Liberia is staggering under the plague of Ebola, with the death toll rising daily. Treating the sick and dying is risky work for medical professionals. But dealing with the dead is even more risky.
The Washington Post reports that those who bury the bodies face an even greater risk, because the bodies are more contagious than the living patients.
"When the person has just died, that is when the body is most contagious," WHO spokesperson Tarik Jasarevic told The Post on Thursday. "It's when the virus is overtaking the whole body."
In addition to physically handling the body, some of which are found lying in the streets for days, burial workers, many of them untrained in biological containment, have to wash down everything [pdf] in bleach, including the vehicles, the suites and the areas where bodies are found.
Religious burial traditions often get in the way. Some villages refuse to let doctors in, threatening them with knives and stones according to an earlier New York Times article. They continue to handle their dead with traditional Muslim manual washing, even as entire families are infected. People appear to have more confidence in witch doctors.
Related Stories
ScienceMag.org is reporting that the World Health Organization (WHO) is currently contemplating using "Convalescent Serum" (blood) from Ebola survivors to treat Ebola patients.
As the Ebola outbreaks rages on in West Africa, the World Health Organization (WHO), desperate for a way to help infected people, is reconsidering a potential Ebola treatment tried as far back as 1976, after the first documented outbreak of the deadly viral disease: using the blood of people who have recovered from an infection to treat those still fighting the virus.
"Convalescent serum is high on our list of potential therapies and has been used in other outbreaks (e.g. in China during SARS)", WHO said in a written statement. "There is a long history of its use, so lots of experience of what needs to be done, what norms and standards need to be met."
The Ebola virus has sickened at least 2,127 people and killed 1,145 of them in Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia, and Nigeria. Those numbers may "vastly underestimate the magnitude of the outbreak", WHO warned on Thursday. It is already the largest Ebola outbreak ever recorded.
The treatment with Convalescent Serum isn't the no-brainer that some might suppose.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by That_Dude on Friday August 08 2014, @12:31PM
Is it just me or is anyone else reluctant to comment the obvious?
I will only say that every scenario I can fathom has a grim outcome - except that real estate is probably going to become a lot cheaper after this plays out.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dunbal on Friday August 08 2014, @12:47PM
Yeah I love the way the media went absolutely batshit crazy about H1N1, SARS, swine 'flu, etc - to the point of filling emergency rooms with hypochondriacs, and yet is completely understating the potential of this virus. People keep spouting off "it's not airborne" as if that meant anything. The common cold is not "airborne" either. Neither is HIV or Hepatitis. Most viruses are transmitted through bodily fluids - the guy who wipes the snot from his nose, doesn't wash his hands and then comes and touches your hand or some surface you later touch, you don't wash your hand and eventually you scratch your nose, your eyes, or stick your finger in your mouth. The "droplet" myth is just a myth.
And the huge, huge problem with Ebola is that its incubation period can be anywhere up to 20 days. So you might not even remember that sick person next to you on the bus 2 weeks ago when you head off to the clinic for that "really bad cold" you got all of a sudden.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Buck Feta on Friday August 08 2014, @01:09PM
There. Now it's airborne.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2, Interesting) by That_Dude on Friday August 08 2014, @01:28PM
You did a really good job of not elaborating beyond what I was willing to comment - kudos! I just don't seem to have the kind of patience you have.
The two problems I have with this article is that it points out a concentrated source of viable virus and that it seems really strange that "witch doctors" and their adherents are practicing and defending Muslim traditions - seems like a conflict of ideologies distilled into cultural beliefs.
Time for me to move to a remote uninhabited island in the north Pacific for a few years!
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday August 08 2014, @05:01PM
Yeah you and a few thousand others are already booking flights, I'm sure they appreciate the increase in disease vectors heading their way :D
Anyway you misunderstand: it's both "animist" witch-doctors and muslims who both separately exacerbate the spread of Ebola because of their separate customs of "cleanliness", "honor", maybe even cannibalism (it exists but due to the "magic principles" involved would be accidental in as far as the disease is concerned) and maybe also closely related things like making talismans out of parts of dead people (applying the idea of fighting fire with fire), burial rites and whatnot.
Africa? Sorry was talking about a few Africans in London there for a second, or some African football (soccer) players and so on :P (search and you will find, no reason to disbelieve it just because most people aren't like that).
I assume most everyone has heard the reports of people attacking the doctors, nurses, and places of treatment based on wild rumors about things like human experimentation? Just goes to show most people in general aren't all that much better.
But above all human hubris reigns supreme and ready at the slightest opportunity, no one seems to have any shortage of that anywhere no matter what alphabet soup of acronyms are invoked.
