Ebola Has Made It To the United States 475
An anonymous reader sends news that the CDC has confirmed the first case of Ebola diagnosed on U.S. soil.
An unnamed patient at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas was placed in isolation while awaiting test results for the dreaded virus. Apparently, the patient had traveled recently to a West African country, where the disease is spreading, and later developed symptoms that suggested Ebola. A blood specimen from the patient was sent to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, a testing process that can take 24 to 48 hours to confirm an Ebola infection — or not. The results came back about 3:32 p.m.
In other Ebola news, outbreaks in Nigeria and Senegal appear to be completely contained.
Time to... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Time to... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but definitely the time to enact common sense, and if anybody says, "but that's offensive to..." give them a good punch in the mouth. Good common sense, like not allowing people to fly from those countries.
Except that if you cancel all the flights, medical personnel and drugs and equipment have no way to get there. Which means that the disease can't be contained. Which means that it spread to places that there are still flights allowed, before you are aware of it, or have countermeasures. What do you do then? Cut off all flights to that country, rinse and repeat?
The people who actually do disease control are warning, based on science, that the douchebag reactionary approach to this is going to kill hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people, and put even First World countries at risk. Sorry, America isn't going to shoot its way out of this one.
They need to lock this down now! (Score:2)
Re:They need to lock this down now! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are you telling us? I'm sure the nincompoops at CDC are standing around by the water cooler trying to figure out what to do and they're certainly not reading slashdot! Quick! Get on the phone and lend them your expertise in this area!
Asymptomatic people are not contagious (Score:2)
From what I read it will be necessary to monitor the DIRECT contacts with the sick person, not "the close contacts to all those people", because the close contacts have not yet had time to start having symptoms and become contagious.
So it's a planeload of people, and other people who used that plane.
--PM
Re: (Score:3)
To reply to my own post, I did a bit more research:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/e... [go.com]
This story says that the person didn't start having symptoms until well after his flight. It's doubtful he contaminated the plane at all. So it's just him and his close contacts from when he started to become show symptoms.
--PM
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not clear as to why every single person flying into an airport from the hot spots isn't put in quarantine upon landing.
Re:Asymptomatic people are not contagious (Score:5, Interesting)
It would seem that the incubation period can be several weeks but the risk of spreading is only there once symptoms appear. I imagine a person who is not intending on doing ill will with the disease could self monitor and quarantine himself if needed.
It's not like they will let ISIS or ISAL or whatever infect anyone and send them over with the disease to spread it across all populated western areas or anything. And if they tried, they would be captured at the airport or border crossing by the professional TSA.
Wait, maybe they should quarantine some people.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the NPR report I just heard it was 4 or 5 days after the person arrived in the US before they fell ill so they probably weren't contagious on the plane ride over.
Re: (Score:2)
Like this? [healthmap.org]
Or this? [cnn.com]
Or maybe this? [nytimes.com]
Ya...The Google is a great tool.
Re: (Score:3)
Somehow if you believed that each seat
PANIC! (Score:5, Funny)
Best solution right now is to panic and start looting. Mostly because looting looks fun and angry mobs make for good tv
Lone star... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I always thought the fences they keep building along the Mexican border should have been located a bit farther north.
You're on to something there.
Maybe we can get them to "Teach the Controversy " when it comes to the Mexico–United States border and roll back to 1836. If we play our cards right maybe we can throw in the Louisiana purchase as well.
Surprise! Surprise! (Score:2)
Contagiousness (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe people have pointed out that Ebola is not very contagious and is spread through direct contact with bodily fluids. However, the Ebola Reston strain is airborne though only dangerous to monkeys.
The current strain in Liberia and other places is Ebola Zaire, and is not airborne, but there is nothing preventing its mutation into something that is more contagious like Reston, so we should be cautious.
Re:Contagiousness (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the point has came up again and again that ebola has mutated to an airborne form before. In 2012 Canadian researchers showed that Ebola Zaire could be transmitted in an airborne fashion from pigs to monkeys. Being transmitted between humans that way doesn't seem like a very large leap.
