101 replies to this topic

[HiMyNameIsNick]

Well, TIL that people is kinda fucked up nowadays.

[NapisaurusRex]

But if you volunteer in rural Africa, where there aren't as many hospitals, then the difference in treatment is HUGE. In addition, most experimental drugs to counteract Ebola exist solely in the United States, so keeping infected volunteers in Africa would be removing them of the chance of getting that treatment. 

 

Also, if someone volunteered to help research for a cure for ebola, the least we should do is to provide the best treatment for them if they get infected. They are doing the world a favor, and we shouldn't be so paranoid to abandon them in the middle of nowhere.

There's other places in Africa to go though, with better hospitals. There's nothing stopping the experimental drugs from being shipped to Africa for those people who volunteered. Even if they come back, there's no guarantee they'll get to use the experimental drugs here. 

 

They know the risks. They know they have a chance of getting infected. They're supposed to be trained in how to prevent being infected and from what I keep seeing all over the internet, including here, is that if you're doing prevention right, your chance of getting infected is basically 0. 

[DonValentino]

Also, why does it matter if you're a volunteer or an employee of something? They know the risks too, and I fail to see why getting paid to be there and being there volunteering should constitute different decisions in whether one may come home. In fact, an argument could be made that the employee should stay there because that's their job and the volunteer should come home because nothing is tying him there. But I won't make that argument because I think it's ridiculous, if you're American you should be able to come home to America.

[cara]

There's other places in Africa to go though, with better hospitals. There's nothing stopping the experimental drugs from being shipped to Africa for those people who volunteered. Even if they come back, there's no guarantee they'll get to use the experimental drugs here. 

 

They know the risks. They know they have a chance of getting infected. They're supposed to be trained in how to prevent being infected and from what I keep seeing all over the internet, including here, is that if you're doing prevention right, your chance of getting infected is basically 0. 

 

So you're saying if people risk their own lives to go help others and they fall sick, we should leave them there? That's a really rough and uncompassionate thing to say. My mother was thinking of applying to Doctor's Without Borders. She's been a nurse for over 30 years, she's fully trained on how to prevent infection but she's also human, and a human under extreme stress in a very fast paced environment in a third world country. Humans make mistakes.

And I should hope if/when she goes, if she does get infected, she wouldn't be left there to die. Because let's be real here, the difference in the quality of healthcare between a first world country and a third world country is vast, and if you think otherwise maybe you should look into that.

 

Also, if you're 'doing prevention right' and your chance to get infected is 'basically 0', then I'm not understanding why we can't bring the hypothetical infected volunteers over here under the supervision of people who are trained. Since obviously these volunteers made a careless mistake and the odds of it happening again are so slim .. so why not bring them here to be treated? Unless we're leaving them there to die as punishment in some way, or maybe out of irrational fear?

[Dan]

I hate this idea that it's someone's fault for getting infected.... innocent until proven negligent.

[Kibitz]

I hate this idea that it's someone's fault for getting infected.... innocent until proven negligent.

 

I agree, it's the hospital's fault for not setting up the correct protocols for the disease not the individual person.

[jinq]

http://www.neopets.c...phtml?pet=ebola

 

Come on, people, go file some reports. I'm really surprised this name is allowed to exist on neo.

[Cannabis]

I agree, it's the hospital's fault for not setting up the correct protocols for the disease not the individual person.

 

The fact that hospital's turned people away who had Ebola -__- healthcare man

[mmk]

Ebola will pass like SARS did and all the other scares.

[Cannabis]

As long as they keep it contained we will be fine @mmk

[Cannabis]

Or it could be like HIV and be a serious epidemic

 

#Ebolapocalypse2015

[Batori]

Or it could be like HIV and be a serious epidemic

I say this with love--you do realize they don't quarantine HIV sufferers, don't you?

[NapisaurusRex]

Also, why does it matter if you're a volunteer or an employee of something? They know the risks too, and I fail to see why getting paid to be there and being there volunteering should constitute different decisions in whether one may come home. In fact, an argument could be made that the employee should stay there because that's their job and the volunteer should come home because nothing is tying him there. But I won't make that argument because I think it's ridiculous, if you're American you should be able to come home to America.

