Theoretical Ebola spread based on 1.86 infection rate

[laklak]

Just mix it with Castlemaine XXXX, that will sort out the lower orders.

[pErvinalia]

I love it when you pretend to know stuff.

The guy in question is medical staff himself, genius. Apparently it's beyond your imagination that other healthcare staff could catch it from him in turn.

These people can't even control the spread of MRSA. But let's trust them with something like Ebola. How could it possibly go wrong.

Medical staff in frontline care in the 3rd world are not comparable to medical staff in the first world with world's best quarantining procedures. Surely your pea brain can handle that? Tell you what, lets see if this guy starts an epidemic in the UK. When it doesn't will you finally shut your ignorant cake hole?

Yes, we all know how good quarantining in the first world is, which is why nobody ever catches disease here. Oh wait.

You can't be seriously putting this forward as a cogent argument, yeah? Really? Ok, genius, how many people with "diseases" are subject to the highest biological hazard quarantine measures? That's right, fuck all. Which is the amount of relevance your "point" has to the debate.

You are a fine one to talk about pea-brained ignorance. Whether he starts an epidemic or not is not the point. He probably won't. That doesn't mean that it doesn't represent a risk.

So fucking what? You didn't say it was a "risk". You went on one of your usual hyperbolic hair pulling episodes. Everything we do presents a risk. One can only assume from your histrionics that you considered that risk too high. Once again, we see you totally unaware (allegedly) of what your posts present. Are you truly stupid, or just a troll (or both)?

[cronus]

We'll soon know if it's mutated to be airborne now.

[Strontium Dog]

I love it when you pretend to know stuff.

The guy in question is medical staff himself, genius. Apparently it's beyond your imagination that other healthcare staff could catch it from him in turn.

These people can't even control the spread of MRSA. But let's trust them with something like Ebola. How could it possibly go wrong.

Medical staff in frontline care in the 3rd world are not comparable to medical staff in the first world with world's best quarantining procedures. Surely your pea brain can handle that? Tell you what, lets see if this guy starts an epidemic in the UK. When it doesn't will you finally shut your ignorant cake hole?

Yes, we all know how good quarantining in the first world is, which is why nobody ever catches disease here. Oh wait.

You can't be seriously putting this forward as a cogent argument, yeah? Really? Ok, genius, how many people with "diseases" are subject to the highest biological hazard quarantine measures? That's right, fuck all. Which is the amount of relevance your "point" has to the debate.

You are a fine one to talk about pea-brained ignorance. Whether he starts an epidemic or not is not the point. He probably won't. That doesn't mean that it doesn't represent a risk.

So fucking what? You didn't say it was a "risk". You went on one of your usual hyperbolic hair pulling episodes. Everything we do presents a risk. One can only assume from your histrionics that you considered that risk too high. Once again, we see you totally unaware (allegedly) of what your posts present. Are you truly stupid, or just a troll (or both)?

I didn't say it was a risk? What part of what I posted didn't imply I believed there to be a risk?

I wonder when will you stop inventing things that aren't there, because your tiny mind cannot cope with things like nuance.

Seriously. Just fuck off now, you horrible little man. Your trolling might be perfectly at home in a cesspit of scum like RatSkep, but it's badly misjudged here.

[pErvinalia]

Lol. You are wrong and you can't admit it. Business as usual. There is no serious risk bringing this person back to the UK.

[Strontium Dog]

There is a risk, and I consider any risk of Ebola to be a risk too far, considering its potential for serious harm.

Since I have already defined the parameters by which I am correct, you are obviously wrong.

[pErvinalia]

Bahaha, I'm wrong because you've define me as 'wrong'? Well done. The problem with your idiotic analysis is that you are wrong to consider bringing a patient with ebola back to the UK as being too serious a risk, by any reasonable analysis. And as your argumentative 'points' have shown so far, you have no reasonable analysis. Your attempt to equate the extremely high level of biosecurity measures with people suffering from regular disease is a good case in point. Up your game, or go back to your persecution complex at ratskep.

[Strontium Dog]

Lots of words that say nothing. Classic rEvolutionist.

Even you admit that there's a risk, so I am right. You think the risk is an acceptable one, I don't. I live here, you don't.

Go drink some liquidised Ebola, there's a good fellow.

[JimC]

I love it when you pretend to know stuff.

The guy in question is medical staff himself, genius. Apparently it's beyond your imagination that other healthcare staff could catch it from him in turn.

