• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

E is for Ebola (Dallas TX)

Incredible that a political appointee at the NIH would already be out there making political points. Pathetic, really. A preemptive salvo just in case this happens to get out of hand, when everybody has already reassured us that the pieces are in place to not let it get out of hand.

The only thing I've learned so far is that the R0 value, or whatever the fuck it's called, is pretty worthless when it comes to Ebola.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Incredible that a political appointee at the NIH would already be out there making political points. Pathetic, really. A preemptive salvo just in case this happens to get out of hand, when everybody has already reassured us that the pieces are in place to not let it get out of hand.

The only thing I've learned so far is that the R0 value, or whatever the fuck it's called, is pretty worthless when it comes to Ebola.
Click to expand...

So now not only do we need to gut government spending, we also need to censor bureaucrats who have the temerity to talk about the impact of the cuts? Just checking to make sure what I'm supposed to be outraged about today.
 
Deacon923 said:
So now not only do we need to gut government spending, we also need to censor bureaucrats who have the temerity to talk about the impact of the cuts? Just checking to make sure what I'm supposed to be outraged about today.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about censoring them? I would say to take what he says with a grain or 2 of salt...and cynicism. As DeacinBama says, it's a ridiculous claim on its surface. We have no idea if we can even develop an Ebola vaccine. The only thing we know for sure is that only an outbreak in the US or another western country is the only thing that would create an impetus for creating a vaccine. I seriously doubt that the NIH was inundated with an abundance of Ebola vaccine research requests once their funding was cut. Moreover, the amount of money they would grant for such a product would be negligible.
 
Anyone who complains about ANY government entity being underfunded is goofy. It is all about prioritization. For some reason the NIH decided to spend $3 million trying to figure out why lesbians are fat. Lets see...we have all this money, hmmm should we put it into actual disease research or fat lesbian research??? that is a tough call. This is only one of may examples. How much $$ did the CDC spend on global warming BS or Gun violence Bs?

Senators had expense accounts totaling $422 Million in 2011 (which I am sure has increased). Could we not cut 100 million of that and shunt it to the NIH/CDC?

Every single part of the federal government is bloated and/or mis managed including defense and other "right wing" pet departments.

So anyone claiming that budget cuts caused ebola are hacks worthy of an RJ level HUZZAH!
 
Liquid Karma said:
Say what?
Click to expand...

The R value of Ebola is on par with Hep and less than HIV. You have 3 people in a room and you have to hang out with 2 of them. 1 has Hep, 1 has HIV, 1 has Ebola. Who do you not hang out with?

Clearly it is easier to transmit than both HIV and Hep, so the R value is a bit misleading. I guess R value is awesome for scientists and epidemiologists and nerds, but surely there is some sort of scale out there that measures the Oh Fuck Factor, or the factor that determines who you can be in close contact with without a fucking hazmat suit. This shit may not be airborne, but it seems to me that it's a bit more complicated than simple bodily fluids.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
so, then you agree that some things are underfunded.

got it, moving on.
Click to expand...

no, you must not understand. They have plenty of money, but spend it on idiocy rather than necessities. But thanks for being snarky and or stupid.
 
DeacinBama said:
That's a pretty ridiculous quote, IMO. If you want to advocate for more research funding, then fine. It's a worthy goal. But don't do it by making a completely unverifiable, and - dare I say - unscientific, claim. As far as that guy knows, we may never develop an Ebola vaccine.
Click to expand...
The NIH seems pretty excited about the Glaxo vaccine and it's in clinical trials right now (US, Australia, Switzerland, west Africa). One of the things they all pushed last week was the "plug and play" vaccine approach to all of the hemmorrhagic fever diseases so I think the NIH/DTRA really want a proven platform.
 
Debunking the Myths of the NIH's $1.5 Million 'Lesbians Are Fat' Study

All of which is to say, these headlines would have been accurate as the inverse: "Obama administration spends $1.5 million to figure out why straight men are fat." Or: "Obama administration spends $1.5 million to figure out why gay men have rocking bodies." Or perhaps: "America is overweight (except for gay men?) and scientists are trying to determine why."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top