Add that everywhere muslim and also most of Africa is overpopulated with regard to the required natural resources (i.e. not oil, coal, sand or stones) as well as their societies and cultures. Unsettling as it may be things like Live Aid, foreign aid, and UN food programs are very likely a part of the problem (this time too).
Regardless of all that I'm less worried about this than I probably ought to be. Imho it's at most the 3rd biggest issue right now even if it turns out to kill me (and I don't even believe in "AGW is gonna kill us" lol so that's not in the running at all) and despite not only the big stuff like how most of the industrialized world (and particularly the US and "western" Europe) isn't anywhere close to where it was supposed to be in terms of democratic uncorrupted rational governance, but also small stuff like how many wash their hands after toilet visits and also when coming home and before meals. Keyboards and mice anyone?
I'm sure the borders will close when it's too late (because politicians), just look how long it took the WHO to declare a crisis, it was weeks overdue.
And if this turns out to be the big one then I for one welcome our Inuit, Chukchi, or Amazon overlords, maybe they'll make a better world :)
P.S. Madagascar is muslim :)
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1) by unauthorized on Friday August 08 2014, @02:40PM
Ebola is not infectious during the incubation period. An infected individual can transmit disease only when s/he is already showing the symptoms [cdc.gov].
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Friday August 08 2014, @03:18PM
That wasn't the point that the poster was making. The 21 day incubation period is going to make it harder to trace contacts and also to determine who is actually an ebola risk and needs isolating and who isn't.
The other big problem is that the initial symptoms are fatigue, fever, headache, sore throat and pain in the joints and muscles - could be loads of other things (hell, I got most of those right now). At that point, IF it is ebola, the patient IS infectious. Good luck...
(Score: 1) by That_Dude on Friday August 08 2014, @03:32PM
Not sure what point you are fine-tuning/correcting.
From the article:
"When the person has just died, that is when the body is most contagious," WHO spokesperson Tarik Jasarevic told The Post on Thursday. "It's when the virus is overtaking the whole body."
I wouldn't touch a dead body in the street.
Sniffles and fever constitute showing symptoms.
The CDC article you referenced also states: "the likelihood of this outbreak spreading outside of West Africa is very low"
However....???
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-28678699 [bbc.com]
I don't think anyone can predict how far or long this outbreak will spread or adapt and mutate.
In the mean time, I'm stocking up on thieves oil.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @04:10PM
> The CDC article you referenced also states: "the likelihood of this outbreak spreading outside of West Africa is very low"
>
> However....???
Get a hold of yourself. Your chicken little impression is waaay too good.
One man is not an outbreak.
He's not even confirmed to have ebola.
Even if it is ebola, he didn't contract it in Saudi, he just got back from Sierra Leone.
(Score: 1) by That_Dude on Friday August 08 2014, @05:58PM
Thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings!
Over 900 dead out of 1700 infected is an outbreak, (citations easily available in a search).
Yes, I too read that the traveler left Sierra Leone for Saudi Arabia - and even though he had "symptoms", he died of a heart attack and that test results might be in the works. One traveling man has the potential to cause a pandemic. There was no mention of backtracking his path and contacts- that's spooky! But you have a point, he might have just had the flu, freaked out and his ticker couldn't take it. For me, it's a reminder that this sh#t is no joke - one is all it takes. Hopefully the guys family isn't hand washing him in Saudi too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @06:22PM
>> The CDC article you referenced also states: "the likelihood of this outbreak spreading outside of West Africa is very low"
> Over 900 dead out of 1700 infected is an outbreak, (citations easily available in a search).
ONE person dead outside of west africa is NOT an outbreak.
Calm yourself.
> one is all it takes.
No it does not. You have been watching too much hollywood. It takes thousands.
(Score: 1) by Open4D on Friday August 08 2014, @04:03PM
According to one columnist "Concerned about Ebola? You're worrying about the wrong disease [theguardian.com]"
When challenged about his credentials, he said [theguardian.com] "here's one of the epidemiologists who discovered and researched Ebola making many of the same points I just did: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c3088086-1708-11e4-b0d7-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz38wOvU6Mi [ft.com] ". (However, the FT is paywalled, so I can't confirm that.)
Also [theguardian.com], although the "World Health Organisation has declared the Ebola outbreak an international public health emergency", it "is not recommending general bans on travel or trade".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @04:24PM
Of course, the media shitstorm didn't really happen until those diseases appeared in "developed" nations. There's not nearly as much travel between Monrovia and New York as there is between Seoul and New York. So, there's going to be a lot of Africans die, but the best way for a TV anchor to save himself from Ebola is simply to avoid travel to Liberia. H1N1, on the other hand, had appeared in said anchor's hometown and required more active prevention methods.
