71–80 of 86 posts
Has anyone found a site with good data on the Ebola outbreak? I’ve tried to track down, but the only stuff I’ve seen (from the WHO etc) needs a lot of cleaning and like ends in 2015.
Note this ends in 2015 because that one and the current one are different outbreaks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Killing your host quickly is a bad for a parasite" Exactly. If the virus mutates such that the time before symptoms appear gets longer that's bad for the rest of us. But if it's the opposite (i.e., it kills faster), then that's good news and it will - in theory - eventually burn itself out.
Humans aren't the primary host so exceptional virulence isn't necessarily contained by evolutionary pressure.
This is concerning. It's also concerning when the country you live in contains as many idiotic conspiracy theories shared hundreds of thousands of times just like the DRC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anti-vaxxers?
I suspect it has more to do with anti-westerners.
Tangential, but if a virus's contagion is regulated by its virulence (that is, very deadly viruses are less contagious because they kill their hosts) does that mean widespread access to modern medicine could remove the upper bound on virulence by keeping the hosts alive? I could probably formulate this question better, but the basic question is, "could virus's symptoms be getting worse in general?"
But not necessarily more virulent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect it has more to do with anti-westerners.
I wouldn't read it as a false-dichotomy us/them conclusion, but to the literal facts: Philipines, DRC, US, many countries in Europe are becoming hyperpolarized.. with the intent and aggression being laid down, the only difference is the scale and nakedness of violent acts that result. It's definitely social warfare that's being promulgated with aid of the internet by charlatans and crazies alike.
Tangential, but if a virus's contagion is regulated by its virulence (that is, very deadly viruses are less contagious because they kill their hosts) does that mean widespread access to modern medicine could remove the upper bound on virulence by keeping the hosts alive? I could probably formulate this question better, but the basic question is, "could virus's symptoms be getting worse in general?"
> The problem with leaky vaccines, Read says, is that they enable pathogens to replicate unchecked while also protecting hosts from illness and death, thereby removing the costs associated with increased virulence. https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vaccines-can-drive-pathog... NB: I thought I stumbled upon the above article--or one like it--through HN within the past few days, but I can't find the post. Maybe I foun…
Really if Ebola is to be more deadly in absolute terms it ironically should be far less lethal and disturbing in symptoms. If it was weakened to be say about as bad as the flu in terms of lethality its kill count would be way higher. Ebola is so lethal it would practically have to cause the deceased to autocremate and destroy the remains to be any worse at spreading. Killing your host quickly is a bad for a parasite…
Flu is basically the apex predator of viruses. We're having a helluva season in Australia right now. :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Al was responding to someone who was insinuating that distrust of medicine (doctors, generally) was the result of aggressive law enforcement. The strong implication was we should do something about the reluctance of people to seek medical care because of their immigration status or outstanding warrants. That means reducing enforcement of various laws. That's what Al was responding to. The possible variations are: 1.…
> distrust of medicine (doctors, generally) was the result of aggressive law enforcement. Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but the quote is: > [...] people didn’t distrust medical authorities like they do now [...], and didn’t fear [...]coming into contact with government agencies [...]. Which says " AND didn't fear" not " because of fear". I can't definitively say what the parent meant to post, but the way I read it (…
61% might not trust the healthcare system in some sense; maybe they don't trust medical research studies, maybe they don't trust doctors to prescribe the lowest-cost effective treatment, maybe they don't trust that they can afford medical care, maybe they think the whole medical industry is conspiring to rip them off (approximately true). But I guarantee you if 100 people break their arms you'll see more than 39 of them in the ER. Same if they have the flu and the symptoms turn severe. Almost all of them will trust primary and ER care just fine, unless there are other considerations, and immigration status and fear of discovery is the most common consideration by far. One hears it constantly in immigration pieces on media like NPR.