WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency • Hacker News Board

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#211

Post by cm2187 » Mon, May 18, 2026, 6:38 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #174

cm2187 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not a big deal. Ebola is deadly if you catch it but it is not very contagious at all. You need to be in contact with someone's fluids basically. It can't go very far.

> Ebola is deadly if you catch it but it is not very contagious at all This isn't straight Ebolavirus (Zaire), but this thing [1]. We don't have enough data yet to confirm it spreads like Ebola among humans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundibugyo_ebolavirus

Fine, but "we don't know" != "it's a big deal". All I see here is wild speculation.

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#212

Post by taegee » Mon, May 18, 2026, 7:23 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #46

This is the WHO announcement: https://www.who.int/news/item/17-05-2026-epidemic-of-ebola-d... This is our CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/ebola/situation-summary/index.html And yes, this is a big deal. Public health emergencies of international concern are a short list consisting of, in their entirety: swine flu ('09 to '10), polio ('14 on), ebola ('13 to '16), Zika ('16), ebola ('19 to '20), Covid ('20 to '23), monkeypox (…

> It's one step down from a pandemic emergency (which, to be clear, has not been declared).

Well, no wonder. Ot was introduced only in June 2024.

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#213

Post by javascriptfan69 » Mon, May 18, 2026, 8:43 AM UTC

cluckindan wrote: post #176

delichon wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDP per capita, $1,884. I don't think poverty is a coincidence. Helping them become wealthy is a global health priority.

That would set a terrible precedent for all other areas suffering from poverty.

is this satire

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#214

Post by rob_c » Mon, May 18, 2026, 9:07 AM UTC

Arodex wrote: post #194

rob_c wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in terms of an age corrected population distribution, actually I think you'll find it's lower. that's the whole point of "at risk" in this scenario being mostly age >70yr (or wherever you chose to draw your risk factors) also this is tends to be over-estimating as the reported infection rates are failing to account for asymptomatic carriers which themselves follow an age-based distribution (I'm sorry but as far as a…

>in terms of an age corrected population distribution, actually I think you'll find it's lower The data I linked is giving IFR for each age band, so that people see the actual data instead of sweeping affirmations like "the IFR is X" or "the IFR isn't X". The data is also coming from multiple studies, some under very controlled conditions with systematic testing, such as military service recruits, or prisoners. >Agai…

_sigh_ 2020, 2021.... I'm talking about clearly 2023 onwards once it was crystal clear to everyone fluent in actual stats what the risks were.

Again, give me the ~15million bodies we expect to see dead in India for a 1% fatality vs the ~100k that is a -serious- discrepancy from a nation that hasn't mastered other hygiene issues yet at a national level. And I'm supposed to believe they magically conquered cv19 better than the crazed lockdown nations of the west?

simply voting against brexit helped save gran remember: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3955345

Oh please don't give me the "le multiple studies in bio" argument. By that logic magic mushrooms and witchcraft are far more reliable due to 'working' for centuries. The field is full of reproducibility crises and follow the leader herd mentality, chemistry, even bio-informatics maybe, but bio as a whole, eesh...

Collecting the data in controlled conditions is exactly my point, you're trying to infer to a whole general populous on something that became insanely politically charged. Given the complete absence of admitting this or even trying to factor this into studies makes the whole thing a stack of cards.

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#215

Post by rob_c » Mon, May 18, 2026, 9:10 AM UTC

throw1234567891 wrote: post #49

rob_c wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If them not fishing means your people are at risk, you go and teach them to fish.

No, it raises the question of what is going wrong if you've spent the last x years teaching them to fish and they still refuse to. Either your approach, their willingness or something else has clearly gone wrong here.

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#216

Post by rob_c » Mon, May 18, 2026, 9:11 AM UTC

disantlor wrote: post #41

rob_c wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

theres also one about pennywise, pound foolish

which is the statement being made to cancel the money since after X years there are almost zero deliverables rather than being the a&e dept for the world, in countries where leaders have fleets of sports cars whilst their people die of situations not far from cholera.

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#217

Post by drstewart » Mon, May 18, 2026, 9:12 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #172

drstewart wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, why hasn't world leader China and progressive Europe stepped up to make up the difference? Don't they care about their own safety? They should be tripling funding to the WHO. This lies directly at their feet.

> why hasn't world leader China and progressive Europe stepped up to make up the difference? Why should we expect anyone to step up? The default state of diseases is that they are not managed. And as China (and maybe even Europe) do pivot, I'm not sure why they'd prioritise preventing it from spreading to Americans (we have troops stationed in the region) versus to their own homelands.

So disease spread in Africa affects America, but disease spread in America doesn't affect China or Europe?

>Why should we expect anyone to step up?

Why should we expect the US to step up? Funny how ONLY the US has responsibility for safeguarding the world, but the supposed new world leaders don't.

It's almost as if the double standard is off the charts.

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#218

Post by rob_c » Mon, May 18, 2026, 9:17 AM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #137

dpark wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could interpret this kind of statement as a hardline “never trust anything the government says” stance. You could also interpret it as espousing healthy skepticism. You can’t tell which it is from a one line comment, so it’s not at all clear the person who said this is buying into any particular political narrative.

I'd call it unhealthy skepticism. Someone who is operating at the level where they might have blindly trusted what the WHO says does not need a push that merely makes them more skeptical of the WHO while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators sending narratives their way.

It's healthy to remain sceptical of all information, pointing out a very widely blindly trusted organisation has serious problems which means this trust and faith placed in it is blind is NOT "an enemy of my enemy" situation.

That leads to sectarianism.

The WHO can both simultaneously be responsible for many good things and have very bad leadership doing more harm than good in other areas. But pointing out that dichotomy of the truth is beyond the conversational chattering class I fear.

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#219

Post by rob_c » Mon, May 18, 2026, 9:23 AM UTC

drstewart wrote: post #217

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why hasn't world leader China and progressive Europe stepped up to make up the difference? Why should we expect anyone to step up? The default state of diseases is that they are not managed. And as China (and maybe even Europe) do pivot, I'm not sure why they'd prioritise preventing it from spreading to Americans (we have troops stationed in the region) versus to their own homelands.

So disease spread in Africa affects America, but disease spread in America doesn't affect China or Europe? >Why should we expect anyone to step up? Why should we expect the US to step up? Funny how ONLY the US has responsibility for safeguarding the world, but the supposed new world leaders don't. It's almost as if the double standard is off the charts.

> Why should we expect the US to step up?

Le all-mighty dollar, it tastes best when given freely no?

> It's almost as if the double standard is off the charts.

I agree. I love how the same people will typically call for US withdrawal from any/all military theatres; whilst promoting sending aid at the end of a needle. I think a lot of these people were of the "lock them up for their covid heresy" category...

If this was China exerting influence I'm sure we'd start complaining there's poison in the needles, bribery and how they should go back and focus on China.

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#220

Post by anakaine » Mon, May 18, 2026, 11:10 AM UTC

saati wrote: post #187

Arodex wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The only actually serious one on that list Based on what? The final body count? This isn't a weather forecast, people and ressources flew towards making sure these emergencies didn't spiral into global pandemics. You are falling face first into the preparedness paradox.

The flu kills 300-500k every year, and did not make the list, while absolute bullshit like Zika and Monkey pox did.

Death by infected count, and level of infectious ess both matter. Flue kills more, but its also a lower death per infected count. This is why comparing COVID to flu was a statistic only pursued by those with a wilful misunderstanding.