Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
9. I think it is going to follow the normal curve for this sort of thing
Fri Sep 19, 2014, 04:59 PM
Sep 2014

Tell me, what do these words, in my response you took issue with, mean:

"it is important to contain this outbreak"

Numbers compare to numbers.

Tell you what...

Let's make a deal right here. In 2016, we will look back and tote up the number of deaths from Ebola and from Diarrhea. If the number from Ebola is larger than the number from Diarrhea, I'll pay you $100 US.

I'll tell you something else. Huffing and puffing from concern on an internet forum won't do diddly to make either number larger or smaller.

But carry on with "one worst-case scenario at 550,000".

But then again, as I said, hunger is treatable. It kills an order of magnitude more people, and it's not as if we do what is needed to be done about that either.

The concern among people in the US is "but this is something that I could catch if exposed". So, yes, if there is something killing people which could kill ME then, of course, it is a crisis meriting the swiftest and most effective response, so that we can get things settled down to the millions of deaths which need not concern me.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Ebola Worst-Case Scenario...»Reply #9