Ebola

[136 or 142]

Those don't answer the questions I asked a while back.   They are subject to interpretation.   Apparently the CDC says don't get within 3 feet of someone showing symptoms.  Why is that if you need direct contact?   

As for my political leanings, I'm not a conservative, but it's irrelevant.    I also suggested exit screenings, but based on a quarantine - don't let someone leave unless they've been in isolation for 21 days with no symptoms.    Other African countries are already restricting travel - if they can do it, so can we.

1."3 feet" My guess would be it's because they may spew vomit over you.  It's pretty logical actually. If ebola could be spread by a person sneezing or something like that, likely half of the people in those 3 African countries would have it by now.

2."21 days" That isn't very practical. How is the person supposed to live for those 21 days?  Anything that increases the likelihood of them going to another country to travel to the U.S increases the risk of it spreading in Africa or the U.S.  If the U.S can't even manage its own borders, do you really think an African country can?

[136 or 142]

Ebola Hysteria Fever: A Real Epidemic


"One obvious way to control Ebola would be to spend some money developing a vaccine. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, thinks that we would have had an effective vaccine by now had it not been for the cuts to the agency over the last decade.

Needless to say, many of the politicians who are now the biggest promulgators of Ebola hysteria fever were also the ones pushing the budget cuts over the last decade. No doubt they are much happier to spend large amounts of money trying to contain the disease now, and treating victims in the United States, then they would have been spending money a decade ago to develop a vaccine against a disease whose primary victims are Africans. "

I'll just leave that there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/ebola-hysteria-fever-a-re_b_6020952.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

I actually have to doubt that is true. While there have been plenty of outbreaks in Africa over the past 40 years, the tried and true method of quaranteening affected areas had always worked and relatively very few people died from it.  The cost of developing a vaccine greatly outweighed the benefit.  It's unlikely any drug company would have spent that much on it.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

The cost of developing a vaccine greatly outweighed the benefit.

The economic impact over the next year on the three primary countries is expected to be close to $900M.  The total cost of containment is expected to be around $1B, and the long term economic effect in the neighborhood of $32B, or somewhat less than the SARS epidemic of ten years ago, about 80-90% of that expected to be behavioural effects.  These are figures provided by the World Bank and the UN.

I don't know how much it would cost to develop a vaccine, but you seem to.  Care to share that information for comparison purposes?

[Yorkshire pud]

The economic impact over the next year on the three primary countries is expected to be close to $900M.  The total cost of containment is expected to be around $1B, and the long term economic effect in the neighborhood of $32B, or somewhat less than the SARS epidemic of ten years ago, about 80-90% of that expected to be behavioural effects.  These are figures provided by the World Bank and the UN.

I don't know how much it would cost to develop a vaccine, but you seem to.  Care to share that information for comparison purposes?

There was a very informative programme on the BBC a couple of weeks ago about the Ebola virus and the guy who discovered/invented Zmapp. The basic reason why a vaccine until now hasn't had a great deal of urgency is that Ebola until now hasn't killed many. About 1400 until last March I believe the figure was. They were all short lived, all contained and therefore not worth many million sof investment for something that may not be needed in huge quantities. The reason this outbreak extended was because the first person (child) was moved away to a different village and infected his family, who then moved and so on... The authorities had pretty much plotted the entire thread of infection down to family, village and district.

The short answer is return on investment. 

[136 or 142]

There was a very informative programme on the BBC a couple of weeks ago about the Ebola virus and the guy who discovered/invented Zmapp. The basic reason why a vaccine until now hasn't had a great deal of urgency is that Ebola until now hasn't killed many. About 1400 until last March I believe the figure was. They were all short lived, all contained and therefore not worth many million sof investment for something that may not be needed in huge quantities. The reason this outbreak extended was because the first person (child) was moved away to a different village and infected his family, who then moved and so on... The authorities had pretty much plotted the entire thread of infection down to family, village and district.

The short answer is return on investment.

As Yorkshire Pud wrote, nobody expected this could occur.  The cost of developing a vaccine is usually at least $1B.

[Gd5150]

The economic impact over the next year on the three primary countries is expected to be close to $900M.  The total cost of containment is expected to be around $1B, and the long term economic effect in the neighborhood of $32B, or somewhat less than the SARS epidemic of ten years ago, about 80-90% of that expected to be behavioural effects.  These are figures provided by the World Bank and the UN.

Total costs of 32 billion as estimated by the UN and World Bank. $1 million to help those infected and prevention, and  $29,999,000,000 to the board of directors at the UN and World Bank corporations...I mean not for profit organizations.

I don't know how much it would cost to develop a vaccine, but you seem to.  Care to share that information for comparison purposes?