Or maybe it's just the news' complete inability to distinguish scale in risk and disasters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @04:29PM
Yeah I love the way the media went absolutely batshit crazy about H1N1, SARS, swine 'flu, etc - to the point of filling emergency rooms with hypochondriacs, and yet is completely understating the potential of this virus.
Are you watching the same news channels I am? Because the Ebola coverage is non-stop hysteria, exactly like all those other 'epidemics.'
That you could see all that and think it is "understating" says everything about your irrational state of mind and nothing about "the media." How many times do they have to fool you before you learn to think for yourself?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 08 2014, @04:39PM
Yeah I love the way the media went absolutely batshit crazy about H1N1, SARS, swine 'flu, etc - to the point of filling emergency rooms with hypochondriacs, and yet is completely understating the potential of this virus.
Maybe you are the one who lacks perspective.
H1N1: 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (8868-18,306) occurred in the United States Alone (and only 2009)!
Ebola: Entire world, all of time: 3141 total cases, 50-70% fatality rate on those.
H1N1 reference [cdc.gov]
Ebola reference [cdc.gov]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday August 08 2014, @05:47PM
Death rate from this particular strain of Ebola is already at 74% in Guinea.
Ebola (all strains) rate between 60 percent and 96 percent.
H1N1 death rate was just 0.02 percent world wide.
See the difference? Never make the mistake of looking only at the numerator.
The rate is 78.5 percent average death rate over 14 past outbreaks of the same virus - called the "Zaire strain".
Ebola becomes more deadly as it nears the end of the outbreak (which seems odd). But its partly just statistical lag.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/05/health-ebola-mortality-idUSL6N0QB2SN20140805 [reuters.com]
This outbreak is different because is is MUCH wider spread than past ones, which were restricted to local areas.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @06:28PM
> H1N1 death rate was just 0.02 percent world wide.
>
> See the difference? Never make the mistake of looking only at the numerator.
For someone complaining about people taking an overly simplistic view you are doing a bang-up job of doing exactly the same thing.
The flu is communicable with no visible symptoms, unlike ebola.
The flu is much more contagious than ebola.
The flu's low mortality rate makes the spread much easier because dead hosts don't move around.
(Score: 1) by pogostix on Saturday August 09 2014, @12:48AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @01:56AM
"Flu-like symptoms" not "hemorrhagic fever-like symptoms." OMG!! Run for the hills!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Kilo110 on Friday August 08 2014, @12:35PM
"Religious burial traditions often get in the way. Some villages refuse to let doctors in, threatening them with knives and stones according to an earlier New York Times article. The continue to handle their dead with traditional Muslim manual washing, even as entire families are infected. People appear to have more confidence in witch doctors."
Sounds like that'll sort itself out. Eventually they'll realize they should probably let the doctors do their thing. Might even have a net positive effect in the long run as it may lead to more trust in doctors rather than witch doctors.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday August 08 2014, @01:11PM
My guess on why the residents aren't looking to doctors is that they know perfectly well that there's very little the doctors can do. By comparison, the witch doctors can do something that at least has a placebo effect.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Nollij on Friday August 08 2014, @01:58PM
Unfortunately, this section of the world has a strong belief in witchcraft, well beyond the current epidemic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft#Africa [wikipedia.org]
https://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-214882 [britannica.com]
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/mar/01/witchcraft-curse-africa-kristy-bamu [theguardian.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/donkey-prostitute-zimbabwe_n_1035194.html [huffingtonpost.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday August 08 2014, @03:07PM
No argument there - My point was that if you grew up in an environment where witchcraft was perceived as real, and there's a disease where the doctors have no cure, you're going to at least consider trying witchcraft. After all, you have Ebola, and the doctors can't help you, so what do you have to lose?
There are lots of people in the US with cancer who pray for their survival. Many of those who make it through become very religious afterwords, because as far as they can tell their prayers are why they survived while many others with the same medical conditions and treatment didn't make it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ticho on Friday August 08 2014, @07:40PM
Your sig is especially relevant to your comment. :-)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Dunbal on Friday August 08 2014, @12:41PM
"People appear to have more confidence in witch doctors."
