OT: Round of applause for Paul Allen

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,801
Liked Posts:
37,743
Yes fuck compassion. Survival of the fittest I say! Who is with me?
 

iueyedoc

Variant Also Negotiates
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
20,759
Liked Posts:
29,470
Location:
Mountains to Sea
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Indiana Hoosiers
Scientist have always been concerned about virulent diseases and the only reason Ebola hasn't killed more is geography ie it has broken out in relatively sparsely populated areas. You unleash Ebola in a large city and you would likely see death rates to rival the plague which is why people want to find a cure. It's that potential that scares people not the current reality of how many people it has killed.

You are misinformed. Ebola has a low transmissibility because of its high virulence. People, once contagious, get sick and die too quickly. As well, it is a relatively fragile virus and doesn't cause sneezing and coughing like other contagious diseases, decreasing potential contact.

Lastly, if you haven't notice , in the US, the people that contracted the disease but had access to adequate health care in a timely manner have all recovered. The lone death was the guy that was incorrectly sent away when already symptomatic.
 
Last edited:

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,801
Liked Posts:
37,743
You are misinformed. Ebola has a low transmissibility because of its high virulence. People, once contagious, get sick and die too quickly. As well, it is a relatively fragile virus and doesn't cause sneezing and coughing like other contagious diseases, decreasing potential contact.

Lastly, if you haven't notice , in the US, the people that contracted the disease but had access to adequate health care in a timely manner have all recovered. The lone death was the guy that was incorrectly sent away when already symptomatic.

Transmissibility is not simply a function of how quickly people get sick and die. It's also a function of how many people are exposed and where they go after exposure. They get exposed and go to a baseball game or on an airplane before they realize they are sick and before they die then they can infect others even in the small window. Further, diseases are not static. They evolve. They can become resistant to treatment, they can become airborne despite not being so at first. Ebola hasn't been exposed to all the human attempts to cure it like the flu and hence we haven't seen how it may evolve once confronted with humans trying to wipe it out. Even if you ignore the fact that diseases evolve naturally, they can evolve artificially as well. The risk of Ebola is not just from some natural outbreak but also from someone trying to weaponize it by for example making it airborne and more contagious.

Finally, making an assumption based on anecdotal evidence that because the people infected in the US didn't have the same fatality rates as what we have historically seen is due to adequate healthcare is bad science. There isn't enough of a sample size there to say that with any degree of scientific certainty. You could find two out of 3 people in Africa that just happened not to die. Doesn't prove anything. Then again maybe I missed the scientific paper your statement is supported by so feel free to provide.

So no I am not misinformed. You are making comments as if the world is static. It isn't.
 

botfly10

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Jun 19, 2011
Posts:
32,868
Liked Posts:
26,844
remy you have not read any papers on ebola so puuulease
 

-Cago34-

CCS Mock Draft Champion
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
7,467
Liked Posts:
7,236
Location:
Booty
can a porpoise catch ebola?
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,801
Liked Posts:
37,743
remy you have not read any papers on ebola so puuulease

I am not the one suggesting something that seems to be out of line with the medical consensus so I don't have to. Like does the CDC or WHO share the same lack of concern over Ebola that you guys do? If not then I believe the burden of proof would be on the people on the internet with no medical experience I am aware of trying to tell people that Ebola ain't that big a deal.

As it relates to Ebola, you guys are like Spartan rambling on about vaccines in that you like Spartan presume to know more about the risks of Ebola than the medical profession responsible for studying and keeping us safe from it. So again if I am mistaken and the medical consensus on Ebola has changed then feel free to direct me to where I can find more information on this.
 

-Cago34-

CCS Mock Draft Champion
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
7,467
Liked Posts:
7,236
Location:
Booty
Trick question. They have fins, therefore they can't catch anything. Next.

images
 

-Cago34-

CCS Mock Draft Champion
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
7,467
Liked Posts:
7,236
Location:
Booty
lol, K, I'm done derailing, sorry.
 

iueyedoc

Variant Also Negotiates
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
20,759
Liked Posts:
29,470
Location:
Mountains to Sea
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Indiana Hoosiers
Transmissibility is not simply a function of how quickly people get sick and die. It's also a function of how many people are exposed and where they go after exposure. They get exposed and go to a baseball game or on an airplane before they realize they are sick and before they die then they can infect others even in the small window. Further, diseases are not static. They evolve. They can become resistant to treatment, they can become airborne despite not being so at first. Ebola hasn't been exposed to all the human attempts to cure it like the flu and hence we haven't seen how it may evolve once confronted with humans trying to wipe it out. Even if you ignore the fact that diseases evolve naturally, they can evolve artificially as well. The risk of Ebola is not just from some natural outbreak but also from someone trying to weaponize it by for example making it airborne and more contagious.

