I Am Legend: Fact or Fiction?

[Mookage]

Well, if you think about it, scientists can't put something to large scale use until it has been throughly tested. So I think that as long as nobody in the scientific community slacks off and doesn't do their tests we should be okay from a large, man made epidemic. But never rule out the fact that someone could be in a rush one day and not do their experiment properly.

If one link of the chain isn't perfect, the chain will fall apart (the chain being the human race).

[Sullyman2007]

I seriously, seriously doubt that a threat of that magnitude would be allowed to escape into the general population and cause that much harm. Proper measures would most certainly be taken before they allowed something like that to happen. Even if it were to mutate and spread at an astounding rate, like in I am Legend, they would deffinetly take drastic measures before it got that bad.

[jonathanasdf]

A cure might mutate, but an injectious cure can never go airborn. Anyhow, the getting killed by the cold thing is illogical too seeing as their winters are a lot colder than the "mountain" places..

[Zythus]

From a similar , yet different perspective, its like Ebola.
Epidemic? No, genocide.

After watching I am Legend, I would doubt the government's immediate support to quarantine the virus if it happened in a real life situation. They will first take a few tests and blood samples, analyze it, ponder the mysteries of life, eat a cookie, and then realize its become big and unstoppable.

Quote Wikipedia:

Recent outbreaks

As of August 30, 2007, 103 people (100 adults and three children) from a suspected hemorrhagic fever outbreak in the village of Mweka, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The outbreak started after the funerals of two village chiefs, and 217 people in four villages fell ill. The World Health Organization sent a team to take blood samples for analysis and confirmed that many of the cases are the result of the Ebola virus [27]. The Congo's last major Ebola epidemic killed 245 people in 1995 in Kikwit, about 200 miles from the source of the Aug. 2007 outbreak.[28]

On November 30, 2007, the Uganda Ministry of Health confirmed an outbreak of Ebola in the Bundibugyo District. After confirmation of samples tested by the United States National Reference Laboratories and the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization confirmed the presence of a new species of the Ebola virus.[29] The epidemic came to an official end on February 20, 2008. 149 cases of this new strain were reported and 37 of those led to deaths.
End Quote/

Speaking in terms of Ebola, the virus has a low incubation period, like the one in I am Legend. After preforming tests and analysis, it will escalate into an inundation.
Reminiscently, this topic reminds me also of 28 weeks later.

In 28 weeks later, the nurse questions the military leader about what would happen if the virus surfaced again. He avoided the question and stated that it won't. After the first infection and so on and so on, infecting nearly all of the population in the refuge, Military leader called it code RED to nuke the whole place, killing all of population, infected or not.
And this brings another possibility. Will our government forsaken us if an epidemic has no hope of being cured?

I got no answer to that.

[Netjet!]

Alright, this is my theory.


Cancer can never be fully cured, for there are many different types of it. For example, if five people with different types of cancer were injected with a needle that scientists thought could cure cancer, only one of them would be cured, if at all. For here lies the question: Since there are many different types of cancer, would all types be curable by the same combination of material? Does it not matter that different cells are being split too fast, therefore making some parts of the body more potent to different solutions? I think that there must have to be different cures, for each type of cancer. Consider this: If one type of cancer is curable with a weakening material, which weakens the cells causing less splitting, thus killing the cancer cells, what would happen if you can cancer in your brain or your lungs? Weakening the cells inside either of these could cause serious injury, or death. I myself would not want to take this chance.

So I believe that cancer cannot be cured fully.

Now to the part about mutation.

I think that scientists should choose "test subjects" who are willing to take part. They would use this "cure", which is inject a virus, and see what happens. They would keep each subject in their own "containment centre", which is fully blocked off from any thing else. If one of them dies, or all, this can be quickly fixed, and they can eliminate the virus.

[Zythus]

And thats the issue about inhumane experiments.

Would it become a forced requisition if scientists had such liberty to choose the test subjects, or should it be voluntary. I cannot picture a person who will willingly participate in a dangerous experiment, besides the people who transcend the fear of death, or...daredevils.

[devonin]

Or people who are already dying of a terminal condition, or criminals who would have the death penalty or a life sentence commuted for volunteering, or if the price was right, someone risking their own death to ensure the financial security of their family.

[Tex :)]

Well, if you think about it, testing on humans would possibily do nothing, because if they get infected then they have a chance of spreading this new virus. Like, for example, if I have the cold, and nobody else has a cold in the state, wouldn't that allow for a possible cold epidemic? *Get's some juice... and a small cookie*
*munch* So mabey we would be able to contain these "test subjects", if they died, how would we dispose of their bodies in order to keep us safe from the virus, or any other unknown harm? *sip* Just pointing out the obvious but we would be dealing with some pretty ******* dangerous stuff here!
All I know is that if a Cure for cancer comes out sometime soon, I'm setting up camp in my closet (it's suprisingly comfy in there!).

~ Tex =) ~

[Zythus]

If you suggest we test on primates or some other more primitive organism, then you have stuck your hand too far down the cookie jar.

First off, theres all the fiasco and hype about animal cruelty, which I find ridiculous, not because I support it, but because how much predominance they value this tiny issue rather than worry about something with greater importance.

Secondly, ever heard of Ebola Reston? I have a book called "The Hot Zone" by Richard Preston which talks about the history and outbreaks of the Ebola virus.
As a summary, in Reston, Virginia, there is a monkey house that sells primates to laboratories for test subjects. One batch of monkeys had an infected animal. Soon after, the whole block was secretly quarantined by US government and Health officials with collaboration from other organizations. Of the staff employed there, 2 of them got infected with Ebola Reston. Luckily, Reston was a mutated strain that did not kill human hosts, but devastated monkeys like flies.
Now lets imagine it was Ebola Zaire, the original Ebola strain with fast incubation periods and has a fatality rate of 90%. As an airborne virus, it wipes an entire city off the slate less than two weeks. Say if Zaire got into Virginia, USA would be a tomb.

