Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?

#51

Post by frozenport »

Ocerge wrote: post #39
Asparagirl wrote: post #32

Last month, an American doctor who is working with Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières/MSF) wrote these really harrowing and sad letters home from the heart of the Ebola outbreak: http://news.unchealthcare.org/news/2014/june/dispatch-from-g...

That was an absolutely terrifying read. What seems to make Ebola worse is the manner in which you die...bleeding out on the floor, alone. Doctors Without Borders is an incredible organization, and one that I gladly donate to yearly.

They are not without criticism, in Rawanda they might have supported the wrong side, supporting a group of refuges that would be the imperious for an invasion of Zaire, the destabilization of which has lead to continuous conflict in the Congo.

As Alain Destexhe, the secretary-general of Doctors Without Borders, put it: "How can physicians continue to assist Rwandan refugees when by doing so they are also supporting killers?"[1]

[1]Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa Paperback – March 27, 2012

Re: Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?

#52

Post by The_Pherocity »

Throwaway618 wrote: post #43
psychometry wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm amazed you managed to misread a comment that was only two sentences long. The title of the article is--in case you missed that, too--"Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?" The previous comment did not address that question and instead answered a completely different question. What doesn't add to the conversation is obnoxious pedantry like your comment.

What does add to the conversation, apparently, is continual snide assertions that parent didn't add to the conversation. (I actually don't have any problem with snide obnoxiousness. "I'm amazed you could [be so incredibly idiotic]" is upfront at least. What I do get tired of is a continual tree, like this one, of "You shouldn't have said that.")

I do, I hate when I do it. It also doesn't add to the conversation. Especially when I do so on items that are questionable, as this one is. What bothers me most is that the level of snark I use is dependant not on the level of offence, rather the number of times I've encountered this varian of low quality comment during the day. This example, although I stand by it, clearly is not one of the greater offences, and yet has maximum snark. The greater problem is these conversations actually often surpass the quality conversations being had in the thread.

Re: Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?

#53

Post by The_Pherocity »

jychang wrote: post #42
The_Pherocity wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, that's how conversation works. Someone posts an article, then clever people talk about it. Some agree, some give experiences, some add additional facts and resources, and other people offer counter arguments. This is a counter argument to the article. What you posted, besides being blatantly obvious, is simply noise and does not add to the conversation.

I'm pretty sure you misread the parent comment. The original question posed is about the chances of ebola spreading TO western nations. However, the grandparent question answers the chances of ebola spreading WITHIN western nations. The epidemiology of the former involves questions like transportation controls, quarantine of travelers, border controls, and perhaps even banning international imports from involved nati…

I'm certain I didn't. The article asks the question about spreading, and that includes all vectors and scenarios. Spreading, is all about reaching and establishing an infected base.

As far as if ebola can get TO the western world, that is a 100% chance that it can. Primarily, because there is always an underground movement of goods and people, often women and children into and out of countries, regardless of official lockdowns. Think of it like drugs in prisons. There should be no place more free of drugs and alcohol, and yet it's easier to get drugs in prison than in my town. The conversation then is about the remaining requirements to 'spread'.

When we take a look at spreading of other lifeforms, say for instance seeds in Darwin's Origin of Species, dispersal is only a tiny part of the equation with spread being about not just buoyancy, but rather length of sustainability once the seed arrives at a barren landmass.

This is again consistent with man and Mars. We've gone there with robots, and will one day go there with people, but until we establish a foothold, we have not yet spread to Mars.

Regardless of whether the article addresses the point and only the question, all examples of life (and disputed forms of life in the form of virus), do not spread unless they take root.

Re: Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?

#54

Post by bayesianhorse »

Ebola is a third-world disease. First world countries are not at risk, due to a combination of health-care, hygiene and "lucky" cultural differences. SARS is much more of a first-world disease because it spreads faster, more easily and has less visible symptoms.

Europe and US should still try everything possible to stop Ebola. And Malaria, and Tuberculosis and all the various parasites that are affecting mostly the poor people of the world....

Re: Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?

