Will Ebola become a major outbreak here?

Will Ebola become a major outbreak (100+ deaths) in the US in the next 12 months?

  • Yes

    Votes: 39 40.2%

  • No

    Votes: 58 59.8%
  • Total voters
    97
  • Poll closed .
AuntPeggy

AuntPeggy

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
8,480
Location
Oklahoma
Display Name
Display name:
Namaste
Will Ebola become a major outbreak (100 or more deaths) in the US within the next 12 months?

Yes
No.

My hope is "No", but with all the screw-ups, I'm starting to swing the other way. What do you think?
 
Without a travel restriction and other containment measures in place, IMHO, it is only a matter of time before it becomes a serious problem here over whelming our healthcare system. I certainly hope I am wrong, but Ebola like all viruses can mutate into an airborne transmitted disease tomorrow.

150 people a day are being allowed to enter the US from Ebola hot spots in west Africa. It is only a matter of time before another sick person is allowed to spread the disease here.

Another possibility is "weaponizing" Ebola by terrorists. If they are willing to blow themselves up they are certainly capable of causing panic here by infecting random people across the country starting a public panic the likes of which we have never seen here before.
 
Last edited:
leave the boarders open with the current CDC policy....yes, major outbreak.

Keep in mind.....folks can be contagious for a short period of time....without symptoms. The gestation period is 21 days.....that's a lot of time to expose the virus to hundreds of others....before the virus kicks in.
 
While there's absolutely zero reason there *should* be an outbreak, given CDC and assorted other knuckleheads actions so far it may be inevitable.

Containment of this has been an effing joke. But I'm sure Geico's idea of forbidding travel to/from Europe will do wonders :rolleyes:.
 
As long as we continue with the ludicrous belief that, "it cannot happen here," it is inevitable that it shall.

The virus does not care whether the infected host is in a primitive shack in Sierra Leone, or a mid-century modern palace in Dallas.
 
In Poe's "The Masque of the Red Death," Prince Prospero thought it could not happen to him. It did.
 
So AP, you have drawn the number at 100? Shouldn't one person becoming sick be too many when it is preventable by not allowing sick and potential carries here?
 
Geico266 said:
Another possibility is "weaponizing" Ebola by terrorists. If they are willing to blow themselves up they are certainly capable of causing panic
Click to expand...

It would cause a lot more than panic. Say 100 infected were sent to major US cities and another 100 sent to European cities, it would be catastrophic. The west, and quite possibly the world, would be overwhelmed.

This is the "dirty bomb" of their dreams.
 
I voted no.....

I am hoping for the best....................

And planning for the worst..........
 
Bill Jennings said:
It would cause a lot more than panic. Say 100 infected were sent to major US cities and another 100 sent to European cities, it would be catastrophic. The west, and quite possibly the world, would be overwhelmed.

This is the "dirty bomb" of their dreams.
Click to expand...

Did you pick that out of a Clancy novel? He wrote a book about pretty much that scenario.
 
Bill Jennings said:
It would cause a lot more than panic. Say 100 infected were sent to major US cities and another 100 sent to European cities, it would be catastrophic. The west, and quite possibly the world, would be overwhelmed.

This is the "dirty bomb" of their dreams.
Click to expand...

And yet we allow people who have travel to or are from the Ebola hot spots of the world to come here freely? :mad2:

Seriously, I can't believe we are even having this conversation!
 
Geico266 said:
So AP, you have drawn the number at 100? Shouldn't one person becoming sick be too many when it is preventable by not allowing sick and potential carries here?
Click to expand...

The big question is: At what number does the system break down and we can no longer provide care for the exponentially increasing number of sick?

100
1000
10000

Somewhere in that range we're fubar'd and it will just have to run its natural course.
 
Bill Jennings said:
The big question is: At what number does the system break down and we can no longer provide care for the exponentially increasing number of sick?

100
1000
10000

Somewhere in that range we're fubar'd and it will just have to run its natural course.
Click to expand...

110% agree. :yes:
 
warthog1984 said:
Did you pick that out of a Clancy novel? He wrote a book about pretty much that scenario.
Click to expand...

No, but we always hear about these guys possibly getting nuclear materials and developing "the" bomb, or at the very minimum a "dirty" bomb.

Well, these materials are much easier to obtain, very little cost in developing the weapon, the only slightly tough task is the logistics of getting your infected payload to the target.