The costs to pharmaceutical companies are unmeasurable. R&D is millions. If they develop a successful vaccine and eliminate the need for their lifelong "treatments", the costs are trillions. Thats why they haven't developed a vaccine in nearly a century.

[Yorkshire pud]

This isn't the programme I referred to, but you may find it interesting. You will probably need a proxy to watch it though if outside the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04nfh0q/the-people-vs-ebola-inside-sierra-leone

[Yorkshire pud]

Total costs of 32 billion as estimated by the UN and World Bank. $1 million to help those infected and prevention, and  $29,999,000,000 to the board of directors at the UN and World Bank corporations...I mean not for profit organizations.

The costs to pharmaceutical companies are unmeasurable. R&D is millions. If they develop a successful vaccine and eliminate the need for their lifelong "treatments", the costs are trillions. Thats why they haven't developed a vaccine in nearly a century.

No, you're wrong (again!), but it's okay as long as you don't believe what you think or present it as fact.

[Gd5150]

The 'Cuts'.  Per the Washington Post picked up by MSN

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/charge-that-gop-cuts-have-stymied-ebola-efforts-doesn%e2%80%99t-add-up/ar-BB9Reaa

Thank you for pointing out once again that it's "Bush's fault". Did we really doubt it wasn't.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

As Yorkshire Pud wrote, nobody expected this could occur.  The cost of developing a vaccine is usually at least $1B.

I understand the economic decision-making process.

I've heard all kinds of numbers thrown around for the cost of Gulf War II.  Anything from a trillion to six trillion dollars in direct and indirect costs.  Let's go with the lower estimate, and people can adjust up or down as their credulity suits them.

The USA could have developed one thousand vaccines for the cost of ONE war.  At a rate of a new vaccine released per month, we could keep the labs humming for over eighty years straight.  Imagine the effect of saving lives rather than taking them.  Imagine the improvement to the quality of life.  Imagine the effect on the US economy.  Imagine the improvement of the image of the USA to the rest of the world. 

Nope, better to spend a billion on a bunch of worthless aircraft that we demolish a few years later after barely using them.  We could have had an ebola vaccine, but instead we got shit.

[Yorkshire pud]

I understand the economic decision-making process.

I've heard all kinds of numbers thrown around for the cost of Gulf War II.  Anything from a trillion to six trillion dollars in direct and indirect costs.  Let's go with the lower estimate, and people can adjust up or down as their credulity suits them.

The USA could have developed one thousand vaccines for the cost of ONE war.  At a rate of a new vaccine released per month, we could keep the labs humming for over eighty years straight.  Imagine the effect of saving lives rather than taking them.  Imagine the improvement to the quality of life.  Imagine the effect on the US economy.  Imagine the improvement of the image of the USA to the rest of the world. 

Nope, better to spend a billion on a bunch of worthless aircraft that we demolish a few years later after barely using them.  We could have had an ebola vaccine, but instead we got shit.

You'll get no argument with me on that. However, we both know that wars make money, LOTS of money for a few firms, contractors, individuals. Vaccines however are not guaranteed after spending millions on trying to develop them. Oh, and unless they're used on millions who will buy/ have them bought for them, there's no certainty of making a profit from the R&D. It's why they have time limited patents, to try and recoup the investment.

[PB the Deplorable]

... The travel banners may have enormous faith in the competence of government...

Goodness, hypocrisy from the right?  Who would have expected THAT?...

It's not an all or nothing game.  We Conservatives believe there is a place for government, duh.

We just don't think it needs to be anywhere near the size that it has turned into. 

... Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, thinks that we would have had an effective vaccine by now had it not been for the cuts to the agency over the last decade...

Well, again, there were no cuts.  The CDC decided to shift their focus and resources to issues other then disease control, such as motorcycle helmets, gun grabbing, and playground equipment safety.

A lie told a million times is still a lie.  The fact is Obama is a human wrecking ball and everything he touches turns to shit



Take a look at these two items 1) Conservatives don't believe in government, until they want something, and 2) Republican 'Cuts' were responsible for the lack of a vaccine.

Do either even make sense, pass the smell test, or whatever?  No.  Have they both been debunked repeatedly?  Yes.  Are either that difficult to understand?  I would not have thought so, but apparently the are.  Are Dumbocrats really this stupid, or do they think the rest of us are?  That's a really good question, PB


“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

- Mark Twain

[Yorkshire pud]

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

- Mark Twain

True; but it doesn't stop right wing bollox either.


But anyway; better news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29707393

[PB the Deplorable]

Here's an article for those who believe government is always the answer, and business is always evil.  You want to know why there isn't an Ebola vaccine, this should about cover it. 

