Ebola- Culture, the real issue

13

Replies

  • wamydia
    wamydia Posts: 259 Member
    edited October 2014
    "w734q672 wrote: »
    Do you think a mandatory 21 day quarantine would violate the personal rights of the doctors?

    Legally speaking, federal and state agencies have the authority to institute a quarantine when they feel there is a significant threat to public safety. Theoretically, I guess you could make the argument that a person shouldn't be "punished" or have their rights curbed by quarantine for being exposed to a disease since it isn't like they went out and intentionally got exposed (including ebola doctors, since they are wearing protective equipment and aren't trying to catch ebola from their patients). Basically, the question we are arguing here is whether a person's right to go out and see a movie or go bowling if they feel like it is more significant than the rest of the population's right to not be exposed to and potentially infected by someone who we know for a fact is at a relatively high risk for carrying a deadly disease. Public interest wins here, in my opinion.

    Besides which, anyone who is going to work with Ebola knows the risk. They know there is a possibility that they could be exposed and develop symptoms. In that case, they should be very well aware that they would be placed in a 21 day quarantine to monitor their symptoms. I don't see it as much of a leap to understand that anyone with direct patient contact is now being put in quarantine just to make sure that they don't develop symptoms. What's really baffling to me is how people who are selfless enough to risk their lives in an ebola zone in the first place are going to get up in arms about personal rights just because they are being required (because being asked nicely didn't work) to make sure that the people around them are kept safe when they return home. And it's not like no one has ever brought ebola home with them -- it's already happened or we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

    ETA: The comment I was replying to.
  • Miss_1999
    Miss_1999 Posts: 747 Member
    Falcon wrote: »
    The reason everyone is suiting up head to foot is because Ebola actually slips between the skin cells. Washing your hands isn't good enough, this is why they need to suit up every inch of their body. Touching a body for a few seconds unprotected guarantees you will be infected. This is why everyone needs to step up in an effort to contain Ebola.


    I'm not fully understanding this? Are you implying that a person simply having skin to skin contact with a person who is infected with Ebola for a matter of seconds will infect them? No exchange of bodily fluids, just the mere touch of flesh? If so, by no means am I being snarky, please post the source of this. I have not seen this anywhere, and to say the least, it's concerning.

    To my understanding, Ebola was only spread from bodily fluids. Now, that doesn't mean it isn't highly contagious.

    As far as getting it under control in Africa or "changing their culture" that's simply not going to happen (the changing of the culture that is). It's wrong to even ask to change someone's culture. The best thing we can hope for is to try to educate those living in high risk areas, and areas that are hit the hardest of what's going on, and how to combat this. Needless to say, a lot of efforts have been met with fear and hostility. Many of these people don't understand what's going on. Their world has been shaken up. They have limited resources, and often times, day to day survival is the most important thing on their minds. Limited education makes it difficult for them to understand that an illness could be coming from their food, or for that matter, touching their loved ones after death, or the rituals they've been doing for generations and are part of their culture are causing others to be sick and die.

  • BansheeCat
    BansheeCat Posts: 140
    edited October 2014
    w734q672 wrote: »
    BansheeCat wrote: »
    Bushmeat is another word for wild game. It's not just the assumed food source but a lifestyle primed for an outbreak. The spread is also from living in crowded shanty towns and sharing everything from toiletries to eating utinsils. Ebola is contained by contact tracking but when everyone in town is sipping the soup cup an outbreak seems inevitable.

    I don't think a foreign healthcare worker should be prevented from going on location, however, a mandatory 21 day quarantine before leaving should be in place until earlier detection tests exist. People have proven to be stupid without those measures.

    Do you think a mandatory 21 day quarantine would violate the personal rights of the doctors?

    Good question and without question ( assuming you're in the US), if our country PREVENTED you from going there that would be a violation of rights. My question is, to any who can elaborate, what right would be violated for instituting a temporary quarantine?

    It is my understanding a 21 day quarantine is in the realm of national security, CDC, since it's to protect the Republic from harm such as in this case, a uncontrolled deadly disease. It's one of the few limited powers the US federal gov't has since the implentation of the constitution. Whether a State gov't can exercise the same measures could be debated such as the Christie administration of New Jersey.

    http://www.today.com/health/new-jersey-gov-christie-ebola-quarantine-our-policy-will-not-1D80248130
  • Falcon
    Falcon Posts: 853 Member
    Miss_1999 wrote: »
    Falcon wrote: »
    The reason everyone is suiting up head to foot is because Ebola actually slips between the skin cells. Washing your hands isn't good enough, this is why they need to suit up every inch of their body. Touching a body for a few seconds unprotected guarantees you will be infected. This is why everyone needs to step up in an effort to contain Ebola.


