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.

140 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. War! by BringsApples · · Score: 2
    FTFA:

    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.
    1. Re:War! by QilessQi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's hope it goes better than the "War on Drugs".

    2. Re:War! by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the "War on Poverty."

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    3. Re:War! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the "War on Poverty."

      Don't forget the "War on Terrorism".

    4. Re:War! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      War on Cancer ....

      Turns out that "War" is a bad descriptor. How about "Global Viral Change"?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:War! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The War on Poverty apparently led to a significant reduction of poverty that lasted a long time. It's the only one of the War on $ABSTRACT_NOUN thingies that seems to have had a positive effect, as far as I know.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. What good is aid going to do by kruach+aum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What good is aid going to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it has nothing to do with helping and everything to do with appearances.

    2. Re:What good is aid going to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      Ebola is a problem only in a few parts of the world because it is transferred through poor hygienic conditions (and long exposure to body fluids in the case of doctors) that are prevalent in low-infrastructure, uneducated, culturally unhygienic areas (aka. shit holes).

      Finding a cure is important, of course. But that's only treating the symptom of the problem, in this case.

    3. Re:What good is aid going to do by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      When medical workers take your relatives away, lock them into camps where the litteraly die from either the disease or starvation, then refuse to let you burrie your relatives... you might react rather violently when they came for you as well.

      Logically we in the west can think about this and say that all of those things were required to control the outbreak. But now think of it from the perspective of a villager that has never set foot in a school and the only news they get is via word of mouth and text message.

    4. Re:What good is aid going to do by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

      Not to ebola, because of the type of virus it is. Not all viruses are created equal.

    5. Re:What good is aid going to do by kruach+aum · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Considering the situation from the perspective of someone who is ignorant doesn't remove the ignorance from their point of view. In fact, it makes it more obvious. Their ignorance explains their behavior, and it also explains why this effort to stem the tide will probably be ineffective.

    6. Re:What good is aid going to do by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      No. You don't give a fuck about anyone else and you project that onto everyone else to make yourself feel ok about it.

    7. Re:What good is aid going to do by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Actually there is an airborne strain of ebola. Fortunately it's not one that is infectious in humans, but given enough time some strain of ebola could mutate to be both airborne and capable of infecting humans.

      More likely is that we'll get something that's less deadly, but more easily spread as one of the major containment factors for ebola is that it kills too many of the infected. Something that's only 30% fatal, but spreads more easily would probably kill off as many people percentage-wise as the Black Death or Spanish Flu.

    8. Re:What good is aid going to do by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Because you're clearly using it in a disparagingly. They're as learned as can be expected given their situation. Medical staff need to take that into account and deal with them appropriately. If my dentist told me to fix tooth he was going to drill a hole in my head, then tried to strap me to a chair forcibly, punching him in the face would not be an over reaction. If I had a medical degree, you could argue, I'd have know that what he said was an appropriate remedy, but that doesn't negate his responsibly as a doctor to communicate with me in an appropriate manner that didn't lead to me reacting violently. It's part of a medical professionals job.

    9. Re:What good is aid going to do by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Worse is that it makes the rational move from the perspective of the non-ignorant to either quarantine the entire country and let the disease run its course or to take other measures to cauterize it if the risk of it spilling outside of a quarantined area seems highly probable.

      It might come down to putting the entire region on lock-down and shooting anyone who tries to leave.

    10. Re:What good is aid going to do by mwehle · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "vein satisfaction".

      Hmm. I know what vain satisfaction is, but what are the vane and vein variants? I'm feeling like I just can't get no.

      --
      Wir sind geboren, um frei zu sein - Rio Reiser
    11. Re:What good is aid going to do by kruach+aum · · Score: 2

      The disparagement is all in your mind. Ignorance is usually used disparagingly, but I didn't do so here. I simply used the word that was most appropriate to the situation: these people are ignorant of certain information about the world, and that informs their behavior. To stop that behavior, they should be educated, not invaded by soldiers.

      Here is something that is meant disparagingly: stop projecting your insecurities and personal biases onto the world and try to--actually--consider the idea that not everyone is like you. If your use of empathy was genuine you would be able to do that, but instead you just seek to stir shit by going after anything that could be interpreted as "not empathetic enough".

    12. Re:What good is aid going to do by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

      Can you link me to anything about this airborne ebola? It sounds interesting.

    13. Re:What good is aid going to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Different AC but a lot altruism is rooted in selfishness. I'm not saying what he is though, bear with me.

      That doesn't devalue altruism, and sometimes that root can be simply feeling better about yourself for doing a good thing, or making sure horrible things don't tumble into your own comfortable life, which are ultimately good reasons to do good things and those reasons don't cheapen the fact that you did a good deed for someone else. But ultimately good deeds are still about imposing your will on the world, and that by it's nature is a selfish act.

      Basically what I'm saying is in the end no one's completely selfless and even selflessness is rooted in a desire for something. That doesn't make it any less good to be those things. If anything it makes it all the more important and all the more obvious that altruism's the best way to go. If your will is satisfied and in the process you make someone else's life better, everyone wins.

    14. Re:What good is aid going to do by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      One has a very hard time envisioning much compassion from the man who voted against the "born alive" act at every opportunity.

    15. Re:What good is aid going to do by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      if you had a medical degree then you would be in the same boat as me because dentists are not medical doctors.

