The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Ebola Comes to Atlanta

Omg...167 people in ATL just perished....but not of ebowla....but rather of toilet bowl fumes
 
blackbeltninja said:
Not correct.

An exhaustive* search which I did pretty much said "transmission by coughing and sneezing has not been adequately confirmed."

Certainly it doesn't seem like it is a massive risk, but I'm not sure it's one I would take until that adequately became a conclusively.

-d-
*10 minute Google :D
Click to expand...

It took ten minutes to find two websites?

Took me ten seconds, and those two websites say exactly what I reported already.
 
luckynumbah7 said:
Oi, if that's true it's only cuz Britannica is never fuckin' updated!
Click to expand...

Actually it's because of insufficient proofreading and error checking. Britannica articles and Wikipedia articles tend to have the same number of errors in their initial form, but whereas Britannica articles are vetted by a handful of people, Wikipedia articles are vetted by millions.
 
luckynumbah7 said:
I didn't say inherently wildly inaccurate. I said edited by the common man. Usually things done by, say, the guy around the corner are mostly right, it's some of the specifics they tend to fuck up. And I did point out that instead of taking wikipedia on specifics as a golden truth, one should look at the damn sources first to make sure they're not skewed or outdated. Science literature tends to be peer reviewed; if it hasn't been peer reviewed and you google it or 'ask around', that info comes out pretty damn quick because everyone and their dog will be sneering at it.
Click to expand...

Technical articles on Wikipedia are in fact peer reviewed -- by hordes of peers (just not formally). One interesting way they get reviewed that I ran across is when college students reference Wikipedia and something sounds fishy, grad students and professors often go look to see what Wiki really says -- and correct it when there are errors. That's actually something that has led to many technical articles becoming hard for laymen to follow.

So the motive in your final statement is quite alive and operative on Wikipedia.
 
Kulindahr said:
Technical articles on Wikipedia are in fact peer reviewed -- by hordes of peers (just not formally). One interesting way they get reviewed that I ran across is when college students reference Wikipedia and something sounds fishy, grad students and professors often go look to see what Wiki really says -- and correct it when there are errors. That's actually something that has led to many technical articles becoming hard for laymen to follow.

So the motive in your final statement is quite alive and operative on Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

Yup, anyone who wants to see the process is free to click on any wikipedia article on the button where you can see the ongoing challenges to the article. At times when people dismiss wikipedia, they make it sound as though it's a simple matter of any troll hitting "edit" and rewriting the article to be about clown sex.
 
Kulindahr said:
It took ten minutes to find two websites?

Took me ten seconds, and those two websites say exactly what I reported already.
Click to expand...

Click me

See this bit, in the middle under Management of ill people on aircraft if Ebola virus is suspected:

CDC website said:
Management of ill people on aircraft if Ebola virus is suspected

Crew members on a flight with a passenger or other crew member who is ill with a fever, jaundice, or bleeding and who is traveling from or has recently been in a risk area should follow these precautions:

Keep the sick person separated from others as much as possible.
Provide the sick person with a surgical mask (if the sick person can tolerate wearing one) to reduce the number of droplets expelled into the air by talking, sneezing, or coughing.
Give tissues to a sick person who cannot tolerate a mask. Provide a plastic bag for disposing of used tissues.
Wear impermeable disposable gloves for direct contact with blood or other body fluids.
Click to expand...

Not taking it quite that lightly any more, it seems, so I rest my case.

-d-
 
xbuzzerx said:
Yup, anyone who wants to see the process is free to click on any wikipedia article on the button where you can see the ongoing challenges to the article. At times when people dismiss wikipedia, they make it sound as though it's a simple matter of any troll hitting "edit" and rewriting the article to be about clown sex.
Click to expand...

People used to do that sort of thing. Do it now, and you get banned/blocked from editing. Of course, all you have to do is go use a different computer....
 
humantiy run ass busniess so a course hedges all ova place no news

-strip_
away da etc etc
" ans so on "
ans
! wet wipes !

anyway ebola no akin folkees die miooion evary week so titatic not

! but !
_strippin again?_
evaenins audience cummin yet?
" yeah "

anyway

got luv intenret 2

thankyou

_look it da moon again -
ha
 
It's like a Sci Fi movie -- 350 million people are put at risk to save 2. I wish they could have stabilized them in situ but I guess that's easy for me to say since it's not me or one of my family. I did read that a woman with Marburg was treated in NY some years back and although she was in contact with 200 people, none of them got the disease.
 
JockTalk said:
It's like a Sci Fi movie -- 350 million people are put at risk to save 2. I wish they could have stabilized them in situ but I guess that's easy for me to say since it's not me or one of my family. I did read that a woman with Marburg was treated in NY some years back and although she was in contact with 200 people, none of them got the disease.
Click to expand...

How were "350 million people... put at risk"?
 
^Your whole country, by flying in two infected people to a place where there was no Ebola.

Jeebers, Kuli, this isn't rocket science.

-d-
 
Meanwhile 1000's died of lung disease in the USA today...not to mention heart disease STILL the number one killer of anyone in the USA
 
^I maintain we do NOT know enough about ebola yet.

Read the link to the article about Middle East Respiratory Syndrome in Indiana which the article in your post links to, and see that after quickly putting the suspected patient in isolation they still had to isolate 50 additional people he'd been in contact with in the hospital alone almost immediately. And this happened where people were prepared for it, not somewhere where they might have realised too late what they were dealing with.

Until there is absolute and irrefutable evidence that none of the strains of this thing are airborne, I would not be harry-casual about it AT ALL.

-d-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top