If the infection is going to continue to grow at that rate, closing the borders of the affected countries seems sensible. It may inconvenience a lot of people, but we're talking about a disease with a 50-90% fatality rate. It needs to be contained.
The CDC said that they would likely already have a vaccine for Ebola if their budgets hadn't been slashed by Congress. I was also reading an article that said the spread of Ebola is typically limited to the caregivers or emergency personnel, since the people who are infected are not likely to be mobile by the time their symptoms elevate to the stage that is highly contagious. For example, the first victim that died in Dallas never infected anyone outside of the hospital.
Except now that the worker has been infected was freely leaving the hospital until recently diagnosed I would assume and could have passed it on to anyone? It can takes days for the symptoms to come out with Ebola. We shall have to see how it goes but the death chart shows how it is growing. This chart is only up until October 8th and I think the toll is closer to 5,000 now.
From what I've been reading, Ebola is not highly contagious until the stage where other people could come into direct contact with bodily fluids like blood, vomit, diarrhea etc., and that stage usually doesn't occur until the person is bedridden. So if you're infected and still walking around, the odds are low that you could infect other people from standard social contact. The high risk is for caregivers, emergency personnel, and people involved in mortuary or burial work.
The death toll is only reported deaths. Last week one member of the CDC said the actual number was probably over 10,000.
Another healthcare worker in Dallas is testing postive. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15/second-texas-health-care-worker-tests-positive-for-ebola/
Fuck fuck fuck, the second ebola nurse got on a flight while she was sick: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/us/ebola-infected-dallas-health-worker-was-on-flight.html Also there wasn't a lapse in protocol at Texas Presbyterian. There was no protocol: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gonzalez-hospital-nurses-claim-lack-ebola-protocols-article-1.1974703 : Bozo General there probably just caused an Ebola outbreak through massive incompetence.
Contact with bodily fluids is what infects people. Unless she was vomiting or having diarrhea on the plane, it's unlikely she infected anyone. I would be a lot more worried about the protocol problems at the hospital where they actually treated someone with the advanced symptoms.
What the fuckity fuck... How the hell are these assholes so nonchalant about ebola? Why are the nurses just complaining now? Are people so afraid of their jobs that they are willing to risk ebola than ask their boss for proper decontamination suit?
So my Mom calls me today after she visited a doctor. The doctor had just visited with a patient who was the wife of a man who was on the same flight as that nurse. I figure there is at least a 5% chance that I have ebola now.
It doesn't sound like that hospital in Dallas should have ever tried to treat him at their facility. He should have been transferred to one of the four U.S. hospitals that actually have biohazard level isolation wards. Sounds like the second nurse from the plane flight has been sent to the one in Atlanta.
Speaking from experience, yes many nurses are in constant fear of losing their jobs. Nursing positions are usually one of the first things on the chopping block when hospitals are having financial problems. The result is overworked nurses with too many patients who fear for their job security if they speak up about anything.
It seems like they wanted the prestige of successfully treating ebola if everything went well, when they should have just admitted they were in over their heads and sent the two cases they've tried to treat to better equipped hospitals.
Been helping Accounts get the software and portal working for the mandatory pension which everyone here has now been enrolled on as we have to start paying them this month. Good god is it a complicated process, thank god I am not in a accounts or HR department while this all goes on. The government demand that everyone does this but then makes the whole process completely confusing with stupid options and questions that make no sense, you call the helpline and get even more confused.
The government decided that they didn't want to keep funding everyone into old age as the population is getting too big and a lot of people do not have pensions. So anyone between 22-65 and earning more than £10,000 per year gets automatically enrolled on a pension scheme decided by your employer. Both the employee and employer pay a minimum contribution into the scheme. Each company has a different start date and they have to report within 6 months that they have entered the scheme. An employee can opt out but they must do so in writing, a company cannot ask an employee to opt out as this is against the law, this is to stop employers bribing employees with pay rises to opt out. Currently the minimum percentage of earnings that goes into the pension is 1% from employee and 1% from employer. From 2015 this will be 3% employee and 2% employer. From 2017 this will be 5% employee and 3% employer. You and your employer can choose to pay more but by the time 2017 rolls around what is in effect 8% of your salary will be paid into a pension (with you only losing 5%) and this should be enough for most people. As this is done gross and not net it means you get a tiny little tax break as you lose the % before tax so the government is in effect funding it a little too. When you move to another job you take your pension with you into whichever scheme the new employer has. It is a good idea as it gets all the people who haven't thought about the future to actually put some money away. You do still get a state pension from the government but it isn't much anyway and I am surprised anyone can live on it. Bare in mind that most employed people in the UK will be on PAYE (pay as you earn) so tax is calculated each week/month when you get paid and is deducted at that point. As a result doing this is easy as you don't have to work it all out on a yearly tax return. The pay software just calculates the amount based on your gross salary before tax that month and deducts it and adds on the % employer contribution. You then upload the file generated from the pay software into the pension portal of your choice and it debits the amount from the employers bank account each month whilst keeping track of how that money is broken down for each employee.
Where does all the money go? Who manages it? Here we have 401Ks. Basically a percentage of your salary goes into the stock market. The idea was good but I think most 401Ks management companies are crooked.
Pensions have historically outperformed 401Ks, so switching to 401K was just another kick in the n*ts for American workers.
Like most pensions it goes into investments rather than just an account but everything is heavily regulated in the UK so they shouldn't do anything too crazy with it. My firm is using quite a large not for profit provider who have been around a long while in the business pension market so should be safe enough.
Just fired up my old Sony NWHD3 as it has some songs on it I don't have on my iPod. My god does this thing blow the iPod* away in terms of audio quality through headphones, such a shame that the battery is fucked on it and that Sonic Stage was such a mess. The bass clarity is where it really stands out, I find the iPod to be treble heavy even when I change the presets. Not having a proper EQ is something that has always bugged me about the iPod. * My iPod is around 8 years old now so there is a chance they have improved the audio on the newer models but I am not going to spend the money to find out when it still works. The battery gives out completely when it reports around 1/4 charge but I can live with that.