Yeah no one gave a shit because it wasn't affecting their part of the world.
We also didn't care in 1976, 1977, 1979, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and so on when there were small outbreaks.

It has been considered dangrous, it's just that no one's done anything about it. It's not that easy to cure something when you can't identify it's habitat/carriers.

Actually there was a recent out break of the plague in Oregon. Apparently not as dangerous.

Wait... since when did it spread to UK... I was all like "It's ok, I'm safe in my little bubble" worst off is I sweat excessively so if I do get it pretty much everyone I know/interact with gets it... that sucks...
Oh and about the "Ebola" bringing people back to life thing... yeah it's fake. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/we...x-9777916.html

Antibiotics kill or weaken bacteria, not viruses. Viruses are largely immune to antibiotics. They do not stimulate the production of antibodies.

Just like every virus ever.

Did you know people still die of the black plague?

The Black Plaque was caused by bacteria, but yes, it is still around in some regions in Central Asia iirc. There is no vast effort to get rid of it because it does not kill a lot of people and it can be cured.
Naturally many viruses go extinct as the environment changes. They can die out just like any other species can.
It requires great effort to make a virus go extinct by force, but it is possible.
Smallpox went extinct in the wild, the only remaining smallpox viruses are in labs.
Same with the cattle-plague virus.
Polio is very close to extinction.

You have no idea what antibiotics are, it's even in the name 'anti'biotics. Antibiotics work by blocking vital processes in bacteria, killing the bacteria, or stopping them from multiplying which makes it easier for the immune system to fight off the bacteria.
Of course killing the bacteria isn't always what an antibiotic does, you're not technically wrong there.

But at least know what you're talking about before you discuss, Zenboy.

no no no no


no no no no no no


no no no no no no no


oh fucking hell noooooooooooo

what even? he didn't compliment you, read the post properly next time.

we could have basically the same thread for a lot of diseases that are out there, except that no-one would care as much because there hasn't been an outbreak in an medc. there honestly isn't anything to worry about if you're thinking that the human race will dramatically decrease in numbers, because thats just stupid.
eventually we'll get some sort of temporary 'cure'.

Why would a virus be less dangerous if it stayed in an environment where nobody was capable of containing it, and little to no development to counteract it would occur so long as it stayed there? That's basically creating a continent-sized petri dish for the virus to mutate in. That's a terrifying thought.

There's little to no risk of a large-scale outbreak of ebola in developed countries because the medical infrastructure available is capable of containing a disease that spreads only through body fluids relatively easily, and the resources to treat the patients are comparitively plentiful. All ebola showing up on the developed world's doorstep did was give an incentive to develop something against it. It was never a major threat in it's current form for the developed world, and it was probably to the benefit of West Africa that it did infect the developed world because it scared people with resources into action.