4 ms·

One child a minute dies from Malaria. http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/malaria_facts/en/index2.html http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/m

One child a minute dies from Malaria. http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/malaria_facts/en/index2.html http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/malaria_facts/...

dllthomas 12y ago
And that sucks, and we need to do more there... but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to pay additional attention to things that are more likely to present a direct threat to me.
- phurley 12y ago
  http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/facts.html http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/facts.html You are far more likely to be infected by malaria than ebola. Ebola is scary and makes for great news that draws lots of attention -- but it is largely sensational and not truthfully something you need to rationally fear, unless you work with infected individuals.
  - nospecinterests 12y ago
    Your chances of recovery from Malaria are far higher than recovering from Ebola. Malaria is more of a regional issue and does not necessarily have the ability to reach pandemic levels where Ebola, because of its communicability, does. Edit: Though you are correct it is not necessarily something to be freaking-out over at the current moment. That said its a serious problem that we should not assume is benign. We should be working to contain it outside of the US.
    - josephschmoe 12y ago
      I've heard consistently that ebola is incapable of becoming a pandemic in first world countries. This is because it lacks the resiliency to survive outside of the human body for long periods of time.
      - danieltillett 12y ago
        The problem is a virus have a nasty habit of evolving - just because all the past ebola strains have had a particular property does not mean that any new strain will behave in the same way. There does seem to be something about the strain in this latest outbreak that is different to past outbreaks.
        Crito 12y ago
        Do you similarly lose sleep over the idea of AIDS becoming airborne? Don't waste your time worrying about such hypotheticals. If you want to worry for sport, there are better things to worry about.
        danieltillett 12y ago
        No I don’t worry about AIDS becoming airbone, but when you look at the historical record of pandemics they are much more a problem than would appear of first glance. Pandemics that wipe out 1/3 to 1/2 the population and that appear out of nowhere are far too common over the last 2500 years for us to be complacent.
        ams6110 12y ago
        For roughly 2300 or more of those years we didn't understand how diseases spread or how to treat/prevent them.
        nospecinterests 12y ago
        But that doesn't mean we humans are "safe". Knowledge is power but its not a vaccine.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        The odds of any particular mutation are small. The odds of any mutation are high. The odds of a meaningful mutation, somewhere between the two. The fact that we're seeing more spread than usual is already some evidence that this strain has some relevant mutation - though I don't know enough to quantify how much evidence.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    No. Based solely on rates in the past, rather than any sort of projection into the future, I'm incredibly unlikely to be likely to be infected by either (note from your link, that of the <2k/yr of malaria in the US we see "almost all in recent travelers"). If I am infected by either, I am overwhelmingly more likely to survive a bout of malaria. And during an unusual outbreak (which is the case for ebola at present), looking simply at past incidence will underestimate my risk. It's still probably not a high risk, and there are higher risks (which I try to pay more attention), but I don't think it's wrong to say it poses a greater threat to me (or to the overwhelming majority on this site) than does malaria.
    - danieltillett 12y ago
      Actually it is very difficult to place any risk estimate on ebola (or any other new viral strain) as we don’t really know much about it. Imagine that it is 1918 again and someone was trying to make a prediction of the likelihood of influenza becoming a deadly pandemic that would kill 100 million people over the next 18 months. They would look at the past history of influenza and say there is a negligible risk of this happening. Of course now since we know that influenza can become very serious we keep our eyes on it, but for something like ebola we really know very little.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        Based on previous outbreaks of things generally I think it's most likely to be correct that this outbreak is also of low risk to the US population at large. Which is not to say that there's not a tremendously high value of information - the next thing we learn could change that (and again, probably won't, but...). I think it does make sense to be paying some attention as random individuals, and more attention as health workers or CDC employees, and I think it is probably still the case that my drive home is more likely to kill me (but I pay a lot of attention to my drive home!).
        danieltillett 12y ago
        Humans tend to overestimate the danger of apparent low probability, high impact events (like pandemic ebola) and underestimate the risks involved in mundane events (like driving a car). Given how infrequent pandemics occur, a better way to judge the risks involved would be to take a much long term view and try to measure the risk of a major pandemic occurring in your lifetime. When you look at the history of plagues over the last 2500 years they are infrequent, but common enough that we can get some handle on the risk. My very rough calculations based on past pandemic frequencies and death rates put the risk at around 1 in 1000 of being killed by a pandemic sometime during your lifetime. This is not huge, but at the same time it is not trivial. Edit. I added the word apparent to the “…danger of…” as I realise that my wording is confusing without it.
alrs 12y ago
I don't think that the thrust of this story has anything to do with the mortality of one person. What is newsworthy is that there is potentially an Ebola patient zero in the most densely populated part of the United States. Worse, the patient was in contact with travelers who have likely fanned out throughout North America, South America, Europe, and Asia.
psychometry 12y ago
That's a horrible thing, but completely irrelevant to this topic. Should we stop paying attention to Gaza because things are worse in the Sudan?

