4 ms·

Those are all arguments as to why Ebola might not spread within Europe or the U.S. This article is about whether it could spread to those places.

giarc 12y ago
That's fairly incorrect since the answer to "Could Ebola spread to Europe or US" is an obvious 'yes'. An infected person from West Africa could get on a plane and be in Europe in a few hours. That's how Ebola could spread "to" somewhere. That article would be 2 sentences long. The obviously more important questions, and one that the original article is asking, is whether this person could be patient 0 for an outbreak within a westernized country?
The_Pherocity 12y ago
Yea, that's how conversation works. Someone posts an article, then clever people talk about it. Some agree, some give experiences, some add additional facts and resources, and other people offer counter arguments. This is a counter argument to the article. What you posted, besides being blatantly obvious, is simply noise and does not add to the conversation.
- psychometry 12y ago
  I'm amazed you managed to misread a comment that was only two sentences long. The title of the article is--in case you missed that, too--"Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?" The previous comment did not address that question and instead answered a completely different question. What doesn't add to the conversation is obnoxious pedantry like your comment.
  - Throwaway618 12y ago
    What does add to the conversation, apparently, is continual snide assertions that parent didn't add to the conversation. (I actually don't have any problem with snide obnoxiousness. "I'm amazed you could [be so incredibly idiotic]" is upfront at least. What I do get tired of is a continual tree, like this one, of "You shouldn't have said that.")
    - The_Pherocity 12y ago
      I do, I hate when I do it. It also doesn't add to the conversation. Especially when I do so on items that are questionable, as this one is. What bothers me most is that the level of snark I use is dependant not on the level of offence, rather the number of times I've encountered this varian of low quality comment during the day. This example, although I stand by it, clearly is not one of the greater offences, and yet has maximum snark. The greater problem is these conversations actually often surpass the quality conversations being had in the thread.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- jychang 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure you misread the parent comment. The original question posed is about the chances of ebola spreading TO western nations. However, the grandparent question answers the chances of ebola spreading WITHIN western nations. The epidemiology of the former involves questions like transportation controls, quarantine of travelers, border controls, and perhaps even banning international imports from involved nations. The latter involves differences in cultural behaviors, sanitation levels, healthcare coverage, etc. They are very different questions.
  - The_Pherocity 12y ago
    I'm certain I didn't. The article asks the question about spreading, and that includes all vectors and scenarios. Spreading, is all about reaching and establishing an infected base. As far as if ebola can get TO the western world, that is a 100% chance that it can. Primarily, because there is always an underground movement of goods and people, often women and children into and out of countries, regardless of official lockdowns. Think of it like drugs in prisons. There should be no place more free of drugs and alcohol, and yet it's easier to get drugs in prison than in my town. The conversation then is about the remaining requirements to 'spread'. When we take a look at spreading of other lifeforms, say for instance seeds in Darwin's Origin of Species, dispersal is only a tiny part of the equation with spread being about not just buoyancy, but rather length of sustainability once the seed arrives at a barren landmass. This is again consistent with man and Mars. We've gone there with robots, and will one day go there with people, but until we establish a foothold, we have not yet spread to Mars. Regardless of whether the article addresses the point and only the question, all examples of life (and disputed forms of life in the form of virus), do not spread unless they take root.
Dylan16807 12y ago
When you say a disease has spread to a place, people will assume you mean it's spreading within that place. If by 'to' you mean there was a case or two from elsewhere that won't spread, it's not something to care about. So I think that comment is a legitimate argument about the point of the article when it comes to spreading, and you're being too picky.

giarc 12y ago

That's fairly incorrect since the answer to "Could Ebola spread to Europe or US" is an obvious 'yes'. An infected person from West Africa could get on a plane and be in Europe in a few hours. That's how Ebola could spread "to" somewhere. That article would be 2 sentences long. The obviously more important questions, and one that the original article is asking, is whether this person could be patient 0 for an outbreak within a westernized country?

The_Pherocity 12y ago

Yea, that's how conversation works. Someone posts an article, then clever people talk about it. Some agree, some give experiences, some add additional facts and resources, and other people offer counter arguments. This is a counter argument to the article. What you posted, besides being blatantly obvious, is simply noise and does not add to the conversation.

psychometry 12y ago
I'm amazed you managed to misread a comment that was only two sentences long. The title of the article is--in case you missed that, too--"Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?" The previous comment did not address that question and instead answered a completely different question. What doesn't add to the conversation is obnoxious pedantry like your comment.
- Throwaway618 12y ago
  What does add to the conversation, apparently, is continual snide assertions that parent didn't add to the conversation. (I actually don't have any problem with snide obnoxiousness. "I'm amazed you could [be so incredibly idiotic]" is upfront at least. What I do get tired of is a continual tree, like this one, of "You shouldn't have said that.")
  - The_Pherocity 12y ago
    I do, I hate when I do it. It also doesn't add to the conversation. Especially when I do so on items that are questionable, as this one is. What bothers me most is that the level of snark I use is dependant not on the level of offence, rather the number of times I've encountered this varian of low quality comment during the day. This example, although I stand by it, clearly is not one of the greater offences, and yet has maximum snark. The greater problem is these conversations actually often surpass the quality conversations being had in the thread.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
jychang 12y ago
I'm pretty sure you misread the parent comment. The original question posed is about the chances of ebola spreading TO western nations. However, the grandparent question answers the chances of ebola spreading WITHIN western nations. The epidemiology of the former involves questions like transportation controls, quarantine of travelers, border controls, and perhaps even banning international imports from involved nations. The latter involves differences in cultural behaviors, sanitation levels, healthcare coverage, etc. They are very different questions.
- The_Pherocity 12y ago
  I'm certain I didn't. The article asks the question about spreading, and that includes all vectors and scenarios. Spreading, is all about reaching and establishing an infected base. As far as if ebola can get TO the western world, that is a 100% chance that it can. Primarily, because there is always an underground movement of goods and people, often women and children into and out of countries, regardless of official lockdowns. Think of it like drugs in prisons. There should be no place more free of drugs and alcohol, and yet it's easier to get drugs in prison than in my town. The conversation then is about the remaining requirements to 'spread'. When we take a look at spreading of other lifeforms, say for instance seeds in Darwin's Origin of Species, dispersal is only a tiny part of the equation with spread being about not just buoyancy, but rather length of sustainability once the seed arrives at a barren landmass. This is again consistent with man and Mars. We've gone there with robots, and will one day go there with people, but until we establish a foothold, we have not yet spread to Mars. Regardless of whether the article addresses the point and only the question, all examples of life (and disputed forms of life in the form of virus), do not spread unless they take root.

Dylan16807 12y ago

When you say a disease has spread to a place, people will assume you mean it's spreading within that place. If by 'to' you mean there was a case or two from elsewhere that won't spread, it's not something to care about. So I think that comment is a legitimate argument about the point of the article when it comes to spreading, and you're being too picky.