Dismantling USAID was a huge mistake. It provided aid but it also provided ongoing localized surveillance against these "sudden" and potentially dangerous disease outbreaks.
Oh dear Pam, I understand that it’s you making these generalizations here, to amplify or reinforce Dr Angela’s messaging. Which if any Canadian agencies, institutions or media services contract you directly or in support of her to as a service to humanize and amplify Dr AR and her virology messages?
The question about a universal Ebola vaccine is a good one, but rather moot at this time. As far as this new outbreak goes, we needed a vaccine for it like, yesterday, but we don't have one. There is a colleague of mine at Cambridge who has also been chasing universal vaccines.
PS- I didn't know general comments were not allowed here. Also does one have to be a research scientist to comment here? I'll just take off then. Good grief.
Wondrous discussion and military intel positioning of Biodefense perspectives. I won’t go into my concerns about your summary in socializing media use by pros, as fear porn and completely the opposite messaging of CBC reports on the outbreak, approved by the country of your university employer.
Flipping from fear to the Hope side of the same coin, and with respect for your stated intention of giving basic facts (leaving aside your self-described emulation of Dr Birx), a question:
In your good work at the U of Saskatchewan on virology: Where are you at with Ebola as a theoretical or explicit target of the mega project to develop the ‘Holy Grail’ of vaccines?
The CBC is partially subsidized by the Canadian government, but it is not "controlled" by it. It's similar to the BBC in England, the ABC in Australia and DW in Germany. I checked out the CBC reports on the Ebola outbreak and there was no "fear porn". Two of the reports on their website were from Reuters and the Associated Press. A video clip featuring a CBC correspondent in London was also quite matter-of-fact.
I agree there was no fear porn on the CBC (radio package), which was a pleasant change from them and a contrast to the generalization of ‘extreme’ risk Dr. R talked about in her intro.
If Dr Angela and her colleagues are concerned about this Ebola outbreak, then we all should be. This Ebola outbreak does pose a greater threat than the Hantavirus outbreak.
As I say, Dr Angela’s language in many ways contrasts other serious perspectives (that talk about localized threat of severe disease). I get that she likes chattering about what others aren’t doing. But per my question, I welcomed a virologist of her calibre delivering the straight facts she says she cherishes, about (existing or) the new holy grail of vaccine tech in regard to Ebola.
Angela is just feisty with a wicked sense of humour. She has been subjected to a tremendous amount of abuse from parts of the internet because of her work. Her sense of humour is her shield against that.
Pam, with respect, I asked her a question because she says she is open to that. I am not sure why you are trying to re-contextualize my comments and serious questions to her as a professional. Why do you and she need you to speak for her as a professor and researcher with a position that gives her an authoritative voice?
Because most of her posts are like this one. I would assume that when she is in her lab or attending meetings or presenting lectures she is very serious. Anyway, I hope she answers your questions.
Dismantling USAID was a huge mistake. It provided aid but it also provided ongoing localized surveillance against these "sudden" and potentially dangerous disease outbreaks.
Oh dear Pam, I understand that it’s you making these generalizations here, to amplify or reinforce Dr Angela’s messaging. Which if any Canadian agencies, institutions or media services contract you directly or in support of her to as a service to humanize and amplify Dr AR and her virology messages?
The question about a universal Ebola vaccine is a good one, but rather moot at this time. As far as this new outbreak goes, we needed a vaccine for it like, yesterday, but we don't have one. There is a colleague of mine at Cambridge who has also been chasing universal vaccines.
PS- I didn't know general comments were not allowed here. Also does one have to be a research scientist to comment here? I'll just take off then. Good grief.
Wondrous discussion and military intel positioning of Biodefense perspectives. I won’t go into my concerns about your summary in socializing media use by pros, as fear porn and completely the opposite messaging of CBC reports on the outbreak, approved by the country of your university employer.
Flipping from fear to the Hope side of the same coin, and with respect for your stated intention of giving basic facts (leaving aside your self-described emulation of Dr Birx), a question:
In your good work at the U of Saskatchewan on virology: Where are you at with Ebola as a theoretical or explicit target of the mega project to develop the ‘Holy Grail’ of vaccines?
The CBC is partially subsidized by the Canadian government, but it is not "controlled" by it. It's similar to the BBC in England, the ABC in Australia and DW in Germany. I checked out the CBC reports on the Ebola outbreak and there was no "fear porn". Two of the reports on their website were from Reuters and the Associated Press. A video clip featuring a CBC correspondent in London was also quite matter-of-fact.
I agree there was no fear porn on the CBC (radio package), which was a pleasant change from them and a contrast to the generalization of ‘extreme’ risk Dr. R talked about in her intro.
If Dr Angela and her colleagues are concerned about this Ebola outbreak, then we all should be. This Ebola outbreak does pose a greater threat than the Hantavirus outbreak.
As I say, Dr Angela’s language in many ways contrasts other serious perspectives (that talk about localized threat of severe disease). I get that she likes chattering about what others aren’t doing. But per my question, I welcomed a virologist of her calibre delivering the straight facts she says she cherishes, about (existing or) the new holy grail of vaccine tech in regard to Ebola.
Angela is just feisty with a wicked sense of humour. She has been subjected to a tremendous amount of abuse from parts of the internet because of her work. Her sense of humour is her shield against that.
Pam, with respect, I asked her a question because she says she is open to that. I am not sure why you are trying to re-contextualize my comments and serious questions to her as a professional. Why do you and she need you to speak for her as a professor and researcher with a position that gives her an authoritative voice?
Because most of her posts are like this one. I would assume that when she is in her lab or attending meetings or presenting lectures she is very serious. Anyway, I hope she answers your questions.