We should see a chart for 2014 for all and for 2015 for all.
If there’s a proper response, it’s not a threat, but a poor response can make it a tremendous threat.
An example of an improper response is letting that Ebola patient leave quarantine to go to a restaurant without protection.
Even something like a flu, if not properly handled, can get out of hand. Shout outs to that dumbass from junior high that gave pretty much the entire class a one week at-home vacation.
Are you conflating drug development with a universal healthcare policy?
Also your argument seems a bit odd. You say ‘yup, lots of ways to cure Ebola’ then say that the state of Ebola treatment is an example a failure of the for-profit pharmaceutical model. The for-profit model works pretty well seeing as how the US the best healthcare in the world as well as having the lion’s share of drug development successes. However, you are correct to point out that there are some cases where the for-profit model is insufficient and there is legislation to lift regulations to help get such projects off of the ground. And maybe there is an even better way to address these cases. however, if you decided to scrap the for-profit model altogether you would gut the real engine of responsible drug development (throwing the baby out with the bathwater). Also, treatments can only be legitimately found (and approved) with controlled, regulated clinical trials (fortunately with such rapid onset terminal conditions as ebola FDA compassionate use can be invoked to overule clinical trial requiremnets, but this invariably only clouds the efficacy issue that the clincal trial data is designed to address). Running controlled clinical trials probably couldnt be done in Africa, and even if it was, it would be controversial and perceived as experimentation on africans. Then there is the fact that ebola deaths in africa are dwarfed by other otherwise benign conditions that are made unmanagable by the area’s lack of healthcare infrastructure. Would it be a pertinent use of public money to throw it at a condition that amounts to 1% (generous estimate?) of the deaths in africa that really has as much (or more) to do with the poor health infrastructure than the disease itself? Or would this be construed as a criminal misuse of public funding?
As somebody who works as a sub: shotouts to those asshole parents who force their sick children to go to school. I appreciate all the random disease I’ve gotten first hand or second hand (via my wife). Your child may have perfect attendance, but now I’m shitting my brains out.
If it ever happens that a child catches Ebola, we are oh so seriously fucked.
Aside from the fact that US citizens effectively subsidize the development of drugs that are eagerly adopted by the rest of the world (how often do americans win nobel for medicine?), the best indicator of the function of a healthcare system I would say is the treatment of terminal conditions such as cancer. The US stack up at the very top of this list regarding cancer survival rates.
The for profit model is a failure because the drug companies did not take the ebola drugs to market, because that would require lots of resources for very little payoff. back then no one had ebola so there wouldn’t have been any customers. when you are motivated by profit and pleasing shareholders, it often means you are diametrically opposed with the good of the general public. nowhere is this more true than wallstreet and healthcare. in general i am anti big government, with respect to things such as spying and the military. however, with respect to other things, i am all for big government. healthcare is one of those issues (and on an unrelated note, jailing and heavy handed brutal regulation of banks is another, so is education).
and you are right, it is not ethical to run controlled clinical trials in this case. the main reason being that giving someone a placebo instead of actually trying to treat them would be horrible. but without a control group, you have no idea how effective the actual drug is. yet, i’d say that’s the correct tradeoff to make in this case. i would say that in the future, given our global interconnected nature, we should have flexibility in the rules and allow for the expediting of drugs to market if there is an actual risk of pandemic.
i’m also, the other point i wanted to make about for profit being bad: imagine if a bunch of poor people in the usa got infected. the early symptoms of ebola are flu. well, most poor people dont have the money to see the doctor, so they choose not to until its too late. by having lack of coverage and letting people slip through the cracks, it is actually making the risk of a pandemic that much worse. see, usa does have the healthcare in terms of our scientists being on the cutting edge. that is true. but no one can afford that shit. that is bad.
Did you guys hear about the lab speciliast who boarded a cruise to mexico… He worked with duncan’s lab fluids. They quarintened him in the cruise. Mexico turned the cruise away. Didnt let them dock.