That's PERFECT! Absolutley perfectly stated!
I thought it would be posted here by now, but for your viewing enjoyment:
Hitler Finds Out About Ebola Reaching USA
Islamic Burial Rituals Blamed For Spread Of Ebola
By Paul Sperry
Islam isn't just at the heart of the terror threat posed by the Islamic State. The religion is also contributing to the other major crisis plaguing the globe: the spread of Ebola.
Washington and its media stenographers won't tell you this, lest they look intolerant, but Islamic burial rituals are a key reason why health officials can't contain the spread of the deadly disease in West Africa.
Many of the victims of Ebola in the three hot-spot nations there -- Sierra Leone and Guinea, as well as neighboring Liberia -- are Muslim. Roughly 73% of Sierra Leone's and about 85% of Guinea's people are Muslim. Islam, moreover, is practiced by more than 13% of Liberians.
When Muslims die, family members don't turn to a funeral home or crematorium to take care of the body. In Islam, death is handled much differently.
Relatives personally wash the corpses of loved ones from head to toe. Often, several family members participate in this posthumous bathing ritual, known as Ghusl.
Before scrubbing the skin with soap and water, family members press down on the abdomen to excrete fluids still in the body. A mixture of camphor and water is used for a final washing. Then, family members dry off the body and shroud it in white linens.
Again, washing the bodies of the dead in this way is considered a collective duty for Muslims, especially in Muslim nations. Failure to do so is believed to leave the deceased "impure" and jeopardizes the faithful's ascension into Paradise (unless he died in jihad; then no Ghusl is required).
Before the body is buried, Muslims attending the funeral typically pass a common bowl for use in ablution or washing of the face, feet and hands, compounding the risk of infection.
Though these customs are prescribed by Shariah law, they're extremely dangerous and should be suspended. Mosque leaders must step in to educate village Muslims about the dangers of interacting with corpses.
Ebola victims can be more contagious dead than alive. Their bodies are covered in rashes, blood and other fluids containing the virus.
"Funerals and washing dead bodies in West African countries have led, to a great extent, to spread the disease," a World Health Organization spokeswoman recently warned.
WHO has issued an advisory to Red Cross and other relief workers in African Muslim nations to "be aware of the family's cultural practices and religious beliefs. Help the family understand why some practices cannot be done because they place the family or others at risk for exposure."
The document added: "Identify a family member who has influence with the rest of the family and who can make sure family members avoid dangerous practices such as washing or touching the body."
The warning appears to be falling on deaf ears, however.
Last month, Red Cross workers in Guinea were attacked by family members while trying to bury Ebola dead safely. In Sierra Leone, moreover, a family took Ebola-ridden bodies secured in body bags from the Red Cross, opened them up and exposed all members of the family to Ebola. They all contracted the disease.
The UN warns that if the spread of Ebola can't be contained within 60 days, it could turn into a global plague. The West African infection rate is expected to jump from 1,000 a week to 10,000 a week.
President Obama argues that suspending travel with these West African nations would do more harm than good.
But the practice of these religious customs is even more reason to do so.
Even Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam, is now barring pilgrims from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea from traveling to Mecca for fear of them bringing the virus into the kingdom.
So what's stopping us from barring travelers from those countries?
I hope you don't contract ebola as a result of your leader's poor judgement.
Have you ever taken any formal educational courses on risk? Just curious.
Your reply tells me all I need to know.
You have zero credibility as far as I, and I'm sure a bunch of others here, are concerned.
I have a strong suspicion that your reference in your handle to "doc" refers to a PhD - Piled higher and Deeper.
And leftist idiots, instead of talking about how to keep those cases THERE and not allow them to come HERE.... goes on about how few cases are already here, which we do have to deal with as well anyway.
You know, already here, by travel from there....... and no plans on restricting travel so no MORE come here.
Un
Real
The left, who will do anything, including it seems endangering yet more Americans, to defend Obama and his policies by any means necessary. You own the next case that comes in. Personally.
