Slashdot Mirror
Obama Presses Leaders To Speed Ebola Response
mdsolar writes with the latest plan from the U.S. government to fight the Ebola epidemic in West Africa, and a call for more help from other nations by the President. President Obama on Tuesday challenged world powers to accelerate the global response to the Ebola outbreak that is ravaging West Africa, warning that unless health care workers, medical equipment and treatment centers were swiftly deployed, the disease could take hundreds of thousands of lives. "This epidemic is going to get worse before it gets better," Mr. Obama said here at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where he met with doctors who had just returned from West Africa. The world, he said, "has the responsibility to act, to step up and to do more. The United States intends to do more." Even as the president announced a major American deployment to Liberia and Senegal of medicine, equipment and 3,000 military personnel, global health officials said that time was running out and that they had weeks, not months, to act. They said that although the American contribution was on a scale large enough to make a difference, a coordinated assault in Africa from other Western powers was essential to bringing the virus under control.
This situation is very grim. I hope the international response in swift and coordinated, and that our people stay healthy.
U.S. lawmakers called for a government-funded "war" to contain West Africa's deadly Ebola epidemic...
"We need to declare a war on Ebola," Senator Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican, said...
It's good to see that word in a context that we can all agree on.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
When the populace actively attack medical workers, violently disrupt quarantines, and engage in ebola spreading funerary customs? 3000 soldiers seems hardly enough to combat that level of ignorance of how disease transmission works.
While such a strong message of support from President Obama cannot help but shed a ray of hope, I have to wonder what strategy is entailed. So far the United States is mostly known in Africa for unleashing airstrikes, death, and devastation. Perhaps this may change, but I don't see how. In any case, "coordinated assault" is not a phrase designed to inspire confidence in a problem that can only be solved through love and brotherhood.
I heard that one of the local customs is to bathe the deceased and then the relatives drink the bath water.
Which seems like an exceptionally dumb idea if your relative died from, say, Ebola.
I don't think there's much Obama can do about that. But he's got a pen and a phone and seems to think he can do pretty much anything with them.
The number of cases more than double in the month of August. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa
Sure, he'll help with this. But won't stop off the diseases entering through our southern border.
This pandemic is almost certainly worse than it seems. For every reported case there are now likely a dozen unreported.
I have a feeling that all this effort from the US and others is to make the folks back home feel safer in that we are 'doing something'. In all likelihood the only thing that'll stop the spread at this point is stricter quarantine around the infected countries(!). Refugees would need to go into quarantine to make sure they are not carrying the disease.
This disease, and the corresponding collapse of infrastructure, will likely kill hundreds of thousands of people before its over.
I hope I'm wrong.
Wonder what the underlying motivation is considering that nothing was done with the genocide in Rwanda. Why the sudden concern?
Good work, people! Keep me in the news.
When those 3000 dudes come home, and go back through the major US airports, back to their families distributed across the country, and THEN spread the disease, it's going to be awesome.
Never wasting a good crisis, the President and administration will use this as an opportunity for massive federalization of health care and private sectore business.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
The Nations that have Ebola, have governments that want bribes and kicks back just so that non-profits can operate and help. Then even when they get there, more mafia style extortion occurs. Is there some way to change this behavior?
Not to sound like a jackass, but currently (wiki) there's been 5,232 cases, and 2,538 deaths (52%). The population of Africa is 1.111 billion. As such, it's infected about 0.0005% of the population, and killed 0.00025%. Is this really a pandemic? Give me a break.
It would never spread in a western country anyways, because people here aren't stupid, and won't start fondling the dead infected victims.
The Nations that have Ebola, have governments that want bribes and kicks back just so that non-profits can operate and help. Then even when they get there, more mafia style extortion occurs. Is there some way to change this behavior?
Give this man a big white pointy hat with eye-holes
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
What his white masters tell him to do.
product, BSD's move any equipment FrreBSD project, Surveys show that racist? How is Mcoans and groans You are a screaming give BSD credit rivalry, and we'll
Close all the borders and let it run it's course
I just don't get what interest Obama has in taking over Africa.