 

 

So you're saying if people risk their own lives to go help others and they fall sick, we should leave them there? That's a really rough and uncompassionate thing to say. My mother was thinking of applying to Doctor's Without Borders. She's been a nurse for over 30 years, she's fully trained on how to prevent infection but she's also human, and a human under extreme stress in a very fast paced environment in a third world country. Humans make mistakes.

And I should hope if/when she goes, if she does get infected, she wouldn't be left there to die. Because let's be real here, the difference in the quality of healthcare between a first world country and a third world country is vast, and if you think otherwise maybe you should look into that.

 

Also, if you're 'doing prevention right' and your chance to get infected is 'basically 0', then I'm not understanding why we can't bring the hypothetical infected volunteers over here under the supervision of people who are trained. Since obviously these volunteers made a careless mistake and the odds of it happening again are so slim .. so why not bring them here to be treated? Unless we're leaving them there to die as punishment in some way, or maybe out of irrational fear?

There's a reason I'm not in charge of major decisions...

[Frizzle]

Of course not. All I'm saying is that while irrational fear is bad, Ebola totally has the potential to become the next HIV. If it spreads and has the chance to mutate, like HIV did, Ebola could be a worldwide epidemic. We should take Ebola with cation for sure, but not going around yelling that the world will end because of Ebola, like the media has been doing

Stop being so fucking paranoid and encouraging misinformation. Ebola and HIV have "been around" or been discovered for the same amount of time give or take. Ebola has killed about 4,000 people so far this year, HIV/AIDS has killed around 600,000.

You're more likely to die from almost any other disease first yet I don't see anyone becoming paranoid like its the end of the world

[Batori]

Of course not. All I'm saying is that while irrational fear is bad, Ebola totally has the potential to become the next HIV. If it spreads and has the chance to mutate, like HIV did, Ebola could be a worldwide epidemic. We should take Ebola with cation for sure, but not going around yelling that the world will end because of Ebola, like the media has been doing

Saying it has the potential to become "a worldwide epidemic" is fearmongering just the same as the media has been doing. Unless you have either the personal knowledge or the sources to back that up, please calm down.

[Frizzle]

There's other places in Africa to go though, with better hospitals. There's nothing stopping the experimental drugs from being shipped to Africa for those people who volunteered. Even if they come back, there's no guarantee they'll get to use the experimental drugs here.

They know the risks. They know they have a chance of getting infected. They're supposed to be trained in how to prevent being infected and from what I keep seeing all over the internet, including here, is that if you're doing prevention right, your chance of getting infected is basically 0.

You're right, if you catch a dangerous disease you shouldn't be allowed in the states. Especially if you catch an airborne contagious virus (unlike Ebola). Especially if you catch a disease which kills hundreds of thousands of people year (unlike Ebola). Especially if you contact the the disease by no fault of your own.

Let's take the flu for example. Kills hundreds of thousands a year, easily transferrable, airborne etc

Can we deport you, take your kids of you or have you euthanised since its your own damn fault you contracted the disease? I mean, all these people in healthcare should just quit their jobs, careers and be jobless just because theres a slight chance they could get sick right?

God, some people are really fucking ignorant.

[NapisaurusRex]

You're right, if you catch a dangerous disease you shouldn't be allowed in the states. Especially if you catch an airborne contagious virus (unlike Ebola). Especially if you catch a disease which kills hundreds of thousands of people year (unlike Ebola). Especially if you contact the the disease by no fault of your own.

Let's take the flu for example. Kills hundreds of thousands a year, easily transferrable, airborne etc

Can we deport you, take your kids of you or have you euthanised since its your own damn fault you contracted the disease? I mean, all these people in healthcare should just quit their jobs, careers and be jobless just because theres a slight chance they could get sick right?

God, some people are really fucking ignorant.

Yes, you calling me fucking ignorant will get me to change my mind. Good call.