    16. Re:What good is aid going to do by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      considering that a military quarantine zone has never proven effective, that would seem to be the ideal strategy of the ignorant such as yourself.

    17. Re:What good is aid going to do by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

      I see you're still stuck in that Party vs. Party trap. ...need help getting out of that, or do you wish to continue laboring under the delusion that either of the big two political parties actually give a damn about anything beyond the continued acquisition of money and power?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    18. Re:What good is aid going to do by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      We're addressing the specific nutjobbery at hand. Nobody is endorsing a political party.

    19. Re:What good is aid going to do by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please do do not move.

      Place your hands on the monitor.

      The SWAT team will be at your door shortly.

      - - -Thank you
      FBI Task Force on Terrorism

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    20. Re:What good is aid going to do by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      You know, when you have a really nice, new, shiny weather vane. That warm and tingly sense of well being is Vane Satisfaction.

      Vein Satisfaction is probably something from Dwarf Fortress. "Urist McHappyPants has been quite satisfied lately. He passed a beautiful vein of gold recently."

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    21. Re:What good is aid going to do by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Yuuup.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    22. Re:What good is aid going to do by symbolset · · Score: 2

      This strain of misinformation is not helpful. Doctors are human all over the world. They make mistakes when they are on a long shift without sleep, making do with limited resource, doing their best against an insurmountable terror. Just imagine dedicating yourself to a life of saving lives and thrust into a situation where no matter what you do 60% of your patients are going to die. Struggling with all your might because even that is four times the survival rate without modern medical treatment. And yet outside your clinic are guards who turn away more desperately ill people than they let in, and more every day. This is the reality. In the US you are proud of our first world medicine? Try to access that care when any kid with sniffles can be carrying a disease that kills doctors. You will find that a lot of doctors in the first world can afford a long sabbatical.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    23. Re:What good is aid going to do by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Ebola doesn't have to become airborne to wipe out mankind. It just has to change enough to kill the 1% who survive the first (West Africa) and second (DR Congo) waves.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    24. Re:What good is aid going to do by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Let't not exaggerate and cause a panic. The community resolution death rate is ~90%, not above 90%. And with treatment your chances of surviving Ebola exposure might be as high as one in three.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    25. Re:What good is aid going to do by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually there is no such strand.
      I don't get what the purpose of this fear mongering should be.
      The chance that Ebola becomes airborne as you want to name it, like Flu etc. is NIL.
      You ever will need direct contact with another victims body fluids to have a chance of getting infected.
      Or perhaps you have a very strange definition of 'airborne' would not wonder, as no one in medical circles uses this term for virus transmissions. Or it is a new layman term? The correct term is: "respiratory route" ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    26. Re:What good is aid going to do by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, 300,000 soldiers seems hardly enough to eliminate ebola-spreading funeral customs. It would allow protection of medical workers and enforce some quarantines.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Local Customs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Local Customs by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Regrettably, this is actually a thing. Also, bathing children in the funerary water of an Imam. This was a recent story. Ah, there it is... http://awoko.org/2014/09/15/si...

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  4. Worse than it seems. by Scottingham · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Worse than it seems. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      will likely kill hundreds of thousands of people before its over.

      What thought process did you use to gauge your order of magnitude there? I'm generally distrustful of largish numbers thrown out in an armchair analysis.

      Because you can just as easily say "millions" or "thousands" as you can "hundreds of thousands". What makes that number more right?

    2. Re:Worse than it seems. by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      I am not sure where some of your numbers are coming from but you are correct about one thing. There are likely *many* unreported cases out there.

      I hope we are not putting our service people into harms way against an enemy that they are not trained or equipped to fight; just to look like we are 'doing something'.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:Worse than it seems. by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      That's the World Health Organization's current estimate of fatalities if more containment is not done immediately.

      They're not exactly "armchair".

    4. Re:Worse than it seems. by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      The fact that these cities contain millions of people in deplorable conditions before Ebola even touched it.

      The symptoms include severe diarrhea and vomiting. There is little to no sewage system in these cities. Where do you think it's all going?

    5. Re:Worse than it seems. by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      I also didn't say "millions" because I desperately hope it not to be true, but based on where this is happening it isn't impossible.

    6. Re:Worse than it seems. by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't fall for the media frenzy. Keep in mind they are making a lot of money off of all your panicked clicks.

      This is certainly a tragedy for Africa. Just like the last 5 Ebola outbreaks were. This one's bigger but that mostly appears to be due to changes in culture and population than any change in the disease. But, by and large, Ebola is hard to transmit. It's prevalent in Africa because of poor sanitation. I've been to Africa (not this region, but others) The sanitation there is awful and even I, being careful, pretty much caught everything under the sun. There is no clean water to wash with. I bought bottled water and washed with that... didn't matter. The food is handled by dozens of people before you get it and there's no way to wash that either. The people that handled it clearly couldn't wash up properly either.

      In regards to the medical facilities... they are woefully understaffed, under trained and short on equipment. The biggest difference the United States could make is to send over more of all of these. If the troops were sending are of this nature, it will certainly do a lot of good.

      As far as a threat to us in the west though? No... short of it going airborne which, despite the soulless talking heads on TV are saying, is extremely unlikely. And if it were already airborne, we'd all already have it. Luckily, ultra deadly diseases like this burn out very quickly. It's hard to be virulent and deadly at the same time. The dead aren't that great at walking around and infecting people.

