Printable View
Oh, I think he's pulling your leg. Even if he's not, there should be a spoiler statute of limitations. The Stand has been out for, what, 35 years? I'll bet that Gregg has a pretty good idea what happens in this book.:~)Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
You know, until you wrote that and forced me to think about it, I'd have thought it was much newer than that. I read it when it first came out and then read it again when it was re-released with an additional 400 or so pages added. It just doesn't seem like that long ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
What can I say, my library only has one copy.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
My guess would be that because once it finally does become contagious it becomes REALLY contagious and the procedures to avoid infection are tough to follow perfectly. And imperfection when dealing with a person at the highly infectious stage of the disease has a bad result. In other words, one patient, two medical provider minor, but potentially fatal, errors.Quote:
Originally Posted by kib
The health care workers weren't fully covered and the patient was spewing contagion copiously from every orifice. Apparently the amount of infectious material they contacted resulted in manageable cases. If medical personnel can isolate infected patients in the three countries where it is active, we should be able to eradicate it. Problem solved.
I'm just skeptical ... I mean if you were dealing with a substance that could easily kill you if it spilled on you, wouldn't you be ... almost psychotically paranoid about any exposure at all?
The number of ebola cases "confirmed or suspected" has tripled in the last month. 4500 to 13000. As far as the US is concerned, yes, problem solved. But isolating cases in the countries suffering? You must be joking. They don't even have bed space for these people, let alone isolation units. Hopefully the US involvement in building more care facilities is paying off, because otherwise, I can't see this ending for the "sick 3" until it plays itself out.
Nigeria is Ebola free now, so they made it work. As far as the other three countries go, if they can educate their citizens about the disease and enlist those who have survived to transport new patients to secure facilities--most likely with international help--they should prevail. As usual, the world community is slow to get off the dime, and that is indeed a problem.
Another issue regarding when a patient becomes contagious seems to be exactly when they cease to be asymptomatic. Officials check for fever: 98.6*, good to go, but what about 98.7*? What about a person, like me, who has a regular body temp that is a little lower? I'm usually in the 96s somewhere so at 98.6* I could be well on the way to being sick, but might waltz right past the check point. The virus knows when it kicks in, the victim's immune system presumably knows as well, but I've yet to hear anyone say there is a hard line between contagious and non-contagious. That just seems like a scenario where there could be a lot of carriers scattered around the world who don't know they were exposed and/or don't realize its ebola until they get REALLY sick.
I've been reading some interesting Ebola information at Natural News.... http://www.naturalnews.com/
Uh Oh Lessisbest...........get ready to dodge the rotten tomatoes................
When I click on the Natural News site and click through to follow one thread, I don't see journalist integrity. I see headlines misrepresenting content and playing loose with definitions. Taking just one concept, aeorosolized spread of Ebola and following it through on the Natural News website, it looks like Natural News is the liar, not the CDC.Quote:
Originally Posted by lessisbest
When I click on this news headline and story:
CDC admits it has been lying all along about Ebola transmission; "indirect" spread now acknowledged
http://www.naturalnews.com/047457_Eb...particles.html
...But I don't see content to support the headline. The story says "The CDC has now released a document on Ebola that admits the virus can spread through aerosolized droplets. The document, quietly released on the CDC website also admits Ebola can contaminate surfaces such as doorknobs, causing infections to be spread through indirect means. [1] (bolding mine)HOW EBOLA SPREADS
But when I click here as Natural News suggests
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047457_Eb...#ixzz3HpYqextC
...There is no CDC document that claims "aerosolized droplets" transmits Ebola. In fact, the CDC article linked from Natural News story declares the opposite:
Is Ebola airborne?
No.
I followed another story where headline declared that CDC had yanked a document in a nefarious way and replaced it with new information. First of all, that in itself seems reasonable to me, as facts come up, information should be updated on the web. But that's not what happened, Natural News lied again. In the old vs new document, the exact same facts were presented about Aeorosolized transmission of Ebola:
old CDC document:
Is Ebola airborne?
No. Ebola is not spread through the airborne route nor through water or food
new CDC document:
HOW EBOLA SPREADS
Is Ebola airborne?
No.