That's just natural selection in action. Eventually all those who prefer witch doctors will die out, and those that remain will understand basic hygiene.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Friday August 08 2014, @02:00PM
Witch doctors, shamans, snakeoil slaesmen etc. have been around for thousands of years without any sign of that happening. They persist even in so-called modern educated societies, see e.g.: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/07/christian-broadcaster-ebola-could-cleanse-us-of-atheists-gay-people-and-sluts/ [rawstory.com]
Ironically, traditional tribal practice in the ebola area apparently (wish I could find the source where I read this) did "understand basic hygiene" - symptomatic persons confined to hut, food put under door, after a few weeks either they come out ok, or if the food is not eaten the hut is burned down (repeat to whole village level as required). Now that they have "developed" and urbanized they have forgotten this, but some still eat traditional infected bushmeat...
Oh, and another thing - if 1st world doctors working with full protection suits etc. are still getting infected, is "basic hygiene" enough against this ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @04:16PM
> if 1st world doctors working with full protection suits etc. are still getting infected,
Why do you assume they are working with "full protection suits?" Have you seen even one photo of actual doctors in the field treating the poor while wearing these "suits?" These guys are volunteers working in communities that are literally dirt-poor and ridiculously under-equipped. The are lucky to have electricity, there is no way those doctors have these "suits" you think they do.
Show me one case of ebola contracted in a modern medical facility and then you might possibly begin to have a point. Until then, apply brain and calm yourself.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday August 08 2014, @06:48PM
There are Biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) suits in use in Africa, one of the victims was a nurse who among other things was responsible for disinfecting those suits (while wearing one naturally).
Modern BSL-4 suits don't require ceiling rails for oxygen supply any more, that design is outdated and it might be the reason why you've missed the pictures or misinterpreted them.
Are there enough BSL-4 suits? No. Does everyone have them? No. Pretty safe bet there isn't enough of those anywhere in the world. For comparison there are only about fifteen BSL-4 labs in the entire US (and fifteen is a lot, so many in fact that the rest of the world is uneasy about their dual use capabilities for biological warfare). Of course those labs are for sciene not medical treatment, couldn't find any figures for the total number of BSL-4 isolation rooms for patients but it's not unlikely to be in the range of a few rooms per one million people, let's guess about 700 in the entire US. At least that's likely the kind of scale we're talking about, double it if it makes you feel better, or double it again. It's still fewer rooms than the number of infected in a somewhat limited region of western Africa (nowhere close to the whole of west Africa). Ebola is a BSL-4 agent. BSL-4 is the maximum containment level.
So anyway how does it happen even with the suits? Well how does leaving Anthrax lying around "open" happen in a CDC lab?
Same thing: when you need perfection pretty much all the time to handle things right then you're asking for trouble. Extreme measures seldom scale well (unless it's the extreme use of force). Maybe it's helpful to think of it as some kind of organizational entropy [wikipedia.org]. A perfect analogy would of course be computer "security".
Now let's wait until some of the "people in charge" or their media on a leash remembers the likelihood of there being people who have been waiting for an outbreak such as this to create "human bombs" to spread the disease as a weapon. I can't be the only one who still remembers that?
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @06:50PM
> one of the victims was a nurse who among other things was responsible for
> disinfecting those suits (while wearing one naturally)
You are doing that thing where you take two unrelated facts and put them together.
She was not infected while wearing such a suit.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday August 09 2014, @07:52AM
Didn't say she was, didn't mean to imply it either but then again while their whole purpose is for it not to happen it isn't impossible (by error or fault).
If I remember correctly she worked in the same place as the US doctor that got infected so who knows, someone fucking up is always a possibility and easier than anyone likes to admit.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by Ezber Bozmak on Friday August 08 2014, @06:57PM
There are Biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) suits in use in Africa, one of the victims was a nurse who among other things was responsible for disinfecting those suits (while wearing one naturally).
Where is your evidence for this claim? I googled for it and found nothing to support it.
You are willing to go to the effort to link to a low-value wikipedia article but not for the most sensational of your claims, why is that?
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday August 09 2014, @10:56AM
Hmm, see the other reply [soylentnews.org], I'm guessing that's the answer to you as well? Sorry for causing the misunderstanding although I'm not really sure why people would think any measure is infallible: reality gives no such guarantee.
I've only found links to another nurse in a similar situation, all search results are swamped with the same 4 cases most media has latched on to: the top virologist, one nurse, and the two US missionaries. Here's a typical link [cbsnews.com] with all of them linked in the text. This nurse was using other protective gear and since that's not what I was referencing I might simply be wrong even if I later find a link to it (the source can be wrong as well). All that aside: since Ebola isn't "airborne" the differences aren't supposed to be all that large (then one might ask "why BSL-4 containment for Ebola?" and the simplest answer is "well I sure would prefer a BSL-4 suit").
