• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Liberia shuts hospital, Ebola death toll now near 1,000

jayfeather31

Power Poster III
While I don't know about you, this is actually quite frightening. While yes, the disease is not airborne, the fact that it has a mortality rate of 60% is a really scary thought if it were to get out of West Africa and be able to efficiently spread in developed countries. Like I said... 60% mortality rate. Opinions?*

*The article like always.
http://news.msn.com/world/liberia-shuts-hospital-where-spanish-priest-infected-ebola-toll-hits-932-1
 
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/06/Several-Britons-Quarantined-For-Ebola-Amidst-Claims-The-Virus-May-Be-Airborne
The World Health Organisation has also claimed that the virus is spreading faster than they can control. This may be because of a misunderstanding about how the virus is transmitted, in 2012 a study suggested that Ebola may be transmitted through the air.
 
Ryan said:
Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever is not airborne. It can only be transmitted through direct contact or bodily fluids. It is not a very contagious virus. Though easy to spread in undeveloped countries, it is very difficult to spread in developed countries.

It's always interesting how diseases that can be transmitted easily are not as deadly, where vice versa, diseases that are rarely transmitted generally are more deadly.
The real danger I think, is when somebody creates a virus like Ebola and makes it as transmittable as the Common Cold, then releases it into a general area.
It would make the 1918 Flu Pandemic look less deadly, and the 1918 Flu Pandemic, infected 500 million people (literally a third of the population of the world in 1918), killed 3 to 5% of the world's population, and it had a mortality rate of 10 to 20%.
Keep in mind Ebola has a 60% mortality rate. Which means 60% excess mortality.
In a general scenario in which the same amount of people were infected as in 1918, 2.3 billion people would be infected, and 1.4 billion people would die. This is 20% of the world. I also didn't choose worse case scenario.
If we're talking worse case scenario, this would amount to the same percentage as the number of people infected by the Black Plague in Europe between 1346-53, in which the population did not fully go back to 14th century levels for 150 years.
During the 1346-53 plague, 30-60% of the 14th Century population of Europe was infected.
Taking that into account, using 60% as our number... this would be...
Infected - 4.2 billion
Dead - 2.52 billion
The consequences of a massive population die-off all at one time would be incredible. While this isn't a civilization ending number (like in my opinion 3.5 billion+(over half of the current world population), a number I'd like to call the cliff edge), it would certainly
a) Bring international trade to a screeching halt, one that would likely not be back to normal in at least ten-twenty years
b) Either eliminate or severely hinder the current social services and utilities
c) Cause even more deaths by the lack of services and utilities
d) Possibly cause a change in the geopolitical stage of the world
e) Cause governments to either collapse (developing countries would fit into this category) or be on the verge of collapse (most developed countries would fit into this category, as most have a system in which power is presented to another person when the leader dies)
And almost certainly
f) Anarchy would follow

The numbers and statistics alone should frighten anyone. So, everyone should count themselves lucky that Ebola is not transmitted easily... or any other deadly disease for that matter.
However... that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. A pandemic could just be right around the corner...
 
Top