    7. Re:Worse than it seems. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Okay, and that'd be perfectly reasonable, if there was any way I was supposed to understand that source for the figures.

      To put it another way, how was I supposed to know it wasn't armchair in the context of information available in this thread?

    8. Re:Worse than it seems. by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      Fair enough. Obama made that claim, with a citation, in his speech.

    9. Re:Worse than it seems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The death rate for the first 1000 infections was around 75%. By the time we reached 2000 infections the overall death rate was around 65% and by the time we reached 3000 infections it was around 55%. The rate for, say, that third thousand must have been less than 55% to bring the average rate down from 65%. The fact is more people are surviving as time goes on and the numbers are reported in a manner to make it look more scary than it is. The actual death rate right now is more like 35-45%. I assume this is because the care is improving and more people are pulling through but outbreaks like this often become less virulent over time as well.

      It's unclear if the unreported infections are good news or bad news without know howing many people died.

    10. Re:Worse than it seems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that you have a firm grasp of what a large-scale epidemy of a disease with death rate of 35-45% percent actually means ...

    11. Re:Worse than it seems. by david_bonn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Best article I've found on this topic (they are estimating between 77000 and 278000 cases by the end of the year):

      http://www.eurosurveillance.or...

      And the wikipedia page on the outbreak is also quite good:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

      This is an extremely scary situation. We have a 77% fatal virus with the caseload doubling roughly every three weeks. We might get lucky and this might burn itself out before it goes airborne or global some other way. Then again we might not.

      My concern is what we are sending to Africa is probably not going to be nearly enough. And by the time it all gets there we might be looking at 10000 or 30000 cases, not the few thousand we have today. I also agree that it is very likely that the official figures substantially understate the number of infected.

    12. Re:Worse than it seems. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Nope. Go read this fine article.

      It is quite a bit more complex.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:Worse than it seems. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I think that if it happened now, we would be in a situation where people staying home would end up causing them to loose their home due to a lack of income, and any calls to help those people would be met by Neo-Con hate.

      I guess you ought to leave the thinking to grown ups. So why would "neo-cons" want to foreclose on a zillion underwater (in the sense that the debt owed is more than the price the home can be sold for) home loans? That turns a temporary shutdown of the loan repayment revenue stream into a large permanent loss. They haven't bankrupted themselves enough that month?

    14. Re:Worse than it seems. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I assume this is because the care is improving and more people are pulling through but outbreaks like this often become less virulent over time as well.

      Oh good, instead of losing 90% of the country, we might just lose a few New York Cities. That makes it better. :)

    15. Re:Worse than it seems. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      short of it going airborne which ... is extremely unlikely. And if it were already airborne, we'd all already have it.

      To start, let's ignore the first part of your statement and focus on the second part. If the disease is airborne, we're looking at an immediate 60-75% reduction in the world's population within 3-6 months. It'd be very, very bad. This is where all the fearmongering is coming from.

      Now, let's look at the first part. As far as we know, the virus has not evolved significantly since its first discovery in the 70's. The virus has also been observed to mutate fairly slowly. This is good news. In addition, there are several major hurdles for the virus to overcome in order to become airborne. This is very good news. These two things put together means that the chances of the second part of your statement happening are very, very low.

      But really, we need more data. There are too many unknowns right now. We can't tell if the incubation period is trending upwards, or if the mortality rate is trending downards. We don't know if the infection vectors right now have changed in any meaningful way. We suspect not, and there are very good reasons for this. But quite frankly, if they have, then we're a step closer to getting into trouble.

      Quite frankly, sending troops to Africa would be useless. Sending doctors might would be of limited use as well, giving sanitary conditions and the way many people treat doctors trying to stem the outbreak. But researchers and scientists, those may be beneficial in more ways than one. Have them go into every village, town, or other isolated population (e.g. each building in a large city) and get bloodwork from everyone. And if anyone in that population is infected, have the local military quarrantine the whole population. And then send the positive blood work back for analysis.

      It's a bit cruel (the researchers would be letting entire villages get infected), but given the state of mistrust between the common people and officials trying to manage this outbreak, that'd probably happen anyway. This way, at least clean villages and population centers would likely remain clean. And we'd get some much-needed information on the virus that could be used either to combat the fearmongering, or prepare for civilization meltdown.

      Actually, there are several treatments in various trial stages that seem to be effective. So even if the outbreak spreads significantly to the point where much of the world outside of western Africa becomes afflicted, there's a good chance we'd be ready to fight it. Chances are, we'd be looking at a week or two of lost productivity world wide, rather than a genetic bottleneck event.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    16. Re:Worse than it seems. by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, the chance of it going airborne is about as likely as you getting hit by lightning tomorrow. Changing how it spreads is generally really, really, hard for any virus - it would have to morph into a completely different family of viruses, at which point it would no longer be Ebola.

