4 ms·

Some of the authorities are still acting like it's the 80s. Despite a few flare ups of panic, they did a pretty good job of getting the word out about HIV/AIDS

Some of the authorities are still acting like it's the 80s. Despite a few flare ups of panic, they did a pretty good job of getting the word out about HIV/AIDS when there was a lot of misinformation out there. This is different for two very important reasons. 1. We just don't know how communicable Ebola is if people spend a lot of time in close proximity to an infected person. 2. Widespread access to internet "news" sources can spread misinformation extremely quickly. They seem to be afraid to admit that there are things that they still don't know. Honesty is the best policy. There isn't yet any clear cause for panic, so start with that and go from there.

hga 12y ago
I'm not sure how much room there is for "internet 'news' sources" to spread misinformation, at least in a populace who accepts the germ theory of disease, even if most are fuzzy on viri vs. bacteria. Nigeria's recent Ebola experience gives us hope that the best supportive care can reduce the death rate to something below 50%, they had 20 cases, 19 lab confirmed, 8 deaths. But for the time being it's still inevitably going to be very deadly, although mutations to less severe forms would be advantageous. Whereas to truly airborne would take multiple ones, we're pretty sure, and is very unlikely. Although not 0%, but real close. That's probably where there's harm that can be done, but as this article and discussion note, we don't really know the truth now. I suppose that the currently inept internal US response could lead to people giving credence to "it transmits like the flu!" (which per the above is neither true nor likely to become so). Certainly people including ones claiming to be doctors are saying that now in "internet 'news' sources" ... are people believing that? (I and my family know too much medicine and biology for that.)

hga 12y ago

I'm not sure how much room there is for "internet 'news' sources" to spread misinformation, at least in a populace who accepts the germ theory of disease, even if most are fuzzy on viri vs. bacteria. Nigeria's recent Ebola experience gives us hope that the best supportive care can reduce the death rate to something below 50%, they had 20 cases, 19 lab confirmed, 8 deaths. But for the time being it's still inevitably going to be very deadly, although mutations to less severe forms would be advantageous. Whereas to truly airborne would take multiple ones, we're pretty sure, and is very unlikely. Although not 0%, but real close. That's probably where there's harm that can be done, but as this article and discussion note, we don't really know the truth now. I suppose that the currently inept internal US response could lead to people giving credence to "it transmits like the flu!" (which per the above is neither true nor likely to become so). Certainly people including ones claiming to be doctors are saying that now in "internet 'news' sources" ... are people believing that? (I and my family know too much medicine and biology for that.)