By Anonymous - 15/10/2014 04:55 - United States - San Francisco
Add a comment - Reply to : #
@31 okay colleges can't discriminate against people who have had diseases and not let them in for that reason (unless they still have them). If ebola doesn't kill them them, then it should be out of their system after 1-3 months. As of September 2014, the average mortality rate among those infected is 50%. Now all that said I still wouldn't want the disease though that's ridiculous.
And also no, 90% of people in Africa have not been infected. Ebola is only in five or six of the 53 African countries and in the countries they are in the majority of the population has not been infected. I think that either Nigeria or Senegal only reported one case.
@36, the amount of people it kills in africa isnt particularly a relevant number to use in this case (aside from as an upper bound). Many people over there have a strong distrust of western medicine, or are generally just morons, resulting in a much higher fatality rate than it should be.
31- Well technically the death rate for this particular outbreak in West Africa is 50%, and for the Americans who have been so unlucky as to contract it, they've all survived because of that experimental drug ZMapp, so there's no question that OP's brother would live. And he can't be turned down from his school just because of his medical history. He can be turned down because he's a dumbass though.
76- Where have you been all this time, under a rock? ZMapp is what saved the lives of the first two ebola patients flown to the US, and so far it's had a 100% success rate. They're going to be doing trials for it in West Africa this coming January. Spend two minutes on Google instead of calling me an idiot and making yourself look stupid.
#50 First, he was not the first person in America to catch Ebola. He came from Africa. He brought it with him. Second, it was one of the nurses who treated him, Nina Pham, who was the first person to catch it in America. I'm sure she's ecstatic about it. Third, that poor guy would probably still have died if he stayed in Africa and had no treatment, only he would have most likely died at home and infected whatever family or friends took care of him. Nina Pham's condition has been upgraded to good.
37 - Whether colleges can reject students based on medical history or not, the stigma of having Ebola has ruined many survivors' lives. A lot of them have lost their jobs or their businesses have been ruined because customers won't return. And on top of that, survivors describe feeling like social pariahs. It isn't right, but the stigma is very real and I'm sure if he got the disease and survived, the aftermath would be an all-around unpleasant experience.
You should tell him that the disease literally makes your blood boil. Probably one of the most painful ways to die
I realize that Ebola is dangerous, but I believe people are being a tad ridiculous about the whole thing. It's H1N1 again or whatever. People die from AIDS every day, people still don't wear condemns or go to such drastic measures as they do with something that just now showed up and have taken a couple of lives. I remember when H1N1 was the "big killer" and I got influenza type A. Type A kills millions. I was on my dying bed and people were freaking out, the school shut down because word of my flu got out and everyone thought "H1N1! I'm next, I knew her, I'm going to die!" I just wish people would open their eyes and see that there are dangerous things all around us, having one more deadly killer among the millions isn't something to buy a special immunity suit for.
I don't think it's so much the likelihood of catching Ebola that frightens people, but the swift and horrifying way it kills you. It kills you just two weeks after your symptoms present because you bleed to death because your organs are imploding. It's like cholera, except instead of dying of dehydration because fluid is flowing out of your anus and mouth, you die of blood loss, because blood is flowing out of every single hole in your body.
I caught that too. In England it was an epidemic, ten percent of the population got sick at the same time. It was a month of chaos. Schools closed because too many teachers were sick or combined classes because there weren't enough kids. The death rate was no higher that any other type of flu, what made it a problem was that is was more contagious. Almost everyone who died was already sick or very old, I think there were 3 healthy people who died.
I will apologize now, I tend to write a great deal and so this shall be similarly long to my previous post. I understand what you're saying, I appreciate the way in which you view everyone's reaction. To make myself a little more clear as to what I meant by my comment, I wish to state that AIDS was an example. The entire first portion was more so my thoughts upon the matter (of which should have stayed my own), it was the last portion I was more so aiming for people to look at. There are thousands of horrid diseases and illnesses that people should be fearful of in addition to the Ebola outbreak. Yes, Ebola is grotesque in nature of how it kills, but is it the most excruciating? Sure, to some. Is it beyond all else in the horrifying factor? Sure, to some. But the fact stands is that in a short time there will be a way to "control" Ebola, as there is for everything else; but also that there already are a few ways to prevent its spread to oneself. If I'm correct in my research, someone cannot get Ebola without coming into contact with certain individuals and bodily fluids. Caution is needed, just like anything else. You don't need a suit to protect you as much as just being a smart and careful individual. One doesn't need to over react as much as a lot of people are doing. It, and I say this as personal opinion and maybe it is in a somewhat biased state, isn't the only thing that kills people. All around us are terrible things. Parasites, bacteria, viruses, etcetera. Anyways, that's what I meant with all I said. I suppose I said some things out of slight annoyance towards how society runs. You cannot deny the idea that when something is presented to the public and death occurs from a certain illness that a good many individuals have a tendency to overreact it's potential. There is a hoax about zombies that came to pass due to this contingency! It's very hard to convince me that this hoax/fabrication isn't overreacting a little bit. I understand a rising fear for individuals in near locations, but those across a greater distance shouldn't be acting in a way that is hazardous to other (by this I mean people get frightened into the flight/fight state and may end up trampling others to get out/in certain places or doing some other means of "protecting themselves" which may lead to the accidental harm of others).
Ebola is the great white whale of viruses. Comparing it to H1n1 is laudable. I understand what you mean about people overreacting, but if there was ever a virus to overreact too, it's this one. It's NOT just transferred through saliva or sweat( no idea why people don't look at google peer review journals before the hype). 2012 study showed how it passed from different species, in separate cages, that all shared one central ventilation system. It's not "airborne" in the literal definition though. And it's not the way it can transfer, or what it does to your body, that is scary. It's the fact that the incubation rate for this strand is long. Usually the virus wiped out a village because it would kill everyone in a week. So it never traveled far before it burnt out. And we may find a way to "control" Ebola, but it mutates a lot... Even our antibiotics, for what we consider simple illnesses, are becoming resistant or even immune. CDC has been raging about the overuse of antibiotics for years. So while you make valid points about society's reaction and mob fear mentality, this is not the virus to try and downplay.