      The bigger issues is that this is going to set those countries back a few decades or more in their development. Which means lots of instability in the region, which tends to result in bad things happening (wars, societal breakdown, less education, more poverty). That's going to kill a lot more people then Ebola does.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    17. Re:Worse than it seems. by symbolset · · Score: 1

      If only the /. summary were attached to some sort of News article. They should consider making that an option so that people could read the attached article before commenting on it.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    18. Re:Worse than it seems. by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Losing 90% of your population in one year can really put a dent in economic growth. But the survivors will probably have other things to worry about.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    19. Re:Worse than it seems. by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no. My most optimistic model, which assumes immediate global intervention at best speed with perfect execution has 1.2 million dead. And that is exceedingly unlikely.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    20. Re:Worse than it seems. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Okay. So. Do it. I'm not stopping anyone.

    21. Re:Worse than it seems. by david_bonn · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you except that in the past Ebola has became airborne amongst monkeys and amongst pigs, of all things. That makes me suspect that it could happen in people, too.

      Having ebola become airborne is probably a lot less likely than any one person being struck by lightning tomorrow. Probably those odds (ballpark) are around one in a billion for any one person to be struck by lightning. But each time ebola is transmitted to another host there are literally trillions of reproductive events that represent a chance for ebola to mutate in a bad way. So the odds that we will get the wrong kind of mutation, over time, actually go way up as more people become infected.

    22. Re:Worse than it seems. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Ebola has nothing to do with sanitation.
      The virus is killed pretty quickly outside of the human body.
      Outbreaks nearly always start by eating infected animals (often immune or at least resistant animals, like flying fox/fruit bats)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re:Worse than it seems. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Like that would ever work.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. Re:Africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Onion said it the best:

    "Experts: Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People Away"

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/experts-ebola-vaccine-at-least-50-white-people-awa,36580/

  6. Re:Grim by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is grim because we don't want to "offend" anyone with the proper response (quarantine the zone) . Political Correctness run amok is going to kill people.

    How many dead or sick people before we stop worrying about feelings and sensibilities?

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  7. so the story goes by nimbius · · Score: 4, Informative

    researchers in 1973:Jesus christ we've just found a horrible disease in africa!
    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 ....seriously....
    Congress: LOL y u mad bro?

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:so the story goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...

      Dubya: What do you mean western union kicks ass their commercials are funny.

      ...

      Get over your "blame BOOOSH!!!!" childishness, you ignorant twerp.

      Eugene Robinson: George W. Bush’s greatest legacy — his battle against AIDS

      This is a moment for all Americans to be proud of the best thing George W. Bush did as president: launching an initiative to combat AIDS in Africa that has saved millions of lives.

      All week, more than 20,000 delegates from around the world have been attending the 19th International AIDS Conference here in Washington. They look like any other group of conventioneers, laden with satchels and garlanded with name tags. But some of these men and women would be dead if not for Bush’s foresight and compassion.

      Those are not words I frequently use to describe Bush or his presidency. But credit and praise must be given where they are due, and Bush’s accomplishment — the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR — deserves accolades. It is a reminder that the United States can still be both great and good.

      When the Bush administration inaugurated the program in 2003, fewer than 50,000 HIV-infected people on the African continent were receiving the antiretroviral drugs that keep the virus in check and halt the progression toward full-blown AIDS. By the time Bush left office, the number had increased to nearly 2 million. Today, the United States is directly supporting antiretroviral treatment for more than 4 million men, women and children worldwide, primarily in Africa.

      ...

      Eugene Robinson and the Washington Post are hardly Bush's greatest supporters. Yet I bet you never even heard of what Bush did for Africa and AIDS, have you? Yet you felt qualified to make fun of what Bush knew about Africa. So that makes "childishness" and "ignorant twerp" quite accurate, aren't they? How about "arrogant", too, to go along with "ignorant"? It fits.

      Meanwhile, Obama's poll numbers are worse 6 years into his Presidency than Bush's numbers 6 years in. Yeah, we know, all Obama's problems are because of "BOOOOSH!!!!".

      Fucking baby.

    2. Re:so the story goes by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From UT Austin: On the Cusp of an Ebola Vaccine

      Bush built that lab (Galveston National Laboratory) as part of the $5 billion Project Bioshield Act of 2004, one of two, the other being at Boston University Medical Center. These are the places where actual research on ebola, dengue, hemorrhagic fever, SARS and others has been happening for years while you perfected your Bush derangement syndrome narrative.

      Ass monkey.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:so the story goes by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We're not talking AIDS here. We're talking Ebola. Granted that the Bush administration did a very good job attacking AIDS in Africa (and, from my point of view, darn little else), what did he do about Ebola?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  8. Re:Assault? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

    Ewww...gross.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

  9. Re:Why Africa? by craighansen · · Score: 1

    Pease take off your tinfoil hat - it's acting as an antenna and overconcentrating the paranoid thoughts the CIA is putting into your tiny brain.

  10. Re:Africa by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    Rwanda was very different. It was a tribal war and not a medical emergency. Rwanda was much more complex.

  11. Re:It's not really that bad by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not the total count (but thousands of people dead sucks) but the *rate* of infection that is freaking people out. It is picking up speed. That's bad.

    We're looking at 10^3 *reported* cases, and this is currently uncontained, so who knows how many are bleeding out of their orifices in single apartments, unreported.

    The bigger an infection gets, the harder it is to stop. So yeah, you want to freak out early and try to put the fire out quick by putting a lot of assets on the scene.

    And, by the way, there are regions of the U.S. (yes, 'Murika!) where washing of the dead is a burial ceremony. Don't say that it can't possibly happen here. It can if you tempt fate enough times.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

  12. Re:Grim by MisterSquid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is grim because we don't want to "offend" anyone with the proper response (quarantine the zone) . Political Correctness run amok is going to kill people.

