Slashdot Mirror
Ebola Has Made It To the United States
An anonymous reader sends news that the CDC has confirmed the first case of Ebola diagnosed on U.S. soil.
An unnamed patient at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas was placed in isolation while awaiting test results for the dreaded virus. Apparently, the patient had traveled recently to a West African country, where the disease is spreading, and later developed symptoms that suggested Ebola. A blood specimen from the patient was sent to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, a testing process that can take 24 to 48 hours to confirm an Ebola infection — or not. The results came back about 3:32 p.m.
In other Ebola news, outbreaks in Nigeria and Senegal appear to be completely contained.
... crack each others heads open and feast on the goo inside?
Then how the hell did it end up in Texas?
Most likely it came from somewhere other than Nigeria or Senegal. Most of the active cases are in Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone.
Best solution right now is to panic and start looting. Mostly because looting looks fun and angry mobs make for good tv
Time to cut off texas from the rest of the US... oh wait they've been working on that for us for years.
Why are you telling us? I'm sure the nincompoops at CDC are standing around by the water cooler trying to figure out what to do and they're certainly not reading slashdot! Quick! Get on the phone and lend them your expertise in this area!
Why SHOULDN'T first world countries get to share the misery of their less fortunate bretheren, anyway?
Because they bring it on themselves. By tolerating corrupt government, they squander resources, and have nothing left to spend on healthcare infrastructure. Corruption also leads to poverty, since people don't work hard if their property will be stolen. It also leads to deep distrust of government and authority, which leads to distrust of health care providers, which leads to looting of clinics.
Because why shouldn't people that manage their society's competently be punished for less competent societies failing?
Lets say your country works really hard and does everything right. They keep a reasonable budget, work hard, enact sensible policies, and generally just do a good job.
Then lets say your neighbor is full of complete fucktards that spend more money then they have, slack off doing nothing half the time, enact dumb counter productive laws, and generally make every mistake possible one after the other...
Should country A1 be punished for the incompetence of country B1? I would argue not since the people in the first country had no control over what the other country did.
Now you seem to be suggesting that all countries are responsible for all countries. That is interesting because responsibility and power/rights go hand in hand. So if I am responsible for how other countries act and perform... then I must likewise have the right to dictate policies in those countries. In effect, for your argument to make any sense, we'd have to have a global government and it would be that global government that would be responsible for everything.
No such global government exists. The UN is a diplomatic institution and not a governing body despite their aspirations. Their authority comes with the consent of member nations and is precisely limited by treaties that would be binding with or without the UN. So the UN is not a governing body.
And that means I am not responsible for the failures of other countries. Not my fault.
If they want to give up their domestic freedoms and make their nation subordinate to another... and that other nation agrees to take responsibility for them... then fine. Lacking that... obviously we are not responsible for them.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
> By tolerating corrupt government, they squander resources, and have nothing left to spend on healthcare infrastructure.
Hey, come on now, the USA isn't that bad.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
I mean why would anyone travel to west Africa at this point? Curiosity?
Because the number of deaths from Ebola, even in West Africa, is miniscule compared to other causes, and it is easy to avoid just by washing your hands and using hand sanitizer. Also, avoid touching dead people. Other that that, you will be fine.
Maybe people have pointed out that Ebola is not very contagious and is spread through direct contact with bodily fluids. However, the Ebola Reston strain is airborne though only dangerous to monkeys.
The current strain in Liberia and other places is Ebola Zaire, and is not airborne, but there is nothing preventing its mutation into something that is more contagious like Reston, so we should be cautious.
"What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
rabies virus, it could result in the infected person becoming insane and attacking everyone that he sees. But unlike regular rabies, you don't have to get bitten to become infected... Ebola can be transmitted simply by touching someone. This could result in extremely rapid disease transmission, perhaps triggering a worldwide pandemic.
If this happens, millions of Resident Evil fans all over the world will be writhing on the floor in full nerdgasm.
link
"The best means of prevention are similar to those you would practice to prevent the common cold or the flu, and it starts at your bathroom sink. Thoroughly washing your hands, and practicing good hygiene with soap and water, is a good first step to preventing infection."
The early signs and symptoms of the Ebola virus include:
Symptoms may become increasingly severe over time, the Mayo Clinic said, with additional symptoms present, including:
Be careful, but not frightened.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
...it's the only way to be sure.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Have you travelled in Third World countries in the last decade? In Africa and India it's now utterly commonplace for people, even the illiterate, to take out credit to buy a fancy mobile phone. Those acclaimed microcredit initiatives that do social good are now accompanied by innumerable sleasy microcredit lenders that hand out loans easily, and can be brutal about repayment. Credit has been a thing, and a rising problem, in the Third World for some years now.
