By the way this is why the CDC recommends droplet precautions (CDC confirms that transmission by sneezing is possible) http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmissi ... =nocontent

fate

It's clear then: Obama is a racist. If he wasn't, we would save all the Africans. After all, we are crushing Ebola here, so why not over there? It has to be racism.

With you its always Obama's fault... You even managed to work in a reference to a poor web site launch... How is that relevant?

The three nations where ebola has broken out and where there is difficulty controlling it, have very degraded public infrastructure. Very little government. Very little health care and poor sanitation.
Liberia is barely over a horrible civil war.
Where African nations had functioning government and health systems, and better infrastructure the ebola outbreak was eradicated. i.e. Senegal and Nigeria
Unless you think that the US health care system is worse than Senegals its unlikely to overwhelm the US. After all, as you often said on debates about the ACS the USA has "The Best Health Care System in the World"

rickyp wrote:fate

It's clear then: Obama is a racist. If he wasn't, we would save all the Africans. After all, we are crushing Ebola here, so why not over there? It has to be racism.

With you its always Obama's fault...

Classic.

You even managed to work in a reference to a poor web site launch... How is that relevant?

Wait. You didn't see that I also blamed Katrina? So, I'm assigning some of the blame for Ebola on Bush!

You are killing me today. My sides hurt from laughter.

Let me make it simple so that you'll grasp it:

You say we should trust government to protect us from Ebola.

I say government doesn't have a great track record (Katrina, Obamacare website, to mention just two botched situations) and you conclude I'm blaming Obama. No, I'm simply saying we Americans have reason to be wary when the government confidently proclaims it is doing "a heckuva job."

Unless you think that the US health care system is worse than Senegals its unlikely to overwhelm the US. After all, as you often said on debates about the ACS the USA has "The Best Health Care System in the World"

More sophomoric illogic from you. No, no, no. You can't seem to get much right.

Ebola will not overwhelm our system--unless it breaks out. If it does that, it's going to be really tough. We've been successful in keeping the few Americans who have come down with it alive. However, those are in near-perfect conditions--the best doctors and the best facilities. If we had to replicate that on a mass scale, could we--or would thousands die? My guess is the latter.

It's easy to say, "Well, it hasn't happened yet." If it does, many will die. The President of the US should not take that risk. There is no upside. He is rolling the bones for political reasons, not scientific ones.

Yes, yes, I know--the odds of Ebola breaking out are minute. However, the odds were remote that Ebola would come to the US. The odds were "approaching zero" that any US healthcare worker would get it. So, pardon me if I'm not impressed by the odds. Why not? Because the "odds" depend on people telling the truth and not making mistakes. That is not the world we live in.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I'm sorry, but I trust "common sense" a good deal less than I do epidemiologists.

So smart, they are. That's why we have Ebola here in the first place. We're doing what the experts advise.

Huh? I keep seeing the claim that someone said we'd never see Ebola in the USA. Who has actually said it? Who has instead said that it can be contained if it comes here (which so far it is).

A doctor gets back from West Africa, goes to a bar, goes bowling, etc. If this virus mutates, we're in a world of hurt.

A virus mutates every time it infects a new host. But it would take a great deal of change for it to be transmissible before symptoms present (because it's the symptoms of fluid discharge that are the means of transmission). He went to hospital as soon as he saw his temperature was high.

And, certainly, he was monitoring that . . . every frame.

You have evidence that things change in a few minutes?

You guys can yuck it up all you want, but government fails: Katrina, Obamacare website, etc. If there is a more serious mistake here, it will overwhelm the system. That's why the success rate here is not that impressive. It's easier to cure half a dozen cases than 5,000, 20,000, or 100,000. If the genie gets all the way out of the bottle, you all will be laughing out of the other side of your mouths.

But you want Government to do more. Or do you think quarantines or flight bans are not governmental actions?

I'm not laughing, by the way. Ebola is serious, and it does kill. However, there have been two known transmissions within the USA, and both of the patients are now free of the virus. Over-reacting is not necessarily going to help. Whipping it up for what now looks increasingly like ideological and party political reasons (and I refer specificially to you, DF), is utterly irresponsible.