My thoughts are that it wouldn't exactly have to "go airborne" to become a catastrophe. MRSA isn't exactly airborne, but its nasty, sometimes fatal, and endemic to hospitals and health clubs all over the pretty sanitary (compared to Liberia) United States. Replacing MRSA with something that is essentially untreatable except for supportive care and is 80 percent fatal would be pretty damned heinous.
Past ebola outbreaks tended to burn themselves out pretty quickly. This one hasn't. Maybe that is because ebola finally got into an urban area. Maybe it is because all three of these countries (Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea) have dysfunctional health care systems and are recovering from horrific civil wars -- on the other hand, that sounds a lot like The Congo and Zaire before it. Something sure seems to be different this time. That should keep people up at night. I'd feel better if some smart people from the CDC or WHO or USAMRIID were trying to figure out what us different this time.
Another thing that comes to mind is that quality, up-to-date information about this outbreak is hard to find. About the most reliable source is the wikipedia page on the outbreak. I am kind of worried about the bland reassurances that we have nothing to worry about, and then reading opinion pieces like this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09... [nytimes.com] ... which to me, translated from epidemiologist-speak, seems to be saying, "run for the hills."
Re:Contagiousness (Score:4, Informative)
Past Ebola incubation periods were under 3 days. This one can be dormant up to 3 weeks. That means you can be a carrier and not know until 3 weeks later. In a place where the health care system is top notch and any outbreak can be contained in a relatively short time, that doesn't mean much. But combine that with crappy health care and ignorant masses, you've got a perfect storm where people who have it don't know they have it or don't want to get treated and thus get other people infected, who then travel somewhere else before showing symptoms and getting other people infected.
This is why it's not as big a deal in the U.S. if it gets here. The people who show signs are quickly quarrantined. The people who are close to them are quarrantined. They'll quarrantine entire towns if necessary.
The only issue is if it hits a big city, and people aren't aware of their symptoms, and it starts spreading. But it's hard to not be aware of your symptoms when you're bleeding out of every orfice. And we do have experimental treatments, worst case. They've already been shown to work. We just don't know if they won't cause worse things to happen in the edge cases, like massive blood clots for certain people or some such.
Re: (Score:3)
This is unlike the common flu where are are infectious, even if non-symptomatic.
Fortunately, it is also highly unlikely to switch from being s
If Ebola cross-mutates with the (Score:5, Funny)
rabies virus, it could result in the infected person becoming insane and attacking everyone that he sees. But unlike regular rabies, you don't have to get bitten to become infected... Ebola can be transmitted simply by touching someone. This could result in extremely rapid disease transmission, perhaps triggering a worldwide pandemic.
If this happens, millions of Resident Evil fans all over the world will be writhing on the floor in full nerdgasm.
Re: (Score:2)
If this happens, millions of Resident Evil fans all over the world will be writhing on the floor in full nerdgasm.
30 mins before they dehydrate from the mtn dew code red shortage
Re:If Ebola cross-mutates with the (Score:5, Insightful)
If Ebola cross-mutates with the rabies virus,
The probability of which is less that that of a world killing asteroid hitting the earth tomorrow. There are a lot of "ifs" that can be speculated about but almost impossible one like that don't need to be advertise. Your scare tactics propably won't cause a panic in the type of people who read this site. They are generally more intelligent and scientifically minded for that.
Re:If Ebola cross-mutates with the (Score:5, Informative)
YOU FAIL BIOLOGY FOREVER.
Don't freak out. (Score:5, Informative)
link [news92fm.com]
"The best means of prevention are similar to those you would practice to prevent the common cold or the flu, and it starts at your bathroom sink. Thoroughly washing your hands, and practicing good hygiene with soap and water, is a good first step to preventing infection."