Overheard at the TSA: OMG NAIL CLIPPERS, TACKLE HIM!!
Whew, that was close! Hey Lou, what about this guy? He's bleeding from his eyeballs! Let 'im through Joe, nothing in the book about that.
Is the end of humanity due to the Ebola virus an acceptable excuse for adultery?
Asking for a friend.
You are welcome on my lawn.
India might barely make the cut of 3rd world but there's no comparison between India and the places where Ebola is currently rampant.
The per capita of liberia is $400 while india is over $1500 not to mention india's goverment and economy is infinitely more stable.
Even in places like guatemala (which I visited last year and is also infinitely more stable than liberia) a majority of cell phones are
prepaid. Less than 50% of the people in liberia even have cell phones. So yes, some of the "rising 3rd world countries" like
india and guatemala have some credit available but nothing close to the US where someone can buy a house on credit or get
credit cards with limits that grossly exceed their annual income.
Because why shouldn't people that manage their society's competently be punished for less competent societies failing?
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that each of the various countries of the world are hermetically sealed off from one another. It is not true, of course. What we do in the USA does have an affect on others around the world, just as their actions have an affect on us.
Lets say your country works really hard and does everything right. They keep a reasonable budget, work hard, enact sensible policies, and generally just do a good job.
Seriously?!? You are claiming that we in the USA are doing everything right?!? Are you really making that claim? Have you been paying attention the last few years?
Then lets say your neighbor is full of complete fucktards that spend more money then they have, slack off doing nothing half the time, enact dumb counter productive laws, and generally make every mistake possible one after the other...
And this is a pretty apt description of the US Congress of the last few years, at least.
Should country A1 be punished for the incompetence of country B1? I would argue not since the people in the first country had no control over what the other country did.
There you go, again, suggesting that all the countries of the world are hermetically sealed off from each other. Clue: you can find an American expatriate in just about every country, just about every continent of the world. These expats do in fact exert (sometimes greater, sometimes lesser) control over what goes on in those other countries.
Now you seem to be suggesting that all countries are responsible for all countries. That is interesting because responsibility and power/rights go hand in hand. So if I am responsible for how other countries act and perform... then I must likewise have the right to dictate policies in those countries. In effect, for your argument to make any sense, we'd have to have a global government and it would be that global government that would be responsible for everything.
Readjust your tinfoil hat! It seems to be cutting off the oxygen supply to your brain.
And that means I am not responsible for the failures of other countries. Not my fault.
If they want to give up their domestic freedoms and make their nation subordinate to another... and that other nation agrees to take responsibility for them... then fine. Lacking that... obviously we are not responsible for them.
Grow up, little man! If you want to go live on a deserted island where you can create your own libertarian utopia, then go! No one will stop you. But here in this modern world we all have connections with each other. Some are intended and wanted, some are not. If you want to debate what the extent of our responsibility to others in far away places is, then fair call. But to pretend that we who live in a modern society don't have any responsibility for anyone else is just plain asinine.
Tolerating? They don't really have a choice, unfortunately arms merchants, manufacturers and other countries (incl. the USA) have long been supplying these "corrupt governments". This isn't the 1800s where the army and the individual have the same weapons.
Or the person traveled there on vacation and came back with it.
Vacation? In Liberia? In the middle of the biggest Ebola epidemic? Is that person batshit insane?
It would seem that the incubation period can be several weeks but the risk of spreading is only there once symptoms appear. I imagine a person who is not intending on doing ill will with the disease could self monitor and quarantine himself if needed.
It's not like they will let ISIS or ISAL or whatever infect anyone and send them over with the disease to spread it across all populated western areas or anything. And if they tried, they would be captured at the airport or border crossing by the professional TSA.
Wait, maybe they should quarantine some people.
Listening to NPR they just reported that the person had traveled from Liberia to visit family. It was 4 or 5 days after the person arrived in the US before they started feeling sick so it's not likely the folks on the airplane are at risk.
Well, those flight cancellation fees are pretty outrageous.
Most of these governments are democracies.
In not much more than name. Your view of africa is exceptionally myopic.
Africans have a long tradition of "The Big Man" as leader,
While it is true that the only people who can effectively change a country's government are the citizens themselves, your reductionism to the point of condescension disqualifies you from having a meaningful opinion.
That it's not a 'dark, dismal world', that it's a ''what you make of it'' world, depending on your attitude towards it.
The important question we need to ask is if we want to live in a world of single quotes or double quotes.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Income distribution != theft. When you work, you do so understanding that a portion of your income will be taken for taxes and how much is set before you engage in said work. You can then negotiate with those costs factored in. You don't find out how much of your earnings you get to keep 5 years later at gunpoint. That's why we tax based on income and not net wealth.
