Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Ebola's mortality rate is probably closer to 60% than the dreaded 90%. Frankly disappointing; I expect more from apocalyptic plagues.

Also, to spread it you have to bleed on someone, more or less.

So what you're telling me is, my plan to dispose of infected victims by pushing them into a giant fan is a poor strategy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Considering that the CDC just had a scandal concerning their Class 3 (Deadly, but treatable) and Class 4 (Deadly and untreatable, upwards to civilization ending) labs not using proper containment procedures, I'm not exactly put at ease.

Even American citizens should not be allowed back in until they are clean or dead, not with a disease this serious. Scrubbing it out in a worst case scenario is not worth the risk.

[Lightningfalcon]

I'm pretty sure you can get it from things like sweat too. 
From what wikipedia says you can get it from other bodily fluids to. 

[Elephant Parade]

Posting to watch.

[Lagslayer]

Though the risk of someone jizzing on you and you knowing they have ebola is pretty low.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

[Loud Whispers]

Though the risk of someone jizzing on you and you knowing they have ebola is pretty low.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Would telling stupid people infected with ebola to set themselves on fire be an effective containment measure?

[10ebbor10]

Yes.

[GavJ]

Uh why is a person infected with ebola "stupid?"

Also, to spread it you have to bleed on someone, more or less.

One of the foremost ebola researchers just contracted it while wearing a biohazard suit. As did many of his nurses, while wearing biohazard suits.

Sure they probably had a flaw or pinholes or a leak or whatever, but compare that to "you basically have to bleed on somebody." I don't care how many pinholes are in a suit, getting ill through multiples of them anyway is way the hell more contagious than "you have to get bled on" ...

Ebola's mortality rate is probably closer to 60% than the dreaded 90%. Frankly disappointing; I expect more from apocalyptic plagues.

1) This strain is 60%, others are indeed 90%, they just aren't the ones spreading currently.
2) 90% is not necessarily worse. It might very well be that it's spreading more easily BECAUSE it's 60%, allowing people to last longer to get more people sick before dropping dead. The worst pandemics are ones that strike a solid balance between contagious effectiveness AND deadliness (for example, not swine flu -- tons of people got it but not so bad. Not avian flu -- quite bad but didn't spread well.  A more balanced mixture together would have wiped out a huge chunk of the population).

Imagine a hypothetical disease that made you catch on fire and disintegrate in 5 seconds 100% of the time. Would that create an apocalypse? No, it would probably only kill like two people, cause it wouldn't spread fast enough to survive.

[10ebbor10]

The worst disease would be one with a 100% mortality rate, but a very long incubation period, during which it was contagious.

[Loud Whispers]

Uh why is a person infected with ebola "stupid?"

Unless they're the uneducated lot attacking healthcare workers or they're the unrelated aforementioned idiots setting themselves on fire, being infected with ebola is not a necessary condition for stupidity.

[GavJ]

Well yes, but that's pretty unlikely. The two factors tend to be somewhat correlated/conflated.

Simple example: a super long incubation period by its very nature causally contributes to a higher likelihood of being able to treat successfully, since it buys you all that time during which the person is able to fully, healthily withstand the rigors of various drugs and procedures, etc.

being infected with ebola is not a necessary condition for stupidity.

Did you mean "sufficient?"
I think it's fairly obvious to all that having ebola is not necessary to be stupid. I was commenting on its sufficiency for stupidity, which is what your earlier post implied.

Several very brilliant doctors etc. have gotten ebola just in the last few weeks, who were experts on how to avoid doing so and still did.

[Teneb]

Uh why is a person infected with ebola "stupid?"

Unless they're the uneducated lot attacking healthcare workers or they're the unrelated aforementioned idiots setting themselves on fire, being infected with ebola is not a necessary condition for stupidity.

I think the stupid was referring to the self-immolators, not ebola infectees.

[Loud Whispers]

I think it's fairly obvious to all that having ebola is not necessary to be stupid. I was commenting on its sufficiency for stupidity, which is what your earlier post implied.

No, my earlier post implied people setting themselves on fire are idiots, and should an American outbreak occur would an effective measure for containment simply be encouraging the fire challenge.

[GavJ]

I understand that. But the answer to the question is "no" it wouldn't be effective, because that would only stop the stupid people, who would not be the only ones carrying the disease, see?

But anyway, this is a silly tangent. What we should really be worried about, considering the thread title in particular, is whether ebola can spread via volcanism?

[Loud Whispers]

I understand that. But the answer to the question is "no" it wouldn't be effective, because that would only stop the stupid people, who would not be the only ones carrying the disease, see?

Ah, but then you'd only be left with people who would actually go to hospitals and do everything in their best ability to limit the spread of disease and not further spread it. You would no longer have healthcare workers being attacked and infected patients being broken out of hospitals.