Airdrop Binny Hinn...problem solved...

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

The calculation i'm talking about is a rational response to risk.
Today, the risk that you might actually contract Ebola in the US is somewhere between 2 in 300 million and 36 in 300 million.(Known cases and known possibly exposed people) 150 million to 1 to 8.333,334 to 1)
The risk you might catch a bullet 37,000 in 300 million. (8110 to 1)
The risk you die this year from heart disease 800,000 in 300 million.375 to 1

I understand your larger point that people have a hard time judging risk. Policies are often irrational in that regard.

But you cannot take that attitude with infection diseases. Those risks can change radically. In 1913 the risk of dying from the Spanish flew was less than 1 in a million. In 1918 is was more than 1 in 100.

Not to pile on, but yes, it's pretty stupid. Why not compare it to . . . cancer, heart attacks, or getting hit by meteors?

Oh, and in other news, it seems a second healthcare worker in Dallas has it.

Again, why not try to stop people from entering the US from these regions until it's under control? I've heard expert after expert say we have to stop it at the epicenter.

Okay, great. So, why not contain it, then control it, like a forest fire? Stop it from spreading, then put it out.

In fact, ray, Flu is still much more likely to kill an American in the US than Ebola
If .Wikipedia is to be believed:

The annual human flu in the U.S. "results in approximately 36,000 deaths and more than 200,000 hospitalizations each year. In addition to this human toll, influenza is annually responsible for a total cost of over $10 billion in the U.S."[4]
According to the World Health Organization: "Every winter, tens of millions of people get the flu. Most are only ill and out of work for a week, yet the elderly are at a higher risk of death from the illness. We know the worldwide death toll exceeds a few hundred thousand people a year, but even in developed countries the numbers are uncertain, because medical authorities don't usually verify who actually died of influenza and who died of a flu-like illness

And yet, is there a huge push to get people vacinnated that compares to the uproar over Ebola? Is the media hyping the threat, the very real threat, that flu presents?

And for comparison you're bringing up a flu that happened in a period that was just at the dawning of modern medicine.
Compare how another infectious disease, touted to be a potential killer in the same way Ebola has, and how the world coped... SARS. And SARS was much more easily transmitted than Ebola. (Though not as lethal.)
I think that it is instructive to look at actual historical evidence of closely similar events, then the imaginings of the over heated media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... S_outbreak

rickyp wrote:In fact, ray, Flu is still much more likely to kill an American in the US than Ebola
If .Wikipedia is to be believed:

The annual human flu in the U.S. "results in approximately 36,000 deaths and more than 200,000 hospitalizations each year. In addition to this human toll, influenza is annually responsible for a total cost of over $10 billion in the U.S."[4]
According to the World Health Organization: "Every winter, tens of millions of people get the flu. Most are only ill and out of work for a week, yet the elderly are at a higher risk of death from the illness. We know the worldwide death toll exceeds a few hundred thousand people a year, but even in developed countries the numbers are uncertain, because medical authorities don't usually verify who actually died of influenza and who died of a flu-like illness

And yet, is there a huge push to get people vacinnated that compares to the uproar over Ebola? Is the media hyping the threat, the very real threat, that flu presents?

And for comparison you're bringing up a flu that happened in a period that was just at the dawning of modern medicine.
Compare how another infectious disease, touted to be a potential killer in the same way Ebola has, and how the world coped... SARS. And SARS was much more easily transmitted than Ebola. (Though not as lethal.)
I think that it is instructive to look at actual historical evidence of closely similar events, then the imaginings of the over heated media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... S_outbreak

That's known as "burying the lede." Given that Ebola has a mortality rate approaching 80%, and that the CDC seems to be making it up as they go along, it's not surprising it's getting "hyped."

When was the last time the US military sent thousands of troops somewhere to contain the flu?

I'll wait.

I'll just note that Ricky is making the same arguments that many social conservatives in the US made about AIDS in the 1980's.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/spread.htm

The CDC says people with influenza should be avoided... Why not Ebola, if this is like flu?

ray

I'll just note that Ricky is making the same arguments that many social conservatives in the US made about AIDS in the 1980's

Which arguments are those?

rickyp wrote:ray

I'll just note that Ricky is making the same arguments that many social conservatives in the US made about AIDS in the 1980's

Which arguments are those?

That there are fewer deaths than cancer and heart attacks and we are blowing the threat out of proportion.

http://www.myfoxla.com/story/26792146/o ... -for-ebola

Dallas, TX -
UPDATE: 10/15 @8:35a.m. - The Associated Press reports that the 2nd Texas hospital worker with Ebola took flight before ill; officials alert passengers.

Chill dude ... Dr. Ricky says to relax. (Ricky, I'm just joking with you; I know that you are saying that the media is overstating the risks, which is probably correct.) But I sure am glad that I wasn't on that flight.

And yet, is there a huge push to get people vacinnated that compares to the uproar over Ebola? Is the media hyping the threat, the very real threat, that flu presents?

Actually, there have been several enormously overhyped flu scares in the last few years. Remember swine flu ? avian flu ? Every 2-3 years there's another variant of flu that springs up and both the government and media go into overdrive about it.

ray

That there are fewer deaths than cancer and heart attacks and we are blowing the threat out of proportion.

Well, I think thats true. At least when we got to the point where we understood that the only people at risk of AIDS were those who engaged in unprotected sex. (Once blood banks were properly screened.)

Just as today, the only people at risk are those who've have very close contact with infected people. And by close contact, we know bodily fluids have to be exchanged.

ray

But I sure am glad that I wasn't on that flight.

Of course. But then what are the odds that you would have been? And then somehow got spit or puked on by her?

rickyp wrote:ray

That there are fewer deaths than cancer and heart attacks and we are blowing the threat out of proportion.

Well, I think thats true. At least when we got to the point where we understood that the only people at risk of AIDS were those who engaged in unprotected sex. (Once blood banks were properly screened.)

Just as today, the only people at risk are those who've have very close contact with infected people. And by close contact, we know bodily fluids have to be exchanged.

Actually, it's not a matter of "exchange," but of "contact" with the fluid of an infected person. At least, that's my understanding. Furthermore, there are varying opinions (from those in the field) about whether or not the virus could change its method of spreading. Those who say it's possible suggest the longer this breakout goes on, the more likely that becomes.

Imagine what the US looks like if 10,000 people are infected.

Let's be overly cautious and get a handle on it NOW.

ray

But I sure am glad that I wasn't on that flight.

Of course. But then what are the odds that you would have been? And then somehow got spit or puked on by her?

Again, I think that is beyond your scope of knowledge. From what I've read one could be at risk from a slightly soiled toilet seat on an airplane, or an uncleaned contaminated surface. Let's put it this way: if the infected person just used the toilet, would you like to be the next passenger in there?

Well maybe the media is over-hyping the threat but the media is getting their information from the WHO and CDC. http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/14/world/eur ... index.html
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/ ... cases.html

And I agree with Steve- take needed measures now so we are not walking around with masks in six months...

freeman3 wrote:And I agree with Steve- take needed measures now so we are not walking around with masks in six months...

Masks may protect against flu, but they are no help with ebola.