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

WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 260 posts

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#241

Post by Arodex »

KetoManx64 wrote: post #202
Arodex wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you aren't "metabolically unhealthy"? Are you sure that if you happen to die, we won't find any "underlying health condition" during your autopsy? Are you fine with you death being dismissed as "got what he deserved"?

I got COVID 3 times, was sick for about a week with a bad flu and then it went away. All my friends had similiar experiences. The only people I know that were struck the hardest were those that were obese and had other health issues. Nobody deserves to die from the flu, but the flu doesn't give a damn about what you do or don't deserve, just about your body's ability to handle fighting off infections.

The flu doesn't care, yes; the question is more "do you?". Because, you know, the flu, or COVID, doesn't spontaneously appear. Every single person who died has been contaminated by someone else, who has some responsibility in it... Especially if they were flippant about it.

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#242

Post by Arodex »

rob_c wrote: post #214
Arodex wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

100k? Closer to 2 million (in a country with a median age below 30 and a very pyramidal age distribution).

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12615008/

>_sigh_ 2020, 2021.... I'm talking about clearly 2023 onwards

Oh, yeah, the IFR after almost everyone was either infected, vaccinated or both. Great job here, champion of stats and "proper" biology.

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#243

Post by rob_c »

mindslight wrote: post #238
rob_c wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some nuanced point it's not nuanced to point out a very large statement which at the time was very VERY anti-trumpian and pro ultra-left, lest not forget "hug a tourist", "lets change the popular naming conventions to technical" and, "oh crap too late now human to human is higher than anything we've seen before" which is basically all memory holed now

[flagged]

> the anti-mask wackos

Well thank you for your service to stupidity. The only measure of worth was actual social distancing which was quickly admonished by the pointless mask arguments as nauseum. No, there is no science good to bad to back up things which are broken by common sense, virii spread in Japan at the same rate as the west after accounting for population densities. (faster without the correction as you'd expect) So let's just move on.

Please, oh please, do not start with some form of "the masses seek to be ruled". The only, only end of that game is to justify totalitarianism which is often what those arguing the point are stupid enough to believe they are arguing against.

If you're going to make an argument for they need lead then yes. And we need both control in the dining water. But we'll never see my version of an idealised advancing civilisation because of "mah feels", "personal experiences" and such drivel.

You may not be used to hearing this but if I was to be grading you you'd get a pass for a coherent sentence but a fail for correctness and coherency, in short. You are wrong.

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#244

Post by rob_c »

Arodex wrote: post #242
rob_c wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

_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…

100k? Closer to 2 million (in a country with a median age below 30 and a very pyramidal age distribution). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12615008/ >_sigh_ 2020, 2021.... I'm talking about clearly 2023 onwards Oh, yeah, the IFR after almost everyone was either infected, vaccinated or both. Great job here, champion of stats and "proper" biology.

So your position is 0.01 Vs 0.001 and given error bars bigger than that you're arguing that I'm clearly wrong to say 0.1 is wrong... Slow clap...

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#245

Post by jijijijij »

bookofjoe wrote: post #56
fpaf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From COVID-era discussions (when virologists were briefly the stars of every talk show) I remember one explaining that it was less about fatality rates per se and more about the length of time you could carry the virus around and be nearly asymptomatic while still able to infect others. I understand the jury is still out on whether a virus can be considered "alive" but, like us, it is capable of replicating itself an…

>I understand the jury is still out on whether a virus can be considered "alive" I remember way back in med school in the mid-70s our infectious disease professor asking this same question, in a philosophical as much as a mechanistic sense.

Here is the fun thing to think about: If viruses aren't alive, neither are men. Men, too, lack the biological means of reproduction. On the other hand, parthenogenesis may even rarely happen in female humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#246

Post by jijijijij »

adastra22 wrote: post #210
iJohnDoe wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China actually took COVID extremely seriously from the start. They were snatching people from the streets and killing them. The China crematoriums were running non-stop. It was the US Administration and the Republicans that were the dipshits and turned a health situation into politics.

