Ebola virus

As you know, I'm not one to get fazed by hysteria, or likely to run away from something I can deal with, but ebola is nasty, they have let it get out of control, and have said its taken the WHO by surprise.

The experts seem to not know much about this, or how to combat it effectively on a large scale.

So personally I'd prefer to not come into contact with any one from that area in West Africa, until its under control.

 

Ah, I see your point, which I hadn't considered, and I agree she is probably versed in dealing with the media.

I'm not sure that doing nothing works either though, but personally I would hate to deal with the media, for fear of how the truth might be twisted.

I think part of the issue is the worry, for people who work with countries like Sierra Leone, that all West Africans will be treated very badly by "civilised" countries out of ignorance / fear / hysteria, and there is a case to be made (i.e. publically, in the media) that that is not an acceptable outcome

Always possible, but personally I don't subscribe to the "conspiracy theory" type concepts as I feel that in today's world it is impossible to keep some things under wraps.

My understanding is that Ebola is extremely contagious, but you have to come into contact with bodily fluids (yes, including sweat), and also that the reason why it has been so devastating in Africa [as I understand it] is because it is the custom when someone dies to thoroughly clean the body before burial (or cremation, I don't know which they choose), so the close family members are then exposed to the disease in the act of cleaning the body. Very sad.

 

I think it is more a case of "when" and not 'if'

In the school case, I believe the word "ignorant" was used in the correct context. The argument regarding parents being protective of their children actually cuts both ways: Kofi's mother, I'm sure, is just as protective of him as any other parent with their own child. In which case, should she have had even the slightest concern that Kofi may have had any relevant contact which could have resulted in him potentially contracting Ebola, I very much doubt her thoughts would have been taking him to school ... rather, taking him to the nearest NHS hospital to get it investigated/treated!

 

I think they know, but I don't think they are resourced for it.

We have just increased our representation from 40 or something to, I think 750.

I heard a senior UN spokesman on the radio urging countries to send 20x as many people - so what they want us to send is 15,000 people, not 750 ...

 

It was said last week that the incubation period for ebola was three weeks, and that was why the government thought screening at airports was pointless, admittedly they have now bowed to pressure and gone on to do it in some form.
We are all ignorant about certain things, brain surgery was never my strong subject at school, but calling other ignorant does make you appear just a bit above your ego.

 

I agree that we are all less knowledgeable on some subjects than others and I think that is where choosing words wisely is important.

 

I often try to chose words wisely, but my vocabulary is a bit limited.

 

I was referring to the people in the school scenario (all of them!) not you, Pete I find you express yourself very well

 

Thanks, (I think),

But I agree with them, so,....................

 

I agree with some of them too

 

Just to finish my tenpence worth on the school story....
Working delivering health messages, we are taught to understand our target audiences values, then incorporate this thinking into the teaching methods. Thus providing a persuasive argument, rather than a confrontational right and wrong approach, which is what this has now become.
It is thought that this just isolates groups and important messages are lost.
Like in the school story.
Hopefully we will learn from this and not get into this situation again.

 

I'm sure that is a nice message.
But, its a hell of a job to understand it it
You could get a job in Health and Safety.

 

I do hope so. Unfortunately, reading the school scenario ... I was cast back to all those distrustful, scared, naïve, emotive arguments/people/attitudes when AIDS first hit the headlines.

Not everyone is willing (or able) to listen to a persuasive argument when they are frightened, anxious, feeling threatened (and not quite sure of what). Still others may well be distrustful of a "persuasive" argument and simply want to know the cold, hard, facts (as they are known at the time) and from there, they will draw their own conclusions, adapt it to fit their perceptions of what is right/wrong/"normal"/acceptable and adopt the mind set they need to take to make life bearable/comfortable/liveable in the face of the fears they faced.
Others will cling to any comfort offered to persuade them that their fears will not be realised; or, that the threat causing that fear is manageable/controllable etc.

 

Its very clear. If you just tell people they're a bunch of ignorant idiots, even if you are 100% correct nobody will listen to you.

If on the other hand you empathise with your target audience, and explain the situation in a constructive way, in terms that are understandable to the, erm, lowest common denominator (ie try to use words of one syllable), pause and listen at regular intervals, and make your case based on objective well reasoned arguments, then people will listen to you.

 

Or ...

.... think you are a condescending twerp and ignore you and still go about your own sweet way