A 100,000 eh.I would start to be concerned if started to reach 100,000 not 3 people.
That's pretty stupid.
A 100,000 eh.I would start to be concerned if started to reach 100,000 not 3 people.
I would start to be concerned if started to reach 100,000 not 3 people.
This is another one of those stories where people get caught up in the face value story when the numbers paint a much less grim picture.
hmmmmmm, maybe...I thought they were smaller than a turnip and had a red leaf attached
guess neither of us is going to be eating one any time soon (I can live with that)
What's disconcerting to me, and I just have a lay persons perspective, is that in at least two separate cases in the west the contagion was passed on to health care workers (one in Spain, one in Texas).
it's not the numbers, it's the reaction...they didn't know what to do...and if you are a front line worker be sure you wouldn't feel so cavalier. How would you feel if your loved one was asked to nurse someone without the protective gear and to wrap tape around your neck to protect it from getting splashed with body fluids.
then a doctor comes along to exam him and he wears a hazmat suit...not cool
They're only remote because we have safeguards and systems. Discussion and preparedness is what keeps them healthy.I don't usually concern myself with things that have a very low probability of happening to me or are very remote in affecting people in general.
How can you feel empathetic, if you don't hear about it?Of course I do hope that these situations resolve themselves, but I don't need to hear about it to know I would be empathetic.
I agree, unless the murder victim rises from the dead and kills someone, and so one. Or it has the potential to do so.Like, does it really matter if there is an isolated case of murder, just because that particular murder is uniquely gruesome in some way?
In most cases, it doesn't.
I know how much this must upset you, so I'll post it again...Dear TV News: This Is How You Report on Suspected Ebola Cases
There is no Ebola outbreak in the U.S., but we're seeing a predictable media frenzy to report one anyway. After all, the virus isn't easy to catch—it requires direct contact with a symptomatic patient's bodily fluids.
But there's no shortage of media speculation over suspected new cases, which is helping to feed the hysteria. Usually, this means a person with "Ebola-like symptoms," which look a lot like the flu, is being monitored by doctors until they can rule out the virus. There have been reports about a Yale University student who returned from Liberia and fell ill shortly after; one person in Los Angeles; three in Virginia; another in New York. None of these patients actually have Ebola. Every single case has turned up negative—except, of course, for the two confirmed cases of nurses who had direct contact with an Ebola patient at his most contagious. Here is one example of an (incorrect) chyron in a report about a suspected case in Washington, D.C.:
Fortunately, the Associated Press is working to avoid enabling panic. It has issued new guidelines on reporting Ebola in a thoughtful, responsible manner:
We’re increasingly hearing reports of “suspected” cases of Ebola in the United States and Europe. The AP has exercised caution in reporting these cases and will continue to do so.
Most of these suspected cases turn out to be negative. Our bureaus monitor them, but we have not been moving stories or imagery simply because a doctor suspects Ebola and routine precautions are taken while the patient is tested. To report such a case, we look for a solid source saying Ebola is suspected and some sense the case has caused serious disruption or reaction. Are buildings being closed and substantial numbers of people being evacuated or isolated? Is a plane being diverted? Is the suspected case closely related to another, confirmed Ebola case?
When we do report a suspected case, we will seek to keep our stories brief and in perspective.
Hopefully other news organizations will take this advice.
AP Offers Good Guidance On Reporting Ebola Cases | New Republic
I don't usually concern myself with things that have a very low probability of happening to me or are very remote in affecting people in general.
Oh c'mon, you met Flossy's type at parties and gatherings.So then why in the hell do you continually post about it? Trying to reach a quota?
Oh c'mon, you met Flossy's type at parties and gatherings.
I've always loved being introduced to them. It usually takes me about a nanosecond to deduce they're a smug over educated twerp, with a superiority complex, and another 30 seconds to thoroughly embarrass them, so that they avoid me like the plague for the rest of the night. Choosing instead to mingle with like minded twerps, where mental masturbation is the evenings course of action.
While I on the other hand listen to the stories of others lives, and speak of worldly things and blowing sh*t up, to his hosts and other assorted party goers, no longer enthralled by his snarky witticisms and from bridge of his nose glances.
Oh I do, but there's that degrees of separation thing. Everybody knows somebody like Flossy or somebody dating somebody like him, and they'll inevitably be invited to a party.Dude, what kind of parties are you going to? Lol.
You need to start mixing with a more fun bunch.![]()
So then why in the hell do you continually post about it? Trying to reach a quota?
Oh, you mean like Levant hurting JT's feelings and how you lost your mind.Special cases require special attention.
This is one where I feel it is worthwhile to educate others about the situation so that we have better gauge on what's really important moving forward.
Cool, but we already knew all that. Thanks anyways.