@lilhasselhoffer: It has a 51% fatality rate in Africa according to your own link. It's not deadly if treated properly. Sorry to burst your fantasy, but we're not going to let Ebola "run it's course". That's just going to let it evolve more and is a bad for humanity as whole. Jesus you people have absolutely no sense, and no background in medical care or virology. I do hope something run it's course on you though.
That's an internet discussion for you.
You are either a troll, idiot, idealist, or a combination of the three.
By the same token, the bubonic plague could have been treated. Somehow the history books record a completely different story, prior to the implementation of vaccines. We have no vaccine for ebola, so defend your point. History records diseases like this being plagues, and the only distance between us and the middle ages is a very fragile infrastructure, never really designed for true epidemics.
To the threat, I'd suggest you read the rules of this forum. Civil discourse is accepted, but an open and hollow threat paints you as a child without anything to add to the discussion. That sort of crap gets you banned, and your rather caustic responses paint a good reason to report you to moderators. If you are so offended, please leave the discussion.
Finally, before you propose something run the numbers. The article cites 51%, but the total infections is 2387, with the deaths adding up to 1590. That's 66% of all confirmed cases leading to death. Perhaps critical thinking is something you lack, because a 2/3 chance of death is pretty much death.
As far as insulting TheMailMan78, get out. Seriously, leave now if you can't take what is being said. He's a lot like Lewis Black. What he says is blunt, often times offensive, but is generally well intentioned and attempting to convey a point. You seem incapable of interacting in a discussion, so don't start.
Five years ago I was fresh out of college, and knew everything. My heart didn't bleed, but I knew how things should work. After two years in the real world, you discover college is an elaborate prank, and the people who got the joke are the ones who spent the weekends drunk and enjoying their last bits of freedom. Unless you are getting a doctorate, or going into research, reality has to sink in. Life is not found in a text book, and college does little more than get you to read the text and build debt.
Nukes people think are stupid. Yet recommend radiation for decontamination. They recommend good medical treatment is the key yet I contracted MRSA a few years ago FROM A HOSPITAL rated top 10 in the world. I have the scar tissue all over my leg to prove it. I've lived under marshal law IN THE UNITED STATES and seen first world citizens revert to tribes yet people think the US or Europe can contain an outbreak.
I'm sorry but unless I see a vaccine soon or they contain the infection and keep it from spreading I don't see another logical choice.
Yeah, not sure exactly how to respond to this.
A nuke is high grade enriched material, designed to undergo atomic decay whenever detonated. Large cost, large complexity, and big boom. The radioactive sources I proposed are weakly decaying, similar intensity to the beach sands commonly found in Brazil. Exposure breaks down simple organisms quickly, and there's no extra cost. The alternative is heat, which costs money and has the tendency to damage things. Not sure how you are equating a bomb with a bath in low level radiation, so please give me a hint here.
As far as the medical system, that's a function of stupidity, as much as anything else. We proscribe a ton of anti-biotics, and people don't take the appropriate doses (I'm feeling better, so I don't have to take it). Remaining organisms develop a tolerance, and people track these back to hospitals. MRSA is entirely the fault of human hubris, and a medical system leaning far too heavily on one tool.
As far as the Marshall Law, I'm 100% behind you. It takes surprisingly little for people to become violent and brutal animals. Every tornado, hurricane, and natural disaster proves that out.
Honestly though, the world can't afford for African exports to drop. Even a tactical nuclear device would contaminate a large swath of land, so we may well be stopping Ebola at the price of dramatically higher cancer in those that survive. This is why a nuke solves one problem, but introduces the far more difficult problem of dealing with its repercussions.
Assuming that you were looking for a real scorched earth solution, a fuel-air explosive could theoretically be used. No radiation, just searing heat that vaporizes organic matter. Still have to deal with question of ending lives, but at least the resources aren't contaminated. Good lord it feel dirty to say that, I think I have to go pet some puppies to balance out the evil of that thought.
