Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Ebola... Let's just relax a little...

Posted on 10/17/14 at 8:29 am
Posted by Lokistale
Member since Aug 2013
1188 posts
Posted on 10/17/14 at 8:29 am
Lots of coverage, but very little actual/helpful info.

People are way too focus on the 2 nurses that got infected. While that development is disturbing, we forget that those two nurses were not the only people that were exposed.

The initial exposure group, Duncan's family members, the ER staff, and the EMS personel, were all in contact with Duncan while he was symptomatic without protective gear. Yet, none of the initial exposure group had reported or developed any signs or symptoms of infection, and their incubation time was much longer than the 2 nurses.

Thus, apparently the greatest risk of infection appears to be when the Ebola becomes fulminant and the infected individual is in mortal deterioration. So exposure to a person even when they exhibit early Ebola symptoms, the infection risk is extremely low.
Posted by terd ferguson
Darren Wilson Fan Club President
Member since Aug 2007
108728 posts
Posted on 10/17/14 at 8:29 am to
Posted by ell_13
Member since Apr 2013
84942 posts
Posted on 10/17/14 at 8:29 am to
Thanks for adding to the hysteria.
Posted by Traffic Circle
Down the Rabbit Hole
Member since Nov 2013
4231 posts
Posted on 10/17/14 at 8:30 am to
This is not as fun as panicking!
Posted by GeauxTigerTM
Member since Sep 2006
30596 posts
Posted on 10/17/14 at 8:30 am to
quote:

Ebola... Let's just relax a little...


Fine...but how are people going to panic if they take this advice?
Posted by dnm3305
Member since Feb 2009
13546 posts
Posted on 10/17/14 at 8:30 am to
Nice sample size.
Posted by DirtyMikeandtheBoys
Member since May 2011
19419 posts
Posted on 10/17/14 at 8:32 am to
Posted by Clyde Tipton
Planet Earth
Member since Dec 2007
38719 posts
Posted on 10/17/14 at 8:33 am to
quote:

Nice sample size.


I don't think OP even statistics, bro.
Posted by Lokistale
Member since Aug 2013
1188 posts
Posted on 10/17/14 at 8:52 am to
Sample size? Uh... Of courses it's pretty small, but Ebola just got here in the US.

But you can look at the sample size in the African countries with Ebola, the number of infection vs. population, you can see the ratio is extremely small even in these poor 3rd world countries.
Posted by dnm3305
Member since Feb 2009
13546 posts
Posted on 10/17/14 at 10:25 am to
quote:

Sample size? Uh... Of courses it's pretty small, but Ebola just got here in the US.


This asinine statement in your OP is pretty reckless because you are basing your ASSUMPTION on a sample size of less than 50 people.

quote:

Thus, apparently the greatest risk of infection appears to be when the Ebola becomes fulminant and the infected individual is in mortal deterioration. So exposure to a person even when they exhibit early Ebola symptoms, the infection risk is extremely low.
Posted by Lokistale
Member since Aug 2013
1188 posts
Posted on 10/17/14 at 12:29 pm to
It is not an ASSUMPTION... it is objective evidence... those people that were initially exposed have not developed any symptoms yet, and the 21 incubation day is ending and the only 2 infections were transmitted during the end-stages to the dude's life. How is that an assumption?
Posted by LT
The City of St. George
Member since May 2008
5150 posts
Posted on 10/17/14 at 4:35 pm to
Shut your pirate whore mouth... I'm stocking up on beans, rice, and .223 ammunition.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram