With the epidemic of ebola in the Congo, and the knowledge of just how dangerous the disease is, would it be appropriate to firebomb the entire region in an effort to prevent it spreading to any other regions in the world?
All philosophical and moral constructs aside, firebombing will not work. Supposedly an immunization is being built in the lab and it is close to becoming effective. That is the best hope. Meanwhile Ebola has been spreading and it may become appropriate for wise countries to close their borders and restrict all travel, quarantining anyone who busts through, perhaps even shooting them down in remote areas. Better the stranger die than me the taxpaying citizen die a horrible death.
I'm watching this Ebola crisis with great concern... if it hits South Africa you will see a disaster of epic proportions. Because there's no more Apartheid government to keep the sewage from flowing into the drinking water or clean up the piles of rubbish and sewage flowing down the streets. Libs used to get very upset with the Apartheid government forcing the black South Africans to clean up their ****... "oh how dare you force anyone to do anything..... people have a right to be free" (high pitched lib voice). You kinda need to do that when you live on a continent where AIDS and EBOLA originated, it's called Health and sanitation.
What will happen if it hits the US? Is the health care system up to managing a potential disaster like this?
The US is a thousand times more capable than the current state of South Africa's hospitals... which many of is closing down due to doctors being raped...cockroaches in the rooms, maggots in patients wounds, dead patients found in the ceiling... even an elderly patient tied up under seating, looters are even carrying away timber in the walls to make fires. When these things happen in America we can talk again.
Don't worry about Ebola. Worry about the Black Death. Conditions in LA are ripe for it. https://nypost.com/2019/05/22/mountains-of-trash-in-la-could-cause-bubonic-plague-outbreak-expert/
Yes, I think in one year 20 000 people died through negligence in South African hospitals, that's without ebola sorry I have a bit of a gallows sense of humour....the SA Human Rights Commission is looking into it oh I see it's harmed not dead...great news.. in a weird way... however that's only in one province Actually on second thought you might be better of with Ebola More than 20‚000 patients harmed in Gauteng hospitals https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/so...n-20000-patients-harmed-in-gauteng-hospitals/
Medication Summary Untreated plague can progress to a fulminant illness with a high risk of mortality. Thus, early and appropriate antibiotic treatment is essential. Historically, streptomycin (15 mg/kg, up to 1 g intramuscularly every 12 h) has been the drug of choice. [27] However, in the United States, supplies of streptomycin are scarce https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/235627-medication No treatment for Ebola, that I’ve heard of yet.
Because there is no treatment for ebola. Once one contacts it, either they will die, or in rare cases they will not.
Nope. $70,000 per day per Ebola patient. And most of them will die. Huge risk for the hospital staff. Just the handling and disposal of the medical waste is thousands per day per patient. If it gets out of control we can write KYAGB on the mirror. Because it will come true for so many.
the only lawful solution is to control your own border and incentivize others to do the same. beyond that: tyvek suits, breathing masks, faceshields and gloves are not difficult to obtain. they arent fashionable, but those who put fashion ahead of safety deserve what they get.
How many must die from ebola before such is deemed a valid response? How many countries must suffer an epidemic of ebola before it is deemed a valid course of action?
Such is insufficient when every single cell of an individual infected with ebola is contaminated with the disease, and can easily spread to anyone around them. When one contracts ebola their entire body has become a biological hazard. Every flake of skin, every follicle of hair, even microscopic drop of saliva, it is all contaminated.
I'm struggling with this because I'm trying to condense it down to a soundbyte. one example, Apartheid government moved the Cape coloureds from the Bo-Kaap to the current Cape Flats because it was a rat infested slum. Over many years this move have always been painted as a land grab... move the coloured so whites can live there, when in fact it was because sanitation was becoming a huge threat to the community. Today a University stands in the Bo-Kaap. Apartheid also built townships with working toilets, hot water... today sewage is flowing through many of the streets and townships... rubbish is strewn everywhere... it has already turned into a third world slum...thousands of tonnes of sewage every second, is flowing into the river systems, dams and catchment areas. Here's the hospital situation http://www.politicalforum.com/index...in-south-africa.557055/page-6#post-1070676859 Now you might make the mistake in thinking I want Apartheid back... and you would be wrong, because it was far too much work keeping the tribes separated and stopping them from wiping one another out, keeping them fed, provide enough work, giving them free healthcare... etc etc. The whites will rebuild elsewhere, but this time the Nguni tribes will not be allowed in, they have South Africa now let them live in their own faeces. btw I've made several threads on South Africa, also in the History section, if you care to look you can check those forums
No. We must continue to research ebola and other diseases, and eradicate them. That's really the only thing that makes any sense. Think: fires that started in cities in medieval Europe didn't stop rats there from spreading bubonic plague and other diseases....