There is no reward for authorizing a pharmaceutical, only punishment if something goes wrong with even one patient.  This isn't the first time drugs or procedures have been delayed and denied to people who were sure to die without them, due to bureaucratic roadblocks.  There is a fine line between ensuring something is safe, and bureaucratic overreach

http://nypost.com/2014/10/16/how-the-feds-block-ebola-cures/


Please feel free to ignore the article and continue insisting this is about 'cuts'

[Yorkshire pud]

Here's an article for those who believe government is always the answer, and business is always evil.  You want to know why there isn't an Ebola vaccine, this should about cover it. 

There is no reward for authorizing a pharmaceutical, only punishment if something goes wrong with even one patient.  This isn't the first time drugs or procedures have been delayed and denied to people who were sure to die without them, due to bureaucratic roadblocks.  There is a fine line between ensuring something is safe, and bureaucratic overreach

http://nypost.com/2014/10/16/how-the-feds-block-ebola-cures/


Please feel free to ignore the article and continue insisting this is about 'cuts'

New York Post isn't credible though. That article is also factually incorrect. But as it's readership is mainly simpletons who haven't a clue about the REALWORLDâ,,¢, and who don't understand it, it carries little relevance.

[VtaGeezer]

We Conservatives believe there is a place for government, duh.

Yes, you do.  It's the same place you reserve for science and social development; the 18th Century.

[PB the Deplorable]

New York Post isn't credible though...

Oh, I know that.

How could they be, they aren't up Obama's ass

... That article is also factually incorrect. But as it's readership is mainly simpletons who haven't a clue about the REALWORLDâ,,¢, and who don't understand it, it carries little relevance.

So the truth and accuracy of an article depends on how you feel about someone who reads it  Why didn't you tell us this long ago, it would have saved quite a bit of time.

Actually, the significant parts of the article are either true or they are not true.  Regardless of whether you like the paper or not.  I notice you attack the paper and it's readers, but not the information.  Interesting, no?  Because it's all about 'cuts', and increasing the size of government.


By the way, just so you know - living here in what was once the AIDS capital of the world, the part about politics giving way to bureaucracy as far as the earlier release of the AIDS drugs they mention is correct.  I don't follow medical news all that much, but the bureaucratic delaying and denial of other drugs and procedures while patients die isn't really a secret either. 

Did you bother to go to the website of the bio-tech companies mentioned, or look for other confirming articles before dismissing the whole thing?  I'm guessing not.  It doesn't fit into your worldview.

[VtaGeezer]

New York Post isn't credible though. That article is also factually incorrect. But as it's readership is mainly simpletons who haven't a clue about the REALWORLDâ,,¢, and who don't understand it, it carries little relevance.

The norm for conservatives today, I'm afraid.  What do you expect from a movement now led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Rafael Ted Cruz

[PB the Deplorable]

Yes, you do.  It's the same place you reserve for science and social development; the 18th Century.

You've claimed before that you used to be a Conservative.

I'm calling BS on that.  You've shown you don't know who the Conservatives are, what their principles are, what they believe, anything.

I didn't believe you from the start - once a person sees the light, very seldom do they go back. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Oh, I know that.

How could they be, they aren't up Obama's ass

You're right; it's worse than that, it's Murdochs arse wipe.

So the truth and accuracy of an article depends on how you feel about someone who reads it  Why didn't you tell us this long ago, it would have saved quite a bit of time.

No, I didn't say that. I said it is full of factual errors, but as it's readership (I use that advisedly) aren't that critical in thinking, and likely not in the top 50% of intelligence, it matters not.

Actually, the significant parts of the article are either true or they are not true.  Regardless of whether you like the paper or not.  I notice you attack the paper and it's readers, but not the information.  Interesting, no?  Because it's all about 'cuts', and increasing the size of government.


By the way, just so you know - living here in what was once the AIDS capital of the world, the part about politics giving way to bureaucracy as far as the earlier release of the AIDS drugs they mention is correct.  I don't follow medical news all that much, but the bureaucratic delaying and denial of other drugs and procedures while patients die isn't really a secret either. 

Did you bother to go to the website of the bio-tech companies mentioned, or look for other confirming articles before dismissing the whole thing?  I'm guessing not.  It doesn't fit into your worldview.

I usually read most articles and then I decide the credible ones to read further into..Daily Mail would fall into the NYP cess pit of journalism.

[Lt.Uhura]

Well, again, there were no cuts.  The CDC decided to shift their focus and resources to issues other then disease control, such as motorcycle helmets, gun grabbing, and playground equipment

Rather than embarrass yourself with statements like this, you might want to review the top ten leading causes of death in the U.S and take note of the fact that accidents--including those involving motorcycles, guns, and playground equipment--are a major health care concern for Americans.  Not only measured in loss of life, but in the millions of tax dollars you and other Americans spend on the health care costs associated with long-term accident disabilities (including round the clock nursing care, physical therapy, rehabilitation, etc.)