If we had to replicate that on a mass scale, could we--or would thousands die? My guess is the latter.

This is more than a little hyperbolic. The current death toll from Ebola is about 4000, and this is in a region with a virtually non-existent healthcare system, very limited financial resources and dysfunctional government. It would have to 'break out' on an inconceivably huge scale to threaten thousands of American lives, and if it did that then it would probably be well on it's way to wiping out half the population of West Africa. This is not a plausible scenario.

danivon wrote:Huh? I keep seeing the claim that someone said we'd never see Ebola in the USA. Who has actually said it? Who has instead said that it can be contained if it comes here (which so far it is).

"First and foremost, I want the American people to know that our experts, here at the CDC and across our government, agree that the chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low. We’ve been taking the necessary precautions, including working with countries in West Africa to increase screening at airports so that someone with the virus doesn’t get on a plane for the United States. In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores, we’ve taken new measures so that we’re prepared here at home. We’re working to help flight crews identify people who are sick, and more labs across our country now have the capacity to quickly test for the virus. We’re working with hospitals to make sure that they are prepared, and to ensure that our doctors, our nurses and our medical staff are trained, are ready, and are able to deal with a possible case safely."--President Obama, speaking at the CDC, September 16

So, again:

1. We were told it was "unlikely" that Ebola would come to the US.
2. We were told our medical folks were ready.

And yet, it's here and two nurses caught it.

Now, we're told not to worry--they've got it under control. Meanwhile, people are still traveling about with the virus, ignoring "self-quarantine" guidelines, and the response is "don't worry about it. We know what we're doing."

Pardon me for not being as confident as you seem to be.

And, certainly, he was monitoring that . . . every frame.

You have evidence that things change in a few minutes?

Do you have evidence that it affects every single person in exactly the same way? Further, do you have evidence that there was plenty of warning before someone became symptomatic? Does Ebola give everyone a couple of hours notice? Does it have an email warning system? Please do explain the development of the disease based on your expertise.

But you want Government to do more. Or do you think quarantines or flight bans are not governmental actions?

You're going full Danivon here, ain't ya?

I think even you can understand the difference between government passivity and government action. Stopping people from coming here from Ebola hot zones is a far cry from passively letting them come here if they don't show a fever.

I'll use me as an example. My body temp is typically almost 2 degrees below normal. I'd wager I could have a nice case of raging Ebola and get through screening with a couple of Advils.

I'm not laughing, by the way. Ebola is serious, and it does kill. However, there have been two known transmissions within the USA, and both of the patients are now free of the virus.

Congratulations, you have swallowed the camel and ignored the gnats.

The President told us it was "unlikely" it would come here. However, if it did, our healthcare professions were ready! Ebola was as good as dead!

Until a man went to the hospital, identified himself as being from Liberia, presenting with a fever, etc. and the healthcare professionals, READY and alert, sent him home. Then, of course, two more healthcare professionals who KNEW they were dealing with an Ebola patient got sick.

Over-reacting is not necessarily going to help. Whipping it up for what now looks increasingly like ideological and party political reasons (and I refer specificially to you, DF), is utterly irresponsible.

That's bunk. This is not partisan. I would note freeman3 is on "my" side in this sense: the government has over-promised and under-delivered. The "experts" told us what could not happen--and then didn't even blink when it happened. Well, they did blink a bit--they have changed their guidelines.

Was Governor Cuomo being political when he agreed to a quarantine for those returning from West Africa? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/o ... quarantine

Is the Pentagon being political? http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/27/politics/ ... dex.html''

Please. Do yourself a favor: stop trying to be a know-it-all when you're not.

Sassenach wrote:

If we had to replicate that on a mass scale, could we--or would thousands die? My guess is the latter.

This is more than a little hyperbolic. The current death toll from Ebola is about 4000, and this is in a region with a virtually non-existent healthcare system, very limited financial resources and dysfunctional government. It would have to 'break out' on an inconceivably huge scale to threaten thousands of American lives, and if it did that then it would probably be well on it's way to wiping out half the population of West Africa. This is not a plausible scenario.