This* What people fail to realise is that Ebola is not very contagious. It has a high mortality rate which makes it scary as but as far as contagious goes it has nothing on influenza or many other viral infections.
You can't get Ebola from someone sneezing in the room.
You can't get Ebola from someone showing no symptoms. Unless the person is physically ill the virus is not contiguous.
You typically can't get Ebola from very short term contact.
My advice is not to tongue kiss people who just got off the plane from west African countries and you should be fine.
So the US is responsible for the fuck ups of every country we've ever had contact with for the rest of time?
Tell you what, if the US must pay for countries we had contact with that are doing badly... does that mean we get paid or some sort of compensation for the countries that did well? South Korea for example... do they owe us an ongoing tax for not being like north korea? Or does your little line of logic only flow in one direction? Is the US only expected to pay other people but no one has to pay us for good things or hey... why not pay the US for bad things done to it? I mean... there are countries that harm the US on occasion... can we expect a payment there?
See, you're just very comfortable with drawing on the national account because you think it is infinite money. People have a hard time with very large numbers. They tend to see them, go cross eyed, and just identify it as a number too large to be bothered with... which tends to mean that many see large numbers as infinite numbers.
Well, the US treasury is not infinite. The numbers have to be balanced at some point. So despite there being a lot of money in there, it does not mean that you can draw upon it infinitely without feeding more into it. Here again, people will say "just raise taxes"... well, okay... are YOU going to pay those taxes? Most people that say such things don't mean raise taxes on them. They mean raise it on someone else. Which is very cute. I'd be very happy with doing all sorts of things if I didn't have to pay for it. Mind if I push some policies and you pay for it while I don't? See how annoying that is?... If you're at all capable of breaking out of your cognitive dissonance then you've joined the conversation and have begun to understand. If you haven't... oh well. For some... sail boats will always be clouds on the horizon.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
My advice is not to tongue kiss people who just got off the plane from west African countries and you should be fine.
The terrorists have already won.
Monstar L
Even domestically it doesn't work. Lets say the government prints lots of money. What are they spending it on? Even if they just use it to pay employees those employees will then go out into the economy and exchange those dollars for goods and services. if the currency is inflationary then the prices will creep up in proportion to the decrease in the scarcity of the dollars.
If any beggar can throw 100,000 dollars on the table then that means prices for a lot of things go up. And the faster they print money... or add zeros to bank accounts... the faster the currency inflates.
Even if you try what Roosevelt and Chavez tried with price controls, you then run into a problem with goods and dollars being valued differently in and out of the country. if these differences become extreme enough then you'll get smuggling. People will either smuggle under priced goods out of the country to make a profit or smuggle over priced items into the country to make a profit. Any big price difference or lack of legal limit on supply is going to trigger a black market. The soviets couldn't shut the black market down so ... good luck trying in the western world.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Right next to you, and yes you can get it.unlikely but possible
It's not an airborne virus. You need direct contact to bodily fluids meaning the person would need to literally sneeze on your face. That is why ebola only readily spreads in countries where basic hygiene (read: washing your hands) isn't practised.
true, but bear in mind that includes running a fever. How well do you recognize someone with a slight fever? How any people at the beginning stages still continue their daily routine until the are too sick? I'ts just a cold, at first.
It's just a cold at first for a very VERY short time. Ebola once it takes hits you very suddenly. Much like meningococcal which can go from nothing at all to 40+ fever in a matter of hours. You don't need to be some kind of medical genius to recognise people with an onset of severe symptoms, and the symptoms really are severe.
"You typically can't get Ebola from very short term contact."
Um..incorrect.
If you insist. Sure if an ebola victim comes in and start bleeding on you then you'll get it with short term exposure, but the disease is hard to spread. How often do you share bodily fluids with co-workers? In any ordinary scenario you need prolonged contact for the virus to make it across. You shake your co-workers ebola ridden hand and then go to the loo and wash your hands you're in the clear. That's what I mean with prolonged contact, in most normal cases it won't spread and the CDC even listed the highest risk groups are those providing continuous care to a patient.
Anyway in summary you seem to agree with the principle of theres no need to freak out, right?
If my life is on the line, I don't have to worry about how much it costs.
I call BS. If your life is on the line, you *won't* worry about how much it costs, unless it actually happens to save your life, in which case the cost will probably leave you financially crippled for whatever life said treatment left you with. Also, aren't there a number of cases where people didn't get treatment solely because they couldn't afford it?
I'm not so sure of near-communist countries where beaurocrats are in charge of these things.
Sounds like you've been reading too much Sarah Palin propaganda. I'm not aware of any public health care systems where decisions for treatment are made by anyone but doctors. It's the US where insurance bureaucrats make life or death decisions. Keep drinking their kool-aid.