[The_Pherocity]

Yea, that's how conversation works. Someone posts an article, then clever people talk about it. Some agree, some give experiences, some add additional facts and resources, and other people offer counter arguments. This is a counter argument to the article. What you posted, besides being blatantly obvious, is simply noise and does not add to the conversation.

[jychang]

I'm pretty sure you misread the parent comment.

The original question posed is about the chances of ebola spreading TO western nations. However, the grandparent question answers the chances of ebola spreading WITHIN western nations.

The epidemiology of the former involves questions like transportation controls, quarantine of travelers, border controls, and perhaps even banning international imports from involved nations. The latter involves differences in cultural behaviors, sanitation levels, healthcare coverage, etc.

They are very different questions.

[The_Pherocity]

I'm certain I didn't. The article asks the question about spreading, and that includes all vectors and scenarios. Spreading, is all about reaching and establishing an infected base.

As far as if ebola can get TO the western world, that is a 100% chance that it can. Primarily, because there is always an underground movement of goods and people, often women and children into and out of countries, regardless of official lockdowns. Think of it like drugs in prisons. There should be no place more free of drugs and alcohol, and yet it's easier to get drugs in prison than in my town. The conversation then is about the remaining requirements to 'spread'.

When we take a look at spreading of other lifeforms, say for instance seeds in Darwin's Origin of Species, dispersal is only a tiny part of the equation with spread being about not just buoyancy, but rather length of sustainability once the seed arrives at a barren landmass.

This is again consistent with man and Mars. We've gone there with robots, and will one day go there with people, but until we establish a foothold, we have not yet spread to Mars.

Regardless of whether the article addresses the point and only the question, all examples of life (and disputed forms of life in the form of virus), do not spread unless they take root.

[psychometry]

I'm amazed you managed to misread a comment that was only two sentences long. The title of the article is--in case you missed that, too--"Could The Ebola Outbreak Spread To Europe Or The U.S.?" The previous comment did not address that question and instead answered a completely different question.

What doesn't add to the conversation is obnoxious pedantry like your comment.

[Throwaway618]

What does add to the conversation, apparently, is continual snide assertions that parent didn't add to the conversation.

(I actually don't have any problem with snide obnoxiousness. "I'm amazed you could [be so incredibly idiotic]" is upfront at least. What I do get tired of is a continual tree, like this one, of "You shouldn't have said that.")

[The_Pherocity]

I do, I hate when I do it. It also doesn't add to the conversation. Especially when I do so on items that are questionable, as this one is. What bothers me most is that the level of snark I use is dependant not on the level of offence, rather the number of times I've encountered this varian of low quality comment during the day. This example, although I stand by it, clearly is not one of the greater offences, and yet has maximum snark. The greater problem is these conversations actually often surpass the quality conversations being had in the thread.