- Joined
- 14 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,725
I think you miss the point of my post, which is to criticize the fallacious comparison between Ebola and Influenza.
And it is NOT true that Ebola only propagates on contact. By the CDC's own (misleading) definition, close contact includes being within 3 feet of someone as Ebola IS capable of being transmitted by droplets in the air. Thus (although less likely), Ebola IS capable of being transmitted by a cough, a sneeze, or by other particles in the air while not fitting the technical biomedical definition of being "airborne."
That is a fatal flaw that these health agencies have made, probably purposely, in not clarifying these biomedical terms.
Either way, what you say, only bolsters my argument: that drawing a comparison between Ebola and Influenza is fallacious; and given an equal chance of infection in a healthy adult, Ebola is FAR more dangerous.
Overall, it will take fewer lives than the flu if it is contained, which has been the case historically before people could be moved all across the globe overnight. With modern air travel, Ebola will be much harder to contain as empirically demonstrated in so many cases.
Yes, as long as it is not "airborne" by the biomedical definition of the term, it will infect fewer people than influenza. But that in no way makes it less serious, deadly, or deserving of reasonable caution.
And it is NOT true that Ebola only propagates on contact. By the CDC's own (misleading) definition, close contact includes being within 3 feet of someone as Ebola IS capable of being transmitted by droplets in the air. Thus (although less likely), Ebola IS capable of being transmitted by a cough, a sneeze, or by other particles in the air while not fitting the technical biomedical definition of being "airborne."
That is a fatal flaw that these health agencies have made, probably purposely, in not clarifying these biomedical terms.
Either way, what you say, only bolsters my argument: that drawing a comparison between Ebola and Influenza is fallacious; and given an equal chance of infection in a healthy adult, Ebola is FAR more dangerous.
Overall, it will take fewer lives than the flu if it is contained, which has been the case historically before people could be moved all across the globe overnight. With modern air travel, Ebola will be much harder to contain as empirically demonstrated in so many cases.
Yes, as long as it is not "airborne" by the biomedical definition of the term, it will infect fewer people than influenza. But that in no way makes it less serious, deadly, or deserving of reasonable caution.
Last edited: