I found this blog: Pathogen Perspectives, which had some great information from virologist C.J. Peters. One particular quote, and this really expresses my concerns: Can you imagine Africa being decimated? The very thought is heartbreaking.

LOL...I agree with you!! I just don't trust the government to not do something stupid.

Because it increases the chances that the virus would spread. There's more chance that someone is going to be exposed and become infected and not realize it until they've passed it on to someone else. If people know that it's been found in their area, or where they've been, then they can be on the alert towards possible exposure. And by not being honest up front, when it does come out...and it will...then people will be even less likely to trust officials and that would make things worse.

Very interesting article! Thanks! Eight inches isn't very much space to keep between animals if you don't want them getting each other sick, regardless of whether it's airborne or not. :glare: Animals are messy.

I completely agree! Unfortunately, I'm not sure that I trust officials here in the U.S. to be honest about what's happening. Too often they distort, exaggerate or downplay the truth to suit their own needs. I guess I'm jaded. I feel like I have to always be reading between the lines and piecing the puzzle together from multiple sources. So I don't expect them to come out and say, "We have a confirmed case at XYZ, but we have quarantined the person, are tracking down those that may have been exposed, and are taking all precautions." I expect them to DO this, just not say that they did. LOL

But this doesn't appear to be true. Saliva and mucus contains the virus. If someone coughs on you or in your direct path, and you inhale the droplets or even if you get it in your eyes, you could easily become infected. This is technically not the same as a virus being airborne, but that has to do with how big the size of the virus particles in the air are and how long they stay suspended in the air. It doesn't mean that you can't get it if someone coughs on you.

I agree; I'm not really interested in "what if" scenarios, either. Those are good for making movies, not so much for real lives. I'm really looking for more of "what is likely" scenarios, which I'm seeing very little of. I see a lot of pats on the heads and dismissals as well as worst-case and what if scenarios. Neither are very helpful, IMO. What countries are you speaking of? I'd love to read about that! I haven't seen really anything, other than the one case in Senegal, which seems to have been caught and contained, thankfully!

Anyone up to another round of Ebola discussion? I would really like to talk about this with those who (1) don't dismiss it because it doesn't affect them, and (2) can help me sort through the varying claims and numbers. To start with, here's a rundown on some of the things I've been reading: Currently, Ebola spreads exponentially in Liberia, and Ebola is surging in places it was beaten back. Liberia in particular has lost the ability to deal with this. I shudder at the thought of what lays in the future for this already poor nation. It's also popping up in other African nations. And while it is supposedly not airborne (nice article on what that means), there are growing concerns over "in the air" transmission. On one hand, it's not extremely contagious, and it is only spread through direct contact. On the other, it can survive on hard surfaces for up to several days. Both of these claims are made in this article on the actual disease. Also, after someone has recovered from Ebola, they still remain infectious for a time (male survivors can carry the virus in their semen for up to seven weeks). There have been multiple cases outside of Africa where people have been tested for possible Ebola cases. Personally, I doubt that if a case actually appeared in, say, Miami, we'd be told the truth. I guess I wouldn't really blame officials for keeping a lid on that because of the fear of panic. But I want to know the truth, not be protected from it (a whole 'nother discussion, perhaps.) I certainly don't envy the job having to make that call. Okay, so with all that in mind, I dislike it when people get all panicky and scared over what *might* happen. On the other hand, I equally dislike it when people dismiss things and bury their head in the sand because the implications are worse than they want to deal with. Can we possibly discuss this without jumping to the extremes that I keep finding in other discussions? I think most developed countries are currently capable of dealing with small numbers of cases. But how contagious is it really, because what I'm reading sounds very conflicting to me? And what would happen if an area had a breakout of Ebola similar in size to a small flu breakout? Ebola is much more severe, and comes with a panic factor that the flu doesn't have, and I would think that even our healthcare system would be overwhelmed in dealing with that. What happens if/when it moves into densely populated areas like in India or the Philippines, where you have a mix of developed world technology with third world poverty? We're coming up on the flu season (and let's not forget the enterovirus that's currently going around), so it seems easily possible that Ebola could show up and not get noticed because the first symptoms are so similar these viruses. So....the big question is how does this apply to those of us with good healthcare and hygiene and access to supplies and medicines that are not available in places like Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc.?

I agree. I am not at all fond of hugging strangers, though I'm better than I used to be. And I know several people that would probably not be comfortable, even to the point of not coming back, where strangers were hugging them.

I appreciate being greeted and told where things are, etc. I don't like having to go searching for the bathrooms! So it's nice to be told where they are, especially if they're not obvious. It's nice to be told what programs are offered and ASKED if you need assistance...in getting to those programs, in finding a seat, or anything else. I STRONGLY DISLIKE when greeters repeat themselves and and try to convince me to do something I don't want to do. For instance, I may or may NOT: want to sit toward the front want to sit toward the back want my child in the nursery or children's program (<---- this is a biggie when I'm visiting. We don't send our kids to any kids programs until we feel confident their safety, which is usually not the first couple of visits) These are simple things, to me. I appreciate offers of help and simple direction. I don't like pushy people. In the same note, at the end of the service, I STRONGLY DISLIKE being herded out the door like cattle. :glare: Don't block the exit and force me to have to wait 20 minutes so the preacher can have a 2 minute conversation with each person ahead of me.

