First case of Ebola acquired in Europe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Spanish nurse only entered the priest's room twice and she got infected. Why is it a big exaggeration that many people will be infected if an Ebola patient vomited in the airplane?

It's not.

And yet of the people who were living in the same apartment with Thomas Duncan, so far not a single one has shown any symptoms.

Yet. Lets see after 3 weeks, shall we? And well also see if a healthcare wirker at the hospital he initially went to gets it.

Love the way you make snarky comments implying people are paranoid after only 7 or so days of the guy being sick. Coearly you know more than the exoerts re: incubation period

Aren't you the one who keeps implying that the experts are "lying" to us? Today is the 13th day since he began to show symptoms and became contagious. Yes, the incubation period is 21 days and yes, they may still get sick, but you are fear-mongering plain and simple. This entire thread borders on hysteria.

21 days is the magic number. Talk to me after that please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Spanish nurse only entered the priest's room twice and she got infected. Why is it a big exaggeration that many people will be infected if an Ebola patient vomited in the airplane?

It's not.

And yet of the people who were living in the same apartment with Thomas Duncan, so far not a single one has shown any symptoms.

Yet. Lets see after 3 weeks, shall we? And well also see if a healthcare wirker at the hospital he initially went to gets it.

Love the way you make snarky comments implying people are paranoid after only 7 or so days of the guy being sick. Coearly you know more than the exoerts re: incubation period

Aren't you the one who keeps implying that the experts are "lying" to us? Today is the 13th day since he began to show symptoms and became contagious. Yes, the incubation period is 21 days and yes, they may still get sick, but you are fear-mongering plain and simple. This entire thread borders on hysteria.

21 days is the magic number. Talk to me after that please

You're not allowed to say that. Unless you say that nothing bad will happen and everything is being handled well, you're fear-mongering. Shhh....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am one of the posters who called a post hysterical (the one about our hospitals quickly becoming overwhelmed).

It seems that others are using hysterical in the medical sense. Hysteria (or female hysteria) hasn't been a medical diagnosis in 50 years.

I'm not accusing anyone of mental illness, I'm accusing some people of getting carried away and coming close to unreasonable panic.

They know that. It's just easier for them to argue by creating straw men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Spanish nurse only entered the priest's room twice and she got infected. Why is it a big exaggeration that many people will be infected if an Ebola patient vomited in the airplane?

It's not.

And yet of the people who were living in the same apartment with Thomas Duncan, so far not a single one has shown any symptoms.

Yet. Lets see after 3 weeks, shall we? And well also see if a healthcare wirker at the hospital he initially went to gets it.

Love the way you make snarky comments implying people are paranoid after only 7 or so days of the guy being sick. Coearly you know more than the exoerts re: incubation period

Aren't you the one who keeps implying that the experts are "lying" to us? Today is the 13th day since he began to show symptoms and became contagious. Yes, the incubation period is 21 days and yes, they may still get sick, but you are fear-mongering plain and simple. This entire thread borders on hysteria.

21 days is the magic number. Talk to me after that please

You're not allowed to say that. Unless you say that nothing bad will happen and everything is being handled well, you're fear-mongering. Shhh....

Stick to the party line and ignore science, namely, that quarantines work. But it's a form of ego gratification to accuse others of panicking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am one of the posters who called a post hysterical (the one about our hospitals quickly becoming overwhelmed).

It seems that others are using hysterical in the medical sense. Hysteria (or female hysteria) hasn't been a medical diagnosis in 50 years.

I'm not accusing anyone of mental illness, I'm accusing some people of getting carried away and coming close to unreasonable panic.

They know that. It's just easier for them to argue by creating straw men.

Actually, no. She was accusing them of mental illness. Then she got called on it and changed her story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am one of the posters who called a post hysterical (the one about our hospitals quickly becoming overwhelmed).

It seems that others are using hysterical in the medical sense. Hysteria (or female hysteria) hasn't been a medical diagnosis in 50 years.

I'm not accusing anyone of mental illness, I'm accusing some people of getting carried away and coming close to unreasonable panic.

They know that. It's just easier for them to argue by creating straw men.

Actually, no. She was accusing them of mental illness. Then she got called on it and changed her story.

Please provide a quote indicating where anyone accused anyone of "mental illness".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am one of the posters who called a post hysterical (the one about our hospitals quickly becoming overwhelmed).

It seems that others are using hysterical in the medical sense. Hysteria (or female hysteria) hasn't been a medical diagnosis in 50 years.

I'm not accusing anyone of mental illness, I'm accusing some people of getting carried away and coming close to unreasonable panic.

They know that. It's just easier for them to argue by creating straw men.

Actually, no. She was accusing them of mental illness. Then she got called on it and changed her story.

Please provide a quote indicating where anyone accused anyone of "mental illness".

