First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
Ebola and Bakas
1264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/9/14

AiYumega wrote:

pull our humanitarian efforts from



Humanitarian efforts? Wrong adjective. Our efforts aren't humanitarian.
Posted 10/9/14

SweetPerplexity wrote:


AiYumega wrote:

pull our humanitarian efforts from



Humanitarian efforts? Wrong adjective. Our efforts aren't humanitarian.


They are. We're assisting them medically.

Doctors Without Border is a humanitarian organization. That's the majority of who's out there. They tried to sign me up.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/9/14 , edited 10/9/14

moonhawk81 wrote:

So, ebola won't have much effect over here in the US because our medical system is so good and our society is so developed? That all worked out so well at controlling HIV, now didn't it?


In the case of ebola the pathogen, its mode of transmission, the disease's progression and symptoms, and a wide array of risk factors are well-understood. The same could not be said of HIV/AIDS in 1981. What's more, the Reagan administration's indifference and inattention is far from where the Obama administration is on the matter of ebola. Reagan didn't get off his ass and move seriously on HIV/AIDS until 1986. And no, targeting immigrants and asking for people to be sexually abstinent does not constitute serious attention. That's spinning your wheels in the mud from a public health perspective.
21272 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 10/9/14
Times like these I'm glad I live in the middle of nowhere, ha. My sister works at a hospital, but she's in the nuclear medicine department so they're already very cautious about coming into contact with patients- none of my immediate family is losing sleep over this. It does bother me when I hear that a doctor helping overseas has contracted it though, because FOLLOW SANITARY REGULATIONS, GAWD.
26543 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/9/14


The only threat Ebola poses here is if it mutates and becomes an airborne contagion.
Posted 10/9/14 , edited 10/9/14

SpiritWolf15 wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canadian-ebola-vaccine-safety-trials-move-ahead-newlink-genetics-says-1.2792722

?????


emphasis on the word, "trial". it's not for public use, yet.
7523 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / Crimson Mage Village
Offline
Posted 10/9/14
People are overreacting way too much about this whole Ebola crisis.


-But at least it will hopefully keep them mindful about their actions to prevent an epidemic.
7446 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Online
Posted 10/9/14
did someone mention ebola-chan?
62169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Vancouver, BC, Ca...
Online
Posted 10/9/14
There are so many more important things to worry about than the extremely low possibility of an ebola outbreak in North America. Stopping the anti-vaxxer movement or the economy for example or for those of you like myself in Canada making sure EVERYONE WHO IS ABLE TO gets to the polls next election and VOTES HARPER TO THE CURB.

But by all means, keep worrying about ebola, it's exactly what faux news wants you to do.
41854 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Memphis, TN
Offline
Posted 10/10/14

BlueOni wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:

So, ebola won't have much effect over here in the US because our medical system is so good and our society is so developed? That all worked out so well at controlling HIV, now didn't it?


In the case of ebola the pathogen, its mode of transmission, the disease's progression and symptoms, and a wide array of risk factors are well-understood. The same could not be said of HIV/AIDS in 1981. What's more, the Reagan administration's indifference and inattention is far from where the Obama administration is on the matter of ebola. Reagan didn't get off his ass and move seriously on HIV/AIDS until 1986. And no, targeting immigrants and asking for people to be sexually abstinent does not constitute serious attention. That's spinning your wheels in the mud from a public health perspective.


Spinning your wheels in the mud. As is allowing people to go to ravaged areas while knowing that they intend to return. Or, for that matter, allowing folks to head into that malaise in Syria and then acting shocked--shocked, I say!--when they are gruesomely murdered. A government exists to protect its citizens, even from their own stupidity. Enact and enforce severe travel restrictions to certain areas--anyone who goes to those areas in spite of the new restrictions automatically loses their citizenship and cannot return. Period. This is not about prejudice, but about protecting the many from consequences resulting from the wanton acts of the few. Restrain those few.