    I'm not fully understanding this? Are you implying that a person simply having skin to skin contact with a person who is infected with Ebola for a matter of seconds will infect them? No exchange of bodily fluids, just the mere touch of flesh? If so, by no means am I being snarky, please post the source of this. I have not seen this anywhere, and to say the least, it's concerning.

    To my understanding, Ebola was only spread from bodily fluids. Now, that doesn't mean it isn't highly contagious.

    As far as getting it under control in Africa or "changing their culture" that's simply not going to happen (the changing of the culture that is). It's wrong to even ask to change someone's culture. The best thing we can hope for is to try to educate those living in high risk areas, and areas that are hit the hardest of what's going on, and how to combat this. Needless to say, a lot of efforts have been met with fear and hostility. Many of these people don't understand what's going on. Their world has been shaken up. They have limited resources, and often times, day to day survival is the most important thing on their minds. Limited education makes it difficult for them to understand that an illness could be coming from their food, or for that matter, touching their loved ones after death, or the rituals they've been doing for generations and are part of their culture are causing others to be sick and die.

    Just saying direct contact with someone who is sweating does pose a risk. There is theory is someone is sweating out the virus, then it can get into the skin pores the same way....

    How is it spread?

    The natural reservoir of the virus is unknown and it is not always clear how the virus first appears in humans. Usually the first person gets infected through contact with an infected animal.

    People can be exposed to Ebola virus from direct physical contact with body fluids like blood, saliva, stool, urine, sweat etc. of an infected person and soiled linen used by a patient.

    It can be spread through contact with objects, such as needles, that have been contaminated with infected secretions.


    http://www.afro.who.int/en/clusters-a-programmes/dpc/epidemic-a-pandemic-alert-and-response/epr-highlights/3648-frequently-asked-questions-on-ebola-hemorrhagic-fever.html

  • w734q672
    w734q672 Posts: 578 Member
    edited October 2014
    nosajjao wrote: »
    Falcon wrote: »
    They weren't sure what had changed in this particular mutation but there was an article a couple of months ago explaining what the studies revealed about this particular strand that is spreading easily from human to human. It's not airborne, and you still need to be in direct contact but Ebola can survive in a dead body for weeks as long as there is fluids.

    The how does it slip past skin cells is the same way someone sweats. Once it lands on the skin it can slip in past the cells themselves, shut down your immune system, replicate like crazy then in the end it's your immune system that kills you trying to get rid of it.

    This is why they say if someone is sweating, they're shedding the virus at the same time...

    Your misinformation is contributing to the real problem, fear mongering.

    Nosajjao, do not insult people on this thread. It's distasteful and unwarranted. Provide evidence behind your reasoning versus sweeping generalizations.

  • w734q672
    w734q672 Posts: 578 Member
    edited October 2014
    BansheeCat wrote: »
    w734q672 wrote: »
    BansheeCat wrote: »
    Bushmeat is another word for wild game. It's not just the assumed food source but a lifestyle primed for an outbreak. The spread is also from living in crowded shanty towns and sharing everything from toiletries to eating utinsils. Ebola is contained by contact tracking but when everyone in town is sipping the soup cup an outbreak seems inevitable.

    I don't think a foreign healthcare worker should be prevented from going on location, however, a mandatory 21 day quarantine before leaving should be in place until earlier detection tests exist. People have proven to be stupid without those measures.

    Do you think a mandatory 21 day quarantine would violate the personal rights of the doctors?

    Good question and without question ( assuming you're in the US), if our country PREVENTED you from going there that would be a violation of rights. My question is, to any who can elaborate, what right would be violated for instituting a temporary quarantine?

    It is my understanding a 21 day quarantine is in the realm of national security, CDC, since it's to protect the Republic from harm such as in this case, a uncontrolled deadly disease. It's one of the few limited powers the US federal gov't has since the implentation of the constitution. Whether a State gov't can exercise the same measures could be debated such as the Christie administration of New Jersey.

    http://www.today.com/health/new-jersey-gov-christie-ebola-quarantine-our-policy-will-not-1D80248130

    Off the top of my head, the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
  • w734q672
    w734q672 Posts: 578 Member
    However, I understand that whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional is based on two things. One, whether it violates a constitutional right. Two, whether there is a compelling state interest.
  • skinnyinnotime
    skinnyinnotime Posts: 4,141 Member
    I think the West should stop talking such utter shite about African countries, they don't all live in tribes eating "bush meat".

    The reason they are in the state they are in is down to Western countries stealing from their lands for so damn long.

    I will go as far as to say Ebola is man made, to control, suppress, kill the people....just like they've been doing for a very long time.