Finally, making an assumption based on anecdotal evidence that because the people infected in the US didn't have the same fatality rates as what we have historically seen is due to adequate healthcare is bad science. There isn't enough of a sample size there to say that with any degree of scientific certainty. You could find two out of 3 people in Africa that just happened not to die. Doesn't prove anything. Then again maybe I missed the scientific paper your statement is supported by so feel free to provide.

So no I am not misinformed. You are making comments as if the world is static. It isn't.
Your lack of understanding virology is too much to tackle on a message board. There are some old text books I could dig up for you, but I am sure you feel the 3 articles you have read since this thread started has made you an expert.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,801
Liked Posts:
37,743
Your lack of understanding virology is too much to tackle on a message board. There are some old text books I could dig up for you, but I am sure you feel the 3 articles you have read since this thread started has made you an expert.

Lol, tell you what, can you provide me with any information from the CDC, WHO regarding the recent outbreak of Ebola that supports your view as I think you are confused regarding whose opinion is not consistent with the medical consensus.
 

iueyedoc

Variant Also Negotiates
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
20,759
Liked Posts:
29,470
Location:
Mountains to Sea
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Indiana Hoosiers
Lol, tell you what, can you provide me with any information from the CDC, WHO regarding the recent outbreak of Ebola that supports your view as I think you are confused regarding whose opinion is not consistent with the medical consensus.
You are also confusing the fear mongering singular focus sensationalism of this disease by the media to that of the CDC and WHO. Those organization have significant concern for many others contagions. You are just doing this:

squirrel-up-dog-gif.gif
 

botfly10

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Jun 19, 2011
Posts:
32,868
Liked Posts:
26,844
I am not the one suggesting something that seems to be out of line with the medical consensus so I don't have to. Like does the CDC or WHO share the same lack of concern over Ebola that you guys do? If not then I believe the burden of proof would be on the people on the internet with no medical experience I am aware of trying to tell people that Ebola ain't that big a deal.

As it relates to Ebola, you guys are like Spartan rambling on about vaccines in that you like Spartan presume to know more about the risks of Ebola than the medical profession responsible for studying and keeping us safe from it. So again if I am mistaken and the medical consensus on Ebola has changed then feel free to direct me to where I can find more information on this.

Or maybe I have a family member in Liberia right now as part of USAid's first wave of health care people training locals and establishing clinics?
 

-Cago34-

CCS Mock Draft Champion
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
7,467
Liked Posts:
7,236
Location:
Booty
Paul Allen has given more than $1.8 billion towards the advancement of science, technology, education, wildlife conservation, the arts and community services in his lifetime. In 2010, Allen became a signatory of The Giving Pledge, promising to give at least half of his fortune to philanthropic causes. In February, The Chronicle of Philanthropy 2014 named Allen as no. 11 on a list of the 50 most generous donors in 2014; Allen’s direct giving in 2014 totaled $206 million. In 2014 Paul Allen pledged to donate at least $100 million dollars to help combat Ebola in the United States and in other affected countries.[28] Allen's foundation previously pledged $26.5 million.

While I get the point trying to be made, I think it's a bit nitpicky given the above.

Further, Paul Allen is not being swayed by the media. He is being swayed by the science and pathology of the disease. Infect the same number of people with Ebola and the Flu, and the former will result in a shit ton more deaths than the latter. That is what Scientists and Paul Allen are reacting to. Scientist have always been concerned about virulent diseases and the only reason Ebola hasn't killed more is geography ie it has broken out in relatively sparsely populated areas. You unleash Ebola in a large city and you would likely see death rates to rival the plague which is why people want to find a cure. It's that potential that scares people not the current reality of how many people it has killed.

Transmissibility is not simply a function of how quickly people get sick and die. It's also a function of how many people are exposed and where they go after exposure. They get exposed and go to a baseball game or on an airplane before they realize they are sick and before they die then they can infect others even in the small window. Further, diseases are not static. They evolve. They can become resistant to treatment, they can become airborne despite not being so at first. Ebola hasn't been exposed to all the human attempts to cure it like the flu and hence we haven't seen how it may evolve once confronted with humans trying to wipe it out. Even if you ignore the fact that diseases evolve naturally, they can evolve artificially as well. The risk of Ebola is not just from some natural outbreak but also from someone trying to weaponize it by for example making it airborne and more contagious.

