|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:My questions: is there some underlying desire for these types of catastrophic events? Do non prepping people crave an apocalypse scenario? It's almost like western society is so bored with the status quo, that we want some reason to return to working for basic survival. That's probably why shows like the Walking Dead are so popular, and zombie poo poo in general is romanticized. E: I mean think about it, life is a hell of a lot less complicated when your list of things to do for the day is "eat, find shelter, don't die". No worrying about finding meaning in your life, just need to make sure it doesn't end abruptly. various cheeses fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jan 30, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
Or you know, the response to the outbreak stopped it from growing exponentially.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:My questions: is there some underlying desire for these types of catastrophic events? Do non prepping people crave an apocalypse scenario? AMC's "The Walking Dead" is record-shatteringly popular, often beating out *football* on sunday nights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Or you know, the response to the outbreak stopped it from growing exponentially. Of course, I'm not trying to imply that the international aid response was overblown in any way, or that the situation was not exceptionally bad. But even the earliest models made clear that the exponential growth figures would be subject to change following (international) intervention. The gap between the often erroneously perceived threat of ebola to global stability and the actual outcome of the epidemic so far could hurt future responses, similar to the ( in my opinion unfounded) backlash against the H1N1 vaccine. As a schematic, I feel that we went from: * experts agree that the Ebola epidemic is really bad, but not going to kill everyone, here's a graph of the worst case scenario without intervention* --> *Airborne ebola? Aunt Sue is sure that it will happen in America any moment, because of reasons* --> *Ebola appears to lessen, this must be an error* --> * Ebola scare was fearmongering by pharmaceutical companies, why should we ever believe these scientists again?* I'd love to blame sensationalist journalism for this disconnect between what was published and what was interpreted, but they actually did quite a passable job. Even fox news acted responsible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2KBfynW09I Far worse were all the people who had read outbreak and dunning-krugerd their way into applying this book to reality. Maybe poster various cheeses is right that this is due to some underlying wish for simpler post apocalyptic times, regardless of how you communicate with people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:
Yes, see: the climate change thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Far worse were all the people who had read outbreak and dunning-krugerd their way into applying this book to reality. Maybe poster various cheeses is right that this is due to some underlying wish for simpler post apocalyptic times, regardless of how you communicate with people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yes, see: the climate change thread. Yeah unfortunately those graphs of atmospheric CO2 concentrations are even more exponential than the ebola graph except the curve is up to the present.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Or you know, the response to the outbreak stopped it from growing exponentially. The outbreak response did pose a factor, but I think there are numerous problems with the exponential growth model that need to be addressed. In general, while the model does have the advantage of simplicity, it is hugely unrealistic in a large number of ways, and has statistical artifacts that cause issues when it is used for estimation. 1. The assumption of constant r0 is simply garbage in a real world inhomogeneous environment. Early viral spread amongst low-education low sanitation communities can simply not be extrapolated to richer, urban areas, let alone different countries. 2. Nobody actually seems to check whether the outbreak *is* growing exponentially. Over short time intervals, after all, even linear trends can look almost straight when log-transformed. Because people were fixated on log-transformed values, no one even noticed that back in November, we were already having under half the cases the '1 m cases by January' forecast predicted. So using the exponential forecasts, *can we* determine whether we are deviating from the previous trend or not, until so long has passed that the question is irrelevant? The answer seems to be no. 3. There is absolutely no justification from past epidemics that we can extrapolate out that far. Look at for example the spanish flu of 1918, where there *was* no effective outbreak response. Was there an exponential curve that you can neatly extrapolate out to 6 months? Of course not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic#mediaviewer/File:1918_spanish_flu_waves.gif That ebola was and is a serious threat was true. But I think it's dishonest to claim that we have anything close to the machinery that enables sensible long term forecasts of outbreaks. The horizon on our models simply isn't that far. And we need to recognise that models can be obsoleted by new evidence, and update them to get a clear image of what was going on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Even fox news acted responsible: Shep Smith shouldn't be taken as representing Fox News as a whole. I mean Roger Ailes would love you to do that, because Shep gets ratings and provides cover for all the other appalling poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Look at for example the spanish flu of 1918, where there *was* no effective outbreak response. Not terribly important for your overall point, but the response wasn't completely ineffective. Some villages in Alaska were able to effectively quarantine, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The outbreak response did pose a factor, but I think there are numerous problems with the exponential growth model that need to be addressed. In general, while the model does have the advantage of simplicity, it is hugely unrealistic in a large number of ways, and has statistical artifacts that cause issues when it is used for estimation. I agree completely with your post in general, though some specifics I do disagree with. 1. The actual well published estimations/models all factored in changing R0 values, this is not new information epidemiologist have never considered. They did underestimated the effectiveness of the interventions in reducing the R0. 2. Most of the serious publications ( e.g. not the pieces by physicists dabbling in epidemiology ) heavily underlined the inability of their models to predict far into the future. The WHO for instance refused to predict beyond a month. Moreover, the 1m prediction was for the extremely unlikely worst case scenario. Here's the WHO prediction: quote:We estimate that, at the current rate of increase, assuming no changes in control efforts, the cumulative number of confirmed and probable cases by November 2 (the end of week 44 of the epidemic) will be 5740 in Guinea, 9890 in Liberia, and 5000 in Sierra Leone, exceeding 20,000 cases in total These predictions were not that far off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
