US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1342

On October 13 2014 05:46 Millitron wrote:

Well its never infected this many people before. We didn't think we needed a vaccine, but we might. Diseases change, and its possible that Ebola could become more infectious, and then we're screwed.

"No evidence that viral diseases change their mode of transmission

Moreover, scientists are unaware of any virus that has dramatically changed its mode of transmission. For example, the H5N1 avian influenza virus, which has caused sporadic human cases since 1997, is now endemic in chickens and ducks in large parts of Asia.

That virus has probably circulated through many billions of birds for at least two decades. Its mode of transmission remains basically unchanged.

Speculation that Ebola virus disease might mutate into a form that could easily spread among humans through the air is just that: speculation, unsubstantiated by any evidence.

This kind of speculation is unfounded but understandable as health officials race to catch up with this fast-moving and rapidly evolving outbreak."

On October 13 2014 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:


More infectious how?

On October 13 2014 01:43 Millitron wrote:

I'd be more worried about someone weaponizing this strain of Ebola than it naturally killing people. I agree if left to its own devices its not a globally-important issue.

On October 13 2014 05:57 Millitron wrote:

It could mutate to need fewer virus particles to cause infection. So contact with smaller amounts of infected fluid would cause infection. It could mutate to be infectious before showing symptoms, meaning you could infect a bunch of people before you realized you were sick. It could mutate to survive outside the body longer, so objects tainted with infected fluid would stay dangerous longer.

On October 13 2014 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yeah none of that sounds much more dangerous at all. Particularly not in the US. I guess there is a small chance of it getting out of hand in Africa and maybe, just maybe, killing almost as many people as malnutrition or dirty water...

It's hard to imagine something less threatening that has gotten nearly as much coverage. When it gets passed the number of people killed by Aspirin maybe we should come back to it.

Till then go ahead and mention new cases but it doesn't need any more than a few minutes a day reminding people how it is transmitted and if there are any new cases. But the hours of coverage are just ridiculous.

Hell, a little less religion would go a long way in stemming these outbreaks in Africa. As it's religious practices around infected dead that contributes toward infections. Would probably help breakdown some of the barriers regarding understanding microbial life and its interactions with humans too?

On October 13 2014 07:02 Millitron wrote:

I don't think you realize how many people you come in contact with every day. If, for instance, Ebola becomes contagious before it shows symptoms, you could infect hundreds of people before you even knew you were sick. And then they can start infecting people and so on. It's exponential growth. Luckily for us, it is currently a pretty small exponent. But there's no reason it couldn't get better at infecting people.

On October 13 2014 07:21 GreenHorizons wrote:


Come in contact with yeah... But we don't exchange bodily fluids... If it was actually a threat to me in any way (like I worked in that hospital) I would just go all Howie Mandel until it blew over. There is really no reason for all the hype.

In its current form, its absolutely no threat.

A federal judge struck down Alaska’s ban on same-sex marriage Sunday evening.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska ruled that the state's ban was unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Timothy M. Burgess wrote that any relationship between the ban and government interests was "either nonexistent or purely speculative."

"Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws are a prime example of how 'the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the legislature’s actions were irrational,'” Burgess wrote, citing an earlier court ruling.

"Refusing the rights and responsibilities afforded by legal marriage sends the public a government-sponsored message that same-sex couples and their familial relationships do not warrant the status, benefits, and dignity given to couples of the opposite sex," the Alaskan court decision continued.

The Obama administration is preparing to unveil an air pollution rule shortly after the midterm elections that could be among the most costly and controversial in history.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking approval from the White House for a proposal to update the nation’s outdated ozone standards. The agency punted on the air pollution rules three years ago and missed another deadline last year.

Environmental and public health advocates say stronger ozone standards can’t come soon enough. But business groups complain that tougher rules would be “unrealistic”.

"You have to balance what you’re trying to achieve environmentally with what you’re trying to achieve in the economy,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

The new proposed rules will be the climax of the EPA’s review of the current standard for ground-level ozone, which it is obligated to study every five years.

Ozone, a byproduct of pollutants that come from burning fossil fuels, is known to cause respiratory illnesses and to harm some plants. Officials have not said whether they will seek to lower the threshold for the pollutant, but observers think it will be reduced to some degree.

The Clean Air Act compels the EPA to set the standard based solely on public health and welfare considerations, and it cannot consider the costs to implement the rules.

But the ozone standard is mired in politics.

Environmental groups are hoping to avoid a repeat of the very public clash they had with the Obama administration ahead of the 2012 presidential election.

Critics say the White House twisted then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s arm into postponing any change to the controversial rules.

BETHESDA, Md. -- As the federal government frantically works to combat the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, and as it responds to a second diagnosis of the disease at home, one of the country's top health officials says a vaccine likely would have already been discovered were it not for budget cuts.

Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, said that a decade of stagnant spending has "slowed down" research on all items, including vaccinations for infectious diseases. As a result, he said, the international community has been left playing catch-up on a potentially avoidable humanitarian catastrophe.

"NIH has been working on Ebola vaccines since 2001. It's not like we suddenly woke up and thought, 'Oh my gosh, we should have something ready here,'" Collins told The Huffington Post on Friday. "Frankly, if we had not gone through our 10-year slide in research support, we probably would have had a vaccine in time for this that would've gone through clinical trials and would have been ready."

It's not just the production of a vaccine that has been hampered by money shortfalls. Collins also said that some therapeutics to fight Ebola "were on a slower track than would've been ideal, or that would have happened if we had been on a stable research support trajectory."

"We would have been a year or two ahead of where we are, which would have made all the difference," he said.

On October 13 2014 09:53 Danglars wrote:
I just dig the rationales offered. We have to conclude that the legislature's actions were irrational. We are sending a message attacking the dignity of this group. To quote Scalia in Windsor, "the majority has declared open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited," in total opposition to O'Brien's "It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive." Anyways, the fight was won with the DOMA case and its hand-crafted key phrase; this is all just the denouement. What's next on the left's big laundry list of perceived societal wrongs that will bypass legislative action in favor of the court's drive-through?

On October 13 2014 08:48 Millitron wrote:

You DO exchange bodily fluids. Every item you touch leaves oils from your skin. Saliva and mucus can be aerosolized just from speech. If Ebola becomes more able to survive outside a host, it could easily be a problem in the US. In its current form, its absolutely no threat. But there's no reason to assume it will stay in its current form forever.

On October 13 2014 12:12 aksfjh wrote:

Is that why we ALL have Hepatitis B?! OH WAIT! WE DON'T! -_- It spreads practically the same way.

You have to understand, for the most part, the people that are getting infected from the developed world are health care workers that come in (hopefully indirect) contact with these patients and all their infectious fluids multiple times. Unless you are out there taking care of people that are sick with Ebola, you are not going to get sick yourself. Not unless your idea of casual contact is taking somebody's snot/spit/shit and rubbing it in your eyes and mouth repeatedly.

Also, name 1 virus that went from "bodily fluids" to "casual contact" in the course of a single lifetime. It won't stay in its current form forever, but the timescale for it to evolve drastically different traits is on the timescale of decades, if not centuries or even millennia.

On October 13 2014 12:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:


It is irrational and the law's only purpose was an attempt to make homosexual relationships inferior to heterosexual ones because religious individuals didn't like them. I don't see why the court calling conservatives' BS on this issue is a bad thing.