Guest sibon Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 People are not overestimated the risk... you are underestimating the consequences and therefore what is an appropriate response. An outbreak in this country wound be catastrophic and we therefore need to apply extreme caution in managing the risk regardless of how unlikely it is. Quarantining is now appropriate because existing measures to prevent cases entering the country in an uncontrolled way have not worked. An outbreak in this country would be easily contained. Just watch and see, we already have one. We also have a fine health service that is well able to cope. Quarantining can't work. Imagine the logistics of detaining everybody who has visited West Africa as they arrive at UK airports or ferry ports. How would we even know who they are? Unless, of course, you want to stop anybody entering the country at all, for any reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Yes, where things worth debating get debated. Ebola is a highly infectious virus with a mortality rate of between 25-90% and the outbreaks across Africa remain out of control. We now have someone entering the country infected with this virus, in an uncontrolled way, and you do not think that warrants a debate on whether the measures in place to prevent this from happening are sufficient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 wahey its a right wingers love in, must be really miserable looking on the dark side of everything every singe day no matter what Oo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Of course the risk is high but I asked you to quantify how much higher. 'A lot' is somewhat subjective. Why not link to medical research that answers the question... or isn't there any? There you go again. 'Quite small' is not a measure. What research have you read to tell you this? You are making things up again. There is no research to say exactly at what point people become infectious. Everything I have read is no more precise than saying when they start to show symptoms - evidence to the contrary? That is true but I was talking about containment. Our dense population and high mobility is a massive disadvantage from a containment perspective. Reasons why the risk is less in the UK but not reasons for not implementing quarantining to further reduce the risk. Would quarantining to prevent Ebola entering the UK prevent us from 'looking in the direction of airborne viruses'? If you do you really think that I am making up what I say then this debate is worthless. I don't have the research at home, but this is what Elke Mühlberger, associate professor of microbiology at the School of Medicine says when questioned. She is one of a small group of microbiologists around the world who are trained to work with Ebola and similarly deadly viruses in Biosafety Level 4. The cells in the lung can be infected by Ebola virus but really late in the infection. That’s very important. As far as we know, the infection starts with the immune cells — for those who know a little more about the immune system, it’s dendritic cells and macrophages. Then it goes to lymph nodes. Then very quickly to the liver, and there it goes crazy. The liver is very crucial in Ebola virus infections because it is so heavily affected. Ebola virus also spreads to the spleen, to other organs, and then later in infection it tends to infect the cells that coat the blood vessels, and of course we have these cells in the lung as well. Read what she's got to say here in the Boston University news letter as well. What exactly is your objection to quarantining? I'd prefer that our medicine was based upon evidence rather than fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Unless, of course, you want to stop anybody entering the country at all, for any reason. thatd be a big fat yes to most of them in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 By spitting or sneezing on something that you touch within the next several hours. He would imagine, I provided a link which proves his imagination to be wrong, and there is an exception, visible blood or visible secretion, just because it is visible does not mean you would see it on the door handle you are about to touch. Stop being so literal. It's obvious that he was generalising to quantifying something that was very difficult to quantify, because the answer would vary, what he does confirm was that unless the virus was present in a visible pool of body fluid, it dies very quickly. It is plainly obvious to all that he wasn't using the word, imagine, to show he was making it up. I thought we got past the situation where you argue over different meanings of words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Ebola is a highly infectious virus with a mortality rate of between 25-90% and the outbreaks across Africa remain out of control. We now have someone entering the country infected with this virus, in an uncontrolled way, and you do not think that warrants a debate on whether the measures in place to prevent this from happening are sufficient? why arent they sufficient? you had ONE person flying on a plane that wasnt sick (apparently ebola is not infectious till you show symptoms?) she went to the hospital when showing symptoms and is in isolation. everybody that were on the flight are being notified (so if anybody does become sick i presume they will be isolated too) but only those in seats closest to the sick passenger are needed to be screened apparently seems pretty straightforward and in depth to me, but we'll see if we DO get more sick who was on that flight in contact with her then i presume they will look at it and see where it went wrong. rather than a kneejerk kill all foriegners as they enter the uk scenario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 wahey its a right wingers love in, must be really miserable looking on the dark side of everything every singe day no matter what Oo I'm looking forward to the apocalyptic end. I've watched Walking Dead, I know all the survival tricks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anfisa Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) Stop being so literal. It's obvious that he was generalising to quantifying something that was very difficult to quantify, because the answer would vary, what he does confirm was that unless the virus was present in a visible pool of body fluid, it dies very quickly. It is plainly obvious to all that he wasn't using the word, imagine, to show he was making it up. I thought we got past the situation where you argue over different meanings of words. It's obvious to you because you want it to support your stance when in fact it does not support your stance, the NHS, CDC and WHO also all disagree with it. Words mean what they mean and changing the meaning in your head to give the impression that it supports your own stance does not help your argument. I also note you completely ignored the exception, visible blood or visible secretion, just because it is visible does not mean you would see it on the door handle you are about to touch. ---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 12:58 ---------- why arent they sufficient? you had ONE person flying on a plane that wasnt sick (apparently ebola is not infectious till you show symptoms?) she went to the hospital when showing symptoms and is in isolation. everybody that were on the flight are being notified (so if anybody does become sick i presume they will be isolated too) but only those in seats closest to the sick passenger are needed to be screened apparently seems pretty straightforward and in depth to me, but we'll see if we DO get more sick who was on that flight in contact with her then i presume they will look at it and see where it went wrong. rather than a kneejerk kill all foriegners as they enter the uk scenario What would have happened if she had not had the good sense to go to hospital and instead ignored the symptoms believing them to be nothing to worry about. Edited December 30, 2014 by anfisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 It's obvious to you because you want it to support your stance when in fact it does not support your stance, the NHS, CDC and WHO also all disagree with it. Words mean what they mean and changing the meaning in your head to give the impression that it supports your own stance does not help your argument. ---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 12:58 ---------- What would have happened if she had not had the good sense to go to hospital and instead ignored the symptoms believing them to be nothing to worry about. what if she went round licking everybody on the plane? we can what if all we like the point is we have a very good health service and good precautionary practices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now