    How many dead or sick people before we stop worrying about feelings and sensibilities?

    Don't be daft.

    It is impossible to quarantine an area encompassing Nigeria, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Congo, etc. Furthermore, a quarantine condition would likely lead to a humanitarian disaster, which I'm guessing the US government foresees and wants to establish a presence on the ground to "assist."

    As the days go by I can't help but think of the way in which the military was deployed in 28 Weeks Later (sequel to 28 Days). Let's hope treatment production can ramp up and get to the sufferers before a tactical military response is even contemplated.

    Also, I suspect one reason why the US is out in front of this is that they've run epidemiological simulations on EBV and have found that the whole world, including the US, in a shitload of trouble in short time.

    --
    blog
  13. Re:Places that have Ebola, seem to just want to ro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  14. Re:It's not really that bad by craighansen · · Score: 2

    Perhaps you are unaware of exponential growth - http://www.geert.io/exponentia...

    It's going to be difficult enough to get the 1700 beds constructed quickly enough to make a dent in this problem, and the magnitude of the problem is approximately doubling every month.

    From the comments I've been reading to most of the Ebola news articles these days, American's have been demonstrating their stupidity at a truly alarming rate.

  15. Re:It's not really that bad by craighansen · · Score: 1

    I would also add that the 52% fatality rate is much better than the 90% rate that other outbreaks have sufferred, and it suggests that the heroic medical intervention that is underway is having a beneficial effect.

  16. Re:Grim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    if it happened in north america or the EU they'd quarantine the areas and the people inside would be super pissed but likely understanding mostly.

    if its in some 3rd world shit hole where we all have to walk on eggshells about what we say or do concerning them its unreasonable to quarantine them

  17. Re:Grim by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Can you picture Obama bent over a petri dish?

  18. Re:It's not really that bad by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Either that or the most susceptible people were killed in previous outbreaks.

    Thinning the herd etc.

  19. Re:Grim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thats idiotic. There is no issue quarantining the affected zones as long as adequate care is provided to the sick and reasonable conditions are kept for the probable infections.

    Quarantining and waiting for them to naturally die is moronic, if thats what you want go a die a painful death yourself.

  20. Re:Assault? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    You don't need love to get sex.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  21. What part of "exponential" did you not understand? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    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.
  22. Re:Grim by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    It is grim because we don't want to "offend" anyone with the proper response (quarantine the zone)quote> lulz. why would you think that quarantine zones would be effective? issue a: the quarantine cordon would need to actually stop people from entering and leaving. even if you post troops there will be people bribing and sneaking in and out. issue 2: you need a massive logistical response to take care of a large population under quarantine, and the currently afflicted nations don't have the logistics they need. issue d: what do you do when people riot.

    come back to me with an example of when quarantining was effective. ever. in history.

  23. Re:Racism is still alive! by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    WHY is the Chinese. We're being out-competed. The Chinese are providing technology to a number of African countries in exchange for resources (e.g. Coltan in Congo. Oil from Nigeria) and they're not insisting on human rights or democracy to provide it. Right now, the USA has the closest thing to an Ebola cure, which means that the Chinese are at a disadvantage.

    This won't last, of course, and may result in a significant worldwide plague. Whether this is an unforeseen consequence of a planned feature is left as an exercise for the reader.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  24. Re:Grim by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    if it happened in north america or the EU they'd quarantine the areas and the people inside would be super pissed but likely understanding mostly.

    maybe in Europe because they're used to their governments telling them what to do. in America, people have RIGHTS and people have GUNS and they're going to do what they please thank you very much.

  25. Re:Grim by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    Like this? http://www.google.com/imgres?i... Sorry, no chest hair.

  26. Re:Assault? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    for STDs, maybe. although I would still argue it's not true. for other viruses it's hard to put them all into the same bucket.

  27. Re:Grim by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    1495 Quarantining of Mercenaries in Switzerland.

    While not 100% effective immediately, it did drastically reduced the infection rate. WHICH is really the goal.

    Now, if your one of those "100% or don't bother trying" people, you're part of the problem.

    But then again, allowing infected people to migrate all around the world seems so much better option. I mean, how else are we going to reduce population by 7 billion people to "sustainable" levels like the Georgia Guidestones suggest?

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  28. Re:Africa by gatfirls · · Score: 1

    It was only different because the death toll didn't have any direct affect on us. An extremely deadly virus left unchecked to mutate could in VERY bad ways.

    So the simple answer is selfish interests. We don't care when people are dying as long as it doesn't affect us.

  29. Re:Grim by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2, Informative

    You might have a point there. If this happened in the US, people would perhaps really go nuts, many would likely panic and do all kind of crazy things, and some of them would shoot around like mad men, killing their fellow citizens, doctors, nurses and aid workers, and then infect 20 other people ... and then refuse to get vaccinated even tough a vaccine was available ...

  30. AIDS V2.0 by warewolfsmith · · Score: 1

    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.

  31. Re:Grim by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

    It is impossible to quarantine an area encompassing Nigeria, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Congo, etc.

    Completely? You'd be right. On the other hand, blockading air and maritime travel, and deploying military forces on the borders of these countries would go a hell of a long way towards containing the disease.

