDog UK
a reply to: Xeven

Isn't Ebola (in some form or another) already in America…albeit a lab or CDC research centre…?

PDUK

Yes and no. I believe the CDC has a strain of ebola, however I don't think they have this new, shiny strain of death.

I am still perplexed why the USA is receiving the ebola patients. There are 30-ish countries with better healthcare than the USA and we are bringing them here. Especially given last months report that the CDC had been mishandling deadly pathogens.

Okay, I'm not really as perplexed as I am concerned that the "reason(s)" are dubious at best.

a reply to: Auricom

Are you saying we should save the tax money used on making sure the plane is refueled


ITS NOT A GOVT. operation,,,its being funded,,PRIVATELY!!!

Are you saying we should save the tax money what tax money??????????

a reply to: clay2 baraka

Well I never said I condoned blowing them out of the sky!!

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: violet
But the flu doesn't have a 90% death rate. Most people recover.

Ebola does not have a 90% death rate either. In fact, the current outbreak in West Africa is running a fatality rate of circa 60%. This is high, but hardly as devastating a 90%.

Ebola, while a nasty disease, has a low impact in the cold statistical light of day, although clearly high voyeuristic media interest which panders to the doom-mongers (safe in their clean houses). By contrast, 1.5 million HIV/AIDS sufferers die every year. Malaria and a host of other diseases - including flu - take a heavy toll, mostly in underdeveloped countries with poor heath care and lack of access to vaccinations, decent public health services and eductaion.

People whine on about Bill Gates and co (he's even been accused on ATS of starting this outbreak), but they do more for the poor in Africa than many of the corrupt governments out there.

Regards

It says right on the World Health website the fatality rate is 90%
So those are your chances, should you contract it.
WHO

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

I think the 60% figure is newer cases that are getting treatment sooner.
So there is hope, but it's still a high mortality rate!


Would you rather suffer from a bad flu or ebola?

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

This is not a new strain. It's the Zaire strain which was one of the first strains of Ebola that showed up in 1976. Why do people keep thinking this is a new mutated strain? It's Zaire Ebola. It is the deadliest strain so far as humans are concerned but it's not new.


a reply to: WCmutant

Don't pay any attention to that. Obviously being a new member has zero to do with knowledge or comprehension.
Saying it does is a diversionary tactic when one has no other information to supply to the conversation. Ignor it, It will go away.

a reply to: PageLC14

a reply to: Xeven

"Should DOD shoot Ebola plane down?"

The implication of such a thought is rather draconian to the extreme. Plus if this type of action were ever to be sanctioned it would need to be done before any aircraft came into US airspace simply because said aircraft could quite possibly make it to the ground with survivers or spew infected body's all over the area.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657
Or...it could be the onset of a deadlier mutation.

www.cidrap.umn.edu...

The Ebola virus strain responsible for Guinea's outbreak—now at 197 suspected or confirmed cases—is a new strain that has been sickening and killing people at least as far back as December, researchers reported yesterday.

That the Guinea Ebola strain is a separate clade suggests that the pathogen that sparked the outbreak evolved parallel with those seen in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Gabon and was not introduced into Guinea—the first West African nation to experience an Ebola outbreak—from those countries.

That's simply not true. This has been determined to be Zaire. At least from common reports. Also this outbreak started in late February or early March not back in December. However your link looks valid so I'm going to do more research. Thank you.
a reply to: ~Lucidity

A Google search for Ebola brings up many articles with a scare tactic bent to them. They report 90% mortality rate when sites like WHO state up to 90%. They report people dying at airports from flights out of Sierra Leon but fail to add that testing reveals they didn't die from Ebola. It's designed to get views but lacks actual facts especially if those facts say don't panic. They only want viewers. They don't care to actually educate people.

PS- your article is from April. They have reviewed the situation since then with updated information.
I'm not saying your source is not good. That looks like a very good source for information actually. I'm saying that as of now they are saying it's Zaire. And Zaire is not new.
I'm going to do more research though so I'm not discarding your contribution . Thank you.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

www.vox.com...


This article states the current outbreak is Zaire. A known strain. Not a new version.

the Pasteur Institute in Lyon, France confirmed the Ebola strain as Zaire ebolavirus. This from current stats on wiki. So far I can only find articles that say this current outbreak is the known Zaire strain first discovered in 1976.en.m.wikipedia.org...

This article from the CDC also says that the virus is almost assuredly Zaire matching it by 97% in genetic analysis.

www.cdc.gov...

97%. Um okay. Yet behaving differently than Zaire.

97%. Um okay. Yet behaving differently than Zaire.

What do we practically do when a Horse breaks its leg? What do we do when Mad cow disease is on the loose? Can we afford Mad Cow disease to get loose in the deer herd population of several hundred million in the USA spreading it? What do we do when swine flu is occurring to a group of pigs? The Agriculture Department of the USA is much better at making the correct choice than the CDC.

Think about how stupid this decisions was. This event is occurring in Atlanta GA where I-75 runs sixteen lanes in two directions is very dangerous. Shouldn't they have taken these people to an off shore boat or a small place in the middle of no where? Some precious issues should be nationally voted on not left up to one person.