    Funny how when a Western nurse or Dr gets it they are cured, but no cure for the African people??? Really??!
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,245 Member
    wamydia wrote: »
    I think that although the natives eating bush meat may be the origin of an outbreak of Ebola (which is actually quite rare), it has nothing to do with the disease's spread in the population once it has broken out. It's a lack of education about the disease, medical resources for the infected, and personal protective equipment for caregivers that allows it so spread so quickly and easily in places like Africa. The cultural component that contributes to the spread is more about burial rituals -- it's common to touch and hold the dead before burial which is a great opportunity to pick up Ebola from someone who just died of it.

    I think that throwing money and personnel at it can make an impact on educating the natives on how the disease is contracted, protecting caregivers from getting the disease themselves and then spreading it around, monitoring people who are leaving the country and possibly taking the disease somewhere else, and providing care for people who may be able to survive the infection. Convincing people to eat McDonald's won't impact any of that.

    This is my belief also. The spread of this disease is not about villagers and their diets. It's about the lack of infrastructure and health policy in underserved nations like those in Africa. Most of the areas affected lack running water and access to medical care. So essentially, the things that would combat the disease are completely unavailable in their country. You can truly blame this outbreak on two things; poorly structured governments and poverty.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,245 Member
    TheRoadDog wrote: »

    Ebola is introduced into the human population through close contact with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected animals such as chimpanzees, gorillas, fruit bats, monkeys, forest antelope and porcupines found ill or dead or in the rainforest.

    Sound Familiar? AIDS was introduced in a very similar way. Both have been introduced to other countries via Flights from the infected countries. In both cases, the first person to introduce each disease has been identified. The only thing going for us this time is that people are more aware and working towards a treatment. Unfortunately, 3 decades ago, Aids was dimissed as "Gay Cancer" and nobody gave a shlt and just dismissed it as a disease that only affected perverts. (Note -- Don't give me any crap about the Gay Aids reference. That's not my opinion, but, rather the opinion of an ignorant society 30 years ago. My brother died of AIDS.)

    I'm not sure where I read it... maybe the CDC website, but I don't believe there is a significant amount of difference between HIV and Ebola. I could be wrong on this.
  • lloydrt
    lloydrt Posts: 1,121 Member
    well, I think, and Im not a Dr, that ebola is transmitted thru body fluids . I thought HIV was sexually transmitted as ebola is transmitted thru contact with body fluids...meaning, I dont think they were many people who were HIV pos from touching peoples body fluids, but ebola seems to be transmitted without having sex........sorry, I m trying to distinguish the difference, but I thought you had to have sex for AIDS/HIV, but not ebola?
  • yoovie
    yoovie Posts: 17,125 Member
    w734q672 wrote: »
    BansheeCat wrote: »
    Bushmeat is another word for wild game. It's not just the assumed food source but a lifestyle primed for an outbreak. The spread is also from living in crowded shanty towns and sharing everything from toiletries to eating utinsils. Ebola is contained by contact tracking but when everyone in town is sipping the soup cup an outbreak seems inevitable.

    I don't think a foreign healthcare worker should be prevented from going on location, however, a mandatory 21 day quarantine before leaving should be in place until earlier detection tests exist. People have proven to be stupid without those measures.

    Do you think a mandatory 21 day quarantine would violate the personal rights of the doctors?

    i dont think anyone's personal rights are being threatened by having them put into quarantine before reentering a country they voluntarily left for one with current major disease issues.
  • yoovie
    yoovie Posts: 17,125 Member
    lloydrt wrote: »
    well, I think, and Im not a Dr, that ebola is transmitted thru body fluids . I thought HIV was sexually transmitted as ebola is transmitted thru contact with body fluids...meaning, I dont think they were many people who were HIV pos from touching peoples body fluids, but ebola seems to be transmitted without having sex........sorry, I m trying to distinguish the difference, but I thought you had to have sex for AIDS/HIV, but not ebola?

    you dont have to have sex to get HIV.

    Ebola and HIV are both transmissible via bodily fluids, though Ebola is slightly easier to transmit. Heitz writes:

    "HIV can only be transmitted through blood or breast milk, or via sexual intercourse, according to the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/transmission.html>>. Ebola is slightly easier to spread, but is still much less transmissible than more common infections like the flu.