These people can't even control the spread of MRSA. But let's trust them with something like Ebola. How could it possibly go wrong.

Medical staff in frontline care in the 3rd world are not comparable to medical staff in the first world with world's best quarantining procedures. Surely your pea brain can handle that? Tell you what, lets see if this guy starts an epidemic in the UK. When it doesn't will you finally shut your ignorant cake hole?

Yes, we all know how good quarantining in the first world is, which is why nobody ever catches disease here. Oh wait.

You are a fine one to talk about pea-brained ignorance. Whether he starts an epidemic or not is not the point. He probably won't. That doesn't mean that it doesn't represent a risk. Do you even know what risk is? Protip: it's not just a board game where you get to act out your fantasies of being communist world leader.

Technically, there may be a risk that it could escape quarantine, although with care, good technology and common sense, it should be a very small one.

The existence of a risk doesn't automatically mean that you cancel a given action.

[Strontium Dog]

Risk is probability multiplied by impact. The probability might be low (insofar as an unprecedented event can have a definite probability) but the impact would be national catastrophe.

I think the authorities just want to test out their little quarantine facility, to be honest, and that's worth the risk as far as they're concerned.

[JimC]

Risk is probability multiplied by impact. The probability might be low (insofar as an unprecedented event can have a definite probability) but the impact would be national catastrophe.

I think the authorities just want to test out their little quarantine facility, to be honest, and that's worth the risk as far as they're concerned.

Any outbreak in the UK (the likelihood of which is very low) could be contained much more effectively than in the chaos of west Africa, so a "national catastrophe" scenario is uninformed sensationalism, worthy of the fevered ignorance of the yellow press at its most hysterical...

[pErvinalia]

I love it when you pretend to know stuff.

The guy in question is medical staff himself, genius. Apparently it's beyond your imagination that other healthcare staff could catch it from him in turn.

These people can't even control the spread of MRSA. But let's trust them with something like Ebola. How could it possibly go wrong.

Medical staff in frontline care in the 3rd world are not comparable to medical staff in the first world with world's best quarantining procedures. Surely your pea brain can handle that? Tell you what, lets see if this guy starts an epidemic in the UK. When it doesn't will you finally shut your ignorant cake hole?

Yes, we all know how good quarantining in the first world is, which is why nobody ever catches disease here. Oh wait.

You are a fine one to talk about pea-brained ignorance. Whether he starts an epidemic or not is not the point. He probably won't. That doesn't mean that it doesn't represent a risk. Do you even know what risk is? Protip: it's not just a board game where you get to act out your fantasies of being communist world leader.

Technically, there may be a risk that it could escape quarantine, although with care, good technology and common sense, it should be a very small one.

The existence of a risk doesn't automatically mean that you cancel a given action.

Stop trolling the poor man, Jim!

[pErvinalia]

Risk is probability multiplied by impact. The probability might be low (insofar as an unprecedented event can have a definite probability) but the impact would be national catastrophe.

I think the authorities just want to test out their little quarantine facility, to be honest, and that's worth the risk as far as they're concerned.

I think you've got absolutely no clue what you are talking about (now there's a surprise). You know neither the probability nor the impact in a modern healthy western country. You are just buying into ridiculous hyperbole (now there's a surprise).

[Calilasseia]

At the moment, Ebola isn't transmissible by aerosol, so containment is well within the remit of any competently operated healthcare system. Unfortunately, Africa doesn't have many of these, so an Ebola outbreak in Africa has fairly dire effects.

On the other hand, the UK has been running the Porton Down facility for over 60 years, containing some of the most lethal micro-organisms on the planet, and not once has any of these escaped. The same facility has also managed to keep the lid on some far more immediately dangerous chemicals, such as Sarin and VX, which, if they escape, are going to be massively more problematic than Ebola.

Indeed, Porton Down has been maintaining stocks of such delights as botulinum toxin, a substance widely regarded as the most acutely lethal toxin in existence, with an LD50 in humans of just 1.3 ng per kilogram of body weight. Not the sort of substance one wishes to see escape into the wild either.

[rainbow]

Indeed, Porton Down has been maintaining stocks of such delights as botulinum toxin, a substance widely regarded as the most acutely lethal toxin in existence, with an LD50 in humans of just 1.3 ng per kilogram of body weight. Not the sort of substance one wishes to see escape into the wild either.

Botox for the people!