4 ms·

I think you're first sentence is a bit of rationalization. Because it is kind of slippery slope : "You know Alabama is not really well known for its hospitals",

by seren 12y ago

I think you're first sentence is a bit of rationalization. Because it is kind of slippery slope : "You know Alabama is not really well known for its hospitals", then "You can't really find a good clinic south of 8 Mile", etc. At this rate, it is going to end at your doorstep. I remember plenty of recommendation and planning for H1N1, but currently I don't see anything really being implemented for Ebola in Western countries. Not sure it would have been really efficient in case of a full blown flu epidemic, but at least some things were organized.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Ebola is scarey, but really washing hands and quarantine are the most effective public health efforts. In the US with plenty of clean water and soap, the chances of an epidemic become small.
- 001sky 12y ago
  There are a very small number of places in the world that safely handle these types of pathogens. Most of them are military or off limits to the public.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Who's handling pathogens? You go to church, and wash your hands when you get home. No Ebola. That simple, most of the time. The point was, an epidemic requires a vector that easily passes the disease, plus a delay between infection and symptoms. Ebola has only one of those.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Rates of hospital acquired infection show that you are perhaps a bit complacent. These are people who know the risks; are trained to wash their hands; who have access to clean hot water and soap; who have gloves; and who face consequences when patients die. And yet, even in these excellent hospital settings, on any one day about 1 in 25 people will have a hospital acquired infection.
  - intopieces 12y ago
    Only 1 in 25? Considering how many people are immune suppressed or elderly or very sick from the start, that number seems low. That means 24 out of 25 people don't get a hospital acquired infection, or 96%. I was a little worried about Ebola before your comment, now I'm not worried at all.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

by seren 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Ebola is scarey, but really washing hands and quarantine are the most effective public health efforts. In the US with plenty of clean water and soap, the chances of an epidemic become small.

001sky 12y ago
There are a very small number of places in the world that safely handle these types of pathogens. Most of them are military or off limits to the public.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Who's handling pathogens? You go to church, and wash your hands when you get home. No Ebola. That simple, most of the time. The point was, an epidemic requires a vector that easily passes the disease, plus a delay between infection and symptoms. Ebola has only one of those.
DanBC 12y ago
Rates of hospital acquired infection show that you are perhaps a bit complacent. These are people who know the risks; are trained to wash their hands; who have access to clean hot water and soap; who have gloves; and who face consequences when patients die. And yet, even in these excellent hospital settings, on any one day about 1 in 25 people will have a hospital acquired infection.
- intopieces 12y ago
  Only 1 in 25? Considering how many people are immune suppressed or elderly or very sick from the start, that number seems low. That means 24 out of 25 people don't get a hospital acquired infection, or 96%. I was a little worried about Ebola before your comment, now I'm not worried at all.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]