For those of you who haven't been paying attention, the US started the current outbreak of Ebola in order to destabilize the region. We have a cure, and the infected US doctors were carted back here in order to showcase it. Though the official stance is that it still needs testing blah blah blah, so rather than giving people the cure we're sending supplies, doctors, and military personnel to lock down the region. Once we get the place under control (somewhat) we'll cure (most of) the remaining sick, have some of the workers there take up political positions, and leave our grunts in place indefinitely to ensure we establish lasting control.
I just don't get why.
And if you doubt any of this, it's as simple as tracing the money. Start your digging at Mapp Biopharmaceutical and it's commercial arm. Mapp Biopharmaceutical has a staff of 9 people (nine) and for the past decade has been sitting on a cure for ebola? How much money was poured into Mapp Biopharmaceutical by the US (and Canadian) governments? Why? Why is the DoD suddenly so concerned with ebola? Hint: It's weaponized and in active use - by the US.
You'll be lining up to receive your ebola vaccines like the good little sheep you are in around 18 months, just in time the election season. I wonder how much it'll cost for anyone who isn't on Obamacare.
researchers in 1973:Jesus christ we've just found a horrible disease in africa! ....seriously....
Nixon: lol africa.
researchers in 1995: jesus guys this outbreak just killed 250 people in the congo.
the clinton: but i dont play the congo.
researchers in 2007: guise this deathtoll is over 1000 so far and Western Uganda is looking pretty bad.
Dubya: What do you mean western union kicks ass their commercials are funny.
Ebola 2014: remember me? LOL KILLSTREAK=4000 and i took a few medics too u mad?
Obama: I'm dedicating 175 million dollars to fight this horrible disease
congress: nope.jpg
Obama
Congress: LOL y u mad bro?
Good people go to bed earlier.
Wut? How do you get to this decision?
I guess we need Bill Cosby to say it so that people won't herp and derp around about racism and actually consider that it might be true.
Clearly the racists in the USA created Ebola in an attempt to wipe out the Black Man. Now they are trying to destroy Africa by isolating it from the rest of the world!
Don't let the white man win. Fight back against your oppressors! Fight for black power! Escape quarantine and infect as many crackers as you can.
What a great humanitarian Obama is. Let's mobilize massive resources to stop this Ebola outbreak which has caused ~2,500 deaths since the initial infection in December; again 2,500 deaths in 9 months. Why? Because it's in the news.
I'm sure the TB patients of the world are feeling pretty good for the ebola patients, despite the fact that TB, an entirely treatable disease, causes more deaths per day (~4,100 per day in 2011) than Ebola has in this entire outbreak. I'm sure he'll get to that humanitarian crisis once he's done making headlines about ebola.
Granted, it won't be that fast unless it mutates in such a way that it can be spread through the air. If it does that, then growth quite a bit faster than exponential is possible.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Over 100,000 have died in Syria and Obama continues peeling bananas and now that 'his people' are involved we are going to endanger our military personal.
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority would rather be helping those in Syria than playing wet nurse to the Obamas.
Its AIDS all over again. Lets just sit back and watch it spread because its just Africans, then panic when it pops up in San Francisco.
I believe I see the world map turning red very very slowly.
Someone here gets the reference.
I'm so sick of people making this argument.
So you're telling me that the people over there fighting ebola are being selfish? That, while what they're doing is helpful to others and potentially harmful to themselves, that they still aren't being selfless because whatever happy thoughts they receive from being there and helping outweigh the risk to their health, such that, on the whole, they're really just enjoying an unusual type of vacation?
Some of us try not to be so hopelessly pedantic. This whole idea seems almost puritarian in nature, in that it proposes that while it is good to help people, you'd better not enjoy it, otherwise that cancels out the good and now you're no different than some loser who sits at home all day writing posts on Slashdot.
The simple fact is that actions are worth far more than thoughts. Each person over there trying to help is worth a thousand people sitting at home thinking "I sure hope things get better soon." So that they might actually enjoy helping, so what? At worst that means they're only 99.9% altruistic.