Hysteria is a mental illness. PP claims that's not what she meant, and she only meant it in the most watered down version of the term, but the rest of the rhetoric belies that. Also, the many references to people who are concerned about this disease spreading being "wingnuts" (which obviously means crazy) and needing tin foil hats obviously shows the intent. The intent is to marginalize and gaslight, to quelch disagreement, rather than to dispute it based on the merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am one of the posters who called a post hysterical (the one about our hospitals quickly becoming overwhelmed).

It seems that others are using hysterical in the medical sense. Hysteria (or female hysteria) hasn't been a medical diagnosis in 50 years.

I'm not accusing anyone of mental illness, I'm accusing some people of getting carried away and coming close to unreasonable panic.

They know that. It's just easier for them to argue by creating straw men.

Actually, no. She was accusing them of mental illness. Then she got called on it and changed her story.

Please provide a quote indicating where anyone accused anyone of "mental illness".

Hysteria is a mental illness. PP claims that's not what she meant, and she only meant it in the most watered down version of the term, but the rest of the rhetoric belies that. Also, the many references to people who are concerned about this disease spreading being "wingnuts" (which obviously means crazy) and needing tin foil hats obviously shows the intent. The intent is to marginalize and gaslight, to quelch disagreement, rather than to dispute it based on the merits.

It's actually remarkably similar to the sexist use of the term. The intent is to silence complaint or opposition with a personal attack, rather than dealing with the actual topic of the complaint or argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am one of the posters who called a post hysterical (the one about our hospitals quickly becoming overwhelmed).

It seems that others are using hysterical in the medical sense. Hysteria (or female hysteria) hasn't been a medical diagnosis in 50 years.

I'm not accusing anyone of mental illness, I'm accusing some people of getting carried away and coming close to unreasonable panic.

They know that. It's just easier for them to argue by creating straw men.

Actually, no. She was accusing them of mental illness. Then she got called on it and changed her story.

Please provide a quote indicating where anyone accused anyone of "mental illness".

Hysteria is a mental illness. PP claims that's not what she meant, and she only meant it in the most watered down version of the term, but the rest of the rhetoric belies that. Also, the many references to people who are concerned about this disease spreading being "wingnuts" (which obviously means crazy) and needing tin foil hats obviously shows the intent. The intent is to marginalize and gaslight, to quelch disagreement, rather than to dispute it based on the merits.

Hysteria is not a mental illness. Someone upthread quoted a dictionary definition. There was no mental illness in it. It's not a medical diagnosis (although it used to be), and it is not an accusation of mental illness.

[Anonymous]

Since you claim that you didn't mean it in the medical sense, here's the Wikipedia definition:
Hysteria, in its colloquial use, describes unmanageable emotional excesses. The fear can be centered on a body part, or most commonly, on an imagined problem with that body part. Disease is a common complaint; see also body dysmorphic disorder and hypochondriasis. Generally, modern medical professionals have given up the use of "hysteria" as a diagnostic category, replacing it with more precisely defined categories such as somatization disorder. In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association officially changed the diagnosis of "hysterical neurosis, conversion type" to "conversion disorder".

So, the colloquial use (which you claimed to use) says "uncontrollable emotional excesses". Ok, so a person who says that they think this isn't contained, or asks whether it could be spread on a plane, is showing "uncontrollable emotional excesses"? No. That's wrong.
If you are so certain you are right on the merits, then you don't need to gaslight people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am one of the posters who called a post hysterical (the one about our hospitals quickly becoming overwhelmed).

It seems that others are using hysterical in the medical sense. Hysteria (or female hysteria) hasn't been a medical diagnosis in 50 years.

I'm not accusing anyone of mental illness, I'm accusing some people of getting carried away and coming close to unreasonable panic.

They know that. It's just easier for them to argue by creating straw men.

Actually, no. She was accusing them of mental illness. Then she got called on it and changed her story.

Please provide a quote indicating where anyone accused anyone of "mental illness".

Hysteria is a mental illness. PP claims that's not what she meant, and she only meant it in the most watered down version of the term, but the rest of the rhetoric belies that. Also, the many references to people who are concerned about this disease spreading being "wingnuts" (which obviously means crazy) and needing tin foil hats obviously shows the intent. The intent is to marginalize and gaslight, to quelch disagreement, rather than to dispute it based on the merits.

Hysteria is not a mental illness. Someone upthread quoted a dictionary definition. There was no mental illness in it. It's not a medical diagnosis (although it used to be), and it is not an accusation of mental illness.

