It lacks mobility and we have a tendency to avoid social contact with corpses...
Ebola's back
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
It lacks mobility and we have a tendency to avoid social contact with corpses...
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,221
- Location
- Derby
So in almost 30 years less that 2000 confirmed deaths? I am pretty sure that people globally dying from the flu is a lot worse than that. Whilst these big scary headlines are grabbers all they do is attemp to spread panic and worry when realisticly you have more chance in getting run over by a bus.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 2,141
Sounds more like a week off work
Only if you get man-ebola.
Women will carry on with their regular routine thinking that somehow that makes them awesome. They'll infect everyone who wasn't sensible enough to take a week off work, and they will all die. Then the meek (ie, sensibly lazy) will take over the world.
Media scaremongering. They do this pretty much every single outbreak which burns itself out and is shown to never be the killer it is made out to be when actually treated by people who know what they are doing with the resources to do it. However, it aint a pretty way to go for the few that catch it every few years before it burns its way out.
so, is this like bird and swine flu? its made out to be terrible and is going to wipe out the human race, when in fact, it doesn't, it just doesn't
No, Ebola is not like bird or swine flu - it's nowhere near as scary. Ebola is spread by fluids from the infected: diarrhoea, vomit and blood; which makes it terrifying in countries lacking easy access to hygienic sewage facilities, clean drinking water and cleaning agents but not a particular threat in first world nations with such access.
I don't want to play down how bad Ebola is in the third world, but it's not a threat to us.
Flu, on the other hand, is spread on tiny airborne particles coughed or sneezed into the air. That means it spreads much more easily even in first world nations. Many modern buildings, for example, will cheerfully spread the infection to every corner.
Swine flu, as it turned out, was a lot less harmful are infectious than it originally seemed (but even so cost thousands of lives in the UK alone) but don't think that because this time round it wasn't terrible that flu isn't a real threat. Bird flu, for example, has not yet transitioned to human-to-human infection but is dramatically more deadly than swine flu so when it does...
jokes about america are out of bounds then...
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 3,859
Shiiiiii*
No treatment at all!!?! :O
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
Yeah right!
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
i meant more on the lines of the media made out swine flu and bird flu were going to wipe out the human race, when in face very little (i know any death is tragic) fatalities occurred in the grand scheme of things.
I don't think our reaction to Swine Flu was - in any way - over the top. It's all very well that we can see with the benefit of hindsight that it was a damp squib but the information available at the time suggested otherwise.
In fairness though we have never seen how it behaves in the Western world bar lab incidents and therefore we don't know how it transmits in dense population areas with transient populations nor the behaviour of that population when informed of the outbreak.