When Do We Panic?Follow

You know what else has a 100% fatality rate?

Life!

Has anyone shared the Word of our Lord Jesus Christ with you today?

Sex kills.






Edited, Aug 8th 2014 3:21pm by Elinda

Yeppers.





Edited, Aug 8th 2014 9:33pm by Elinda

Silly Mantis, you should never sell yourself for that little. At least be one of those spiders that gets to do it twice before they go.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction method.

I hope you're taking steps to reduce the debilitating affects of your Alzheimer's.

Edited, Aug 8th 2014 5:57pm by lolgaxe

Now now, he pretty much got the Wikipedia info correct.

This isn't about accuracy, this is about who's right and who's wrong.

Um... because my newfound knowledge from staying at a Holiday Inn Express (AKA: Wiki entry) says that's not correct. While an assortment of strains have fatality rates ranging from around 50% to around 90%, the Zaire strain is the one with the "around 90%" fatality rate.



And the fatality rate of this strain is? Do we have a number yet?

I just don't think it's fair to criticize people for using the correct fatality rate most associated with the strain in question. If it turns out that this particular Zaire strain has a lower fatality rate, then by all means we can correct that. But it's not wrong to start with the existing number until we actually have information to prove otherwise. And it's certainly questionable to slam people for using that number and to suggest they're exaggerating the risks. It comes off more like you're attempting to downplay the risks and/or just find some way to politicize this in an "us versus them" way. Why on earth should concern about bringing infected ebola patients to the US be turned into a partisan political issue? Isn't that kind of ridiculous? It almost seems to me like there are some people who will take whatever conservatives say and disagree with it, not because it's wrong, but because the people saying it are conservatives and the political value of making them look wrong/stupid/whatever is more important than actually being correct.

We're talking about a pretty nasty outbreak going on here. Can we actually just look at the facts of what's going on and not turn this into a political thing?

Edited, Aug 12th 2014 7:03pm by gbaji

But what does Palin-TV put it at? That's the only news source that really counts.

I don't know, they won't tell you unless you are a paying member.

And the one in Congo had a 90%, and Zaire had 88%, and Congo again had 83%. Point being that of those with listed fatality rate, the top 7 are all of the Zaire variety. The one Zaire strain outbreak with a 45% fatality rate is a clear outlier.



Except that there is actually an outbreak going on, and it is actually the worst outbreak of ebola we've yet seen. So I'm not sure how healthy caution isn't called for here. The worst that happens if we exaggerate the fatality rate (and to be honest, does it really matter from a public health perspective whether the rate is 65% or 90%?) is that people take the disease more seriously. How the hell is that not exactly what is needed? I just think that focusing on the accuracy of a number while ignoring the bigger picture seems silly.

The issue was about the wisdom of transporting infected patients into the US for treatment. Whether the fatality rate is 45% or 65% or 85% doesn't really make a difference with regard to that question. It's more a matter of increasing the odds that an outbreak may happen in the US. Given that this particular outbreak seems to have infected a large number of health care workers (who you'd think would be taking precautions against exactly this), I suspect the bigger question is about infection rates, not fatality rates. While it's obviously too early to say for sure, it does seem as though overconfidence by medical professionals regarding the spread of this outbreak has been part of the problem. The bigger point here being that it is too early to say for sure if this strain has some increased ability to spread and that's why it's spread so far. And while I have a great deal of confidence in the folks at the CDC, this is absolutely not the time and place for complacency.


I just think that blasting people who raise concerns about this because their fatality rate numbers may not be completely accurate is totally missing the point. It's like you're looking for a reason to discredit *them*, and not really looking at or responding to the concerns they're raising. And that seems like a totally moronic way to do things.