-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Kaci Hickox and the science surrounding Ebola
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
It will be interesting to see the follow-up to this if she gets sick and then infects other people.
Or if she were to levitate and turn into a platypus.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
So, it is your considered opinion that there is zero probability of an aid worker who treated Ebola patients to have contracted the virus?
Is it your considered opinion that when you go outside there is zero probability of you infecting and killing someone with the flue?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
What is the expected mortality rate for those who contract the ebola virus? What is the expected mortality rate for those who contract the flu virus?
Are you seriously comparing the Ebola virus with the flu?
What are the ways in which the two can be transmitted? Think of Bayesian statistics/reasoning. Given some prior information about the likelihood of event, what can we conclude about the probability? This turns out to be rather nuanced and yet intuitive. It is intuitive in that while the logical inference "if x then y" isn't equivalent to "if y then x" tends to be unintuitive but it is true that given "if x then y" then it is more likely that "if y then x". It is nuanced in that when calculating how probable something is we generally ignore essential information and focus on what seems to be all that is relevant. The classic example is somewhat relevant here because it concerns the efficacy of a test for a disease. A test for X disease can accurately determine that you have X disease with 100% accuracy and be utterly useless, all because one ignores extremely relevant information that seemed to be irrelevant.
On Ebola, I reiterate: Ebola: What should we really be concerned about?
OMG, that would be silly ...
xkatz
Well-Known Member
I'm all for a temporary quarantine. If you are going somewhere where you are exposed to something as dangerous ebola, then I think such action is appropriate. She shouldn't be getting sympathy for violating a quarantine when she knew very well something like this could happen given what ebola does and where shes recently been.
In before, "MUH FEELINGS!"
In before, "MUH FEELINGS!"
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
This is all very interesting, yet seems to have little to do with the point that contracting one disease is more than likely a death warrant, whereas contracting the other is extremely unlikely to cause death.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Then why are you doing it?
I'm at fault for responding with a short comment.
I think Kilgore is dead on when he is asking for the mortality rate of both viruses. Of course, there are sub groups of human beings that would be affected different and would have more risk against the flu.
Flu Epidemics:
Influenza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Known flu pandemics[56][172][180]
Name of pandemic Date Deaths Case fatality rate Subtype involved Pandemic Severity Index
1889–1890 flu pandemic
(Asiatic or Russian Flu)[181] 1889–1890 1 million 0.15% possibly H3N8
or H2N2 N/A
1918 flu pandemic
(Spanish flu)[182] 1918–1920 20 to 100 million 2% H1N1 5
Asian Flu 1957–1958 1 to 1.5 million 0.13% H2N2 2
Hong Kong Flu 1968–1969 0.75 to 1 million <0.1% H3N2 2
Russian flu 1977–1978 no accurate count N/A H1N1 N/A
2009 flu pandemic[183] 2009–2010 105,700-395,600[184] 0.03% H1N1 N/A
Ebola Death Rate 70 Percent, WHO Says in Dire New Forecast - NBC News
It basically states the Ebola mortality rate at 50-70%.
Now, if you take this at face value and assume the numbers are true. You're comparing an average say less than 1% to around say 63% concerning flu and ebola respectively.
Do you recall the number times of you or your family had the flu? I don't because I've simply had it too many times to count.
These numbers imply that you most likely will die if you contracted the Ebola virus and if you were to spread it to your family, then more than half of your family will die.
The problem with Ebola is that we essentially are not prepared to deal with it if a true epidemic broke out in US or even where you're from. It took around 70 something nurses around the clock to take care of our first ebola patient. They wore hazmat suits and supposedly thoroughly disenfected themselves after each care session. The patient was in a specific isolation area tailored for such events. Our success rate compared to Africa is due to the infections not being an outbreak and causing further epidemics. However, if an epidemic occured where the disease is not controled and spreading without knowledge, our hospitals will not have the proper resources to treat patients in the hundreds/thousands. You will have further ethical issues of who to treat first and who will help with the treatment.
The irony here is that a population of people within a travel radius whether infected or not would be forced in quaratine by the US military if an epidemic were to occur as opposed to this single individual. You might say I'm stretching the facts and I would say to you, think worst case scenario.
It is wholly irrelevant unless there is reason to believe that she can transmit the virus.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
And, again, do you think there is zero-risk that she, an ebola aid worker, has contracted the virus while treating ebola patients?
My understanding of the medical science is that all available evidence indicates that there is no discernible risk of her transmitting the virus; as such, she is every bit as safe as you are.