Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (60131)	8/13/2004 3:31:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 793913

I don't have to be an expert on smallpox to know I'd take my chances with it over ebola or a nuclear explosion. The latter two aren't survivable. Nuclear explosions are survivable, sure not if your at ground zero but people in the general area can survive. As for ebola - "there is about a 30% survival rate in this disease" stanford.edu "What is the outcome of Ebola and other haemorrhagic diseases? Recovery and fatality rates from the different haemorrhagic fevers are variable. The filoviruses are among the most dangerous; reported fatality rates for Ebola range from 50-90%." xtramsn.co.nz Of course a 10 to 50% survival rate is not good but ebola is survivable. It also is much easier to contain then at least the more virulent strains of smallpox. A well designed campaign to distribute some of the worst strains of smallpox could do more damage then a nuke. OTOH it would be easier for terrorists to get ebola then it is for them to get smallpox. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next