My conclusion is that Natural News is an unreliable source because its hysterical headlines aren't supported by the content it provides as fact. It insults me as a reader to assume that I won't read beyond the headlines.
None of this means that the CDC knows all facts about Ebola transmission, that the CDC is forthcoming with all facts, that the CDC is always right. None of it. It means that Natural News depends on fear mongering to sell whatever it sells.
I also understand that most people won't click through this post. I'd be interested if anyone, following my logic, sees something else.
tl; dr: Natural News lies
The link could be misleading if someone wanted to twist facts; on the top it explains how germs spread, on the bottom it explains how ebola spreads. It does not say that the information on the top of the page pertains to ebola, in fact I think it was meant to explain the difference between the two methods of transmission, not conflate them.
I agree, it's badly constructed, I had exactly the same thought as I picture thousands of people pulling up that document to read about spread of "germs" in general although the top section talks only about TB and similar germs, not Ebola. OTOH I'm glad I don't have to write that stuff. In order to talk about safety practices "airborne" has to be defined.Quote:
Originally Posted by kib
Yes, and 'direct contact' as well. I would be surprised if a highly infectious ebola patient sneezed directly in my face and I didn't get sick, to me that is just as "direct" as touching their blood and then wiping my eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
But you (the generic you) have to understand the terms. From my clicking around tht CDC site today, my take away is this:Quote:
Originally Posted by kib
When someone comes into contact with droplets, that is "direct" contact. Direct also means droplets spewed within about 6 feet. "Direct" isn't limited to touch transmission.
What is meant by "airborne" and "direct" has specific meaning that the CDC attempts to convey. Defining terms is always a problem in communication and sources like Natural News play that up.
I'll bet they manage to sell a fair amount of homeopathic ebola remedies however...Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Which does make the site Natural News linked to confusing if not downright contradictory, because sneezing is in the section on germs, while it's not mentioned in the ebola section, so how is a layman supposed to know that the very picture in the "germs, not ebola" section is one way ebola could be transmitted. While I feel the CDC does indeed have specific meanings attached to their terms, I see absolutely no effort to convey that information, at least not in this particular link Natural News has seized upon. Maybe their headline should have screamed "CDC Writers Just As Incompetent As Everyone Else."Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
ETA: Iris, I agree entirely with what you posited somewhere else: government mostly isn't lying on purpose, it's just incompetent and usually tries to mask it with a lot of meaningless nonsense. I'm always amused to hear that "They" know everything there is to know about climate change, or for that matter, the intricacies of our economic policy. "Unintended Consequences" could be their epitaph.
then direct contact is someone in the office being sick (the cubes don't even have 6 feet between them probably), which of course seems not just likely but pretty much inevitable that people will come to the office sick (though hopefully not with ebola and hopefully by the time ebola symptoms were contagious they would have no choice but to stay out no matter how determined they were to infect their coworkers. Yea that's how I see coming to work when genuinely sick - as biological warfare :~)). Not to mention any other public place, waiting in line at the supermarket, etc..Quote:
When someone comes into contact with droplets, that is "direct" contact. Direct also means droplets spewed within about 6 feet.
Yea homeopathy and selling stuff. Excessive profiting on lots of stuff pretty much leaves such a bad sleaze taste in my mouth. But at least if there was a vaccine it would actually work presumably, and there is something to be said for that!
As for the sleazy profiteering natural news is probably far from the worst. Some want to charge people for information on "how to prevent ebola". Such scumbaggery. But everyone needs to earn a living is the usual excuse for that. Yea and there are ways to do that that don't reek so much, though one might have to work and not relying on selling their "ideas" >8) to the desperate (scared people).
Meanwhile, the Ebola pandemic continues to devastate the USA! Look at how many cases we have now!
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sit...g_dead_a_l.jpg
Horrible, just horrible. The poor horse.
Yes, ApatheticNoMore, I agree. While I do believe that some natural remedies can have beneficial effects (not on ebola, on health in general) I am soooooo tired of hearing that something is so good for you! or so bad for you! only to find out 98% of the hype was simply economic sleight of hand. I'm currently on a mission to do away with just about every "aid" I put in my mouth or on my body, regardless of the "evidence".
Oh heck yes, I'd put that in my online publication "Down with Government News."Quote:
Originally Posted by kib