Ebola Patient Coming To U.S.
|
Ebola Patient Coming to U.S.
Where'd Bacon go? he was more fun.
Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » It's actually under 50%, in third world countries. Last time I checked, out of 10k+ infected, ~4k died. So where are you pulling the 90% from? Fox news? There's no high and low for death tolls, you can't be 90% dead. The average EVD case fatality rate is around 50%. Case fatality rates have varied from 25% to 90% in past outbreaks WHO to the rescue. Literally in the first non news result from "ebola death rate". I'm going to take a stab in the dark and assert that a lot of those deaths were due to misdiagnoses, since it's symptoms resemble that of Malaria. That's even in this outbreak, which is on the severe decline.
Jetackuu said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » EDIT: In what universe does a disease that kills up to 90% of the people it infects become less dangerous than a disease that kills under .05% of the people it infects. When the amount of people who died in the US alone in 2009 from the H1N1 strain was over twice the amount of deaths ebola has caused thus far. (about 12k US deaths for the Flu, about 5k West Africa deaths), 1 US death. You're fear mongering, the flu is deadlier (also, more dangerous). (hint: death per rate of infection isn't the only # you have to deal with, you also have to deal with how many are infected). Ok so you'd rather have Ebola than the flu? Keep digging bro, you've almost hit china. From what I have seen this outbreak is right in line, or even less, than the average mortality rate of 50%. So its safe to say Ebola has a 50% mortality rate in Africa. 0% for Americans so far. I expect the American percentage to stay the same.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Jetackuu said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » EDIT: In what universe does a disease that kills up to 90% of the people it infects become less dangerous than a disease that kills under .05% of the people it infects. When the amount of people who died in the US alone in 2009 from the H1N1 strain was over twice the amount of deaths ebola has caused thus far. (about 12k US deaths for the Flu, about 5k West Africa deaths), 1 US death. You're fear mongering, the flu is deadlier (also, more dangerous). (hint: death per rate of infection isn't the only # you have to deal with, you also have to deal with how many are infected). Ok so you'd rather have Ebola than the flu? Keep digging bro, you've almost hit china. You need to learn how to read as that is not what I said. Also you need to work on your world geography as well as viral infections and math, as you cannot dig straight down from anywhere in the contiguous United States that would hit China, you'd end up in the ocean. Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » It's actually under 50%, in third world countries. Last time I checked, out of 10k+ infected, ~4k died. So where are you pulling the 90% from? Fox news? There's no high and low for death tolls, you can't be 90% dead. The average EVD case fatality rate is around 50%. Case fatality rates have varied from 25% to 90% in past outbreaks WHO to the rescue. Literally in the first non news result from "ebola death rate". Lying with statistics 101, ebola is which is why there are no universal flu shot. This Ebola outbreak is 40-50% death rate that's it. H5N1, avian flu has a 100% death rate in some countries and 60% worldwide. Jetackuu said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Jetackuu said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » EDIT: In what universe does a disease that kills up to 90% of the people it infects become less dangerous than a disease that kills under .05% of the people it infects. When the amount of people who died in the US alone in 2009 from the H1N1 strain was over twice the amount of deaths ebola has caused thus far. (about 12k US deaths for the Flu, about 5k West Africa deaths), 1 US death. You're fear mongering, the flu is deadlier (also, more dangerous). (hint: death per rate of infection isn't the only # you have to deal with, you also have to deal with how many are infected). Ok so you'd rather have Ebola than the flu? Keep digging bro, you've almost hit china. You need to learn how to read as that is not what I said. Also you need to work on your world geography as well as viral infections and math, as you cannot dig straight down from anywhere in the contiguous United States that would hit China, you'd end up in the ocean. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Jetackuu said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Jetackuu said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » EDIT: In what universe does a disease that kills up to 90% of the people it infects become less dangerous than a disease that kills under .05% of the people it infects. When the amount of people who died in the US alone in 2009 from the H1N1 strain was over twice the amount of deaths ebola has caused thus far. (about 12k US deaths for the Flu, about 5k West Africa deaths), 1 US death. You're fear mongering, the flu is deadlier (also, more dangerous). (hint: death per rate of infection isn't the only # you have to deal with, you also have to deal with how many are infected). Ok so you'd rather have Ebola than the flu? Keep digging bro, you've almost hit china. You need to learn how to read as that is not what I said. Also you need to work on your world geography as well as viral infections and math, as you cannot dig straight down from anywhere in the contiguous United States that would hit China, you'd end up in the ocean.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » You need to learn how to read as that is not what I said. Also you need to work on your world geography as well as viral infections and math, as you cannot dig straight down from anywhere in the contiguous United States that would hit China, you'd end up in the ocean. quite appropriately now: "no, you" seriously, it's not that hard. You seem to still be confused that a higher death rate always = more dangerous, when it's not the case when applied to the # that can get sick. Apples: oranges, you have to take into account all of the variables, but that would defeat your point and destroy any argument you have for fear mongering (which honestly is debunked on it's own anyway, since you're using bad numbers to begin with.) Asura.Kingnobody said: » It's Jet, if he makes a mistake, it's obviously because you don't understand how to read. Or maybe it's because you often lack basic reading comprehension, like when you say "no" when you're just reinforcing what I had already said, it's almost as bad as when Alti posts an article with a thread title with a deduction the exact opposite of the data in the article, it's just sad at this point. Mag needs to come in here and smack you both with books, fuuuck. I'm sure that if several people come here and tell you that you are an idiot, you will tell them all that they all need to learn how to read, because you can't be the problem, right?