    The number of fluids that can spread Ebola is greater than those that spread HIV. Ebola can be spread by blood and sexual fluids, like HIV, but also by exposure to urine, saliva, sweat, feces and vomit, according to the CDC. In addition, HIV requires a direct route into the bloodstream, while fluids carrying the Ebola virus can also be transmitted via broken skin or mucous membranes in the eyes, nose or mouth."

    http://www.thebody.com/content/75118/ebola-and-hivaids-similarities-and-differences.html

    also

    http://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-ebola-is-and-is-not-like-aids-101414
  • Miss_1999
    Miss_1999 Posts: 747 Member
    BFDeal wrote: »
    I can't say I prefer bushmeat. I appreciate a little sensible grooming. Not going to turn it down though. As I man I say soldier on. It's the same spirit that helped us take the beach at Normandy all those years ago after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. YMMV. Just my two cents.

    Please, PLEASE tell me this is sarcasm. If not, I'm losing faith fast.

  • SwashBlogger
    SwashBlogger Posts: 395 Member
    TheRoadDog wrote: »
    I don't want to try and change their culture. I just want to stop Ebola infected people from travelling outside their village. Let's bring back Leper Colonies.

    this

  • SwashBlogger
    SwashBlogger Posts: 395 Member
    wamydia wrote: »
    "w734q672 wrote: »
    Do you think a mandatory 21 day quarantine would violate the personal rights of the doctors?

    Legally speaking, federal and state agencies have the authority to institute a quarantine when they feel there is a significant threat to public safety. Theoretically, I guess you could make the argument that a person shouldn't be "punished" or have their rights curbed by quarantine for being exposed to a disease since it isn't like they went out and intentionally got exposed (including ebola doctors, since they are wearing protective equipment and aren't trying to catch ebola from their patients). Basically, the question we are arguing here is whether a person's right to go out and see a movie or go bowling if they feel like it is more significant than the rest of the population's right to not be exposed to and potentially infected by someone who we know for a fact is at a relatively high risk for carrying a deadly disease. Public interest wins here, in my opinion.

    Besides which, anyone who is going to work with Ebola knows the risk. They know there is a possibility that they could be exposed and develop symptoms. In that case, they should be very well aware that they would be placed in a 21 day quarantine to monitor their symptoms. I don't see it as much of a leap to understand that anyone with direct patient contact is now being put in quarantine just to make sure that they don't develop symptoms. What's really baffling to me is how people who are selfless enough to risk their lives in an ebola zone in the first place are going to get up in arms about personal rights just because they are being required (because being asked nicely didn't work) to make sure that the people around them are kept safe when they return home. And it's not like no one has ever brought ebola home with them -- it's already happened or we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

    ETA: The comment I was replying to.

    VERY well stated.

  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,209 Member
    edited November 2014
    I think the West should stop talking such utter shite about African countries, they don't all live in tribes eating "bush meat".
    No, they don't all live in tribes and eat bush meat. But bush meat is suspected as being a possible vector for the virus to start. Only one human needs to get it then it's game over.

    The reason they are in the state they are in is down to Western countries stealing from their lands for so damn long.
    I don't know what this is. Are you drunk?

    I will go as far as to say Ebola is man made, to control, suppress, kill the people....just like they've been doing for a very long time.
    Scratch the above, are you high?

    Funny how when a Western nurse or Dr gets it they are cured, but no cure for the African people??? Really??!
    Yes, really. The Western countries I'm assuming you are speaking of are the US and Europe. They have better health care facilities than those countries that the virus is ravaging through. They are working on vaccines now, btw. I suppose we could transport Africans to the West to get treatment but I'm not so sure the people of those host countries will take too well to that.

  • w734q672
    w734q672 Posts: 578 Member
    OdesAngel wrote: »
    I think the West should stop talking such utter shite about African countries, they don't all live in tribes eating "bush meat".
    No, they don't all live in tribes and eat bush meat. But bush meat is suspected as being a possible vector for the virus to start. Only one human needs to get it then it's game over.

    The reason they are in the state they are in is down to Western countries stealing from their lands for so damn long.
    I don't know what this is. Are you drunk?

    I will go as far as to say Ebola is man made, to control, suppress, kill the people....just like they've been doing for a very long time.
    Scratch the above, are you high?

    Funny how when a Western nurse or Dr gets it they are cured, but no cure for the African people??? Really??!
    Yes, really. The Western countries I'm assuming you are speaking of are the US and Europe. They have better health care facilities than those countries that the virus is ravaging through. They are working on vaccines now, btw. I suppose we could transport Africans to the West to get treatment but I'm not so sure the people of those host countries will take too well to that.

    Lmao, you're getting a friend request.
  • w734q672
    w734q672 Posts: 578 Member
    TheRoadDog wrote: »
    I don't want to try and change their culture. I just want to stop Ebola infected people from travelling outside their village. Let's bring back Leper Colonies.

    this

    There is a economic effect to shutting down borders. Would you say that is unimportant?