6 ms·
Couple of points: ( If there are any downvotes, please provide reasons for downvote, Thanks.) 1. I understand this is an article about the impact of Ebola viru
by q2 12y ago
Couple of points: ( If there are any downvotes, please provide reasons for downvote, Thanks.)
1. I understand this is an article about the impact of Ebola virus. But why does the article highlighted the religious beliefs of the doctors/persons involved? If we remove that religious aspect from the article, how the integrity/message of this article's content will be impacted? I think, there is subtle religious propaganda in the article which is unnecessary to convey the virus, its impact and required global effective response.
2. Effectiveness of Govt. organizations (excluding armed forces who are trained) in majority of nations, especially in developing countries is doubtful.Organizations like WHO, UN, World bank, IMF also have similar characteristics on effectiveness, unfortunately but with no other alternatives.
3. I am not sure about testing arrangements at US airports. Since US hosts people from majority of nations who may have travel plans to other nations, i.e. some sort of hub, virus can reach other nations quickly, if US authorities fail to respond properly. Hope arrangements are made to test people who are coming into US. My guess is, testing doctors/nurses, checking customs/security officials ...etc i.e. all employees at the interfaces i.e. shipping ports, airports need to be wearing spacesuit sort of dresses as mentioned in the article so that they themselves won't be infected and become carriers of virus. This applies to all other countries including in Europe, China ...etc. Is it happening?
4. What about the effectiveness of other forms of medicine like Homeopathy/Ayurveda ...etc on this virus? I think we need to have alternative options of medicines/treatments, given the danger and magnitude of the problem to humanity ...etc.
- ghshephard 12y agoYou might be downvoted because your suggestions are a little overboard at this point, in particular, "Hope arrangements are made to test people who are coming into US. My guess is, testing doctors/nurses, checking customs/security officials ...etc i.e. all employees at the interfaces i.e. shipping ports, airports need to be wearing spacesuit sort of dresses as mentioned in the article so that they themselves won't be infected and become carriers of virus." The Risk/Reward of spending money on hazmat gear for every screener who has to work secondary (presumably you are suggesting that we would only screen people who had just come from an ebola active area) is pretty weak.
- q2 12y agoI agree that I am suggesting screening of only those, who are coming from Ebola active area. As this article mentions, incubation period to see symptoms by other humans is between one week to three weeks after infection. But tests may catch before. Since we are living in globalized world, where people move across borders, I am worried about people carrying virus unknowingly. Many parts of Asia are very dense and it may be overnight catastrophe if this happens. So authorities at the hubs of human activity (US/Europe/China/Japan ...etc) need to be more vigilant than normal humans outside. Please note that "prevention is better than care". Thanks. Edit: small grammar change.
- ghshephard 12y agoVigilant, yes. But full hazmat gear to screen asymptomatic individuals is going overboard.