Seems the call for support, "help, we are under attack".... has been told to stand down..... yet again.....
"present"
I really don't think attacking you has anything to do with much other than it is just fun. Kind of like the only reason you dropped in here, no real reason just entertainment for you
Well, among other things yes. In this case in particular though your stats are specious at best. For example in your post preceding this one you state "Out of 318,935,000 people, 3 have gotten this deadly disease."
Seeing as the entire population of the United States hasn't been exposed to throw the number out there is absurd to begin with (though in your case I'd suspect deliberately disingenous).
A more relevant number would be the number of direct contacts with a know infected case and we have 3 out of 10 (what the CDC would label "high risk exposure" cases) or a 30% infective rate in persons with a high risk exposure.
Seeing as you continue to display a remarkable inability to grasp the obvious, 1 fatality in 3 confirmed cases is a 33% fatality rate.
The very fact that you have more of a chance of getting eaten by a shark than dying of Ebola!
I'm guessing the passive versus active transmission of disease is a foreign concept to you....(that was a rhetorical question Sparky, don't hurt yourself trying to come up with a response.)
When you are dealing with a viral disease with a 50-70% known fatality rate you do not proceed as though you are dealing with a malady that one would more often than not go to the nearest Walgreens to treat.
You do not send troops who have no training in dealing with a BSL-4 pathogen into a known hot zone.
You do these things however when your carefully manufactured image is crashing down like a straw house in a stiff breeze and when an ever-increasing percentage of the American public have finally awakened to the fact that the Emperor has no clothes.
There are people on this forum who have forgotten more than you'll ever know on this particular subject Sparky. Cut your losses, quit digging.
Seeing as you continue to display a remarkable inability to grasp the obvious, 1 fatality in 3 confirmed cases is a 33% fatality rate.
Do you have more of a chance of being killed skydiving or getting Ebola?
Seeing as you continue to display a remarkable inability to grasp the obvious, 1 fatality in 3 confirmed cases is a 33% fatality rate.
How do you live your life so filled with fear and paranoia?
Fear and paranoia would be running out and buying a Hazmat suit on Ebay.
Pointing out the obvious risks should be a call to anyone paying attention to take stock of the needless risks being taken by this administration solely for the political deflection to an increasingly obvious abysmal job performance.
Not to mention venom and vitriol.
Don't flatter yourself Sparky. I'm just treating you with the total lack of respect you and any other troll that trundles over here deserves.
No you don't. You truly don't.
I asked you a very simple yes or no question, which you totally ignored, and instead responded with some totally unrelated statistics that you then insist I address.
Mike very clearly and concisely explained your faulty logic, and you continue to harp about stats related to car crashes and sky diving, which if you truly understood risk as it pertains to contagions you'd then understand how foolish and ignorant you're making yourself look.
There's lots of very bright and experienced individuals on this site - Mike in CT being one of he best. Quite honestly, you'd do a whole lot better if you'd very carefully read each one of his posts, and then simply reply, "Well said Mike".
Otherwise, you simply demonstrate how ignorant you are.
"How's that? "
As I stated earlier, you truly don't understand risk, so I don't feel there's any more need to further this discussion.
It's why there are rules and laws WRT driving so as to make folks safer.
Obama and his sycophants have basically said "Ebola rules??? We don' need no stinking Ebola rules...."
Feel safer??? Nawww, you feel safe enough.... because you are clueless as to who is at risk as long as it isn't you. Contact at airports or on the plane or in the hospitals.... where this thing has the chance to do a great deal of harm. There are people there being placed in harms way. It's OK though.... likely nobody you know... gotta crack a few eggs....
You guys are good with "Present" Obama.... koolaid is all gone.... you guys drank the last of it, too late for you.... obviously no cure....
If we were speaking about personal ethics or beliefs relating to matters of philosphy, religion or politics you'd have a point; speaking about matters of science or public health your convictions/beliefs have nothing to do with relevant facts.
