• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Why are they bringing Ebola to the US?

Ebola is a body fluid vector disease. Infected patients can be handled safely by personnel in those biohazard moon suits. Bringing them here is no big deal and they have a better chance of surviving here than there.

(Yes, there's no treatment for Ebola--but that doesn't mean the docs are helpless. Supportive therapy doesn't work too well but neither is it useless. The docs can give your body a little more time to try to win it's battle.)
 
Why are they bringing Ebola to the US?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that there could be several different reasons offered, depending on your particular mind set. You can take your pick.

1. Humanitarian reasons – to help those suffering.
2. Scientific reasons – to learn more about E-bola and possibly develop a vaccine.
3. Military reasons – if it can be weaponized it would make a jim-dandy biological weapon.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Ebola is a body fluid vector disease. Infected patients can be handled safely by personnel in those biohazard moon suits. Bringing them here is no big deal and they have a better chance of surviving here than there.

(Yes, there's no treatment for Ebola--but that doesn't mean the docs are helpless. Supportive therapy doesn't work too well but neither is it useless. The docs can give your body a little more time to try to win it's battle.)
Click to expand...
so american intravenous liquids are better than west african intravenous liquids. Seriously?
 
skepticalbip said:
1. Humanitarian reasons – to help those suffering.
2. Scientific reasons – to learn more about E-bola and possibly develop a vaccine.
3. Military reasons – if it can be weaponized it would make a jim-dandy biological weapon.
Click to expand...

1. At best only palliative care can be offered. 90% of victims will die regardless. Palliative care could equally well be offered without transporting the patients.
2. No need to transport patients to do that. Samples could be taken and transported much more efficiently. Besides which, I'm sure that all the laboratories around the world who are interested and capable in developing a vaccine have samples already from the many other victims.
3. See above, samples undoubtedly exist already in all major biological warfare laboratories. Besides which, with an incubation period as long as three weeks it is probably not an ideal weapon; taking too long for tactical use but long enough to rebound on whoever deploys it.
 
Is there any scenario in the near future when the U.S. would end up using biological weapons?
 
I think ”they” are bringing Ebola to the US simply because it's tasty.

Either that, or for food processing purposes (good bye messy slaughterhouses; meat that minces itself etc.).

The future looks bright.
 
skepticalbip said:
Why are they bringing Ebola to the US?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that there could be several different reasons offered, depending on your particular mind set. You can take your pick.

1. Humanitarian reasons – to help those suffering.
2. Scientific reasons – to learn more about E-bola and possibly develop a vaccine.
3. Military reasons – if it can be weaponized it would make a jim-dandy biological weapon.
Click to expand...

2 and 3 seem nonsense to me; surely there have been samples of ebola being studied in US labs for years.
 
skepticalbip said:
Why are they bringing Ebola to the US?
Click to expand...
1. Humanitarian reasons – to help those suffering.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it. You can always expect people to do the right thing when they're in the public eye. No one is going to just let someone die in the name of the least risky solution to stopping the spread of the virus.

This type of thinking carries over to a whole array of things. It's about appearances. In this case, though, I'd think the risk involved is well understood and being dealt with, so it's likely not as much of a risk as it seems.
 
none said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Ebola is a body fluid vector disease. Infected patients can be handled safely by personnel in those biohazard moon suits. Bringing them here is no big deal and they have a better chance of surviving here than there.

(Yes, there's no treatment for Ebola--but that doesn't mean the docs are helpless. Supportive therapy doesn't work too well but neither is it useless. The docs can give your body a little more time to try to win it's battle.)
Click to expand...
so american intravenous liquids are better than west african intravenous liquids. Seriously?
Click to expand...
Whether it be supportive health care or emergent health care, both are much more efficiently provided in US health care facilities than anywhere in West Africa. Further, US medical personnel are far better trained in contagion containment measures (CDC issued) than local personnel in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. Then of course there is both the local socio economical situation and the reality of the local culture plagued with myths which can only undermine the efforts from imported medical personnel to contain the epidemic.

The type of necessary supportive care for Ebola infected patients demands 24/7 monitoring and attendance which at this point cannot be provided locally due to medical personnel being overwhelmed. Even as Medecins Sans Frontieres deployed to all 3 nations all available volunteers, they cannot keep up with the constant flow of infected patients while they encounter difficulties in identifying infected individuals in areas where the population remains so mobile, traveling from village to village.
Educational update from MSF :

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news-stories/field-news/battling-ebola-outbreak-west-africa

In such circumstances, one can hardly expect that the focus will be on providing the most effective supportive care especially in temporary treatment centers and certainly not with the high tech medical equipment and available medical personnel solely dedicated to supportive care those 2 US citizens will benefit of back in the US.

Further, none, supportive care involves far more than just "intravenous liquids".
 
barbos said:
Chances are, they will both die.
But they will sure make vaccine after that.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason an Ebola vaccine does not currently exist is because until a white American dies, in America, no-one else either has bothered or has the technology?
 
Hickdive said:
barbos said:
Chances are, they will both die.
But they will sure make vaccine after that.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason an Ebola vaccine does not currently exist is because until a white American dies, in America, no-one else either has bothered or has the technology?
Click to expand...
wikipedia seems to suggest that.
Private companies are not interested in the vaccine because there is not much return.
Now, government will pay for the vaccine development.
 
barbos said:
Hickdive said:
Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason an Ebola vaccine does not currently exist is because until a white American dies, in America, no-one else either has bothered or has the technology?
Click to expand...
wikipedia seems to suggest that.
Private companies are not interested in the vaccine because there is not much return.
Now, government will pay for the vaccine development.
Click to expand...

And the only government in the world is the US government?
 
barbos said:
Hickdive said:
Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason an Ebola vaccine does not currently exist is because until a white American dies, in America, no-one else either has bothered or has the technology?
Click to expand...
wikipedia seems to suggest that.
Private companies are not interested in the vaccine because there is not much return.
Now, government will pay for the vaccine development.
Click to expand...

Ebola doesn't kill enough for even the government to be interested in a vaccine.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
barbos said:
wikipedia seems to suggest that.
Private companies are not interested in the vaccine because there is not much return.
Now, government will pay for the vaccine development.
Click to expand...

Ebola doesn't kill enough for even the government to be interested in a vaccine.
Click to expand...

Actually, the fear of Ebola alone, once it is seen that it CAN claim U.S. citizens, will likely be sufficient to fund a vaccine. With the long incubation period and people globe-hopping for business and pleasure, I perceive a huge economic opportunity for the right company. An Ebola vaccine will be a powerful tool for whichever nation first develops it, in my opinion.
 
Sabine Grant said:
Regarding the research on an Ebola vaccine :

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/31/5952665/ebola-virus-vaccine-why-hasnt-it-happened

Daniel Bausch's interview is IMO quite revealing.
Click to expand...

So the moral reason to let it loose in the 1st world is so that they will stop spending money on jet skis and vacations, and work on a vaccine?


I generally thought that there would be a cleansing of the populace with a large scale release of a deadly virus, with a certain portion of the population already vaccinated by those in the know, so I sort of thought this may be the start of that.
 
Sabine Grant said:
...
Further, none, supportive care involves far more than just "intravenous liquids".
Click to expand...
Like what? cleaning up after diarrhea? they have to bring them to the US for that?
what kind of precedent are we setting here, and for what reason?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom