Ebola? Who Cares?? It's all about MERS now.

[tommye]

I just took a sh!t and a monkey come out

you got monkey aids too now

 

[tommye]

oh I've already done that tonight, it's saturday FFS, that's what I always do

you're work is done.

you can die knowing you did well.



goodbye pat. It was almost fun.

x

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

racist

I've just saved the world from Ebola and Kone won't have to go to the ACON.

Am I a hero? Yes, in all probability.

 

[tommye]

I've just saved the world from Ebola and Kone won't have to go to the ACON.

Am I a hero? Yes, in all probability.

surely you can't be serious?

i thought we wanted kone to go because he's gash?

 

[Prevenger17]

There is no cure or vaccine for Ebola, which causes diarrhea, vomiting and internal and external bleeding. It can kill up to 90 percent of those infected, although the mortality rate of the current outbreak is around 60 percent.

The West African outbreak is the first time that Ebola, which was first discovered in what is now Democratic Republic of Congo in 1976, has appeared in heavily populated urban areas and international travel hubs.

Pffft! Diet ebola.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

surely you can't be serious?

i thought we wanted kone to go because he's gash?

I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.

We'll be glad of Starvin Marvin at Christmas when all the other strikers in the squad are too full of festive turkey to perform.

 

[verreauxi]

My thoughts about this virus are that, paradoxically, its saving grace as far as humans are concerned is its extreme virulence. Symptoms manifest quickly and it can often kill/incapacitate quickly. What is scary (and was a debate in evolutionary circles in the 70s) is whether it can evolve to have less virulent strains, that kill less quickly. Consider HIV, which can linger in human T-cells for years while the carrier transmits it to others, thereby allowing an HIV virion to make more copies of itself in other hosts (which is the point of the Darwinian game). With Ebola, it tends to kill quickly and also bring on symptoms quickly, hence the virus can't spread to others very quickly without being noticed by health officials. This is why such outbreaks used to be routinely contained, while we can't do jackshit about HIV. It would be interesting to figure out the following with respect to these ebola outbreaks: 1) Do they occur regularly but we are just better or more informed by the news; 2) Are there more humans coming into contact with the carriers, such as fruitbats, today than in the past (e.g., increased human encroachment on "ebola zones"; 3) Is the virus actually evolving to a less virulent type, such that it can linger longer in hosts as they make contact--and spread it--to other humans, so that outbreaks are less containable; or 4) Are the humans who come into contact with Ebola more mobile today than say 40 years ago so that within about 6 hours of contact you can land on the tarmac of another country.

Whatever the answer, we are smoking a turd in purgatory.

 

[Pat's Van]

My thoughts about this virus are that, paradoxically, its saving grace as far as humans are concerned is its extreme virulence. Symptoms manifest quickly and it can often kill/incapacitate quickly. What is scary (and was a debate in evolutionary circles in the 70s) is whether it can evolve to have less virulent strains, that kill less quickly. Consider HIV, which can linger in human T-cells for years while the carrier transmits it to others, thereby allowing an HIV virion to make more copies of itself in other hosts (which is the point of the Darwinian game). With Ebola, it tends to kill quickly and also bring on symptoms quickly, hence the virus can't spread to others very quickly without being noticed by health officials. This is why such outbreaks used to be routinely contained, while we can't do jackshit about HIV. It would be interesting to figure out the following with respect to these ebola outbreaks: 1) Do they occur regularly but we are just better or more informed; 2) Are there more humans coming into contact with the carriers, such as fruitbats, today than in the past (e.g., increased human encroachment on "ebola zones"; 3) Is the virus actually evolving to a less virulent type, such that it can linger longer in hosts as they make contact--and spread it--to other humans, so that outbreaks are less containable; or 4) Are the humans who come into contact with Ebola more mobile today than say 40 years ago so that within about 6 hours of contact you can land on the tarmac of another country.

Whatever the answer, we are smoking a turd in purgatory.

sort of what I said, it's bad isn't it

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

My thoughts about this virus are that, paradoxically, its saving grace as far as humans are concerned is its extreme virulence. Symptoms manifest quickly and it can often kill/incapacitate quickly. What is scary (and was a debate in evolutionary circles in the 70s) is whether it can evolve to have less virulent strains, that kill less quickly. Consider HIV, which can linger in human T-cells for years while the carrier transmits it to others, thereby allowing an HIV virion to make more copies of itself in other hosts (which is the point of the Darwinian game). With Ebola, it tends to kill quickly and also bring on symptoms quickly, hence the virus can't spread to others very quickly without being noticed by health officials. This is why such outbreaks used to be routinely contained, while we can't do jackshit about HIV. It would be interesting to figure out the following with respect to these ebola outbreaks: 1) Do they occur regularly but we are just better or more informed; 2) Are there more humans coming into contact with the carriers, such as fruitbats, today than in the past (e.g., increased human encroachment on "ebola zones"; 3) Is the virus actually evolving to a less virulent type, such that it can linger longer in hosts as they make contact--and spread it--to other humans, so that outbreaks are less containable; or 4) Are the humans who come into contact with Ebola more mobile today than say 40 years ago so that within about 6 hours of contact you can land on the tarmac of another country.

Whatever the answer, we are smoking a turd in purgatory.

Very interesting, jackshit doesn't register on the GOT swear filter.

 

[magicjuan]

I read the book (it was a true story) that they based the film outbreak on, back in the 90's, proper scarey stuff, it must have evolved in some capacity since then, this 'outbreak' has been going on for a while and does seem to be getting around a bit more.

just waiting for the daily mail to do a monkey schagging story ...

 

[Username]

I think I've got it, what should I do ?

spit into a supersoaker and spray the unknowing muhahaha

 

[Tramps_mate]

While obviously bad and scary, I don't think it would spread in the way that the film "Outbreak" would suggest.

Awful disease, but barrier nursing and quarantines can prevent spread, in developed countries at least.

This doesn't help the areas that have it, mind.

i.e. Keep it contained in Africa and we're all right?

 

[JDL]

i.e. Keep it contained in Africa and we're all right?

Another reason to vote UKIP.

 

[Tramps_mate]

Another reason to vote UKIP.

It has to happen some time soon. A deadly virus is brought to the UK by an immigrant or British tourist..

I wonder what super virus the illuminate plan to bring the world population down to 1.5 billion with? hmmmmmm

 

[Groucho]

i.e. Keep it contained in Africa and we're all right?

Not necessarily Africa as a whole, just the individual patients in hospital side rooms, using masks and gowns etc. such as this 1976 case;