This has to scare the living hell out of our government I would think.
 
some questions: Who will be the first to panic? Where will the first protest be? How about the first quarantine? Also, with our lack of farming, how will our major cities get food?

This could be what brings America back together!!! GWB tried to do it with the war on terror!
 
Bill Jennings said:
The big question is: At what number does the system break down and we can no longer provide care for the exponentially increasing number of sick?

100
1000
10000

Somewhere in that range we're fubar'd and it will just have to run its natural course.
Click to expand...

According to CDC, the number of cases doubles every 20 days and death is at 70% rate. Thus, it looks like about a quarter million by the end of the year if we don't get a good handle on Ebola.

..0 days ......1 death
.20 days ......2 infections
.40 days ......4 infections
.60 days ......8 infections
.80 days .....16 infections
100 days .....32 infections
120 days .....64 infections
140 days ....128 infections
160 days ....256 infections
180 days ....512 infections
200 days ..1,024 infections
220 days ..2,048 infections
240 days ..4,096 infections
260 days ..8,192 infections
280 days .16,384 infections
300 days .32,768 infections
320 days .65,536 infections
340 days 131,072 infections
360 days 262,144 infections
183,500 deaths
 
Last edited:
AuntPeggy said:
According to CDC, the number of cases doubles every 20 days and death is at 70% rate. Thus, it looks like about a quarter million by the end of the year if we don't get a good handle on Ebola.

..0 days ......1 death
.20 days ......2 deaths
.40 days ......4 deaths
.60 days ......8 deaths
.80 days .....16 deaths
100 days .....32 deaths
120 days .....64 deaths
140 days ....128 deaths
160 days ....256 deaths
180 days ....512 deaths
200 days ..1,024 deaths
220 days ..2,048 deaths
240 days ..4,096 deaths
260 days ..8,192 deaths
280 days .16,384 deaths
300 days .32,768 deaths
320 days .65,536 deaths
340 days 131,072 deaths
360 days 262,144 deaths
Click to expand...

Hmmm..

The end of this year is NOT 360 days away..:no:.....:nonod:
 
Right now the number of deaths stands at about 4000 in Africa, with almost no medical infrastructure, no way to quarantine the infected, and little ability to communicate best practices to those most at risk.

We have two active cases, both of which are being carefully monitored, and one expired one (the guy died) where those with whom he came in contact have been quarantined. Most of the hysteria here is nonsense. You are far, far, far more likely to die form influenza.
 
steingar said:
Right now the number of deaths stands at about 4000 in Africa, with almost no medical infrastructure, no way to quarantine the infected, and little ability to communicate best practices to those most at risk.

We have two active cases, both of which are being carefully monitored, and one expired one (the guy died) where those with whom he came in contact have been quarantined. Most of the hysteria here is nonsense. You are far, far, far more likely to die form influenza.
Click to expand...

Or being struck by lightening.....
 
steingar said:
Right now the number of deaths stands at about 4000 in Africa, with almost no medical infrastructure, no way to quarantine the infected, and little ability to communicate best practices to those most at risk.

We have two active cases, both of which are being carefully monitored, and one expired one (the guy died) where those with whom he came in contact have been quarantined. Most of the hysteria here is nonsense. You are far, far, far more likely to die form influenza. Right now...
Click to expand...

I had to fix that for you...
 
I voted yes, because neither political party has the will to do what's needed to prevent it from happening. The Left wouldn't dare impose screening (much less quarantines) upon incoming travelers who passed through endemic areas for fear of offending Africa; and most of the Right couldn't care less about Ebola as long as it "stays over there."

Rich
 
Last edited:
warthog1984 said:
While there's absolutely zero reason there *should* be an outbreak, given CDC and assorted other knuckleheads actions so far it may be inevitable.

Containment of this has been an effing joke. But I'm sure Geico's idea of forbidding travel to/from Europe will do wonders :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

There are 7 billion reasons there should be an outbreak.
 
Geico266 said:
So AP, you have drawn the number at 100? Shouldn't one person becoming sick be too many when it is preventable by not allowing sick and potential carries here?
Click to expand...

No, not really. You are working under the supposition that it is preventable, yet we are unable to prevent so many things that nature throws at us. We cannot prevent hurricanes, tornados, earth quakes, floods, tsunamis, wild fires.... We are but pawns to nature. The reality is we are heavily over stressing nature with our numbers.