[Yorkshire pud]

Rather than embarrass yourself with statements like this, you might want to review the top ten leading causes of death in the U.S and take note of the fact that accidents--including those involving motorcycles, guns, and playground equipment--are a major health care concern for Americans.  Not only measured in loss of life, but in the millions of tax dollars you and other Americans spend on the health care costs associated with long-term accident disability (including round the clock nursing care, physical therapy, rehabilitation, etc.)

You can't keep doing that to him; he'll think you're a commie.

[VtaGeezer]

You've claimed before that you used to be a Conservative.

I'm calling BS on that.  You've shown you don't know who the Conservatives are, what their principles are, what they believe, anything.

I didn't believe you from the start - once a person sees the light, very seldom do they go back.

No news there; you 'call bullshit' on most facts. I thought I'd already had my dose of closed minds for the day with the two Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my front door, but I then checked BG and saw your latest.

[PB the Deplorable]

Rather than embarrass yourself with statements like this, you might want to review the top ten leading causes of death in the U.S and take note of the fact that accidents--including those involving motorcycles, guns, and playground equipment--are a major health care concern for Americans.  Not only measured in loss of life, but in the millions of tax dollars you and other Americans spend on the health care costs associated with long-term accident disability (including round the clock nursing care, physical therapy, rehabilitation, etc.)

I didn't say they weren't important, I said they weren't diseases, and that the CDC should be focused on their mission and not this other stuff.  And that there are other agencies charged with those issues. 

Offhand, there is the NIH, Dept of Transportation, Health and Human Services, on and on.  But only one Center For Disease Control:

... it turns out the CDC was spending their money and time on issues other than what their mission is:  playground equipment safety, gun control, motorcycle helmet laws, violent video games, on and on - anything and everything other than what they are supposed to be doing. 

All under this worst President in history. There are other agencies that are supposed to work on these issues...

So not only am I not embarrassed, I'm correct.

[PB the Deplorable]

No news there; you 'call bullshit' on most facts. I thought I'd already had my dose of closed minds for the day with the two Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my front door, but I then checked BG and saw your latest.

I notice you didn't contradict what I said

And I doubt you've even seen any Jehovah Witnesses in years.

[albrecht]

Rather than embarrass yourself with statements like this, you might want to review the top ten leading causes of death in the U.S and take note of the fact that accidents--including those involving motorcycles, guns, and playground equipment--are a major health care concern for Americans.  Not only measured in loss of life, but in the millions of tax dollars you and other Americans spend on the health care costs associated with long-term accident disabilities (including round the clock nursing care, physical therapy, rehabilitation, etc.)

Everyone knows this. Far more people die or get injured from falling than will die from Ebola or terrorism. But it is important to deal with Ebola or terrorism, in a sane, thoughtful matter. But, most importantly, an Ebola patient bleeding out on the street in some African hell-hole or a Muslim cutting off some poor person's head 1000 miles away generates visceral fear and promotes the opportunity for government scope and contol to grow and defense, and other, contractors to make big $$. And for radio/tv shows to get ratings.

[PB the Deplorable]

Thank you for pointing out once again that it's "Bush's fault". Did we really doubt it wasn't.

The problem here is that now pretty much every person on the planet realizes Barrack Obama is a congenital liar.

When his gross incompetence shows up on some issue, or he is caught in some illegal action, he can no longer really claim that he 'won't rest until he get's to the bottom' of whatever it is.  He can no longer claim that he is going to 'conduct a full investigation'.  He can no longer claim that he 'didn't know a thing about it until reading about it in the morning paper'.

No one believes him anymore, and those comments are no longer effective in kicking the ball down the road

So instead he puts out talking points among his shills and Media accomplices - in this example blaming his failure on 'Republican cuts'.  Fer crying out loud, he's the one that suggested the sequester, so even if there were cuts (which there weren't) they would be his.


The problem with putting out lies instead of kicking the issue down the road is usually they are easily found out.  It may take a few days or weeks for real journalists to get the facts straight before publishing them, and I guess the hope is some new issue will come along and people will be onto something else before the lies are exposed, but it didn't happen this time.

Sorry.

[PB the Deplorable]

Nope, wrong again...
From the CDC website on their mission and role.

[attachimg=1]

Yes, Obama has them doing anything and everything other than what they are supposed to be doing.

[albrecht]

Yes, Obama has them doing anything and everything other than what they are supposed to be doing.

I'm surprised they weren't tasked with Muslim outreach as their first priority.

[Lt.Uhura]

Yes, Obama has them doing anything and everything other than what they are supposed to be doing.

From the CDC Mission and Role