    The rest, while yes I agree would suck hard, is probably and sadly the only way to be certain that no one outside those areas get infected.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  32. Re:Grim by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

    Guns? Yeah, we got 'em in spades. Good luck using one to stop an M1 Abrams, a Hellfire missile, an AC-130, or suchlike.

    Yes, we also have rights, but... an extreme and obvious case such as an Ebola outbreak in the US will obviously trump those rights (hell, past presidents have suspended habeas corpus before in the name of extremes...)

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  33. Re:Grim by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1, Insightful

    you're really excited to give your rights away, but I'm not going to let you take mine.

  34. Re:Grim by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

    In fairness, I suspect that GP was assuming that aid and care would still be shipped in (volunteer basis of course), which does not preclude or invalidate a quarantine.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  35. Re:Grim by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    So the best example you can find is from 600 years age? Ummm ok then let's try something different

  36. Re:Grim by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    Guns? Yeah, we got 'em in spades. Good luck using one to stop an M1 Abrams, a Hellfire missile, an AC-130, or suchlike

    I'm so weary of this Rambo Commando talk. the world doesn't work this way, k?

  37. Re:Grim by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ye Gods... really?

    If you're quarantined and you see neighbors dying of Ebola, for fuck sakes - do your rights demand that you escape by any means, carry it with you, and spread it to other areas?

    I get individual rights over statism, and would be among the first to take up arms against a tyranny, but damn... think of your fellow human beings for once.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  38. Easy Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  39. Re:Grim by RussR42 · · Score: 1

    Really? That's good to know.

  40. Re:Grim by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    Is that the same Furgeson that while having all that military gear still failed to stop a riot?

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  41. Re:3000 carriers by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

    CDC and WHO have never shown a hint of being concerned when diseases break out in Africa.

    You mean besides sending doctors and scientists to help?

  42. Re:Grim by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    No it would not. I would give you a false sense of security. That is an enormous area that is virtually uncontrolled at present. All you need is dozen infected people to wander into some major city at the border of the quarantine region and it's all over.

    Nobody has enough military forces to cover that much ground.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  43. Re:Africa by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    If you can't see a difference between a viralant deadly disease and an ongoing tribal war then you have a problem. The former is countries asking for international aid to fight a deadly disease using doctors and a small security force. The latter is a foreign military force entering a country after years of tribal war where they are not welcome by some and forcibly preventing people from killing their neighbors. The main difference is that one disaster is caused by a virus and the other by people's decisions.

    The bottom line is the the Hutu could have decided not to kill the Titsi but didn't.

  44. Re:Grim by MisterSquid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, it won't be pleasant, but the "Western" world shouldn't take anywhere near the damage Africa is taking.

    You're doing that thing some of us call "skating to where the puck was" rather than "skating to where the puck will be".

    EBV has already manifested several versions, some airborne (not yet contagious for humans), others with lower lethality (which is why this recent outbreak is so much more severe than previous ones).

    If EBV is not contained now and stopped in its tracks, it will mutate/evolve and eventually be "successful" enough that you, I, and everyone else in the Western world will wonder what the hell happened.

    --
    blog
  45. Re:Grim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He's probably one of them that think that if we deploy a few hundred guardsmen to the 3145km of Mexico border, we could stop every single person crossing illegally. He's incapable of even comprehending what a border of 10744km (Republic of Congo alone) is much less how many people would have to be stationed how many feet apart in how many shifts just to stop the first few non-violent runners before the riots and armed mobs start rushing the borders.

  46. Re:3000 carriers by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Not at all. That's because we don't have teams dedicated to study tropical diseases or virology or epidemics or anything like that ....

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  47. Re:Why Africa? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    He really needs to cut out the bath salts. That's nasty stuff - you can tell.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  48. Re:Grim by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    I'm not convinced some level of quarantine wouldn't be wise. Just ban general air/maritime travel to/from any location within 100 miles of a reported Ebola case, and lock down borders/etc as best as you can. I agree that the disease will certainly continue to spread, but then you just expand the quarantine region as it does, staying a step ahead.

    The goal isn't so much to prevent any spread at all as to keep the disease off of aircraft, where it could spread globally overnight.

    Sooner or later the spread of the disease will end up running against geographical barriers, like the Sahara or the Atlantic/Indian Oceans. Gaza certainly would be a defensible border. There are limits on how far the disease could spread against a coordinated effort to contain it.

    Plus, a decent quarantine will at least slow down the spread so that you have a fighting chance to do something about it. What is the alternative, throwing your hands up in the air and saying, "sure, feel free to get on a plane if you're sick?" Better to have a handful of people sneaking through the jungles between checkpoints spreading the disease than hundreds of people taking busses.

  49. Re:Grim by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you're really excited to give your rights away, but I'm not going to let you take mine.

    Uh, if you're in the one town in the US where there is an Ebola outbreak you're not going to be able to stop the rest of the country from taking your rights. There will be fences, tanks, armies, drones, aircraft, and the general works surrounding your town. Your stash of AR-15s in the basement aren't going to accomplish much except maybe to keep your neighbors from stealing your food assuming you have a stockpile so that you can stay inside and let the disease blow over. Besides, if you do have such a stockpile then just hunker down - you'll outlive the epidemic anyway, which is probably why you have that stockpile to begin with.