If all the people fighting ebola cared about was feeling good about themselves, they could just volunteer in a soup kitchen until they have convinced themselves that they're good people, and in doing so avoid all personal risk and be home in time for dinner. ...and hell, even those who merely work in a soup kitchen could just sit at home and make arguments about how altruism doesn't really exists, making themselves feel better without even lifting a finger, except perhaps to post about it on the internet.
The only way this "altruism doesn't exist" argument works is by trivializing the risk/loss people take when helping others to the point that it's on par with the good feeling one gets from having helped others such that the good feeling they get can cancel it out. ...but, believe it or not, potentially ending up dead isn't something you can trivialize to the point that merely feeling good about having helped someone cancels it out. People do sometimes genuinely help others even when doing so doesn't help themselves. Yes, they get something out of it in that they'll feel good about what they've done, but it still ends up being a net loss, because 1000 good feelings aren't enough to make up for 1 death, and so merely feeling good about yourself isn't sufficient reason to take a 1 in 1000 chance of dying to help someone you don't even know.
So why do they do it? Maybe they feel like they should help, even if it doesn't make sense. People do things that don't make sense all the time, yet you don't see anyone making the argument that because people don't like to give away money, casinos must obviously pay out at least as much as their guests pay in.
The death rate for the first 1000 infections was around 75%.
So 750 deaths.
By the time we reached 2000 infections the overall death rate was around 65%
So 1300 total deaths, or only 550 of the second 1000, which is 55%.
and by the time we reached 3000 infections it was around 55%
So 1650 total deaths, or only 350 of the third 1000, which is 35%.
The actual death rate right now is more like 35-45%
Which is certainly an improvement, but it's still terrible.
I assume this is because the care is improving and more people are pulling through
They try to keep them hydrated and well fed so that they don't simply die from the vomiting. They also try to detect them as early as possible to prevent the disease from spreading, and that likely makes the treatment more effective. However, there isn't much they can do as the treatment doesn't attack the virus directly, but is merely focused on keeping the body as healthy as possible so that they don't die before the immune system is able to deal with it.
but outbreaks like this often become less virulent over time as well.
That's the nature of things that change. At first they get worse, then at some point they're as bad as they are going to get, then they get better. However, without hindsight, it's difficult to say where we're at on that timeline.
wtf?
So they possibly exposed the president to Ebola?
Better to talk with those doctors over video phone me thinks.
Kind of like Homer Simpson telling his nuclear technicians to "work faster." Except, I think Homer has probably done more actual work in his life than Barry has.
I don't know about you, but, I'd have serious concerns about being sent INTO exposure to ebola. Military or not. Regarding military....our soldiers are not taken care of when injured in war, or police-actions, so who really thinks they will be taken care of if they get exposed to ebola? If they get exposed, will they get left behind as MIA ? which way is cheapest ? I'm just saying... yeah yeah, if we don't do something, it will only get worse....folks, you are kidding only yourselves if you think that we can still make a difference NOW. it is going to run its' course, all over the world
I worked on a ship that brought US food aid to several African countries, including Liberia. We did have to bribe all kinds of people to be allowed to give them free food. I don't know why you're accusing someone of being racist for telling the truth about corruption in African countries.
Tea Party would have a field day with a title like that. :)
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Compared to the number of people Obama has killed with his bombing campaigns and warmongering, Ebola is a small problem.
Mr Obama should shut his mouth, and look to sorting the problems with trying to democratise America, before lecturing anyone else on anything.
Unfortunately, even tough he is being non-PC he is telling the naked truth. Now, if you want to call racist to someone who is telling the uncomfortable truth, that is your problem. Yes, it is that bad, but some countries without the external aid money would have (almost) no money at all.
And then even you bribe them, often the food is given to the right kind of people to "buy" tribal and political favours. Or sold.
If the government can't stop undocumented immigrants, how can they stop a population full of people with 9mm diversions and nothing to lose?