Why aren't the differences all that large? Compare a BSL-4 suit to the "ordinary" infantry full NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical, now sometimes called CBRN (R for Radiological), used to be called ABC (A for Atomic) as well) suits that were used during live VX [wikipedia.org] (airborne and thus nastier than Ebola but much faster) testing by the Brits etc.; if one is used to the idea of BSL-4 suits one would think that such NBC gear was pure madness but it works nearly all the time even if not truly hermetically sealed or having any positive pressure. For all the different means of protection the trickiest parts are the decontamination and taking it off.
By pure luck (and I've been searching using both "EMP4" and a lot of other stuff earlier) I've found a link from April this year mentioning something I didn't: the European mobile BSL-4 lab called EMP4 that's in West Africa, so even though it's a little bit unrelated here's that link [globalbiodefense.com] since I finally found it (maybe others were searching for that too). And on that note: the US discontinued their mobile AIT [wikipedia.org] BSL-4 level capacity in 2010 and hasn't replaced it with anything BSL-4 capable.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @12:07PM
So, what I'm getting from this response is (a) you were wrong that "doctors working with full protection suits are still getting infected" and (b) yadda-yadda-yadda about suits.
> although I'm not really sure why people would think any measure is infallible:
No one here said they were infallible, but that strawman certainly bolsters your hysteria. You were the one who made the false claim that no way could basic hygiene be sufficient since even doctors in full protections are getting infected.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday August 11 2014, @06:18PM
Wrong bridge idiot :)
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tonyPick on Friday August 08 2014, @02:02PM
Which would be a defensible approach, if the people who prefer witch doctors couldn't infect the rest of us, or their children.
See also issues with the anti vaccination movement [washingtonpost.com] for the problems involved.
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Friday August 08 2014, @03:14PM
Superstition is a meme (in the non-LOLcat sense) so successful it's been propagating among humans for millennia, against a virus less than a century old.
Ebola doesn't stand a chance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @04:06PM
> "People appear to have more confidence in witch doctors."
>
> That's just natural selection in action.
No. It is politics in action. It is what happens when a minority is crazy repressed. They get to a point where they strongly distrust anyone with authority.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @12:49PM
Let them die. If they genuinely don't want help from the only people who (A) want to and (B) can save them, then let them deal with the virus on their own.
Sigh.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by axsdenied on Friday August 08 2014, @12:59PM
You are completely missing the point. They want help but they think the witch doctor will do a better job than some stranger. The real problem here is the lack of education.
And if you "let them die" you run the risk of spreading the disease even more.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 08 2014, @03:15PM
And if you "let them die" you run the risk of spreading the disease even more.
Not necessarily: if villages full of idiots getting themselves sick through dumb burial practices are isolated and quarantined, and then allowed to die off, then the virus stops there. The disease spreads because of travel; quarantine any villages where it pops up and you won't have to worry about it spreading.
(Score: 1) by axsdenied on Sunday August 10 2014, @05:00AM
So you are saying we should not only not try to help them but also exterminate them all by imprisoning them. Even the healthy ones. And only because they are "idiots". Wow, we are living in a really sad world.
First of all your idea won't work as the incubation time for Ebola can be up to 20 days. The "idiots" would have already spread it around. Should we quarantine a village by village until we quarantine the whole country and let them all die? How about quarantining the whole Africa just to be sure?
Secondly why don't we extend your approach to, let's say, quarantining the antivaxers as soon as they get sick. Why should we try to help those "idiots"? We should just let them die.
Calling someone "an idiot" just because they did not have the opportunities and education that you had is plain idiotic. I am sure if you were in their position you would also trust the witch doctor that was "healing" them their whole life over some stranger.
How about educating them that modern medicine helps and that witch doctors don't do anything.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday August 11 2014, @02:48PM
The antivaxxers had the same opportunities and education that I had. They're generally middle-class (and up) white Americans. Education doesn't do any good when people refuse to listen, and believe some charlatan over experts in the field.
And yes, people should be quarantined and allowed to die if they refuse modern medical treatment, and refuse to take proper steps to prevent the spread of the disease, and instead do things which make it much worse. Why would you NOT quarantine them? You think others should be infected just because it's too "cruel" to isolate them? You want to condemn innocent people to death because a bunch of morons refused to listen to doctors? Why should they be allowed to leave? We can air-drop supplies in for them; it's not like they have to starve. We can even give them information on how to combat the disease's spread, so if they change their minds and stop listening to witch doctors or following stupid burial rites, some of them can avoid catching it themselves.
Quarantines are absolutely necessary in epidemics. You want a repeat of the Bubonic Plague disaster?
(Score: 1) by axsdenied on Saturday August 16 2014, @05:05AM
Nobody is talking about not quarantining them. The spread of the disease must be stopped.