Well, it shouldn't be. We do need to make sure we do more to help those countries in West Africa to deal with it.

fate

Now, we're told not to worry--they've got it under control

Is Ebola under control in the US?
In a population of 316 million one person has died.
2 were infected but cured.
and three returning health care workers were hospitalized. 2 have been cured. one, self diagnosed is in isolation.

Are you saying this paints the picture of a situation out of control?


fate

Ebola will not overwhelm our system--unless it breaks out. If it does that, it's going to be really tough. We've been successful in keeping the few Americans who have come down with it alive. However, those are in near-perfect conditions--the best doctors and the best facilities. If we had to replicate that on a mass scale, could we--or would thousands die? My guess is the latter

I especially like how you base your argument on your guess.

Fate, is it the governments job to ensure that every single American is protected from every potential threat no matter how remote?

rickyp wrote:fate

Now, we're told not to worry--they've got it under control

Is Ebola under control in the US?
In a population of 316 million one person has died.
2 were infected but cured.
and three returning health care workers were hospitalized. 2 have been cured. one, self diagnosed is in isolation.

Are you saying this paints the picture of a situation out of control?

No, I'm saying that everything they have said up to this point has been incorrect. It's a bit like saying "Canada has no problem with terrorism."

Get the point?

I especially like how you base your argument on your guess.

I love how the President based his argument on infallible science . . . and he was wrong.

Fate, is it the governments job to ensure that every single American is protected from every potential threat no matter how remote?

No, but our current policy makes as much sense as your argument.

Doctor Fate wrote:1. We were told it was "unlikely" that Ebola would come to the US.

Indeed. It was unlikely, and it has happened a grand total of twice so far, discounting the people brought back after diagnosis. That's not the same as saying it won't happen.

2. We were told our medical folks were ready.

They were.

And, certainly, he was monitoring that . . . every frame.

You have evidence that things change in a few minutes?

Do you have evidence that it affects every single person in exactly the same way? Further, do you have evidence that there was plenty of warning before someone became symptomatic? Does Ebola give everyone a couple of hours notice? Does it have an email warning system? Please do explain the development of the disease based on your expertise.

I have about as much experience as you do. I also, as you do, have access to a vast repository of information that can help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... edirect=no

Ebola is contagious after the initial symptoms, but the first of these is a sudden flu-like fever. People know when that starts to happen. It is contagious through blood, vomit & faeces when the next set of symptoms arrive (which is vomiting, diarrhea), and only later from other bodily fluids.

Now, please present your contrary evidence that it is contagious before symptoms arise.

But you want Government to do more. Or do you think quarantines or flight bans are not governmental actions?

You're going full Danivon here, ain't ya?

I think even you can understand the difference between government passivity and government action. Stopping people from coming here from Ebola hot zones is a far cry from passively letting them come here if they don't show a fever.

I was referring to your catch-all initial sentence: "You guys can yuck it up all you want, but government fails: Katrina, Obamacare website, etc."

I'll use me as an example. My body temp is typically almost 2 degrees below normal. I'd wager I could have a nice case of raging Ebola and get through screening with a couple of Advils.

And you accuse us of flippancy?

The President told us it was "unlikely" it would come here. However, if it did, our healthcare professions were ready! Ebola was as good as dead!

English comprehension is not your thing, is it?

Again:
"unlikely" != "impossible"
"ready" != perfect

This straw man shit is getting silly.

Until a man went to the hospital, identified himself as being from Liberia, presenting with a fever, etc. and the healthcare professionals, READY and alert, sent him home. Then, of course, two more healthcare professionals who KNEW they were dealing with an Ebola patient got sick.

The Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas is a private provider. The government does not run it. The CDC do not run it. It is a private organisation. So who 'failed'?

Over-reacting is not necessarily going to help. Whipping it up for what now looks increasingly like ideological and party political reasons (and I refer specificially to you, DF), is utterly irresponsible.