One child a minute dies from Malaria. http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/malaria_facts/en/index2.html http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/malaria_facts/...

dllthomas 12y ago

And that sucks, and we need to do more there... but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to pay additional attention to things that are more likely to present a direct threat to me.

phurley 12y ago
http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/facts.html http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/facts.html You are far more likely to be infected by malaria than ebola. Ebola is scary and makes for great news that draws lots of attention -- but it is largely sensational and not truthfully something you need to rationally fear, unless you work with infected individuals.
- nospecinterests 12y ago
  Your chances of recovery from Malaria are far higher than recovering from Ebola. Malaria is more of a regional issue and does not necessarily have the ability to reach pandemic levels where Ebola, because of its communicability, does. Edit: Though you are correct it is not necessarily something to be freaking-out over at the current moment. That said its a serious problem that we should not assume is benign. We should be working to contain it outside of the US.
  - josephschmoe 12y ago
    I've heard consistently that ebola is incapable of becoming a pandemic in first world countries. This is because it lacks the resiliency to survive outside of the human body for long periods of time.
    - danieltillett 12y ago
      The problem is a virus have a nasty habit of evolving - just because all the past ebola strains have had a particular property does not mean that any new strain will behave in the same way. There does seem to be something about the strain in this latest outbreak that is different to past outbreaks.
      - Crito 12y ago
        Do you similarly lose sleep over the idea of AIDS becoming airborne? Don't waste your time worrying about such hypotheticals. If you want to worry for sport, there are better things to worry about.
        danieltillett 12y ago
        No I don’t worry about AIDS becoming airbone, but when you look at the historical record of pandemics they are much more a problem than would appear of first glance. Pandemics that wipe out 1/3 to 1/2 the population and that appear out of nowhere are far too common over the last 2500 years for us to be complacent.
        ams6110 12y ago
        For roughly 2300 or more of those years we didn't understand how diseases spread or how to treat/prevent them.
        nospecinterests 12y ago
        But that doesn't mean we humans are "safe". Knowledge is power but its not a vaccine.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        The odds of any particular mutation are small. The odds of any mutation are high. The odds of a meaningful mutation, somewhere between the two. The fact that we're seeing more spread than usual is already some evidence that this strain has some relevant mutation - though I don't know enough to quantify how much evidence.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  No. Based solely on rates in the past, rather than any sort of projection into the future, I'm incredibly unlikely to be likely to be infected by either (note from your link, that of the <2k/yr of malaria in the US we see "almost all in recent travelers"). If I am infected by either, I am overwhelmingly more likely to survive a bout of malaria. And during an unusual outbreak (which is the case for ebola at present), looking simply at past incidence will underestimate my risk. It's still probably not a high risk, and there are higher risks (which I try to pay more attention), but I don't think it's wrong to say it poses a greater threat to me (or to the overwhelming majority on this site) than does malaria.
  - danieltillett 12y ago
    Actually it is very difficult to place any risk estimate on ebola (or any other new viral strain) as we don’t really know much about it. Imagine that it is 1918 again and someone was trying to make a prediction of the likelihood of influenza becoming a deadly pandemic that would kill 100 million people over the next 18 months. They would look at the past history of influenza and say there is a negligible risk of this happening. Of course now since we know that influenza can become very serious we keep our eyes on it, but for something like ebola we really know very little.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      Based on previous outbreaks of things generally I think it's most likely to be correct that this outbreak is also of low risk to the US population at large. Which is not to say that there's not a tremendously high value of information - the next thing we learn could change that (and again, probably won't, but...). I think it does make sense to be paying some attention as random individuals, and more attention as health workers or CDC employees, and I think it is probably still the case that my drive home is more likely to kill me (but I pay a lot of attention to my drive home!).
      - danieltillett 12y ago
        Humans tend to overestimate the danger of apparent low probability, high impact events (like pandemic ebola) and underestimate the risks involved in mundane events (like driving a car). Given how infrequent pandemics occur, a better way to judge the risks involved would be to take a much long term view and try to measure the risk of a major pandemic occurring in your lifetime. When you look at the history of plagues over the last 2500 years they are infrequent, but common enough that we can get some handle on the risk. My very rough calculations based on past pandemic frequencies and death rates put the risk at around 1 in 1000 of being killed by a pandemic sometime during your lifetime. This is not huge, but at the same time it is not trivial. Edit. I added the word apparent to the “…danger of…” as I realise that my wording is confusing without it.

alrs 12y ago

I don't think that the thrust of this story has anything to do with the mortality of one person. What is newsworthy is that there is potentially an Ebola patient zero in the most densely populated part of the United States. Worse, the patient was in contact with travelers who have likely fanned out throughout North America, South America, Europe, and Asia.

psychometry 12y ago

That's a horrible thing, but completely irrelevant to this topic. Should we stop paying attention to Gaza because things are worse in the Sudan?