The early signs and symptoms of the Ebola virus include:
Symptoms may become increasingly severe over time, the Mayo Clinic said, with additional symptoms present, including:
Be careful, but not frightened.
Re: (Score:3)
Achoooooo! Sorry about that.
Re: (Score:3)
Not -quite- the first (Score:2)
We must nuke Texas from orbit, (Score:5, Funny)
...it's the only way to be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you'll have to use Nukes. Once Texans figure out that there's Ebola running loose around their state, they'll get out their shooting irons and go full survivalist. If the guy who's the first ebola case turns out to be a black man, I've got a feeling there are going a whole lot of people of color heading for Oklahoma and New Mexico tonight.
By the end of the week, Texas will look like an episode of Walking Dead. In other words, nobody in the rest of the country will notice.
Re:We must nuke Texas from orbit, (Score:5, Funny)
...it's the only way to be sure.
Agreed.
What's that? They got Ebola too?
ethical question (Score:5, Funny)
Is the end of humanity due to the Ebola virus an acceptable excuse for adultery?
Asking for a friend.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you think. I'm OK with this thread turning into ideas for ways to turn the ebola zombie apocalypse to our advantage.
On the down side, I'm leading my fantasy football league by almost thirty points. Just my luck the world comes to an end in week five.
Pharma Terrorisim (Score:2)
Hey buddy want your family taken care of for the rest of their life?
Just bring back this here ebola to the States
??? zombies
Profit!
Re:Completely Contained? (Score:5, Informative)
Then how the hell did it end up in Texas?
Most likely it came from somewhere other than Nigeria or Senegal. Most of the active cases are in Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe an immigrant traveling back to the home country for a visit.
Maybe to attend a funeral [wsj.com].
Re:Completely Contained? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or the person traveled there on vacation and came back with it.
Vacation? In Liberia? In the middle of the biggest Ebola epidemic? Is that person batshit insane?
Re:Completely Contained? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, those flight cancellation fees are pretty outrageous.
Re: (Score:2)
Then how the hell did it end up in Texas?
Well, I'm going to assume someone upgraded it to Extreme Zoonosis. Heck, even Greenland's not safe now.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty obvious that this patient had been . . . wait for it . . . DECONTAINENATED!
Ouch.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure what you're asking. Texas is obviously a 3rd world country. That's where Ebola has the best chance. The absolute worst healthcare for the poor, superstition supersedes science, public "schools" that teach fairy stories, byzantine legal structure, corrupt governance... Nope, no surprises here. Ebola's a perfect fit with Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal fucktard...
Re:Completely Contained? (Score:5, Funny)
Overheard at the TSA: OMG NAIL CLIPPERS, TACKLE HIM!!
Whew, that was close! Hey Lou, what about this guy? He's bleeding from his eyeballs! Let 'im through Joe, nothing in the book about that.
Re:Completely Contained? (Score:5, Informative)
Listening to NPR they just reported that the person had traveled from Liberia to visit family. It was 4 or 5 days after the person arrived in the US before they started feeling sick so it's not likely the folks on the airplane are at risk.
Re:Completely Contained? (Score:5, Informative)
This* What people fail to realise is that Ebola is not very contagious. It has a high mortality rate which makes it scary as but as far as contagious goes it has nothing on influenza or many other viral infections.
You can't get Ebola from someone sneezing in the room.
You can't get Ebola from someone showing no symptoms. Unless the person is physically ill the virus is not contiguous.
You typically can't get Ebola from very short term contact.
My advice is not to tongue kiss people who just got off the plane from west African countries and you should be fine.
Re: (Score:3)
"You can't get Ebola from someone sneezing in the room."
if they're 9 feet away from you.
Right next to you, and yes you can get it.unlikely but possible
"You can't get Ebola from someone showing no symptoms."
true, but bear in mind that includes running a fever. How well do you recognize someone with a slight fever? How any people at the beginning stages still continue their daily routine until the are too sick? I'ts just a cold, at first.
