Do us all a favor and search âebola vaccineâ and âebola treatmentâ and maybe check out the Wikipedia entry about the history of Ebola. People care, people cared about the previous outbreaks, and people are working on the problem. The previous outbreaks were easier to contain, they happened in small villages.
There was no previous big push for a vaccine or treatment prior to the 2014 outbreak because the previous outbreaks killed less than 500 people and there were many other diseases in the same areas that received the worldâs attention and resources. For example, dengue fever results in 25,000 deaths annually. The WHO estimates malaria caused over 60,000 deaths in 2010. Itâs cruel, but in allocating resources the diseases causing multiple thousands of deaths a year got priority. Many countries are pouring money into research and have been doing so for a while. The NIH has been working on a vaccine since 2003 and expedited the human clinical trials in an effort to verify whether the vaccine is safe and effective and get it to the people who need it. While the testing is going on, GlaxoSmithCline is manufacturing 10,000 doses so if the vaccine is found to be safe and effective, those 10,000 does can be immediately distributed. Thatâs a huge amount of money to sink into manufacturing vaccine not yet proven to work to work in humans.
There is no conspiracy. People care.
WE ALL GONNA DIE!
Yeah, see, itâs because ebola is so rapidly fatal that itâs relatively less threatening. If you get ebola, you drop dead before you can spread it to very many people. A disease that infects 10,000 people and kills 90% of them is less dangerous than one that infects a million people and kills 10%.
And if they both infect 100,000 people?
We made it through the Swine flu epidemic -
- weâll make it through this.
Irrelevant in the current context. PrestonSturges said that SARS was âprobably a lot more threateningâ than ebola, because it was more contagious. You implied that he was wrong because ebola has a higher kill rate, but kill rate alone is not a sufficient measure of overall threat.
Not so irrelevant, if you look at both fatality rate and exposure is.
Worst case Ebola prediction - discovery.com
20,000 or 100,000 cases? - WaPo
100,000 x 12% = 12,000 deaths
100,000 x 70% = 70,000 deaths
Yes, thatâs exactly what we should do! Iâm glad youâve come around to agree.
If I am to believe morons on the internet, what we should really worry about is IS suicide Ebola Warriors somehow contracting Ebola somewhere in the middle of a fucking desert, flying here and sneezing on everyone. Ergo, we should nuke the Middle East Because Reasons.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