If you want to prevent nature from culling our numbers, we have to take the stress off nature and balance our resource needs with resource production, we have the technical means, however we waste that ability and those means by destroying natural resources rather than augmenting them to meet our current demands. As with everything else, we try to solve problems by attacking the symptoms rather than the cause. This has never worked, especially when dealing with subjects of natural forces, we always fail and compound our problems. The answer is not to combat nature, we will lose unequivocally, what we need to do is understand what nature requires of us and cooperate.
 
warthog1984 said:
Did you pick that out of a Clancy novel? He wrote a book about pretty much that scenario.
Click to expand...

Executive Orders, circa 1996ish. I was about half way through it when all fo the ebola stuff started popping up in Africa again. I finished it up a couple of weeks ago and then moved over to The Hot Zone. I finished it a couple of days ago. Scare the crap out of me. I bought my daughter (nursing student) a copy and told her to do research on what she SHOULD be wearing to treat people. I let her know to absolutely refuse to be put into a situation like that without the propper PPE. Don't get angry. Be firm. Walk out if you have to. Part of making a demand for the propper equipment is know what the propper equipment IS, so I stressed research. Once she figured out what they should be wearing, I let her know to research how to don & doff the equipment. There is a right way to do it.

Oh, and I voted Yes. We are inexcusibly unprepared for this. It is just a viral infection with nasty consequences. It is not rocket science.

Jim
 
AuntPeggy said:
According to CDC, the number of cases doubles every 20 days and death is at 70% rate. Thus, it looks like about a quarter million by the end of the year if we don't get a good handle on Ebola.
Click to expand...

The good news is, the 70% rate is overblown. Best estimate for Ebola in the wild would be on the order of 30-35%- similar to bubonic. Ironically, if the morbidity rate was higher, we'd might have fewer deaths because it'd kill too quickly to propagate.
 
steingar said:
Right now the number of deaths stands at about 4000 in Africa, with almost no medical infrastructure, no way to quarantine the infected, and little ability to communicate best practices to those most at risk.

We have two active cases, both of which are being carefully monitored, and one expired one (the guy died) where those with whom he came in contact have been quarantined. Most of the hysteria here is nonsense. You are far, far, far more likely to die form influenza.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Add to that immune systems weakened by malnutrition in the affected areas, and a general lack of sanitation, and you have an easy path for the virus to infect, propagate and kill. It would be a far less effective pathogen on this side of the pond.
 
Flying Viking said:
:yeahthat:

Add to that immune systems weakened by malnutrition in the affected areas, and a general lack of sanitation, and you have an easy path for the virus to infect, propagate and kill. It would be a far less effective pathogen on this side of the pond.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. It's not possible to predict how the disease will play out here based on those assumptions. We have a lot more shopping malls, sports stadiums and people traveling by mass transit.
 
Flying Viking said:
:yeahthat:

Add to that immune systems weakened by malnutrition in the affected areas, and a general lack of sanitation, and you have an easy path for the virus to infect, propagate and kill. It would be a far less effective pathogen on this side of the pond.
Click to expand...

Yep, but the wild card is mutation. Our immune systems are different here than there as well having developed with different pathogens, plus our environmental conditions are different. The potential to mutate into something more contagious, while a long shot is not a statistical impossibility. I'm still not inclined to be overly concerned either way; it will be what it will be. Plague is an unstoppable force of nature, and we all die. We think "Communism is bad because it doesn't consider the rights of the individual." Well guess what? Nature is the ultimate Communist. Nature gives a **** less about the individual.
 
Gary F said:
Maybe, maybe not. It's not possible to predict how the disease will play out here based on those assumptions. We have a lot more shopping malls, sports stadiums and people traveling by mass transit.
Click to expand...

For all we know the virus doesn't spread by air, so those are probably not significant differences. The virus would probably do very well in communities of IV drug abusers, though.
 
steingar said:
Right now the number of deaths stands at about 4000 in Africa, with almost no medical infrastructure, no way to quarantine the infected, and little ability to communicate best practices to those most at risk.

We have two active cases, both of which are being carefully monitored, and one expired one (the guy died) where those with whom he came in contact have been quarantined. Most of the hysteria here is nonsense. You are far, far, far more likely to die form influenza.
Click to expand...

Much too sensible a reply. Fox News is really getting the lemmings nervous. Your also far more likely to die of a hospital infection you contract during a normal hospital stay according to the cdc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top