But letting them die is cruel. The poor people in Africa never had the chance. Most of them probably never even finished the primary school. Lots never heard of modern medical treatment.
Teach them about medicine and likely most of them would pick it over witch doctors.
Teach them about hygiene and lost of those diseases will disappear.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday August 16 2014, @09:18PM
>Nobody is talking about not quarantining them. The spread of the disease must be stopped.
Then what's the problem?
>But letting them die is cruel.
They're giving themselves the disease, so they're going to die anyway. What are you going to do to help them when they won't listen?
If a bunch of people knowingly infect themselves with a disease, how much effort are others obligated to expend to try to save them (probably futilely)?
>Teach them about medicine and likely most of them would pick it over witch doctors.
>Teach them about hygiene and lost of those diseases will disappear.
People have tried. But Islam says dead people have to be buried a certain way, which guarantees the spread of the disease, so what are you going to do? Teach them their religious is bogus and wrong? Yeah, I'm sure they'll listen to that.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday August 08 2014, @01:16PM
You don't hate to say it, don't be facetious. I sure don't. Anybody who dicks around in third-world shitholes shouldn't be surprised when bad stuff happens. America has been doing it for decades and still hasn't learned its lesson.
Furthermore, there are too goddamn many people on this planet, and religious morons and other altruists are only accelerating its decline in keeping the useless alive. It's like prolonging the suffering of somebody with an advanced and extremely painful terminal illness instead of helping them put themselves out of their misery.
I too would laugh at my misfortune, for nature is not only a cruel bitch but a just and often-ironic one. And I could always escape from the hospital and fulfill my lifelong dream of defecating on Ronald Reagan's grave without any legal consequences.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @02:01PM
You wouldn't happen to be related to Ann Coulter [anncoulter.com], would you? Just asking.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday August 08 2014, @02:25PM
I'd argue that there is a use for religion in this world. In the least, it controls the masses, provides hope to the destitute, curbs cultural devolution into self destructive practices (for most moralistic religious), and provides a deterrent to those who do not fear the judgement of man. However, I'd agree that religious wars and threats of violence against religion or certain religious practices is pretty useless. It is also worth noting that with religion, there is risk of militant factions gaining control within the religious authority and use religious pretexts to forcefully subjugate the population.
Back on topic, I never expected Ebola to be the answer to factious militant Islam. Too bad it is on the wrong half of the continent.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Friday August 08 2014, @05:18PM
I'd argue that there is a use for religionFaith in this world. In the least, it controls the masses, provides hope to the destitute, curbs cultural devolution into self destructive practices (for most moralistic religious), and provides a deterrent to those who do not fear the judgement of man. However, I'd agree that religious wars and threats of violence against religion or certain religious practices is pretty useless. It is also worth noting that with religion, there is risk of militant factions gaining control within the religious authority and use religious pretexts to forcefully subjugate the population.
Minor correction, emphasis mine.
To paraphrase Hebrews "Through Faith, all things are possible". Religion is a secular construct, Faith is meta-physical.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @05:28PM
> risk of militant factions gaining control within the religious authority and use religious pretexts to forcefully subjugate the population.
Which is no different from any other ideology. History is full of exactly the same thing happening in secular authorities. Khmer rouge, cultural revolution, Stalin, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @03:52PM
Furthermore, there are too goddamn many people on this planet, and religious morons and other altruists are only accelerating its decline in keeping the useless alive.
I do not get this attitude at all. Who determines they are 'useless'? Who says they should 'die'? Just because you say so? Another group tried this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps [wikipedia.org]. They too had a body problem. What do you do with millions of dead bodies?
Even lets say something does not wipe us out. We are automating everything. Eventually there will be very few jobs. Should we only have enough humans to run the bots? And then who says that can not be automated? We will all be 'useless'. We will never make art/goods that are better than what some AI that has Mozart and Picasso and Einstein and davinci and rosevelt programmed into its brain. We can not do the job better than them. We are extra, it is just a mater of time.
fulfill my lifelong dream of defecating on Ronald Reagan's grave without any legal consequences.
Why would you bother? He is dead. Or do you feel he personally harmed you in some way? Or are you just being 'edgy'? Grow up. Teenagers talk that way. Oh I know you are 'democrat' who thinks anything 'republican' is garbage. Compromise is 'shut the fuck up and listen to me and do it my way because i be smurt'. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP [wikipedia.org] then compare it to the current Democratic platform you will find it has much in common (republicans are doing it too). You have even picked your 'boogie man' 'old rich republicans'. The way you wish to lead us is morally bankrupt and in the end makes everything worse.