Finally, making an assumption based on anecdotal evidence that because the people infected in the US didn't have the same fatality rates as what we have historically seen is due to adequate healthcare is bad science. There isn't enough of a sample size there to say that with any degree of scientific certainty. You could find two out of 3 people in Africa that just happened not to die. Doesn't prove anything. Then again maybe I missed the scientific paper your statement is supported by so feel free to provide.

So no I am not misinformed. You are making comments as if the world is static. It isn't.

I am not the one suggesting something that seems to be out of line with the medical consensus so I don't have to. Like does the CDC or WHO share the same lack of concern over Ebola that you guys do? If not then I believe the burden of proof would be on the people on the internet with no medical experience I am aware of trying to tell people that Ebola ain't that big a deal.

As it relates to Ebola, you guys are like Spartan rambling on about vaccines in that you like Spartan presume to know more about the risks of Ebola than the medical profession responsible for studying and keeping us safe from it. So again if I am mistaken and the medical consensus on Ebola has changed then feel free to direct me to where I can find more information on this.

Lol, tell you what, can you provide me with any information from the CDC, WHO regarding the recent outbreak of Ebola that supports your view as I think you are confused regarding whose opinion is not consistent with the medical consensus.
source-absolutely-hilarious-gif-animations-of-the-week-5.gif
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,801
Liked Posts:
37,743
You are also confusing the fear mongering singular focus sensationalism of this disease by the media to that of the CDC and WHO. Those organization have significant concern for many others contagions. You are just doing this:

I asked for articles from the CDC and WHO not the media so got nothing to do with the sensationalism. If you think Paul Allen who has donated 1.8 billion to various endeavors is making decisions based on the media and not researching things before he makes a decision then you are a fool.

Or maybe I have a family member in Liberia right now as part of USAid's first wave of health care people training locals and establishing clinics?

That would be relevant if he/she were the one on here and not you. If I have a friend that is an astrophysicist, that doesn't mean I know fuck all about astrophysics? Or are you telling me she told you not to worry about Ebola?
 

botfly10

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Jun 19, 2011
Posts:
32,868
Liked Posts:
26,844
Lol, tell you what, can you provide me with any information from the CDC, WHO regarding the recent outbreak of Ebola that supports your view as I think you are confused regarding whose opinion is not consistent with the medical consensus.

Wat is the medical consensus again?
 

botfly10

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Jun 19, 2011
Posts:
32,868
Liked Posts:
26,844
That would be relevant if he/she were the one on here and not you. If I have a friend that is an astrophysicist, that doesn't mean I know fuck all about astrophysics? Or are you telling me she told you not to worry about Ebola?


rofl

You are a fuckin idiot if you think talking to someone 3 times a week who is on the ground in Liberia expressly to treat ebola is meaningless.

Not that you even have a point.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,801
Liked Posts:
37,743
Wat is the medical consensus again?

That Ebola is a dangerous threat with the potential to cause an epidemic and that medical research is not a contest. If someone wants to donate to Ebola research that is good. If someone wants to donate to Flu research that is good. I don't think most scientists view things through the prism that Paul Allen shouldn't have donated money to Ebola research. They aren't that cynical or short sighted IMO.

I also think they understand that simply throwing money at a problem does not guarantee a cure. If Flu research is already well funded then throwing more money at it is going to have diminishing marginal returns. Just anecdotally, there are enough pharm companies out there that have Flu medication and are competing with each other that I suspect there is no shortage of funding for Flu research because it is big business. That is perhaps a bit different than Ebola where given it has been isolated to Africa for the most part, there aren't a bunch of big pharm companies spending a lot of R&D trying to develop a cure. Point being you guys view is overly simplistic but of course you will just revert to the remy zone comments rather than accept that you really haven't though this through.

rofl

You are a fuckin idiot if you think talking to someone 3 times a week who is on the ground in Liberia expressly to treat ebola is meaningless.

Not that you even have a point.

I never said it was meaningless. I asked you how it is relevant and what he/she told you. You haven't actually relayed anything he/she said so again not sure your point. There are people with USAID that are just that aid workers and aren't doctors or scientists or have any qualifications that would be relevant when discussing the science of Ebola.

You are acting like this person has provided you with some inside knowledge without actually saying what the inside knowledge is beyond just telling me they are with USAID. Like what's their qualifications and how is their experience relevant to your argument. Or am I suppose to just say, "Holy shit, he has a family member with USAID so I should just believe anything he says even though he hasn't told me anything that this person said to him."
 

Top