And I do understand risk to the point that you have more of a chance of dying in a car wreck than getting Ebola, That is a simple irrefutable fact that would be supported by experts far brighter than your savior Mike in CT.
It's ironic you mention experts; to a person they would all first apprise you of the term "nature abhors a vacuum". You are positing statistics based upon a set of parameters and ignoring the fact that those parameters if changed have an impact upon the comparative metrics.
In this case we've needlessly exposed ourselves to risk and what is "irrefutable fact" is that we have an infectivity rate due to those changes of 30% with a fatality rate of 33%.
Now would be a very good time to put the shovel away...
Like a nova, they collapse inward at first.... then KABOOM! Death Star!
As you have proven on a consistent basis.
Positing relative risk first and foremost assumes "static" variables are in play. When they are your comparative risk assessment would be accurate.
When however they move from static to fluid the risk, especially for a BSL-4 pathogen increases, in some cases exponentially.
Sit in your library cubby at NYU and your risk of contracting Ebola is pretty close to zero. Go into a BSL-4 lab, say at NIH and juggle shell vials of live Ebola virus and I doubt even you would make the same claim as to relative risk.
Every infected person who is knowingly transported into the US adds risk to the equation. Breaks in IC protocol will lead to exposure and will lead to infection.
Once more for clarity to the somnabulent; 10 such exposures, 3 infections to date, 1 fatality.
They didn't coin the phrase "if you play with fire you'll get burned for nothing."
Put under-qualified, or worse, unqualified people in a position to introduce Ebola it is no longer a question of if, but when an outbreak occurs.
Now when you can post about mechanisms of mutagenesis for viruses, e.g. the potential for Ebola to become an airborne pathogen we can have an intelligent discussion.
When your virology knowledge base comes from what you're spoon-fed or troll at HuffPo you come across as nothing other than a partisan hack.
Which in your case is as close to honesty as it gets.
To go along with Mike in CT's last post, get yourself a copy of H.W. Lewis's book "Technological Risk". You don't even have to read the whole book, just the 19 pages that comprise Chapter 5, "The Assessment of Risk".
Then to satisfy your philosophical side, pick up a copy of James H. Austin's "Chase, Chance, & Creativity" and read the whole book - it's only a couple hundred pages.
Both of these should be available at your institution's library.
Guaranteed that if you would do this, you wouldn't be arguing your irrelevant points.
I figure if he accomplishes the assignment, he'll be more than half way to his next Piled higher and Deeper.
I wouldn't know. Nor would I know what it's like to be willfully obtuse; though you seem to be an expert.
The Forbes link assumes as you continue to do that the probability of infection is the same as when the variables remain static; they are not and they do not appear to remain so.
I could give a brief synopsis of methodologies of extracting nucleic acid from metagenomic samples. I could do a passable job as I have a solid grasp of the fundamentals. What I could not do would be to engage an expert over why one methodology would produce superior yields over another as I would quickly be out of my depth. I have the sense to recognize this reality and would look at such an engagement as a learning experience.
You on the other hand will continue to argue with someone with vastly more expertise in this particular arena not because your expertise matches or even approaches his; you argue merely out of an ideological bent that predisposses you to a knee-jerk defense of any perceived attack on any who share those leanings.
When Forbes becomes the repository of expertise in Virology, let alone BSL-4 pathogens let me know.
For the record I don't believe you to be so clueless as to not be aware of how out of your league you are on this topic; this is purely personal.
Now would be a very good time to dispense with the shovel.
"my chances of contacting ebola are remote.... so I'm fine with appointing a clueless political hack who specialized in political damage control in charge of a health risk issue..."
brilliant!
????
"And yes a PhD, I expected that response because yours is the party that rapes educational funds, dismantling our schools and making sure an educational i harder and harder to get, and you like it that way so they can continue to vote GOP without knowing that they're voting against their best interest."
Been teaching English this week and there are so many errors in that bit of drivel that one has to question what website you purchased your degree from.