The real winner here wasn't Ebola, it was MIGF 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
I died.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:I agree completely with your post in general, though some specifics I do disagree with. Isn't it generally accepted that everyone locally was lying about the numbers though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:Isn't it generally accepted that everyone locally was lying about the numbers though? No it is not, it is certain some number will have been missed, but these will not be orders of magnitude and probably not attributable to malice. The government/health authorities lying is something that been implicated by some of SA's more exuberant, making-things-uppy posters and was never, as far as I am aware, a published concern of the WHO/CDC/MSF.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The real winner here wasn't Ebola, it was MIGF In thanks, here's an awesome thing. The NGA released their unclassified information in a single ArcGIS app. They started a month ago, but I haven't seen this here yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Anyone want to start a parody thread where we all pretend to be zimboe-like people and freak out about the 100 million dead due to ebola?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
False Flag Rape posted:Anyone want to start a parody thread where we all pretend to be zimboe-like people and freak out about the 100 million dead due to ebola?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Hmm...I wonder if Ebola is on it's way to becoming a seasonal disease in West Africa? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31429433 quote:New Ebola cases show rise for second week in row
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Ebola transmitted by sinful thoughts, says new study
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Over the last 4 weeks there have been 120-150 new cases a week. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/world/africa/leaders-of-ebola-fight-at-un-express-worry-about-eradication.html?_r=0
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
What a mess http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/14/us-health-ebola-usa-idUSKBN0MA0UC20150314 At least 10 U.S. citizens possibly exposed to the deadly Ebola virus were being flown to the United States from Africa for observation, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Saturday. The individuals will be transported by non-commercial air transport and will be housed near the University of Nebraska Medical Center, the National Institutes of Health in Maryland, or Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, the CDC said. It said none of the individuals have been identified as having Ebola. A U.S. healthcare worker who tested positive for Ebola while in Sierra Leone arrived at the NIH on Friday and was in serious condition, the NIH said. CDC spokesman Thomas Skinner said 10 people who may have been exposed to the unidentified Ebola patient or who had a similar exposure to the virus as the patient were being flown to the United States. But he said the investigation was continuing and there may be more Americans evacuated from Africa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Are there details available regarding the exposure?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
No, very vague. Probably means someone hosed up. "10 people who may have been exposed to the unidentified Ebola patient or who had a similar exposure to the virus as the patient "
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Did anyone ever get around to testing a vaccine?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Did anyone ever get around to testing a vaccine? Several are ongoing, the low prevalence in the last couple of months does make it more difficult to test.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Several are ongoing, the low prevalence in the last couple of months does make it more difficult to test. How do clinical trials work with something like an ebola vaccine? I was at a parasitology conference the other day and they were talking about infecting healthy volunteers with malaria to test antimalarials. I assume they definitely don't do that with ebola.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
I wouldn't think they do that with malaria! They test the vaccine on healthy volunteers first to make sure it's safe. Then I think they'll generally do controlled trials in at-risk populations (like say, healthcare workers) and compare infection rates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I wouldn't think they do that with malaria! I was quite surprised too. I work on much more basic aspects of pathogen biology and had no idea they did that kind of stuff downstream. Nonetheless, I'm at least 90% sure that's what they said they did. The clearance curves they had were as good as artimesinin, much longer maintaince of active concentration in the blood to. But like all of these things, who know's if they'll ever get market.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:I was quite surprised too. I work on much more basic aspects of pathogen biology and had no idea they did that kind of stuff downstream. Nonetheless, I'm at least 90% sure that's what they said they did. The clearance curves they had were as good as artimesinin, much longer maintaince of active concentration in the blood to. But like all of these things, who know's if they'll ever get market. It (controlled human infections) is something they do quite a lot actually, especially with Malaria because it is decently treatable. The standard if I recall correctly is to let someone get bitten by 5 infected mosquito's and start treatment the moment they can make the diagnosis of malaria. They don't do controlled infections with Ebola for obvious reasons, that's why RCT's are so hard to perform for this disease and more open label studies are performed. Vaccines that have been shown to induce antibody's to ebola in healthy volunteers are given to at risk populations ( think health care workers) and they receive one out of the 2 possible vaccinations as per randomisation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
A story on structural problems in the WHO relating to the outbreak, from a reporter I usually find highly reliable. What are folks' thoughts? I'm thinking of you especially, Rahm.
