DescentBB

no, I'm not worried. Far, far, too many more things to worry about if one tends to that. Start, as I say, with FLU, and go from there. The chance the average American has to contract Ebola is dwarfed by their chance to be stuck and killed by lightning.

edit--just read the study,and a couple of the background links. Nothing in there which ought to scare or worry anyone. The Ebola virus just isn't viable that long(3 weeks under IDEAL conditions as a maximum survival is 'not that long' in virus terms. Bottom line is this: there is NO WAY we get an epidemic or even a measurable significant outbreak in the US. NO way. Why, then, would you be so panicked, Woody?

Where do you get the impression I am panicked? Or do you think pointing out what is contrary to the mainstream cant is panicking?

woodchip wrote:Where do you get the impression I am panicked? Or do you think pointing out what is contrary to the mainstream cant is panicking?

your panic is reflective of the 'mainstream' as best as I can tell. And, it is idiotic.

woodchip wrote:Where do you get the impression I am panicked?

Well, that big block of red text sends some visual signals... Maybe tone it down a little? These things matter you know. It is hard for most people to communicate properly in text form, so expressive flourishes like bold, italic, colored, or specifically sized text have big impacts.

Or the red can point out the most salient part of the quote. I guess one can read into things a dozen different ways. Might help to simply ask why something is highlighted instead of equating a derogatory definition (not directed at you vision)

The flu is considerably hardier than ebola, and it kills a lot of people in the U.S. every year. I don't see people freaking out about that. Plus, Ebola Reston in particular, which it's not fatal to humans, has probably already spread around the entire population in this country since 1989, and besides, George H.W. Bush was pres at the time, so it must be HIS fault it got out of the lab in the first place. You've been watching too much Fox News, where they've been going apoplectic ever since this bug surfaced in the U.S. The ONLY reason they're doing that is to whip up more hatred and fear for Democrats and Obama in particular, and not for any productive reasons either. I'm betting if Romney was pres right now, he would have suppressed the whole thing like Reagan did with HIV and Fox News would be looking for some reason to blame Democrats in his stead.

Considering these type of viruses are the most likely to mutate, a little prudence and mitigation doesn't hurt. It's actually the best chance we will ever have to observe evolution in a natural setting. The problem is, you cannot predict or prepare for a mutation. Aside from that, I agree the risk of an epidemic is highly unlikely.

flip wrote:Considering these type of viruses are the most likely to mutate, a little prudence and mitigation doesn't hurt. It's actually the best chance we will ever have to observe evolution in a natural setting. The problem is, you cannot predict or prepare for a mutation. Aside from that, I agree the risk of an epidemic is highly unlikely.

I don't know who gave you this information, but, no, Ebola is not anywhere NEAR 'most likely to mutate'. It has, if anything, remained rather stable in nature(once again, comparison to influenza types is worthwhile).

Is it not an RNA type virus?

All virus strains are “most likely to mutate”.

Because that’s what tiggers do.

That doesn’t mean sometime next week, it will become airborne, or anything like that.

In fact, Ebola is a RNA virus, the kind that mutates fastest, rather than a DNA virus.

Yeah, that's all I was saying. The RNA types mutate rapidly and are more likely than DNA type's because they lack the "error checking" (loose language) that a DNA type has.

EDIT: "mutation rate of 2.0 x 10-3 substitutions per site"

Some studies are showing as high a mutation rate as the Flu.

Previous outbreaks have only seen a few hundred cases. Now we are looking at over 10,000 case. Ask any one who has studied infectious disease and the more cases you have the more likely the virus will mutate into something different. Case in point is the bird flu.

woodchip wrote:Previous outbreaks have only seen a few hundred cases. Now we are looking at over 10,000 case. Ask any one who has studied infectious disease and the more cases you have the more likely the virus will mutate into something different. Case in point is the bird flu.

that's a valid observation. Still, there is no history of hemorragic types mutating wildly in the real world. This virus could be wiped out altogether with enough money thrown at basic medical and pathological protocols in place. Not, unfortunately, the case in the region where it takes hold.

Riiiiiight…and how pray tell would you remove it from its reservoir population?

Spidey wrote:Riiiiiight…and how pray tell would you remove it from its reservoir population?

half of them will die, the others(it now seems)will develop immunity.

Hah, that's exactly what I said Slick (Not in this thread)

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Riiiiiight…and how pray tell would you remove it from its reservoir population?

half of them will die, the others(it now seems)will develop immunity.

No....the other reservoir....

to whom are you referring, Spidey? If you are referring to non-human carriers and vectors, eliminating or negating contact would be part of the fundamental medical infrastructure, I'd suppose.

Yes, the non-human reservoir population.