Can EBOLA be cured?
Currently there is no cure for ebola. There are some "substitutes" that may have helped a few number of people, but they are not completely sure how It cured them, the side effects, long term effects, how long they'll be cured... they don't know any details. They are still experimenting currently, but there is no cure at the moment. Some theorists say Ebola is a man made bio weapon to use against the people of America to shorten America, or other foreign countries, therefore the theorist say the government would have to have a cure. Others believe a society secret group wants to kill people to shorten population, therefore they should have a cure.... But so far, there is no known cure.
Vegans and world hunger...?
I think it's an intriguing concept, but when you really break it down, it's not feasible. It may curb world hunger, but there are still other problems that diverting animal-feed grains to human consumption won't solve. Logistics would be one of those problems. You may have a world overflowing with excess food, but how are you going to move it to remote locations or war torn countries where it will just be stolen and kept from the population by war lords? Also, most od the grains fed to animals isn't suitable for human consumption. While I'm sure a starving child in a 3rd world nation would be thrilled to get some cattle-grade corn, you open a whole pandoras box of ethical issues feeding them the corn (such as it's infection potential, lower nutrition, pesticide levels ect... Because it's not fit for human consumption for a reason). You also have to consider that while it may fill a starving belly as a temporary solution, humans need a varied diet beyond just grains. They may not be starving anymore, but eating strictly grain would only cause a host of other negative health issues and lead to the same amount of deaths in the same demographics that are already dying of starvation. There really isn't a cure for world hunger besides reducing the worlds population. Even with aggressive (humane) contraceptive programs, the current population wouldn't even start to go down for several decades, during which people will still be starving to death. Unless you wipe a lot of nations off the map, world hunger will never be solved. "World hunger" is a natural balance in a way. When animal populations become too large for the land to support them, there are mass die offs due to starvation and disease. Pretty much the same thing that is happening with humans, millions dying due to starvation and disease. There are simply too many of us for the land to support, and mother nature will always restore balance. It's sad, but that's part of how the miracle of life works.
Of the 805 million people suffering from chronic hunger, 98 percent live in the developing world. Unfortunately, chronic hunger is a silent, invisible, day-after-day condition.The possible terror of Ebola has been overstated to a ridiculous degree.No doubt, the diseases are deadly on reaching a chronic stage. But weighing the ratio of the world population affected, our concern is how much should be really invest in discovering solutions to each one of them? Off course, we are aware of the statistics, and even the possible solutions to an extent. What we lack is effective implementation. The number of cases detected (as in case of Ebola) are lesser and much more manageable compared to the hunger and poverty struck population.World hunger is a terrible symptom of world poverty. If efforts are only directed at providing food, or improving food production or distribution, then the structural root causes that create hunger, poverty and dependency would still remain. And so while continuous effort, resources and energies are deployed to relieve hunger through these technical measures, the political causes require political solutions as well.Ending world hunger requires more than compassion and more than sustainable development. It also requires justice. This perhaps is the reason, why we still pretend to not notice the more serious social issue to be tackled at present. It's time we invest in people and focus on the greater good!
Worlds most dangerous virus?
It depends on what you mean by deadliest. In terms of just plain scary, HIV and Ebola are quite deadly with close to 100% mortality with HIV and about 90% with Ebola. In terms of having killed the most people, it is Influenza (the flu). Currently HIV kills more people each year worldwide than Influenza. HIV kills about 1.5 -2 million people each year worldwide. Influenza kills about 500,000 people per year worldwide (excluding the pandemic years). Note that these numbers are worldwide, in the U.S. influenza kills more people than does HIV. However, over time, Influenza is the deadlier virus. In the 1918 Influenza pandemic approximately 50 million people (about a fifth of the world's population) died in one year worldwide from the virus. In total, HIV has killed about 25 million people from 1981-2007.
As reasonable as it may sound, it is absolutely impossible to cut the break in a fast pace this way.Your suggestion (with some changes to make it possible to be made in a real world) would work on the long distance or time.But to implement this redistribution you´ll have to sort a unthinkable number of difficulties.- Problems with politic and local leaders corruption.- Local culture. - In isolated places in which they are suspicious of occidental and occidental medicine (and I don´t deny that sometimes they have good reasons to not being trustful), what local witches tell them to do.And besides there is the freedom of movement. See, Ebola is suspected to be transmited by bushmeat, that this is the way that the virus spread form wild animals (in fact the suspictions are centered in fruit bats) to other mammals and to humans. This could mean that if a pig or a goat consumes something infected by a fruit bat, and then is consumed by humans, they can be infected as well. See the problem?, local farm animals are not bushmeat.But, what is more important, once the virus is in a human, it can be spread much more easily, with body fluids. So it is astronomically more probable that a person gets infected by another person (once there is already an Ebola outbreak), than consuming bushmeat.
What's a bigger threat to the US, Ebola or ISIS!?
They are the same in so many ways! No one wants either brought to thier country. Both rapidly spread thier disease. Both are a potential threat to the world. Both take over and kill. There is no cure for either. AND everyone is getting tired of hearing about both. Maybe ISIS should change thier name,AGAIN, to Ebola
Education is the key. Particularly in West Africa. But this is not as easy as it sounds. Telecommunications infrastructure along with roads, clean water, and health care systems are all in need of upgrades and support. West Africa will recover, but it will be a painful journey for all three affected nations. The economic impacts will be (and already are) devastating. Paul Allen's Non-profit organization Tackle Ebola is a good place to donate too. But there are others.Additional Resources: Crisis and Disaster Management - Crisis & Disaster Management World Health Organization - WHO | Ebola virus diseaseCenter for Disease Control (Atlanta) - Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever | CDCNational Geospatial Intelligence Agency - Page on arcgis.comUNOCHA - Ebola Virus Disease Outbreak - Overview of Needs and Requirements - September 2014NGO's on the front lines:International Medical Corps - Page on internationalmedicalcorps.orgUNICEF - UNICEF - EbolaICRC - Liberia