So because that animals have simpler qualifications to be test subjects, it is more likely to be overseen for possessing lethal viruses, deadly for humans and animals alike.

[Tex :)]

Originally Posted by Zythus

If you suggest we test on primates or some other more primitive organism, then you have stuck your hand too far down the cookie jar.

I never meant that. In a nutshell, what I meant was that testing on ANY living orginisim would be potentially dangerous. But you seem to know much more on this topic than I do, so I'm handing the mic over to you.

[devonin]

I think you also dramatically underestimate the degree of red tape that must be gone through in order to conduct tests on -any- vertebrate (plus octopodes). You have to appear before an ethics board (which contains scientists, ethicists, and even people from the town in which you want to work) and argue both that the intended results of your experiments are sufficiently positive to justify testing on animals, and that the only way to obtain the results you are looking for is via animal testing. This is neither a quick nor easy process.

The strictures on animal testing once it has been approved are also nothing to scoff at. Your laboratory space can be inspected at any time with no warning and if -anything- is found to be below standards, in Canada anyway, they can completely cut off all funding for you AND the institution at which you are working. This means that if say, a university's biology department was caught violating ethics standards, the ENTIRE UNIVERSITY could be shut down by the government, or at least have all its funding, regardless of source, stopped.

This provides plenty of incentive for labs to be -very- careful to maintain every reasonable standard and precaution.

[Zythus]

Though it might be that way, but in the same sense, a government won't let such a epidemic inundate an entire population on purpose. Its all about mishaps and luck.

So far, it would seem the government is doing an adequate job, a tiny slip can cause genocide.

[devonin]

I rather think it would take a lot more than a "tiny slip" to cause a genocide let alone even a minor catastrophe. You perhaps -also- still underestimate the degree to which safeguards and procedures are enforced in any lab that is dealing with even potentially dangerous substances.

Any potential outbreak of something deadly is in the vast majority of cases going to come out of a basement lab conducting illegal research on dangerous substances with no oversight or safeguards, but once again, movies have really drummed it into our heads that all you need to do to get your hands on a lethal supply of anthrax is know some guy named Achmed and you're good to go.

If that were the case, then the world would already have ended many times.

[charless]

Obviously Fact (to an extent).

Explanation below:

There are TWO main vital properties to a virus or bacteria pertaining to this level to cause such an epidemic/pandemic. They are lethality and transmission.

Think about it for a second. Think of a disease/bacteria/virus with its lethality containining advanced properties such disabling your immune system (think HIV), vomiting (very common symptom for many diseases), organ failure (again common symptom), and fast-paced necrosis (death of cells and living tissue). They are all very realistic and within boundaries of existing so why wouldn't it?

The only thing I don't see existing is someone dying and ressurecting (zombies) but I do believe that an epidemic/pandemic may occur under the correct circumstances. The second vital property is transmission. Incubation period doesn't really matter (although short-term may be the best for this kind of demic), resistance to heat/moisture (very important, it has to survive various climates), survivability outside host (most diseases/virii/bacteria die instantly when exposed to the atmosphere), can it pass through bodily fluids, will it affect humans only, is it AIRBORNE, is it WATERborne?

There are way too many variables but I BELIEVE THIS IS POSSIBLE AND HOPE AN APOCALYPSE OCCURS SOON ENOUGH.

[devonin]

Um...you hope an apocalypse happens? Are you a nihilist, or just misanthropic?

And again, just because there do exist diseases that -could- potentially become pandemics, why should we believe that it will happen? That's an appeal to probabilities, and fallacious.

[Zythus]

It is my opinion to not feel safe even with protection and safeguards to the elaborate extent you are telling me. Most often, we have this sense of false security. And thats exactly how mishaps happen.

And why shouldn't we believe that it would happen? The point is, a tiny slip, in any form, even with safeguards to whatever extent, can cause genocide. Period. What I find you, Devonin, are talking about is that we should all sit back and just leave the possibility as nonexistent.

[Calcium Deposit]

Originally Posted by Zythus

It is my opinion to not feel safe even with protection and safeguards to the elaborate extent you are telling me. Most often, we have this sense of false security. And thats exactly how mishaps happen.

And why shouldn't we believe that it would happen? The point is, a tiny slip, in any form, even with safeguards to whatever extent, can cause genocide. Period. What I find you, Devonin, are talking about is that we should all sit back and just leave the possibility as nonexistent.

Worrying about a problem you cannot control is counter-productive. Devonin never said non-existant, just highly improbable. It would be highly improbable that Martha Stewart would come to your house and kill your family, but would you worry about it anyway? Hopefully not.
A major catastrophe would require more than just a little push to get going. The Chernobyl incident for instance, was the result of massive neglect, poor equipment, and even poorer safety protocols. And even then, most of the devastation was isolated to that general area. That area is now deemed safe to live in.

[malevolentman87]

Originally Posted by devonin

Um...you hope an apocalypse happens? Are you a nihilist, or just misanthropic?

And again, just because there do exist diseases that -could- potentially become pandemics, why should we believe that it will happen? That's an appeal to probabilities, and fallacious.

sigh* all of this talk is stupid, seriously, all of these topics are pretty much self explanatory, then we have these huge posts of common sense, bunch of idiots

[robertsona]

shut up, don't bump old topics, especially when you have nothing to say.
EDIT: nvm, bumping is allowed here, but yeah. unworthy bump there.

[devonin]

malevolentman, welcome to Critical Thinking, please read the rules of the forum before you post again.