As for the part about ebola being "well-understood," I respectfully offer one word: hubris.
2346 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46
Offline
Posted 10/10/14

BlueOni wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:

So, ebola won't have much effect over here in the US because our medical system is so good and our society is so developed? That all worked out so well at controlling HIV, now didn't it?


In the case of ebola the pathogen, its mode of transmission, the disease's progression and symptoms, and a wide array of risk factors are well-understood. The same could not be said of HIV/AIDS in 1981. What's more, the Reagan administration's indifference and inattention is far from where the Obama administration is on the matter of ebola. Reagan didn't get off his ass and move seriously on HIV/AIDS until 1986. And no, targeting immigrants and asking for people to be sexually abstinent does not constitute serious attention. That's spinning your wheels in the mud from a public health perspective.


Are you kidding me? Pretty sure it wasn't Reagan that fought to keep the bathhouses open. And let's place blame where it really belongs, Gaëtan Dugas' feet.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/10/14

moonhawk81 wrote:

Spinning your wheels in the mud.


It's what I said, and I stand by it. Reagan and his legislatures' response to the HIV/AIDS crisis was abysmal, as I sense you might agree.


As is allowing people to go to ravaged areas while knowing that they intend to return.


I know it's counterintuitive, but actually...no. That's exactly what needs to happen. Doctors and servicemen with adequate intellectual and material resources acting in coordination with northwestern African governments is exactly what should stop the spread of ebola. Closing borders only cuts off valuable resources.


Or, for that matter, allowing folks to head into that malaise in Syria and then acting shocked--shocked, I say!--when they are gruesomely murdered.


Come now, that's different.


A government exists to protect its citizens, even from their own stupidity.


Now, here we have a point of agreement.


Enact and enforce severe travel restrictions to certain areas--anyone who goes to those areas in spite of the new restrictions automatically loses their citizenship and cannot return. Period. This is not about prejudice, but about protecting the many from consequences resulting from the wanton acts of the few. Restrain those few.


Y'know, if you're talking about people who have stupidly decided to join ISIS/ISIL/IS/Whatever, I halfway agree. Rather, I'd sooner see such people return, be immediately arrested, and then face both trials and interrogation (and not "enhanced" interrogation, to preempt the point). So we've at least a bit of common ground to stand on.

With respect to public health however, I'm sad to say we stand on nearly opposite poles.


As for the part about ebola being "well-understood," I respectfully offer one word: hubris.


Everything I said we have, we have. We know which virus causes the disease, we know the disease's symptoms, we know the progressional schedule of those symptoms, we know the mode of transmission, we know key risk factors, we're not fumbling in the dark like we were with HIV/AIDS in 1981. That's not hubris, that's virology.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/10/14

jehester wrote:

Are you kidding me? Pretty sure it wasn't Reagan that fought to keep the bathhouses open. And let's place blame where it really belongs, Gaëtan Dugas' feet.


Jesus fucking Christ.
2346 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46
Offline
Posted 10/10/14

BlueOni wrote:


jehester wrote:

Are you kidding me? Pretty sure it wasn't Reagan that fought to keep the bathhouses open. And let's place blame where it really belongs, Gaëtan Dugas' feet.


Jesus fucking Christ.


35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/10/14

jehester wrote:


BlueOni wrote:


jehester wrote:

Are you kidding me? Pretty sure it wasn't Reagan that fought to keep the bathhouses open. And let's place blame where it really belongs, Gaëtan Dugas' feet.


Jesus fucking Christ.




Not my most sophisticated response, I understand. How about this? The 1981-1985 response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic was plagued with misinformation which was directly spread by Reagan's key backers (televangelists, especially), portraying the disease as the "wrath of god upon the gays". The virology of the disease was not well understood, and would not be investigated by the US government in earnest for years (leaving private agencies to pick up the slack).

The money trail clearly indicates that despite Reagan's claims the epidemic was absolutely not a key priority of the administration. It wasn't until 1986 that the administration and the legislature directed a substantial amount of resources toward research and education, and by then the epidemic had been on for half a decade.

Head. Sand. Remove. Now.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.