    Well, that is if the rest of the country has the brains to set up a strong quarantine. There is a good chance that this won't look good in the polls so we'll just ask everybody to be nice and stay at home, and watch the disease overrun the country. Maybe I should work on my own stockpile... :)

    But, if the government has any brains they'll put up a perimeter around the town, lock down all air travel into/out of the country, And burn down everything within 10 miles of the town to create a no-man's land. I mean, we are talking about a plague that could kill half the population here. Given a choice of raising taxes half a percent to rebuild the no-man's land after it is all over, or watching the entire country turn into a post-apocalyptic horror story, I'll take a bit of authoritarianism and call you in the morning.

  50. Re:Grim by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

    There is some level of quarantine - the liberian government blockaded in the slum area where a clinic was raided, and sealed off about 50,000 people. That's probably about the limit of their efforts.

    But frankly, you're also ignoring what's been actually happening: such an ambassador catching Ebola in one country, knowingly returning to another (via air travel), then staying in a hotel without telling anyone being treated in secret by a doctor, who also doesn't tell anyone, goes home, and spreads it to his wife.

    Queue a couple 1000 potentially infected, by a vector which would be utterly missed due to plain old corruption and idiocy.

    So what do you do now? Expand the quarantine? Do you even have enough troops to do that? And in the meantime, what about all the regular issues such as food and water, sanitation and normal completely curable diseases which will take hold.

  51. Re:It's not really that bad by mjwx · · Score: 1

    I would also add that the 52% fatality rate is much better than the 90% rate that other outbreaks have sufferred, and it suggests that the heroic medical intervention that is underway is having a beneficial effect.

    The 90% figure is for the Zaire strain of Ebola,

    The current strain is new but believed related to the Uganda strain that has a 50% fatality rate.

    However this is still bad, diseases that we consider bad like Yellow Fever have a 20% mortality rate that reduces to 3% if treated early. If you travel to a South America, you need proof of a Yellow Fever vaccine to get back into Australia without issue.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  52. Obama Presses Leaders To Speed Ebola by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Tea Party would have a field day with a title like that. :)

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  53. Re:Grim by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    Ok, maybe it's justified if it's your next-door neighbor. You know, maybe anyone on your block. Better be safe and make it anyone within the ZIP Code. Why not just expand it to be the entire city? Better safe than sorry.

  54. Re:Grim by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    1) fantasy quarantines don't work. they never have.
    2) i'm not going to waste any more typing

  55. Re:It's not really that bad by craighansen · · Score: 1

    Uhh. No. The number of people previously infected is very low, and concentrated in areas not part of the current outbreak.

  56. Re:Grim by symbolset · · Score: 1

    The West Point slum quarantine was only for a few days. There were already more patients outside the quarantine than inside. It was more of a toll road than a medical quarantine anyway - people were regularly crossing for as little as $2. This is Liberia.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  57. Re:Grim by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Americans have other dirty habits West Africans don't have, such as snorting drugs of unknown origin.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  58. Re:exponential growth by symbolset · · Score: 1

    It is actually geometric growth, because the doubling period is getting shorter. Not that it matters much.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  59. Re:Grim by ruir · · Score: 1

    Dont they? I lived in Africa and heard from pothead friends how was so much easier to get drugs there, and far less the risk of being caught. And I saw routinely foreign people drugged.

  60. Re:Grim by ruir · · Score: 1

    Maybe not blocking air and sea travel has something to do with Monsanto buying shares of the firm producing the miraculous drug that kills Ebola...

  61. Re:Grim by ruir · · Score: 1

    "touching"? you have no idea. http://www.refworld.org/docid/... "Nigeria: Ritual whereby a widow drinks the water used to clean her husband's corpse; consequences for a widow's refusal to drink the water; whether a widow's refusal is interpreted by others as responsibility for her husband's death"

  62. Re:Grim by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    How many dead or sick people before we stop worrying about feelings and sensibilities?

    Well, your plan seems to be for somewhere between 10 and 20 million.

    Idiot.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  63. Re:Grim by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    deploying military forces on the borders of these countries

    You are an idiot. What on earth do you imagine the "borders" of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea look like?

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  64. Re:Grim by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    But frankly, you're also ignoring what's been actually happening: such an ambassador catching Ebola in one country, knowingly returning to another (via air travel), then staying in a hotel without telling anyone being treated in secret by a doctor, who also doesn't tell anyone, goes home, and spreads it to his wife.

    Queue a couple 1000 potentially infected, by a vector which would be utterly missed due to plain old corruption and idiocy.

    But that's exactly what as already happended and lead to 21 cases and 7 deaths, not a world wide pandemic.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  65. Re:Grim by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    if it happened in north america or the EU they'd quarantine the areas and the people inside would be super pissed but likely understanding mostly.

    maybe in Europe because they're used to their governments telling them what to do.

    Bullshit.