"You typically can't get Ebola from very short term contact."
Um..incorre
Re:Completely Contained? (Score:5, Informative)
Right next to you, and yes you can get it.unlikely but possible
It's not an airborne virus. You need direct contact to bodily fluids meaning the person would need to literally sneeze on your face. That is why ebola only readily spreads in countries where basic hygiene (read: washing your hands) isn't practised.
true, but bear in mind that includes running a fever. How well do you recognize someone with a slight fever? How any people at the beginning stages still continue their daily routine until the are too sick? I'ts just a cold, at first.
It's just a cold at first for a very VERY short time. Ebola once it takes hits you very suddenly. Much like meningococcal which can go from nothing at all to 40+ fever in a matter of hours. You don't need to be some kind of medical genius to recognise people with an onset of severe symptoms, and the symptoms really are severe.
"You typically can't get Ebola from very short term contact."
Um..incorrect.
If you insist. Sure if an ebola victim comes in and start bleeding on you then you'll get it with short term exposure, but the disease is hard to spread. How often do you share bodily fluids with co-workers? In any ordinary scenario you need prolonged contact for the virus to make it across. You shake your co-workers ebola ridden hand and then go to the loo and wash your hands you're in the clear. That's what I mean with prolonged contact, in most normal cases it won't spread and the CDC even listed the highest risk groups are those providing continuous care to a patient.
Anyway in summary you seem to agree with the principle of theres no need to freak out, right?
Re:Completely Contained? (Score:5, Funny)
The terrorists have already won.
Re: (Score:3)
Listening to NPR they just reported that the person had traveled from Liberia to visit family. It was 4 or 5 days after the person arrived in the US before they started feeling sick so it's not likely the folks on the airplane are at risk.
Sure, passengers on the plane are probably ok. How about all the patients in the ER the first time he went to the hospital in Dallas, four days after initial onset of symptomatic EVD, was checked out by doctors there and was sent home? He then came *back* two days later and was admitted and tested postive. So you have people in the ER the first time around, the doctors who conducted exam (I hope to hell they were wearing basic PPE) and then any family members who were around while he was 6+days after be
Re: (Score:3)
This report also shows that our first case of Ebola was screwed up.
How does a hospital release someone who just traveled from Liberia and has symptoms consistent with Ebola? They allowed this person to expose people for twice as long compared to if they had handled the situation as common sense would dictate. [Isolate and test]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fristy Pawst! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why SHOULDN'T first world countries get to share the misery of their less fortunate bretheren, anyway?
Because they bring it on themselves. By tolerating corrupt government, they squander resources, and have nothing left to spend on healthcare infrastructure. Corruption also leads to poverty, since people don't work hard if their property will be stolen. It also leads to deep distrust of government and authority, which leads to distrust of health care providers, which leads to looting of clinics.
Re:Fristy Pawst! (Score:5, Funny)
> By tolerating corrupt government, they squander resources, and have nothing left to spend on healthcare infrastructure.
Hey, come on now, the USA isn't that bad.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> By tolerating corrupt government, they squander resources, and have nothing left to spend on healthcare infrastructure.
Hey, come on now, the USA isn't that bad.
I was going to mod you +1 funny, but you stole my joke.
They are two sides of the same fucking coin! (Score:2)
Actually, BOTH !!
Re: (Score:2)
And then there's the people in Africa...
Re:Fristy Pawst! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
> This isn't the 1800s where the army and the individual have the same weapons.
Clearly you've never been to Texas. Individuals are better armed, have better equipment, and are better at using it.
Re:Fristy Pawst! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of these governments are democracies.
In not much more than name. Your view of africa is exceptionally myopic.
Africans have a long tradition of "The Big Man" as leader,
While it is true that the only people who can effectively change a country's government are the citizens themselves, your reductionism to the point of condescension disqualifies you from having a meaningful opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By tolerating corrupt government
Ignore the fact that Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone were ALL fighting civil wars at the same time about 5 years before you signed up for Slashdot...