This was the headline I read. Anyone else read this and wonder why librarians were filling churches and praying for deliverance? Are they the only ones participating in this, or are they just organizing it? And why, again, librarians? The Ebola outbreak is serious, so certainly they have just as much cause for concern as anyone else, I'm just surprised that there are that many librarians in one place and that this is the cause they've chosen to take up.... :svengo: :leaving: I'm such an idiot. :blushing: Please tell me I'm not the only one who did this. In case anyone wants to read the actual article, here's the link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/10/us-health-ebola-africa-idUSKBN0GA0QS20140810 (This thread isn't meant to make light of the Ebola outbreak or those involved, btw. It's only making light of my reading abilities and other silly mistakes like it.)

Air purifier and no cats in bedroom. That has helped the most. Dh is allergic to nearly every environmental allergen they tested for, not just cats and dogs (which we have 2 of each). He's taking medicine and such, but air purifier really works against the inside allergens like cats, dogs, dust mites, etc. He just started allergy shots, which we're hoping to help with the other allergies. My sister is the one who gave us this tip. She's allergic to cats as well, but the air purifier in her room has allowed her to not only keep her cat, but the cat stays in her room most of the time, too.

One other thing, many so-called Christians want to say that someone else is NOT a Christian because of what they believe, BUT the "non"-Christian's works bear the right fruit. While the one making the judgment is often NOT bearing the right fruit. Makes me really wonder about some things.

I haven't had the chance to read all the replies...I plan to go back and do that. But, I wanted to say what I thought. (1) By simple definition, a Christian is one who follows Christ. (2) How do you know if someone is following Christ? By Christ's (Jesus) words in the Bible (can't remember the exact reference, but it's at least twice in the Gospels), you know by their fruit. Fruit is what you get AFTER what you plant comes into fruition. So while many people may APPEAR or SOUND like they're doing something good, you really need to look at where that path is leading, or has led, to get a good idea of what kind of fruit you're going to get. IMO, this (#2) is how so many people are led astray. On the surface, some person or teaching seems logical and sounds right, but but they really haven't looked down the path to see what kind of fruit is coming. That, again IMO, is how we get so many problems with legalism, patriarchy, modesty issues, etc. They lack discernment, and this, too is warned against in the Bible.

In regards to teens NEEDING that money, if their parents were earning more money, would they still need to earn as much? Also, I like the idea of a training wage. Everyone with no experience could start at the same level and work the way up. Presumably, the majority would be minors, but there would still be exceptions. I think that helps to address the equal pay for equal work problem.

I think I didn't explain well. The cashier holding the baby is NOT the same person who is running the register. It's another cashier, or other employee, who isn't busy with other customers at the moment. I agree, I don't see how a cashier who is busy running a register can be helpful by holding a baby. :001_smile:

Grocery store. The way WIC works in GA, you have these checks or vouchers. You can only get the things listed on those vouchers. You have to sign the check in front of the cashier. Most of the time, the moms are helping the cashier to get the right products with the right voucher (remember, we're training, so we're not very fast at this!). It's not the type of thing that the other trainees can help with.

Thank you for all your comments! In regards to WIC, yes, I'm in GA. And we have those checks to deal with. It's really the only scenario that I've seen (so far) that requires the mom's extended attention and it can't be passed off to anyone else. Every other situation, the mom can be helped by unloading groceries from the cart, and leaving her to take care of the child. Right now, it's probably not normal to have so many people available to help, but there's a bunch of us training at once and there's a cashier plus two baggers on one register, and if it's not busy, then the three people on the register next might not have any customers! So there are plenty of people available to help! I've seen several of the workers hold babies for moms. Personally, I never liked to let other people hold my babies, unless I KNEW they'd washed their hands, and that includes friends, so I would definitely NOT be keen on some stranger handling my kid. And yes, if I was asked, until I grew into my confidence as a mother, I would feel pressured. But I didn't know if this was normal. Those are very good points brought up about liability, so I will probably ask a manager tomorrow if there's a policy regarding that.

This really isn't a WWYD, but more of a WWYT (What Would You Think). Suppose that you had an infant (sits in the front seat of the buggy or in a carrier), and you also used WIC. Your checking out with all your WIC products (Which means, only you can do this. You can't pass this off on someone else.), and your baby is crying. Would you prefer an employee (say, another cashier or maybe a courtesy clerk with no customers) to hold the baby while you checked out, assuming they asked first? Would you feel pressured to say yes, since your baby is crying? Would your answer differ if you were a young mom, with little parenting experience? I'm training to be a cashier, and I've noticed several other cashiers and courtesy clerks holding the babies that come through the lines, so I'm just trying to get some insight. I know how *I* would feel and such, but I was wondering about other moms. Thanks! Edited to add: I think I didn't explain well. The cashier holding the baby is NOT the same person who is running the register. It's another cashier, or other employee, who isn't busy with other customers at the moment. Also, I only used WIC because apparently around here, it's a very time-consuming process with vouchers, not cards, and it can't be handed off for someone else to do. Paying in any other form seems to take CONSIDERABLE less time than paying with WIC. And every customer that has come through with WIC has been a mom a baby in tow. The process seems even longer if the baby happens to be fussy (which not all are!) The situation is not intended as a slight against using WIC. Just highlighting a situation that I've observed.