(Score: 2) by tynin on Friday August 08 2014, @04:46PM
By useless, I believe he was referring to comatose patients that have no hope of a future and will forever be hooked to a machine to live. Somehow the religious folk grab ahold of this as being the godly thing to do, die slowly and with a gigantic medical bill that will destroy your family.
Regardless, you got trolled, and I'm responding to an AC, so I guess we both lose at the internet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @07:41PM
I believe your interpretation of his comment is far too generous.
I think you need to get out more and see the Real World (tm). My father was a Presbyterian minister. He died of cancer some years back. At the end, mom had to fight back (almost certainly) well-meaning doctors in the ICU who wanted to hook him up to a respirator; he didn't want to go out that way. She has made up a living will which makes it clear that she is requesting a DNR order--and no respirator--when it comes her time to go. Whatever "religious folk" you are hanging out with, they aren't any of the people I am familiar with.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday August 08 2014, @05:31PM
"Even lets say something does not wipe us out. We are automating everything. Eventually there will be very few jobs. Should we only have enough humans to run the bots? And then who says that can not be automated? We will all be 'useless'. We will never make art/goods that are better than what some AI that has Mozart and Picasso and Einstein and davinci and rosevelt programmed into its brain. We can not do the job better than them. We are extra, it is just a mater of time."
Well the future doesn't need us [wikipedia.org] as Bill Joy said. As a species we are quite stupid, really anyway.
As for useless. I guess poor and wealthy but irrational people will be less able to deal and protect against the disease. It may certainly put the ability of organizations to intelligently handle real events to a hardline test. Any cheating or flawed action plans and you loose control.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday August 09 2014, @02:37AM
The argument is based on poor economic thinking. One doesn't need to do something better than the machines in order to get work. After all, if you're too poor to afford the services of the machines, then you're going to be buying services from humans instead.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday August 09 2014, @04:58PM
Few humans with machines will control any raw resources of any importance. So you can buy, but they can't sell..
(Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday August 09 2014, @09:15PM
It's not that hard to get resources. That's the cheap part of the problem. And once you have resources, you have something to trade with other hapless humans with their own resources and labor. And robots aren't going to have or need full use of the Earth's surface.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday August 08 2014, @06:26PM
I last voted for Gary Johnson, a moderate Republican who ran third-party because the mainstream Republican party, like the Democratic party, was devoid of sanity and common-sense.
But you're a retard, and I am a retard for responding to a retard.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday August 08 2014, @07:00PM
Responding to this because something cool is going on and I don't want to be left out :D
*receives certificate* (well I made it myself but that's cool too).
*puts it next to diploma awarded in honor of working with autistic children* (someone else made that one, it's small, cheap, real, and full of good memories).
Yay us! :D
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Friday August 08 2014, @08:26PM
It's retards all the way down.
Including myself.
Shit.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @07:48PM
Indeed. It reminds me of the ghost of Christmas Present in Dicken's A Christmas Carol:
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @08:07PM
Well, if your concern is that "there are too goddamn many people on this planet", I can think of one way you could do your part to remedy the situation. What's that, you say? You are far too indispensable to be piled on the garbage heap for "recycling"? Why would you think that? Now I am going to go out on a limb here and make a diagnosis that you suffer from delusions of adequacy.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Taibhsear on Friday August 08 2014, @01:29PM
Not to be that guy but they need to be incinerating these bodies, preferably from a distance a la flamethrower. At some point the fate of the rest of the country/continent/world become of greater importance than your ignorant imaginary man in the sky bullshit.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @01:45PM
Oh yes lets have what doesnt burn get airborn. As all those places have perfectly sealed places to do the burning. /sarc
If you burn them you have to do it right. You have to get the fire very very very hot. ~800C if I remember correctly. Does anyone know what temp the pathogen burns at?
(Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Friday August 08 2014, @02:38PM
This source [thefreedictionary.com] says flamethrowers (using kerosene) burn at 1000 degrees C.
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] says all these types of fuel burn at at least 1900 degrees C.
It also has to say about cremation [wikipedia.org]: "A cremator is an industrial furnace that is able to generate temperatures of 870-980 degrees C (1,600-1,800 degrees F) to ensure disintegration of the corpse."
Sounds like it would work ok to me.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday August 08 2014, @05:57PM
There are very few crematoriums in that part of the world. Another thing Islam has given the world.
Besides, you have to put the bodies in the crematorium.