... which was a result of corrupt government.
Re: Fristy Pawst! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I want something I can pay for it. If my life is on the line, I don't have to worry about how much it costs. I already know two people who have benefited from very expensive life saving procedures. I am sure that when I need something like that, it will at least be there.
I'm not so sure of near-communist countries where beaurocrats are in charge of these things.
This guy from Liberia is already getting the best care available anywhere. He might even pull through because of our "inferior" system.
Re:Fristy Pawst! (Score:5, Insightful)
If my life is on the line, I don't have to worry about how much it costs.
I call BS. If your life is on the line, you *won't* worry about how much it costs, unless it actually happens to save your life, in which case the cost will probably leave you financially crippled for whatever life said treatment left you with. Also, aren't there a number of cases where people didn't get treatment solely because they couldn't afford it?
I'm not so sure of near-communist countries where beaurocrats are in charge of these things.
Sounds like you've been reading too much Sarah Palin propaganda. I'm not aware of any public health care systems where decisions for treatment are made by anyone but doctors. It's the US where insurance bureaucrats make life or death decisions. Keep drinking their kool-aid.
Re:Fristy Pawst! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because why shouldn't people that manage their society's competently be punished for less competent societies failing?
Lets say your country works really hard and does everything right. They keep a reasonable budget, work hard, enact sensible policies, and generally just do a good job.
Then lets say your neighbor is full of complete fucktards that spend more money then they have, slack off doing nothing half the time, enact dumb counter productive laws, and generally make every mistake possible one after the other...
Should country A1 be punished for the incompetence of country B1? I would argue not since the people in the first country had no control over what the other country did.
Now you seem to be suggesting that all countries are responsible for all countries. That is interesting because responsibility and power/rights go hand in hand. So if I am responsible for how other countries act and perform... then I must likewise have the right to dictate policies in those countries. In effect, for your argument to make any sense, we'd have to have a global government and it would be that global government that would be responsible for everything.
No such global government exists. The UN is a diplomatic institution and not a governing body despite their aspirations. Their authority comes with the consent of member nations and is precisely limited by treaties that would be binding with or without the UN. So the UN is not a governing body.
And that means I am not responsible for the failures of other countries. Not my fault.
If they want to give up their domestic freedoms and make their nation subordinate to another... and that other nation agrees to take responsibility for them... then fine. Lacking that... obviously we are not responsible for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Where the fuck are you from?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow - comprehending the naivete of such a simple-minded and non-integrative worldview which is, unfortunately shared by most and probably one of the largest contributers to the mess we're in and only making bigger every day makes me remember that I sometimes wonder why oh why didn't I take the BLUE PILL!!
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot to substantiate your insult/argument. You just said "you are wrong"... Well, maybe I am wrong... but you should offer some reason for concluding that. Simply saying I am wrong is not sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Then lets say your neighbor is full of complete fucktards that spend more money then they have, slack off doing nothing half the time, enact dumb counter productive laws, and generally make every mistake possible one after the other...
This sounds alot more like the USA. In most 3rd world countries, credit is almost non-existent so spending more than you have isn't even an option neither
is being a slacker.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fristy Pawst! (Score:5, Informative)
India might barely make the cut of 3rd world but there's no comparison between India and the places where Ebola is currently rampant.
The per capita of liberia is $400 while india is over $1500 not to mention india's goverment and economy is infinitely more stable.
Even in places like guatemala (which I visited last year and is also infinitely more stable than liberia) a majority of cell phones are
prepaid. Less than 50% of the people in liberia even have cell phones. So yes, some of the "rising 3rd world countries" like
india and guatemala have some credit available but nothing close to the US where someone can buy a house on credit or get
credit cards with limits that grossly exceed their annual income.