That was months after the virus was already spreading. China oscillated from pretending it didn't exist in the critical outbreak period (2019), to some of the most extreme lockdowns (early 2020).

Maaan, flashback to how fucking thrilling that time was when there were reports of single digit cases slowly hitting closer home, rapidly building up to a "Holy shit! This is going to be a historic crisis!" when dead bodies started pilling up in front of Italian hospitals. No drug could ever tingle my dopamine receptors like the news ramp up of COVID19 did. What a collective experience. In a parallel universe it's been the event to unite humanity, instead of dividing families.

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#247

Post by mindslight »

rob_c wrote: post #243
mindslight wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> the anti-mask wackos Well thank you for your service to stupidity. The only measure of worth was actual social distancing which was quickly admonished by the pointless mask arguments as nauseum. No, there is no science good to bad to back up things which are broken by common sense, virii spread in Japan at the same rate as the west after accounting for population densities. (faster without the correction as you'd e…

> The only measure of worth was actual social distancing

It's been conclusively shown that N95+ masks block the virus particles. IIRC the coherent anti-masking arguments were of the form that they were not necessary for general population, not that they did not work. If you want to point me to some research that shows masks are ineffective in eg healthcare settings, go right ahead.

In my experience, anti-masking behavior was also strongly associated with people who wouldn't social distance, because we're really talking about proxies for "this is real and I am trying to take prudent measures".

> do not start with some form of "the masses seek to be ruled"

So then how do you explain the current embrace of open fascism? The many disingenuous appeals to lofty ideals of individual freedom, that when followed culiminate in support for autocratic authoritarianism? I sure fucking wish people would choose the individualist enlightened freedom path when presented, but they always seems to go sideways.

> The only, only end of that game is to justify totalitarianism

NGOs and government public health authorities issuing non-binding advice is not totalitarian, and calling it so in the context of the current political climate in the US is preposterous. Only about half of US states had any form of lockdown, yet from the amount it was talked about we can see where the bulk of the histrionics lay.

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#248

Post by Retric »

beng-nl wrote: post #237
Retric wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COVID spread didn’t break down into first world vs third world countries because first world countries infrastructure isn’t built with pandemics in mind. Instead a great deal of modern infrastructure like subway systems makes things more difficult not less.

I’m not an epidemiologist, but Ebola isn’t airborne like COVID is, so that isn’t a comparison that can be made. infrastructure density matters, but it doesn’t affect both the same way.

This gets into the question of definitions vs edge cases.

Ebola like many viruses can be contagious without direct touching.

It’s not well adapted to airborne transmission, but it’s very good at causing people to spread bodily fluids all over the place. So a very sick individual passing through a subway seeking medical treatment could infect a large number of people.

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#249

Post by thunderfork »

rob_c wrote: post #231
mschuster91 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how about countries with these risks take action to reduce these risks With what money? There's a reason they're dependent on USAID. > I'm sure there's a parable about teaching someone to fish rather than feeding them Unfortunately the priorities of USAID (and European foreign aid as well) aren't exactly aligned with that paradigm. It's the worst expressed in agriculture because we just dumped our excess production…

> With what money? There's a reason they're dependent on USAID. How much does BASIC hygiene cost it's like manners. It's education (which is more than well funded at a "throw cash at it problem". > we just dumped our excess production Well in a nutshell, yes we'd dumping quite a lot on Africa, that doesn't mean we should shore up the system with yet another western derived screw-up. At this point I'll go for the good…

Having clean water access, etc., is a little bit more than "education", in practice

Re: WHO declares Ebola outbreak a global health emergency

#250

Post by umpalumpaaa »

pnt12 wrote: post #221
cm2187 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But also "we don't know"! = "it's NOT a big deal". I'm OK with some caution.

Yeah I agree with you here…

Haven’t we been burnt by being not cautious enough when COVID hit? Initially most scientists said “we don’t know if it’s airborne” or they said “there are no signs that it’s airborne” and the media turned it into “nothing flying fear” - and a few weeks later it was suddenly airborne.

“We don’t know” is a normal state in science and policies and personal behavior can take unknowns into consideration.

Post reply on HN