Burning down Huts (typically mud walled huts are used in tribal Guinea, just isn't going to cut it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @12:45AM
Those are theoretical maximums under optimal conditions and that is the temperature of the adiabatic flame itself (not the temperature of the flame after heat has been lost to the environment or while heat is being lost to the environment and not the temperature of the surroundings). If you throw a flame thrower at any given time you're going to have a range of temperatures within a burning area depending on how much fuel is present at each specific spot, oxygen conditions, and other factors.
From your Wikipedia article
"Assuming initial atmospheric conditions (1 bar and 20 °C), the following table list the adiabatic flame temperature for various gases under constant pressure conditions. The temperatures mentioned here are for a stoichiometric fuel-oxidizer mixture (i.e. equivalence ratio φ = 1).
Note these are theoretical, not actual, flame temperatures produced by a flame that loses no heat. The closest will be the hottest part of a flame, where the combustion reaction is most efficient. This also assumes complete combustion (e.g. perfectly balanced, non-smokey, usually bluish flame)"
(Score: 1) by unauthorized on Friday August 08 2014, @02:54PM
Most organic molecules are easily destroyed in fairly low temperatures. Proteins are destroyed at temperatures as low as 60C.
You want the flames hotter to ensure that you burn through all the tissue until nothing remains but cinders. Not every molecule would reach the necessary temperature if you don't apply enough heat.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday August 09 2014, @02:32AM
(Score: 5, Funny) by isostatic on Friday August 08 2014, @01:48PM
But global warming!!
(Score: 3, Funny) by Snotnose on Friday August 08 2014, @03:08PM
The soot in the atmosphere will block the sun's rays, cooling the planet. Add to that the airborne virii spreading over a wide area, creating more bodies, more soot, more virii, etc, ebola is a perfect solution to global warming!!!
/ no clue if any of this scienciffy stuff is accurate
// My butt, where my facts come from
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday August 08 2014, @07:27PM
As one of the 'imaginary man' people I fully endorse your comment. Admittedly easy for me since I want cremation anyways for myself.
Too many "believers" underestimate God into (human) ridiculousness.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 3) by ngarrang on Friday August 08 2014, @03:09PM
This is the one time I would advocate a complete government intervention for the good of the people. The dumb hicks simply do not understand that Ebola is not a curse from a god and cannot be cured by any amount of chanting and incense. That they are ignoring the simple fact that Ebola is transmitted by touching the infected person will indeed be a self-correcting problem.
Fortunately, Ebola is only contagious while it is showing symptoms. As much as it may cripple the areas with the infection, a 30-day quarantine needs to be put into place, all travel is forbidden, public gatherings, etc. The government needs to confiscate dead bodies, by force if necessary, and do what is needed to be done. Let the hicks complain. Otherwise, more people will continue to die.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @04:21PM
> This is the one time I would advocate a complete government intervention for the good of the people.
Shows how little you understand the situation on the ground. That is probably the worst possible option because the entire reason these people are not listening to western doctors is because they have decades of experience with their government abusing them. [economist.com]
A "complete government intervention" won't be for the good of the people, it will end up making the situation worse.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 08 2014, @03:10PM
Ebola's extreme lethality and short incubation time kept it at bay before. It would erupt in a rural village in Uganda or some such place and wipe everyone out before it could spread elsewhere. This time its incubation period seems to be longer and its lethality less, so it's better able to travel. As such, it's a matter of time before it hops on a plane and runs around the New York subway or London underground for a few days before it keels over and dies. There's no containing it then. The world is too interconnected. Even in an industrialized country most people don't pay attention to public service announcements or hygiene.
The good news for those of us who survive, through immunity rather than dumb luck, is it will mean the second coming of the Renaissance. The Black Death is widely credited with ending feudalism [wikipedia.org] in Europe, because there weren't enough peasants to go around any more and the bourgeoisie was able to push back against the aristocracy.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Friday August 08 2014, @06:14PM
The incubation period is the same as it always was. And the lethality is the same as well. The lower rates quoted
elsewhere are partly a statistical lag and partly governments trying to combat panic. Th real rate for this strain is around 78% lethal.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/05/health-ebola-mortality-idUSL6N0QB2SN20140805 [reuters.com]
I agree that the problem this time around is travel, and also knowledge. In the past, nobody knew what it was, nobody bothered to run away till it was too late. Nowdays even the locals have been educated enough about the mortality rate to run. Unfortunately many are already exposed when they do run.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @06:28PM
I would use remote controlled robots to treat Ebola patients. Hell, Ebola would be a good security feature against theft.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @01:54AM
Posted some musings here and now they are gone.
Suggesting that Israel and America can be targets for a terrorist attack.
Time to leave here, if this kind of sensorship continues.
Thought it was for the peer group to decide on what to bury.
Hope I just missed something like a bad Submit maybe.