Hmmm. Originally, I thought she meant that if the majority feels that this is a bad thing, then forcing them to do it is discriminating against them...whatever "it" is. However, discrimination is about DENYING things. So, is it really discrimination? Is it denying the majority to live how they want to live (without the other side participating in things)?

Just wanted to say that I have avoided making a decision on same sex marriage. I haven't been sure how to mesh what I was taught with how I currently believe. But this thread has encouraged me to finalize and articulate what I believe with regards to...well...any marriage! I've come to the conclusion that there are two types of marriage: political and sacred, and the two should be separate, particularly here in the U.S. What was established in the beginning as an ideal, in my opinion, is irrelevant to what is now. Biblically, God allowed many things that he didn't consider an ideal. Jesus was very clear that how we treat each other should be loving and kind foremost, not insisting that rules and procedures be followed. Christians should remember this, and remember that religious freedom means freedom for EVERYONE to believe and act on those beliefs as they choose, not just those they agree with. Most Christians I know seem to be hung up on the idea that the U.S. is a Christian nation. But this just isn't true. The U.S. is a FREE nation, granting everyone here the freedom to worship who and how they see fit (do I really need to add the caveat "as long as they're not hurting others, etc."?) To ensure true freedom of religion, we need separate the two types of marriage. The government should endorse only political marriages...for tax and legal purposes. Every political marriage is preformed by a Justice of the Peace, in a more legal and official format. Not that different from the way it is now, it's just that ONLY the government can issue a political, or government-recognized marriage certificate, and religion is not involved AT ALL. Sacred marriages are those done following religious beliefs. They would be preformed in addition to or in place of, and outside of, political marriages. People can choose which or both of the methods they want. If they only want a political union, fine. If they don't want the government involved and want a sacred marriage "before God." Fine. This really doesn't have to be that difficult, but I think as someone said before, many Christians are afraid that homosexuality will be the downfall of a great society. They are more afraid of what might happen than in treating others in the loving manner they are called to do. If more Christians truly followed Jesus's example, and treated everyone they met with love and kindness, regardless of who or what they are...if they worked on actually helping others in the physical sense instead of being so hyper-focused on eternal destiny, then they may find that they have many more important things to focus on instead of people's sexual orientation....like real persecution, hatefulness, and greed.

In previous generations, it was much harder to get the view from the other side. But with today's technology and the ability to easily see what's going on "on the other side of the fence" and "what's happening on the ground," I hope that the younger generations will use it to look at things more objectively and say, "This is enough." I see this type of thing happening in other areas, so I'm hoping that it will happen in this case, too. There's always hope.

In response to the "don't be a stumbling block" argument, I really struggled with this, even when I identified as a conservative Christian. Where do you draw the line? How do you know what will cause someone to lust? This concept is so vague when it comes to modesty that it's impossible for a person to apply it in a general sense or across the board, as in, "I'm going to dress this way so that when I go shopping, I'm not going to give reason for any one to lust or 'stumble'." Finally, I came to the belief that this was never intended for across-the-board, general application. It was intended for specific times. If you know the person would be offended, or "stumble," then you don't do it. It's about consideration and graciousness, and it extends way beyond clothing choices. It's interesting that in the Bible, whenever modesty is specifically spoken of, God does not do so in the context of how much or how little clothing to put on. It's never about how much skin is showing. The idea that modesty=specific, minimum amount of skin covered (you cannot show any cleavage, you cannot show your thighs, etc.) is just not Biblical, IMO.

I mentioned this on the other thread, but I really like the Hamilton Beach single serving coffee maker. You can make whatever amount you want (it can do 16 oz or less), and you can buy your regular coffee.

I would try to find a way to reproduce what you like at home, unless you really want to cut it out completely. I'm not a coffee aficionado, but I love my mocha. Seriously wonder if I've become addicted to it, too. :glare: When I make one at home, I use my 16 oz. cup and put about 3 tablespoons of hot cocoa mix in my cup, then after I pour the coffee in it, I top it off with French vanilla liquid coffee creamer. I think it's better than Starbucks mocha w/ an additional pump of chocolate, which is what I normally order. Using hot cocoa mix is the key to making a great homemade mocha, IMO. I actually have a little scoop in my hot cocoa mix, so I'm not 100% on the amount. And I've used Cool Whip on top, which works great, too! Experiment and find what you like! I have a Hamilton Beach single serve coffee maker, kinda like a Keurig, but you don't need any special cups or anything. You use whatever coffee you want. I love it!