It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: marg6043
It's 70% in west Africa but yes, it is a very dangerous disease. Particularly with inadequate health care. BTW, do you happen to know the death rate in the US?
You know perhaps you are right to be frugal, when it comes to an infectious disease with 90% death rate, perhaps you know more than any of us silly people knows.
Good thing not everyone is like you because without those volunteers it isn't going to "go away." Bad treatment and quarantine will not encourage volunteers.
But until all this ebola scare goes away, I will like to keep myself in the knowledge that something is been done to keep my family and me safe and away from possible infection, that means not doing any volunteer work as a health worker in and ebola infected region and keeping those that do, tuck away for a period of time..
You don't get to decide who goes into quarantine.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Do you think that it's like turning a light switch?
Do you not understand the range of time during which they could become contagious at any moment?
It doesn't matter if they do tell us, does it? If people get sick as a result of exposure to him they will get sick and we will know about it. Or, I suppose you think that hospitals are teeming with hidden cases of ebola?
And it remains to be seen. Don't count luck as pattern with this disease. No one really knows how extreme or not extreme he got. You think they would tell us?
No. I'm not suggesting it. I said it quite plainly.
Are you suggesting that we not quarantine people who have been exposed to this dangerous disease because it will discourage healthcare workers from going to West Africa?
Interestingly I know by research that us the American tax payers pays very good to aid the ebola ridden countries yearly, see why do they need American health care workers volunteers when millions goes to those areas in the name of aid?
originally posted by: Phage
Money doesn't stop an epidemic. Trained personnel do. Lots of them.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine
While you're at it you might want to remove the "isolate" part too.
It's meaningless that no one but those who have been highly exposed to highly symptomatic patients has become sick? That no one on an entire plane which carried a person infected with ebola got sick? You have an interesting interpretation of the word meaningless.
Statistics of how many were in contact and got sick, etc., are meaningless because the disease state and events are different for each individual.
70% in west Africa where health care is not exactly high. What's the fatality rate been in the US? Exactly zero for those who contracted the disease here, I think.
WOW just WOW. "minimal danger" how nice. Are you willing to take that risk Phage? "Minimal" is okay with you with a virus that has shown a 70% fatality rate.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Khaleesi
70% in west Africa where health care is not exactly high. What's the fatality rate been in the US? Exactly zero for those who contracted the disease here, I think.
WOW just WOW. "minimal danger" how nice. Are you willing to take that risk Phage? "Minimal" is okay with you with a virus that has shown a 70% fatality rate.
Yes, minimal. I'm more worried about getting hit by a car when I cross the street.
What context. Yes, the risk was minimal that anyone was infected by the doctor in New York. Isn't that what you asked?
I see you cherry picked a quote from my post. Try using the whole quote Phage, for context.
Because they dealt directly with the disease and understand what it takes to transmit it.
How could they risk the population? Apply your own logic. How could these people risk the population when they know it is POSSIBLE they could have contracted the virus.
Trick question. I don't think the hospitals will become overly stressed by ebola.
Do you think those percentages will remain that positive if the hospitals become overly stressed?
originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: Khaleesi
Think about your southern and northern borders, where no such restrictions apply.
Then think about pissing off the doctors and nurses fighting the spread of Ebola in West Africa and how coming home to unlimited quarantines might deter them from going, not just from America, but also Europe.
The disease spreads out of Africa and into a second continent. Perhaps even into Canada and Mexico.
Then think again about the northern and southern borders of the USA.
originally posted by: masqua
originally posted by: Phage
Money doesn't stop an epidemic. Trained personnel do. Lots of them.
Exactly... and these quarantine measures enacted by NJ, IL and NY (and maybe 1 other state) are what's going to make nurses and doctors think twice about going to West Africa and stopping Ebola at the source.
Yup... ignore treating Ebola everywhere but in America. That's the best plan [/sarcasm].
Sure. If you don't do anything else with it.
Billions of dollars can train and buy a lot health care workers from around the world with the hospitals in tow for the last 10 years., it could had paid for the testing of hundreds of possible vaccines too.