[Frizzle]

Yes, you calling me fucking ignorant will get me to change my mind. Good call.

Well science and rational thinking won't. Also I'm not trying to get anyone to change their minds, just pointing out something you have already admitted.

Like any burgeoning diseases with high fatality rates, proper caution should be taken, in the form of quarantines. IF (and that's a big if) we have people running around with Ebola flying everywhere and spreading it, then sure Ebola has the potential to become to next HIV. Right now there are quarantines, which makes the said scenario less likely, thus not much of a threat to the general population. This fact is unfortunately underemphasized by media.

Paranoia and irrationality, like calling for closing off Africa, is never good because it causes unnecessary fear.

So should we quarantine anyone with a contagious/infectious deadly disease? Or just the scary ones the media likes to eat up that sells newspapers?

[NapisaurusRex]

Well science and rational thinking won't.

I can't

[cara]

Like any burgeoning diseases with high fatality rates, proper caution should be taken, in the form of quarantines. IF (and that's a big if) we have people running around with Ebola flying everywhere and spreading it, then sure Ebola has the potential to become to next HIV. Right now there are quarantines, which makes the said scenario less likely, thus not much of a threat to the general population. This fact is unfortunately underemphasized by media.

 

Paranoia and irrationality, like calling for closing off Africa, is never good because it causes unnecessary fear.

 

Malaria has killed 600,000 people last year.

2.200 children under the age of five die every DAY from preventable diarrheal diseases.

3.5 million people die every year from lack of clean water.

Hepatitis B kills an average of 1.2 million people a year.

 

What is so scary about Ebola? The fact that it's coming into our first world countries. Because we can ignore all the other scary things that can kill you as long as they stay in the developing world, right?

 

And let me tell you, those are only the ones that I heard about. And I'm a very uninformed person. I can only imagine all the other diseases out there that I don't know about but are, for some reason, less important than Ebola.

[cara]

You can't really compare a total number of deaths to the mortality rate... They're two different units that represent different things.

 

Fair enough, let's look at some of those then:

 

http://en.wikipedia...._fatality_rates

 

So, Ebola is 12th on the list. Ignoring the fact that it blatantly says 'may be considerably lower with supportive care', you have 11 other diseases to worry about more than Ebola.

 

Ebola is the lead in NOTHING. It does NOT have the highest number of deaths per year, it does NOT have the highest mortality rate, you are more likely to leave your house tomorrow morning and get hit by a car and die than contract Ebola. And yet .. where is the topic on people panicking about that?

 

(how ironic would it be if I got Ebola LOL)

[Batori]

You can't really compare a total number of deaths to the mortality rate... They're two different units that represent different things. Just like how 30mph versus 100 miles have no meaning when compared.

You only have to worry about the mortality rate if you contract it, which (I stress) is vanishingly unlikely to happen with ebola.

[Frizzle]

Also it only has a 20% mortality rate in developed countries.

[Mishelle]

Some dipshit at a nearby college called the school and said they had Ebola because they were doing bad in school. The entire school was put on lock down. I hate people.

[Waser Lave]

Or it could be like HIV and be a serious epidemic

 

I'm going to skip everything you've said after this post because it's all just extremely silly and not grounded in reality. There are massive differences between HIV and Ebola even if you just look at them superficially. Firstly, if you look at the incubation period of both of them you'll see that Ebola has a short incubation period whereas HIV can take months or even years before showing symptoms. In addition, with Ebola you need to be showing symptoms to be contagious whereas with HIV you can contract it from somebody with no outward symptoms at all. Both of these things mean that HIV is a hell of a lot better at spreading more widely than Ebola. The key thing is their visibility, Ebola is very visible so people can be quickly isolated to prevent them infecting others whereas HIV/AIDS can be pretty much a silent killer and in the end it's other problems which kill you rather than HIV/AIDS itself. Other than coming out of Africa, not currently having a vaccine and not being very pleasant there's not much to compare between them.

 

If countries start taking Ebola seriously as they are now then there's no reason it should get anywhere close to being a problem like HIV.