    In Europe we have functional health systems and governments that understand that violent force is not the appropriate response to disease.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  66. Re:Grim by Seumas · · Score: 1

    Burundi, Lesotho, and Malawi, Togo
    The Spanish Sahara is gone,
    Niger, Nigeria, Chad, and Liberia
    Egypt, Benin, and Gabon.
    Tanzania, Somalia, Kenya, and Mali
    Sierra Leone, and Algiers,
    Dahomey, Namibia, Senegal, Libya
    Cameroon, Congo, Zaire.
    Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar
    Rwanda, Mahore, and Cayman,
    Hong Kong, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Yugoslavia...
    Crete, Mauritania
    Then Transylvania,
    Monaco, Liechtenstein
    Malta, and Palestine,
    Fiji, Australia, Sudan

  67. Re:Assault? by Seumas · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's not like Americans spent some $15,000,000,000.00 during Bush's second term to help fight AIDs in Africa, dropping the death rate by some ten percent and saving millions of lives or anything with the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (although, it seems like the funding may have been cut by the following presidency).

    Or... any of the countless foundations that spend billions of dollars conducting charitable work in Africa, such as some of those sponsored by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

  68. Re:Grim by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    I never claimed the quarantine would work.

    You claimed that "you're really excited to give your rights away, but I'm not going to let you take mine."

    My point was simply that you have no ability to prevent the government from taking your rights away in a situation like this.

  69. Re:Grim by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    That was the stupids thing I have seen posted on /. for ages.
    First: european have rights, too. And some even guns.
    Second: suppose a town gets quarantined in the USA, what do you believe your punny guns inside of the quarantine will help you against tanks and flame throwers? A SAVE BET IS THAT THE US GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE NAPALM BOMBERS circling over the town, exactly BECAUSE they know that idiots like you rather risk to get infected by breaking out with other infected people, or risk to get shot instead of simply staying in their 'safe' house.

    So you certainly won't be doing what you 'please'. You either are uninfected and stay in a house and survive: or you die, either to the infection or by running around like a chicken or idiot and get infected or by those who have the bigger guns, idiot.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  70. Re:Grim by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    You have no right to infect me, no idea how you come to that absurd idea.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  71. Re:It's not really that bad by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    The current outbreak is not a single outbreak.
    It is already spread over six or seven quite distant from each other areas. There are also minimum two different strains involved, about which I'm aware, probably more.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  72. Re:It's not really that bad by kwrzesien · · Score: 1

    21 days in Liberia

  73. Re:It's not really that bad by kwrzesien · · Score: 1

    No, it was more like 77% in Guinea back in May when it was almost controlled - no new cases for two weeks in the two major treatment centers - and with new cases getting quickly identified and taken to treatment there was a better chance for survival. Liberia has never been getting proper treatment and monitoring, the people are resisting or running, and all beds are taken at the few facilities they do have and have been turning away obviously symptomatic patients for three weeks.

    Don't fall into the trap of dividing the number of currently known cases by the number of currently known dead. There is a 9-14 day window before death or recovery is for certain. If you divide the most recent numbers for death by 14 days ago cases the result is more like 70-80% depending on which of the three countries you look at.

  74. Re:Places that have Ebola, seem to just want to ro by ruir · · Score: 1

    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.

  75. Re:Places that have Ebola, seem to just want to ro by ruir · · Score: 1

    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.

  76. Re:Racism is still alive! by ruir · · Score: 1

    It may result in a plague because there is not a blockage. We had already had a few scares here in Portugal and Spain, but luckily until now they were false.

  77. Re:Grim by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    It is grim because we don't want to "offend" anyone with the proper response (quarantine the zone) . Political Correctness run amok is going to kill people.

    How many dead or sick people before we stop worrying about feelings and sensibilities?

    Don't be daft.

    It is impossible to quarantine an area encompassing Nigeria, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Congo, etc. Furthermore, a quarantine condition would likely lead to a humanitarian disaster, which I'm guessing the US government foresees and wants to establish a presence on the ground to "assist."

    As the days go by I can't help but think of the way in which the military was deployed in 28 Weeks Later (sequel to 28 Days). Let's hope treatment production can ramp up and get to the sufferers before a tactical military response is even contemplated.

    Also, I suspect one reason why the US is out in front of this is that they've run epidemiological simulations on EBV and have found that the whole world, including the US, in a shitload of trouble in short time.

    Why not send the sick to ISIS. Their belief in Alah will save the sick.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  78. Re:Track record by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    If the government can't stop undocumented immigrants, how can they stop a population full of people with 9mm diversions and nothing to lose?

    I was speaking of the quarantine of something like a town. That is a FAR different problem than sealing a large border. I also assumed that there would be no constraints on the tactics used - shooting anybody that moves is far easier to implement than arresting anybody that moves (and far less likely to expose troops to the disease).

    Like I said, I don't think this scenario is likely since there isn't that much political will for something like this. If there were, however, it could probably be done fairly effectively.

  79. Re:Grim by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    That wasn't the question. It works, when it is kept. The problem is that people don't give a shit about others, and thus spread death in the name of freedom. Lame.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  80. Re:Grim by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    ok, so given that people are inherently selfish, what is the best way for a society to prevent the spread of disease? cordons are less effective than other options. instead of being absolutists and insisting on an ineffective cordon because we think it's "the way things should be", let's use cheaper, more effective solutions that will slow down the virus and save lives. it's like we're talking about teen abstinence. did you know the regions that are so focused on abstinence-only education have the highest rates of teen pregnancy?

  81. Re:Grim by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    " let's use cheaper, more effective solutions that will slow down the virus and save lives."

    Like what? Bringing infected people to the US. That sounds like a real good way to keep infections out. Or do you not understand the consequences of bringing African Bees to Brazil for "research"?

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.