#55

Post by Dylan16807 »

psychometry wrote: post #21
giarc wrote: post #3

The largest driver of this outbreak (and many ebola outbreaks) is the fear of healthcare and the way many cultures treat the deceased. These two issues are what would make transmission to NA or Europe very unlikely. Many people in African nations will stay away from hospitals because they believe they will get Ebola from the hospital. Therefore often people that are sick die of Ebola in the community and therefore sp…

Those are all arguments as to why Ebola might not spread within Europe or the U.S. This article is about whether it could spread to those places.

When you say a disease has spread to a place, people will assume you mean it's spreading within that place.

If by 'to' you mean there was a case or two from elsewhere that won't spread, it's not something to care about.

So I think that comment is a legitimate argument about the point of the article when it comes to spreading, and you're being too picky.

Re: Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?

#56

Post by tritium »

Asparagirl wrote: post #32

Last month, an American doctor who is working with Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières/MSF) wrote these really harrowing and sad letters home from the heart of the Ebola outbreak: http://news.unchealthcare.org/news/2014/june/dispatch-from-g...

  The hygienists listen to music although this week 
  they've been on a Celine Dione kick which requires 
  its own coping strategy.
Ebola and Celine Dion? Christ. No one should ever have to go through that.

Re: Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?

#57

Post by sliverstorm »

KhalilK wrote: post #19
sliverstorm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outbreaks are particularly scary to areas of high population density. It's one of the biggest risks to a city like New York. A highly infectious disease could one day go through that city like a hot knife through butter. That's something Africa mostly doesn't have to worry about, I would think. This could just be my ignorance showing, but I don't think there are any places in Africa with the density of Manhattan isla…

Cairo? Manhattan's population density is 25,846/km²[1]. Cairo's population density is 46,349/km²[2]. [1] - https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Manhattan's+population+... [2] - https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Cairo's+population+dens...

I stand corrected.

Re: Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?

#58

Post by sliverstorm »

Fomite wrote: post #24
sliverstorm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Secondly, when people die in many of these cultures, there is much more physical connection with the body, potentially spreading the disease more. You would think this would have been selected against ages ago.

It's hard to select against a cultural practice, generally, as there aren't large numbers of possible phenotypes in the area, and it only matters if that cultural practice results in less children . Dying isn't selected against on its own.

It weakens the community. I was thinking of selection on a community (or higher) level, e.g. a community that has different practices will be stronger and either outlast or conquer the community with dangerous traditions.

Re: Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?

#59

Post by Fomite »

sliverstorm wrote: post #58
Fomite wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to select against a cultural practice, generally, as there aren't large numbers of possible phenotypes in the area, and it only matters if that cultural practice results in less children . Dying isn't selected against on its own.

It weakens the community. I was thinking of selection on a community (or higher) level, e.g. a community that has different practices will be stronger and either outlast or conquer the community with dangerous traditions.

It takes catastrophic levels of disease (think: Smallpox introduction into the entirely susceptible North and South American populations) to sufficiently weaken a culture to the point of conquerability.

Consider the number of European nations in the middle ages fully capable of going to war with high endemic disease levels, or indeed lasting on the field while there were ongoing epidemics in their armies.

Re: Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?

#60

Post by giarc »

rwissmann wrote: post #20
worldvoyageur wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fear of healthcare might actually not be a bad way to reduce the risk of getting ebola as the easiest way to get it is as a result of poor hospital procedure. Here is a snippet from a moving article about a young microbiologist who investigated the first Ebola outbreak. " It quickly became clear that something was wrong at the hospital. Epidemiological detective work by our team confirmed the suspicions: people were…

The problem regards people who already have Ebola. Of course, if you have just a less severe condition, staying a way form a hospital might during an epidemic might be a reasonable move. Treating those with Ebola at home is a recipe for catastrophe. Contrary to AIDS, Ebola is highly contagious and often leads to the infection of the whole family and visitors. So no, fear of healthcare is just about the worst possible…

I agree with you. The first outbreak of Ebola was obviously handled incorrectly (5 needles per nurses) and may have been due to the unknown severity of the disease. Now each outbreak is handled by multiple agencies (WHO, Doctors without borders etc) and therefore the hospital is likely given access to proper infection control supplies. This is my conjecture, but likely a safe one.
Post reply on HN