Re: (Score:3)
When I heard the $1/day figure, I always assumed there was a lot of barter and a lot of "doing without". You live in a shack on land that nobody buys, so you have no rent. Your village holds sway over 100 acres, which you farm and/or hunt. You trade bush meat for vegetables in the market. There's no electricity, so there's no electric bill. You fetch water from a stream, which is filthy; but there's no water bill. There's no sewer bill either. You crap in a hole if you're lucky, or the foul smelling
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fristy Pawst! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because why shouldn't people that manage their society's competently be punished for less competent societies failing?
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that each of the various countries of the world are hermetically sealed off from one another. It is not true, of course. What we do in the USA does have an affect on others around the world, just as their actions have an affect on us.
Lets say your country works really hard and does everything right. They keep a reasonable budget, work hard, enact sensible policies, and generally just do a good job.
Seriously?!? You are claiming that we in the USA are doing everything right?!? Are you really making that claim? Have you been paying attention the last few years?
Then lets say your neighbor is full of complete fucktards that spend more money then they have, slack off doing nothing half the time, enact dumb counter productive laws, and generally make every mistake possible one after the other...
And this is a pretty apt description of the US Congress of the last few years, at least.
Should country A1 be punished for the incompetence of country B1? I would argue not since the people in the first country had no control over what the other country did.
There you go, again, suggesting that all the countries of the world are hermetically sealed off from each other. Clue: you can find an American expatriate in just about every country, just about every continent of the world. These expats do in fact exert (sometimes greater, sometimes lesser) control over what goes on in those other countries.
Now you seem to be suggesting that all countries are responsible for all countries. That is interesting because responsibility and power/rights go hand in hand. So if I am responsible for how other countries act and perform... then I must likewise have the right to dictate policies in those countries. In effect, for your argument to make any sense, we'd have to have a global government and it would be that global government that would be responsible for everything.
Readjust your tinfoil hat! It seems to be cutting off the oxygen supply to your brain.
And that means I am not responsible for the failures of other countries. Not my fault.
If they want to give up their domestic freedoms and make their nation subordinate to another... and that other nation agrees to take responsibility for them... then fine. Lacking that... obviously we are not responsible for them.
Grow up, little man! If you want to go live on a deserted island where you can create your own libertarian utopia, then go! No one will stop you. But here in this modern world we all have connections with each other. Some are intended and wanted, some are not. If you want to debate what the extent of our responsibility to others in far away places is, then fair call. But to pretend that we who live in a modern society don't have any responsibility for anyone else is just plain asinine.
Re: (Score:2)
"Lets say you work really hard and do everything right. You keep a reasonable budget, work hard, behave sensibly , and generally just do a good job.
Then lets say your neighbor is a complete fucktard that spend more money then they have, slack off doing nothing half the time, engage in dumb counter productive activities, and generally make every mistake possible one after the other...
Should I be punished for the incompetence
Re:Fristy Pawst! (Score:5, Insightful)
So the US is responsible for the fuck ups of every country we've ever had contact with for the rest of time?
Tell you what, if the US must pay for countries we had contact with that are doing badly... does that mean we get paid or some sort of compensation for the countries that did well? South Korea for example... do they owe us an ongoing tax for not being like north korea? Or does your little line of logic only flow in one direction? Is the US only expected to pay other people but no one has to pay us for good things or hey... why not pay the US for bad things done to it? I mean... there are countries that harm the US on occasion... can we expect a payment there?
See, you're just very comfortable with drawing on the national account because you think it is infinite money. People have a hard time with very large numbers. They tend to see them, go cross eyed, and just identify it as a number too large to be bothered with... which tends to mean that many see large numbers as infinite numbers.
Well, the US treasury is not infinite. The numbers have to be balanced at some point. So despite there being a lot of money in there, it does not mean that you can draw upon it infinitely without feeding more into it. Here again, people will say "just raise taxes"... well, okay... are YOU going to pay those taxes? Most people that say such things don't mean raise taxes on them. They mean raise it on someone else. Which is very cute. I'd be very happy with doing all sorts of things if I didn't have to pay for it. Mind if I push some policies and you pay for it while I don't? See how annoying that is?... If you're at all capable of breaking out of your cognitive dissonance then you've joined the conversation and have begun to understand. If you haven't... oh well. For some... sail boats will always be clouds on the horizon.
