5 diseases scarier than ebola (and greater threats to US safety)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yet of all those listed, i would not expect anyone to pick being infected with ebola over any other on the list even if they were in the emergency room of a hospital.

Probably because of all the scaremongering about it.

Noone would 'pick' a virulent disease to be infected with, how ridiculous.

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

Far better to err on the side of caution. Even you cannot argue that any of the other diseases you listed are an immediate threat (which Ebola is). You have bought into this "everything is under control" nonsense being spit out by politicians.

One can "say that diseases with higher death numbers in developed nations than ebola has ever had are not so bad [your words]" because that is a fact. I am afraid you don't know a thing about epidemiology and are confusing prevalence with virulence.

Just to be clear, you are actually stating that a disease with a 60-90% fatality rate is more virulent than a disease with a 100% fatality rate? You are also stating that a disease where someone will infect, on average, two people, is more virulent than a disease where someone will infect, on average anywhere from 2 to 21 people, depending on strain?

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

yet of all those listed, i would not expect anyone to pick being infected with ebola over any other on the list even if they were in the emergency room of a hospital.

Really? Not even rabies? You would pick a 100% fatality rate over a 60% fatality rate, if you got to choose?

[Ban Hammer 12,837]

Probably because of all the scaremongering about it.

Noone would 'pick' a virulent disease to be infected with, how ridiculous.

it appears you missed the point. assume you are in the emergency room of a hospital and have to pick from one of the diseases listed to be infected with. would you choose ebola?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Far better to err on the side of caution. Even you cannot argue that any of the other diseases you listed are an immediate threat (which Ebola is). You have bought into this "everything is under control" nonsense being spit out by politicians.

One can "say that diseases with higher death numbers in developed nations than ebola has ever had are not so bad [your words]" because that is a fact. I am afraid you don't know a thing about epidemiology and are confusing prevalence with virulence.

There is no reason to suppose that we are in the middle of a major ebola outbreak in the USA. One or two cases simply are not that.

There is also no reason to suppose that the airports need to be closed or travel restrictions imposed, just as there is no proof that public safety is compromised for 'political reasons'. Quite simply, that's just hyperbole straight out of the media. What specific evidence do you have that any of this is happening?

It's scaremongering and you and many others seem to have fallen for it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How about CRE and MRSA? Not that uncommon in US hospitals. Not nearly as uncommon as Ebola and just about as deadly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

it appears you missed the point. assume you are in the emergency room of a hospital and have to pick from one of the diseases listed to be infected with. would you choose ebola?

Well I would say that there was no point to begin with. What's the point of a silly hypothetical exercise like that? To prove that ebola is scary? No chit!

Really? Not even rabies? You would pick a 100% fatality rate over a 60% fatality rate, if you got to choose?

This is rapidly turning into something from the hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy - go to hospital to deliberately choose to be infected with an exotic disease. Just bizarre.

[Ban Hammer 12,837]

Really? Not even rabies? You would pick a 100% fatality rate over a 60% fatality rate, if you got to choose?

reread the premise. there is a postexposure vaccination for it.

[Dakine10 5,452]

yet of all those listed, i would not expect anyone to pick being infected with ebola over any other on the list even if they were in the emergency room of a hospital.

With the symptoms and travel history, there's no excuse for not considering it. The department of health sends out the same health alert every week here on what to look for. And that doesn't count all the buttheads who respond to it with "reply all"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How about CRE and MRSA? Not that uncommon in US hospitals. Not nearly as uncommon as Ebola and just about as deadly.

The point remains that there is no proof that the USA is in the middle of an 'ebola crisis'. A couple of isolated cases and some missteps by healthcare workers and everyone is worked up into a panic. Just nuts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well I would say that there was no point to begin with. What's the point of a silly hypothetical exercise like that? To prove that ebola is scary? No chit!

This is rapidly turning into something from the hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy - go to hospital to deliberately choose to be infected with an exotic disease. Just bizarre.

Indeed, it is bizarre. But that's what happens when they get the 0'bola scare on top of the ODS they've long been inflicted with.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The point remains that there is no proof that the USA is in the middle of an 'ebola crisis'. A couple of isolated cases and some missteps by healthcare workers and everyone is worked up into a panic. Just nuts.

That depends on your information sources. I am sure that it is being reported that we are in the middle of an ebola crisis in the US. Reports are emerging that there are potentially thousands of infected persons roaming our streets already. And some of those, anonymous sources confirmed, came via the Mexican border.

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

Well I would say that there was no point to begin with. What's the point of a silly hypothetical exercise like that? To prove that ebola is scary? No chit!

This is rapidly turning into something from the hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy - go to hospital to deliberately choose to be infected with an exotic disease. Just bizarre.

I just find the whole thing so ridiculous. I'm so amused by it I can't even.

reread the premise. there is a postexposure vaccination for it.

So? Vaccines aren't 100%. And once you're symptomatic, you're dead.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That depends on your information sources. I am sure that it is being reported that we are in the middle of an ebola crisis in the US. Reports are emerging that there are potentially thousands of infected persons roaming our streets already. And some of those, anonymous sources confirmed, came via the Mexican border.

Well it's like anything else with the tabloid news media - the constant wall-to-wall sensationalist commentary on every major channel just feeds people's fears. It's always been like that - it's why there are trends on this site. One week we'll have a million threads about racism, the next it will be about ISIS and mexican immigration. It just has no connection with reality - the news is manufactured as much as it actually reports on factual events. We can't have one story about ebola - we have to have a hundred because feeding the panic keeps people on the edge of their seats.

People aren't talking about what is going on as much as being told what they should be talking about.

Is ebola a concern? Sure. Is it going to end the world? Probably not.

[GandD 5,966]

I just find the whole thing so ridiculous. I'm so amused by it I can't even.

So? Vaccines aren't 100%. And once you're symptomatic, you're dead.

Yes, that's really key. Once you have Ebola symptoms you have a 60% chance of death. Rabies, 100%.