81–90 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "no evidence of human to human transmission" Directly contradicted by the WHO: "...spreads from person to person through direct contact with the blood, secretions, organs, or other bodily fluids of infected individuals or contaminated surfaces" [1]. [1] https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2...
That’s a reference to the early Covid 19 investigations/reporting. https://x.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en
I read elsewhere that this strain is less deadly than previous strains. I'm no epidemiologist but being less deadly could allow it to spread further, which is obviously concerning. Also, the article says surveillance picked up the spread late. I wonder if the US's pulling back from the WHO and other international functions had anything to do with this, it used to make up a big chunk of its resources and staff.
It's been picked up late because it's from Goma, a region in Congo currently operated by the March 23 Movement a "rebel" group against the current Congo's government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
To hell with your historical collective guilt machine.
I honestly dont care what people did before I was born. I had absolutely no decision in anything of theirs. Had no choice in any of that. Nor did I enslave or torture or murder people. My parents didnt either. Their parents didnt either.
And somehow, Im responsible for shit that happened hundreds of years ago? Whatever.
I dont mind helping and working collectively for a human cause. But im also not going to be an emotional collective guilt tampon because people before I was born did bad things.
Id say "Take it up with them", but theyre dead. Thats why you flail at anybody and try to make them feel responsible.
"It is unclear how that [closure of US-AID program] might have affected the response to this outbreak." But, we'll just throw that in to the story anyway, even though we have no facts either way.
Just wondering, do you think it's not relevant to help the reader understand context on the US' impact? Positive or negative?
I read elsewhere that this strain is less deadly than previous strains. I'm no epidemiologist but being less deadly could allow it to spread further, which is obviously concerning. Also, the article says surveillance picked up the spread late. I wonder if the US's pulling back from the WHO and other international functions had anything to do with this, it used to make up a big chunk of its resources and staff.
I was wondering about that with the hantavirus, whereby if it's got a higher fatality rate then it's less likely to be easily transmitted. Is that like a general rule, or pure bunk? (I'd probably assume the answer 'depends').
The most successful strategy is to make a virus that spreads fast, with few visible symptoms until the late stages of the disease. A deadly virus, early will just cause borders to be locked and the international research community to swarm on a cure.
[flagged]
Rather than posting things like this, please take a moment to review the posting guidelines[0], so that you can be a positive member of the community.
We went through this whole song and dance in 2014. Unless it has some really unlucky novel mutations it won’t spread well outside the tropics.