Re:Fristy Pawst! (Score:5, Insightful)
Even domestically it doesn't work. Lets say the government prints lots of money. What are they spending it on? Even if they just use it to pay employees those employees will then go out into the economy and exchange those dollars for goods and services. if the currency is inflationary then the prices will creep up in proportion to the decrease in the scarcity of the dollars.
If any beggar can throw 100,000 dollars on the table then that means prices for a lot of things go up. And the faster they print money... or add zeros to bank accounts... the faster the currency inflates.
Even if you try what Roosevelt and Chavez tried with price controls, you then run into a problem with goods and dollars being valued differently in and out of the country. if these differences become extreme enough then you'll get smuggling. People will either smuggle under priced goods out of the country to make a profit or smuggle over priced items into the country to make a profit. Any big price difference or lack of legal limit on supply is going to trigger a black market. The soviets couldn't shut the black market down so ... good luck trying in the western world.
Re: (Score:3)
The US track record has to be put in perspective with our whole history and all our contributions. If we are to be held responsible for bad things then we must be rewarded for good things.
Every nation... especially those that have had an impact on human history is going to have bad spots. We're people just like everyone else and being people we make mistakes. We fool ourselves into thinking evil things are justified. We get caught up in things. We are occasionally ignorant or lazy. The US is guilty of this
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Science is cool and all, it has many answers, though not all of them, imo.
That's one of the best things about science, though. Not only does it not have all of the answers (in fact, not even a very small percentage of them), but this fact is ingrained into the entire scientific process with the knowledge that if we try hard enough, we can find the answers.
Re:Fristy Pawst! (Score:5, Funny)
That it's not a 'dark, dismal world', that it's a ''what you make of it'' world, depending on your attitude towards it.
The important question we need to ask is if we want to live in a world of single quotes or double quotes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because we don't go around kissing dead people on the mouth?
Re: (Score:3)
Why SHOULDN'T first world countries get to share the misery of their less fortunate bretheren, anyway?
For one, because first world countries tend not to have mobs go after health workers and scientists based on belief in things like witchcraft and sorcery, and they also tend not to break people out of isolation in a hospital when the person has a deadly contagious disease. Sometimes a little epidemic is just what you need to get the population on board with modern medicine.
Re: (Score:3)
Helping people, maybe?
Re:WHY WHY WHY GO TO WEST AFRICA???? (Score:5, Informative)
I mean why would anyone travel to west Africa at this point? Curiosity?
Because the number of deaths from Ebola, even in West Africa, is miniscule compared to other causes, and it is easy to avoid just by washing your hands and using hand sanitizer. Also, avoid touching dead people. Other that that, you will be fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Houston: "ISS, we've had a problem."
Jim Lovell: "Hey, that's my line!"
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't there some sort of quarantine in effect or are we just letting people fly back and forth between Ebola outbreak areas all willy-nilly?
That would probably violate their human rights. Or something.
Re: (Score:2)
No it wouldn't. Public health is the most slam-dunk reason to restrict civil liberties. Travel is restricted for much less important reasons, like politics. You have your rights restricted to possess anthrax, even in your own home. A quarantine could prevent travel to West Africa, if it was shown to be a hazard to public health.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't sweat, a bodily fluid? or is ebola not passed on by that one?
Re: (Score:2)
yes it is passed on by touching someones sweat.
http://www.afro.who.int/en/clu... [who.int]
Re: (Score:3)
Mutation doesn't work that way. Putting the two viruses in the same person does not actually mix the viruses. They're each independent organisms.
Because the people coming from the area with the epidemic are screened before they get on an airplane. For example, they are checked for fever.
If they have symptoms, they aren't allowed on the