So, what happened to ebola?

[alfred russel]

In this case, I'm not sure how it would have become an epidemic in first world countries. I'm also not sure that western aid was decisive in preventing a really serious African epidemic.

1. Thousands contract the disease in a few weeks.

2.  Half of them die.

3. ?

4. Profit?

Not sure what point you are making...

I agree ebola sucks.

[Admiral Yi]

Not sure what point you are making...

I agree ebola sucks.

If #3 is not local and international efforts, you need to replace it with something else.

[alfred russel]

Not sure what point you are making...

I agree ebola sucks.

If #3 is not local and international efforts, you need to replace it with something else.

Read through history before modern medicine. Yes there were global outbreaks like the Black Death or Plague of Justinian, but far more common were regional outbreaks that killed some percent of the population and went away.

I'm not saying that local efforts weren't important. But here we are talking about the first world media, which frequently had the tone, "west africa is fucked, probably all of africa, and maybe us too." That probably got more western support over there, but in a multi country area I doubt that was more decisive than local messaging of avoiding frequent modes of transmission. "The West saved the Africans from their Ebola" seems a dubious claim.

[frunk]

Without western efforts the outbreak would have been significantly worse.  This would have been good because...?

[alfred russel]

Without western efforts the outbreak would have been significantly worse.  This would have been good because...?

Is there anything I've posted that makes you think that I wish it was worse?

Everyone on this forum was exposed to a bunch of stories/commentary about how ebola was going to grow at some horrible pace. It was all bullshit. Me calling out that bullshit doesn't mean anything more than me calling out the bullshit.

I should stop there, but your sentence "Without western efforts the outbreak would have been significantly worse" does lead me to wonder who is telling you that. Could it have overlap with the same sources predicting the exponential growth? 

[frunk]

So you think western efforts didn't do anything?

[Admiral Yi]

Read through history before modern medicine. Yes there were global outbreaks like the Black Death or Plague of Justinian, but far more common were regional outbreaks that killed some percent of the population and went away.

I'm not saying that local efforts weren't important. But here we are talking about the first world media, which frequently had the tone, "west africa is fucked, probably all of africa, and maybe us too." That probably got more western support over there, but in a multi country area I doubt that was more decisive than local messaging of avoiding frequent modes of transmission. "The West saved the Africans from their Ebola" seems a dubious claim.

A lot of diseases flair up and die out because people build up immunity over time.  My understanding is people don't build up immunity naturally to ebola.

[PJL]

Agreed, Immunity goes both ways. Sure, there are bacteria and viruses that are going to be resistant to the latest drugs produced. Conversely there are people that will be resistant to the strongest strains of diseases, which can then be replicated and used as antibiotics to everyone else. I don't think the scaremongering in this case was too out of line. Even as it stands we're into 5 figure cases, and 4 figures deaths (which will most likely to have been proven by academic studies 20-30 years down the line, to have been under-estimated anyway).

[alfred russel]

Read through history before modern medicine. Yes there were global outbreaks like the Black Death or Plague of Justinian, but far more common were regional outbreaks that killed some percent of the population and went away.

I'm not saying that local efforts weren't important. But here we are talking about the first world media, which frequently had the tone, "west africa is fucked, probably all of africa, and maybe us too." That probably got more western support over there, but in a multi country area I doubt that was more decisive than local messaging of avoiding frequent modes of transmission. "The West saved the Africans from their Ebola" seems a dubious claim.

A lot of diseases flair up and die out because people build up immunity over time.  My understanding is people don't build up immunity naturally to ebola.

There are many reasons why epidemics come and go.

So you think western efforts didn't do anything?

What I think is that to have epidemic conditions for ebola you really need horrible sanitation. And guess what you have in western africa? Horrible sanitation! It isn't as though Africans are too stupid to know that having sewage run through your markets and using that water to wash vegetables is bad. They know this, yet it is the way things are. What motivates people to improve the situation is when the local media and authorities galvanize the population to do something about it, with the threat of death from an ongoing ebola outbreak providing the motivation.

I am skeptical that white people flying into a region were able to be the primary motivators in improving sanitation in a multi country region with millions of people--all within a few months. That isn't to say western efforts didn't do anything positive.

[frunk]

I am skeptical that white people flying into a region were able to be the primary motivators in improving sanitation in a multi country region with millions of people--all within a few months. That isn't to say western efforts didn't do anything positive.

There are many natural disasters and diseases that will be made much worse in poorer countries due to bad infrastructure and the lack of trained personnel.  Would you prefer if the west did not help them?

[alfred russel]

I am skeptical that white people flying into a region were able to be the primary motivators in improving sanitation in a multi country region with millions of people--all within a few months. That isn't to say western efforts didn't do anything positive.

There are many natural disasters and diseases that will be made much worse in poorer countries due to bad infrastructure and the lack of trained personnel.  Would you prefer if the west did not help them?

I don't know how bitching about alarmist Tim articles is turned into me not wanting to help africans or disaster victims.

To recap things I have never said or implied:
-we should stop sending aid to africa
-aid to africa, including related to ebola, doesn't help
-disaster victims should be left to fend on their own
-people who live in tornado prone areas and are hit by tornadoes had it coming

[Eddie Teach]

-people who live in tornado prone areas and are hit by tornadoes had it coming

That was your other sock.

[Admiral Yi]

To recap things I have never said or implied:
-we should stop sending aid to africa
-aid to africa, including related to ebola, doesn't help
-disaster victims should be left to fend on their own
-people who live in tornado prone areas and are hit by tornadoes had it coming

You did say it was all bullshit.

[alfred russel]

To recap things I have never said or implied:
-we should stop sending aid to africa
-aid to africa, including related to ebola, doesn't help
-disaster victims should be left to fend on their own
-people who live in tornado prone areas and are hit by tornadoes had it coming

You did say it was all bullshit.

This was the exchange--in the context I think it should be clear the bullshit refers to media/tim sensationalization.

Quote from: dps on Today at 12:20:56 pm

    The media over-sensationalizes everything and Timmay eats it right up.  Nothing new there.


The only exponential growth we get is in the volume of bullshit.

[crazy canuck]

Read through history before modern medicine. Yes there were global outbreaks like the Black Death or Plague of Justinian, but far more common were regional outbreaks that killed some percent of the population and went away.

I'm not saying that local efforts weren't important. But here we are talking about the first world media, which frequently had the tone, "west africa is fucked, probably all of africa, and maybe us too." That probably got more western support over there, but in a multi country area I doubt that was more decisive than local messaging of avoiding frequent modes of transmission. "The West saved the Africans from their Ebola" seems a dubious claim.

A lot of diseases flair up and die out because people build up immunity over time.  My understanding is people don't build up immunity naturally to ebola.

Not quite accurate.  The difficulty is the high mortality rate.  But if someone manages to survive an infection they do build up an immunity.  That is the premise of the vaccine (developed in Canada) which is currently being tested in human trials.