In this context, yes, it is. It is a very poorly considered use of it that way, but it was. That's why you also see "wingnut" and "tin foil hat" sprinkled all over these threads. Essentially it's "If you are worried about this, then you are crazy." Denying that that's the tactic is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since you claim that you didn't mean it in the medical sense, here's the Wikipedia definition:
Hysteria, in its colloquial use, describes unmanageable emotional excesses. The fear can be centered on a body part, or most commonly, on an imagined problem with that body part. Disease is a common complaint; see also body dysmorphic disorder and hypochondriasis. Generally, modern medical professionals have given up the use of "hysteria" as a diagnostic category, replacing it with more precisely defined categories such as somatization disorder. In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association officially changed the diagnosis of "hysterical neurosis, conversion type" to "conversion disorder".

So, the colloquial use (which you claimed to use) says "uncontrollable emotional excesses". Ok, so a person who says that they think this isn't contained, or asks whether it could be spread on a plane, is showing "uncontrollable emotional excesses"? No. That's wrong.
If you are so certain you are right on the merits, then you don't need to gaslight people.

Thank you for allowing that hysteria is not an accusation of mental illness. You didn't have to throw gaslight in there, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since you claim that you didn't mean it in the medical sense, here's the Wikipedia definition:
Hysteria, in its colloquial use, describes unmanageable emotional excesses. The fear can be centered on a body part, or most commonly, on an imagined problem with that body part. Disease is a common complaint; see also body dysmorphic disorder and hypochondriasis. Generally, modern medical professionals have given up the use of "hysteria" as a diagnostic category, replacing it with more precisely defined categories such as somatization disorder. In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association officially changed the diagnosis of "hysterical neurosis, conversion type" to "conversion disorder".

So, the colloquial use (which you claimed to use) says "uncontrollable emotional excesses". Ok, so a person who says that they think this isn't contained, or asks whether it could be spread on a plane, is showing "uncontrollable emotional excesses"? No. That's wrong.
If you are so certain you are right on the merits, then you don't need to gaslight people.

Thank you for allowing that hysteria is not an accusation of mental illness. You didn't have to throw gaslight in there, though.

Oh, I absolutely think that the intent was an accusation of mental illness in this context. I don't buy what PP is selling at all. But I'm saying that even if you use the alternative definition, she's still totally wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am one of the posters who called a post hysterical (the one about our hospitals quickly becoming overwhelmed).

It seems that others are using hysterical in the medical sense. Hysteria (or female hysteria) hasn't been a medical diagnosis in 50 years.

I'm not accusing anyone of mental illness, I'm accusing some people of getting carried away and coming close to unreasonable panic.

I wrote that and it's naive of you to not understand that hospitals could easily be over run. Not every hospital is as large or part of a system like the ones in DC. You have to contend with the fact that training may be periodic or sporadic in smaller cities for rare infectious viruses as well as the fact that doctors may not consider testing for it, have the ability to test for it or have to arrange for specialized transport. This will be true in remote and rural areas, etc. There is also staff fear - staff may not report to work because they are afraid or staff may panic after coming into contact with the illness and not reporting it hoping they will get better. And you need a lot of staff - not just doctors and nurses but CNAs, janitorial, contractors who fix systems, etc. In smaller areas, there could be less community resources available to deal with communicating and dealing with panicked public, etc. It seems that you don't quite grasp the concept that the US includes many areas that are not major cities with major large healthcare systems and networks. Places like DC, Dallas, Atlanta - should be able to cope fine but they are not the entire US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am one of the posters who called a post hysterical (the one about our hospitals quickly becoming overwhelmed).

It seems that others are using hysterical in the medical sense. Hysteria (or female hysteria) hasn't been a medical diagnosis in 50 years.

I'm not accusing anyone of mental illness, I'm accusing some people of getting carried away and coming close to unreasonable panic.

I wrote that and it's naive of you to not understand that hospitals could easily be over run. Not every hospital is as large or part of a system like the ones in DC. You have to contend with the fact that training may be periodic or sporadic in smaller cities for rare infectious viruses as well as the fact that doctors may not consider testing for it, have the ability to test for it or have to arrange for specialized transport. This will be true in remote and rural areas, etc. There is also staff fear - staff may not report to work because they are afraid or staff may panic after coming into contact with the illness and not reporting it hoping they will get better. And you need a lot of staff - not just doctors and nurses but CNAs, janitorial, contractors who fix systems, etc. In smaller areas, there could be less community resources available to deal with communicating and dealing with panicked public, etc. It seems that you don't quite grasp the concept that the US includes many areas that are not major cities with major large healthcare systems and networks. Places like DC, Dallas, Atlanta - should be able to cope fine but they are not the entire US.

My experience with rural hospitals is that they tend to service very large geographic areas, with lots of careflights, etc. They tend to be reasonably large with well-trained doctors and staff, and are also usually the largest local employer. It's true, I've also encountered a few smaller hospitals where protocols are non-existent and there's nobody home after 9pm. In those instances, it might make sense to transfer any potential Ebola victim to a larger hospital, or it might not.