Ebola virus

Non health and safety speak lol!
Don't just talk at folk and expect them to fall in with your thinking. Know about the opinions and circumstances of the folk you are talking with. Listen and respect their beliefs and opinions and then if they want to, share evidence based, factual information with them to help them make informed choices.
You may not agree with their choice, but as long as they understand the facts that we have discussed with them, they have a right to their own opinion.
I think that the advent of medico legal prosecutions mean that understanding is key and hopefully this means there are less condescending folk talking down to people and more sharing of information.

 

I've used health and safety as an example of gobbledy goop, not trying to be offensive, but I never could work out what those people were saying, they would go on at great length about certain issues, in a very round about way.
They mostly talk in riddles that take ages to decipher, or at best just talk down to you like you are a complete idiot.

 

I hope I wasn't doing any of that Pete! Just learnt that posting and watching Breaking Bad at the same time doesn't do it for me! Will concentrate on writing clearer posts lol!

 

But how do you know you are 100% correct?

Not met anyone yet that knows all the answers.#

The bit about one syllable has got to be pretty insulting, along with listen at regular intervals, but ignore and carry on regardless.

 

I said 'even if', as in hypothetical.

Me neither.

You've just said you don't understand half the language used, now you say its insulting to keep it simple and to the point. How would you suggest someone would go about addressing a wide and diverse audience?

 

Clue, I understand 2 syllables some times three, but I dont understand double talk, going all round the sun to meet the moon.
Using ten words when one will do.

It makes people look clever, and I'm not aiming this at anyone on here, its just what I have come up against from time to time in daily life.

Some people make a living out of saying a lot of words that dont mean much once you strip away the padding, but it makes them sound important.

 

I very nearly clicked 'Agree', except for the last bit "but it makes them sound important". That's the point I was hinting at re that woman who called all the parents of the school kids "ignorant". If you use language deliberately intended to confuse, insult, make yourself look clever etc, it doesn't make the speaker sound important, it makes them sound insulting and arrogant and a bit stupid.

When I was a kid, I was taught that people resort to shouting and swearing only to hide the fact that they can't make a reasoned case, so they shout and swear to make the other back down. I think that's true, but I think that extends to people who use lots of flowery language and/or insults too. That's why, although I agree with the essence of what the African lady was saying (that the parents were 'ignorant'), I disagree entirely with the way she went about it. She would have done far better if she'd used reason rather than insult to make her case.

 

I read a phrase once, on the back of an "Englands Glory" matchbox actually, "People who shout and swear have nothing to say worth listening to" Always quoted it to my children, my daughter actually quoted it back to me once, after I had sworn about something.

 

Yep the early non smoking campaigns met this all the time.

 

Probably the later non smoking campaigns too. Non smoking campaigns are the worst possible thing. I'm convinced they are organised by the government just to ensure that people keep on smoking so that they get the tax revenue while keeping the population boom slower than it could be. When I was a smoker, I used to hate that I couldn't watch TV without being reminded at intervals to go for a smoke. Its worse since I quit. The government banned advertising of baccy products, and then went on to make their own adverts and stick em in our faces wherever we are. Ok, so the ads portray the unpleasant side of smoking, but they still insert the idea of smoking into the viewer's mind. If the government really wanted people to quit smoking they'd simply double the price on them and at the same time withdraw all smoking publicity. If they wanted to go one step further they could use some of the money they save by not spending on advertising, and use it to fund quit smoking clinic places at times of day that people can actually attend.

Wont happen though. Smokers bring too much benefit to the nation as a whole. Apart from the revenue raised, there's also the very important fact that smokers die younger, thus helping to curb the ageing population problem that causes such headache for anyone who has to deal with pension funds and care for the elderly and such. Smokers also create a lot of good opportunities for more revenue and/or savings in indirect ways too. Your life insurance cover will be much more expensive if you are a smoker, and you pay tax on your insurance (well, the insurer does, which they then pass on to you), and the NHS can refuse treatment to smokers (I know, officially they can't, but they do).

 

Sorry used smoking just as an example Clueless. Ex smoker myself still partial to a Shisha on holiday or trying a cigar in Cuba so not a zealot on the subject.
Used the example as they have changed tact on smoking cessation in recognition of the fact that stopping smoking completely is dependant on the smoker wanting to quit themselves, not being talked at to do so.
I think the practice now is general public health risk information. Then when you attend for any medical appointments you are asked if you smoke and how many. You are then advised about how it is affecting you. Then asked if you are ready to stop. If you say no, it's just documented , if you say you want to you are meant to be helped to access appropriate support.
Anyhow smoking is wildly off thread but discussing public health messages may just get us under the wire!
For anyone interested current government advise on Ebola.
https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/ebola-government-response

 

No need to apologise, and I wasn't have a dig at you on the subject I was having a dig at the approach in general that the government takes.

If there's one fundamental thing this latest ebola outbreak demonstrates, it is the very commercially biased way that the pharmaceutical industry works. Ebola has been known about for a long time, and it has always been known just how dangerous it is, yet it primarily affects the poorer parts of the world, so very little has been done to date. Yet suddenly this is a big one, and it is threatening to spill over into the richer parts of the world, so suddenly lots of work is being done to find ways to treat it. Within a very short time of the outbreak starting, one experimental vaccine has already been trialled in 'live tests' (ie tried on people that would most likely die if they received no treatment, so nothing to lose by trying an experimental drug), and a new vaccine has already gone into the first stages of mass production. If the risk had been taken seriously decades ago when a much smaller number of people in a much smaller area became infected with it, then by now this would have been less alarming than a dose of flu because there'd be effective treatments and vaccines in place already.

 

This government information is a load of hogwash, guy being interviewed on the BBC news last night admitted that one person who is infected in the USA became infected despite following all precautions, and when you think about it, all those people who are dying in Africa what are the chances that they have all been in contact with bodily fluids!!!

 

I can't say that I'm that concerned. I'm pleased that our leaders are taking it seriously and I hope that they continue to increase their assistance in the source of the outbreak.
I will admit to taking an interest in the news, but in all honesty I doubt that it will be the plague that some fear.

By far the most important point of this whole issue!

 

I normally keep out of this type of post I like to keep it to gardening and the like.

Over 4000 have died already , and it should be a concern with what happened in Spain and now America with the two infected nurses , it looks like it wont be contained and it is spreading slowly but surely and with a incubation period of 21 days , just wait and see how many have come out of those infected areas and don't have a clue they have it and spreading it who knows where thats the biggest worry , Imagine if that got hold in India and the like where the poverty and heath care is already in bad state if you don't have the ££$$ to pay.

Spruce