No more fear mongering though? Or political nonsense for really a non-issue?
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Jetackuu said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Jetackuu said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » EDIT: In what universe does a disease that kills up to 90% of the people it infects become less dangerous than a disease that kills under .05% of the people it infects. When the amount of people who died in the US alone in 2009 from the H1N1 strain was over twice the amount of deaths ebola has caused thus far. (about 12k US deaths for the Flu, about 5k West Africa deaths), 1 US death. You're fear mongering, the flu is deadlier (also, more dangerous). (hint: death per rate of infection isn't the only # you have to deal with, you also have to deal with how many are infected). Ok so you'd rather have Ebola than the flu? Keep digging bro, you've almost hit china. You need to learn how to read as that is not what I said. Also you need to work on your world geography as well as viral infections and math, as you cannot dig straight down from anywhere in the contiguous United States that would hit China, you'd end up in the ocean.
[+]
Jetackuu said: » quite appropriately now: "no, you" seriously, it's not that hard. You seem to still be confused that a higher death rate always = more dangerous, when it's not the case when applied to the # that can get sick. Apples: oranges, you have to take into account all of the variables, but that would defeat your point and destroy any argument you have for fear mongering (which honestly is debunked on it's own anyway, since you're using bad numbers to begin with.) Which would you rather have Jet? Last years flu or Ebola? That's a simple sentence. I know you can understand it if you try.
[+]
Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Jetackuu said: » quite appropriately now: "no, you" seriously, it's not that hard. You seem to still be confused that a higher death rate always = more dangerous, when it's not the case when applied to the # that can get sick. Apples: oranges, you have to take into account all of the variables, but that would defeat your point and destroy any argument you have for fear mongering (which honestly is debunked on it's own anyway, since you're using bad numbers to begin with.) Which would you rather have Jet? Last years flu or Ebola? That's a simple sentence. I know you can understand it if you try. Flu. What you don't want to understand is flu is affecting millions of people within 1 year, while ebola barely can hit 10k people in a third world country, with barely any sanitary measures, where people were uninformed about it or thought it was a hoax and the only reason it spread that much is because WHO decided not to send any help until it got out of hand. I don't fail to understand how the flu has killed more people than Ebola has, that doesn't make the flu more dangerous. I am in the next year personally more likely to die from Ebola than from the flu, and unless your an infant, or elderly, or have some other specific medical condition which puts you in the .05% of people that get it and die from it each year, so are you. If we followed the standard of whatever kills the most people is the most dangerous (which is what you're preaching) then we shouldn't be concerned with the proliferation of nuclear weapons because after all, they haven't killed hardly anyone in about 70 years. Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds? Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Odds are you will more likely die from flu than from Ebola because the chances you get infected are incredibly low if you are careful. Should we ban all poultry and quarantine anyone who ate poultry because avian flu has a higher death rate than Ebola? I certainly have a higher chance of catching the flu than Ebola, but not catching the it and dying from it. I have no medical conditions that put me in the higher risk groups. If I personally got the flu my chance of dying from it would be microscopic. Far smaller than the .05% general number because of the specific lower risk demographic groups I am a part of. I have a higher risk of catching Ebola and dying from that. Especially when the administration won't enforce quarantines for nurses or doctors who frequently travel to and from infected areas and handle infected patients. If that weren't enough, the administration is also planning on importing people infected with the virus into the states for treatment. Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Good luck catching Ebola. Nausi, I think you should really consider a vacation. Does Liberia tickle your fancy?
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » I have a higher risk of catching Ebola . how many ebola doctors and nurses do you hang out with? just go full tin foil mode like me and seal off all your windows and register vents! outside air!? <thanks for the offer, but I will have to pass>
[+]
Still waiting for this ebola thing to happen
[+]
Ebola beat up my father and raped my mother.
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.