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:A story on structural problems in the WHO relating to the outbreak, from a reporter I usually find highly reliable. What are folks' thoughts? I'm thinking of you especially, Rahm. I'm not quite sure what sort of argument the author is trying to make with regards to the WHO, specifically. She partly seems to be trying to counter the argument that the WHO is underfunded, but one of the links in the first sentence discusses how the WHO's real budget has increasing been filled by private entities with earmarked donations, and how it's administrative budget was slashed in 2011. She follows this up by posting a development assistance for health (DAH) spending chart showing the WHO's health spending going from ~$1 billion in 1990 to ~$2 billion in 2009-2013, which she calls a "massive increase". She also calls this "WHO funding", despite the chart showing the WHO's health spending rather that budget. I'm not convinced that this chart really counters the assertion that the WHO is underfunded, since it a) shows only modest increase in WHO's health spending, b) shows the WHO's health spending as relatively constant 2011-2013, meaning the WHO massively cut its administrative budget while maintaining health spending, and c) if the WHO's health spending has remained relatively constant in the face of increasing earmarked funding, I can see how resources available for outbreak response may have decreased. All of this doesn't mean that budget really is the heart of the WHO's issue - I'm just not convinced by the author's assertion that the DAH spending chart show that the WHO's budget is not an issue. She also talks about how the WHO's proportion of total DAH spending has decreased, outpaced by other agencies. This is interesting, and I''d love to see a breakdown of how the different agencies target their spending (it's probably somewhere in the IHME report). I'd also love to see more discussion as to how the WHO's role as an international health leader might change, and what sort of internal reforms it might (or should) undertake. The article didn't discuss any actual details of the WHO's structural issues. If you have any other links to what those issues might be, I'd love to take a look at them!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Was she accounting for inflation> $1 billion in 1990 dollars is $1.8 billion in 2013 dollars, so $2 billion is certainly a MASSIVE increase  I have no particular love for the WHO, but it frustrates me to no end when people compare apples to oranges that way.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:Was she accounting for inflation> I think the chart already accounts for inflation, so $1 billion to $2 billion. Which is an increase, but tough to call massive when considered in the changing scope of health spending between 1990 and 2013.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
That's about my take too- the post is quite incoherent. Belluz is quite good on a number of topics, this was pretty disappointing.
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I don't think parodying zimboe is possible. Dude figured by now everyone in a city would be wearing a hazmat suit for daily business and carefully soaking every doorknob they touched in sanitizer before opening it, and also that everyone in India would be dead from "the E." No one is parody-proof. There are only degrees of parody resistance. A scale, if you will. 9.2/10 is me.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
You know what's really horrible about Ebola? Profit-oriented coal companies!quote:Public health experts involved in the response to the Ebola crisis have condemned what they described as a ludicrous, insulting and opportunistic attempt to exploit the disease for corporate gain by the world’s largest privately-held coal company.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I think the chart already accounts for inflation, so $1 billion to $2 billion. Which is an increase, but tough to call massive when considered in the changing scope of health spending between 1990 and 2013. Worth noting that world GDP increased by 174% in that period, while US health expenditure increased by over 250%.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
http://mbio.asm.org/content/6/3/e00565-15.full A new study (in mice) showing that the Ebola virus (and probably other related viruses such as Marburg) can be stopped from entering cells and replicating by inhibiting a cholesterol transport protein, NPC1. This seems a promising development for future treatments.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
It appears we may have something worse than Ebola to worry about : there seems to be a large outbreak of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome in South Korea. The amount of infected reached 100 in three weeks with 7 deaths until this point. Not strictly on topic, but couldn't find a better thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:47
|
|