That's bunk. This is not partisan. I would note freeman3 is on "my" side in this sense: the government has over-promised and under-delivered. The "experts" told us what could not happen--and then didn't even blink when it happened. Well, they did blink a bit--they have changed their guidelines.

This is why I referred specifically to you. How long did it take for you to blame Obama?

Was Governor Cuomo being political when he agreed to a quarantine for those returning from West Africa? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/o ... quarantine

Yes, he was. It took him a couple of days to relent on how it works.

Is the Pentagon being political? http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/27/politics/ ... dex.html''

The link is broken but I found the story. Reading it, I see that:

Officials could not explain why the group was being put under into controlled monitoring, which is counter to the Pentagon policy. The current DOD policy on monitoring returning troops says "as long as individuals remain asymptomatic, they may return to work and routine daily activities with family members."

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday that the Defense Department "has not issued a policy related to their workers that have spent time in West Africa."

"I know that there was this decision that was made by one commanding officer in the Department of Defense, but it does not reflect a department-wide policy that I understand is still under development," Earnest said.

Not "the Pentagon", but one commander. I have no idea of he is acting politically.

But I can see that you are.

Please. Do yourself a favor: stop trying to be a know-it-all when you're not.

I know my limitations, thanks. I'm not basing my case on scaremongery though.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:1. We were told it was "unlikely" that Ebola would come to the US.

Indeed. It was unlikely, and it has happened a grand total of twice so far, discounting the people brought back after diagnosis. That's not the same as saying it won't happen.

"Unlikely" and in less than a week it happened.

2. We were told our medical folks were ready.

They were.

Right. That's why they sent Mr. Duncan home and why two of them contracted it.

Btw, I know they have risked much, but it is the "professionals" who are getting sick. Apparently, knowledge they are dealing with a deadly virus is not keeping them from getting sick.

I have about as much experience as you do. I also, as you do, have access to a vast repository of information that can help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... edirect=no

Ole! Nice dodge.

Now, please present your contrary evidence that it is contagious before symptoms arise.

I never said that. I weary of your distortions.

But you want Government to do more. Or do you think quarantines or flight bans are not governmental actions?

I was referring to your catch-all initial sentence: "You guys can yuck it up all you want, but government fails: Katrina, Obamacare website, etc."

Right, and it does fail. And, it's failing now. The only way Ebola breaks out here is if we keep inviting it to do so. A travel ban until it's under control would ensure that does not happen.

I'll use me as an example. My body temp is typically almost 2 degrees below normal. I'd wager I could have a nice case of raging Ebola and get through screening with a couple of Advils.

And you accuse us of flippancy?

Yes, because what I am saying is possible.

[

quote]The President told us it was "unlikely" it would come here. However, if it did, our healthcare professions were ready! Ebola was as good as dead!

English comprehension is not your thing, is it?

Again:
"unlikely" != "impossible"
"ready" != perfect

So, "unlikely" is "in a week"
"ready" is "two nurses will catch it"

Yeah, someone is ridiculous--you.

Until a man went to the hospital, identified himself as being from Liberia, presenting with a fever, etc. and the healthcare professionals, READY and alert, sent him home. Then, of course, two more healthcare professionals who KNEW they were dealing with an Ebola patient got sick.

The Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas is a private provider. The government does not run it. The CDC do not run it. It is a private organisation. So who 'failed'?

Please. Who sets the standards--the CDC or the local hospital? Has CDC changed their standards since Mr. Duncan came to the US? (hint: yes)

[url]This is why I referred specifically to you. How long did it take for you to blame Obama?[/url]

I've not blamed him. I've quoted him. I've disagreed with his policy decision, but I've not blamed him. Duncan is not his "fault."

Was Governor Cuomo being political when he agreed to a quarantine for those returning from West Africa? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/o ... quarantine

Yes, he was. It took him a couple of days to relent on how it works.

He relented because of political pressure from the White House.

Please. Do yourself a favor: stop trying to be a know-it-all when you're not.

I know my limitations, thanks. I'm not basing my case on scaremongery though.

"Scaremongering" = "pointing to government failures to live up to standards they set."

Okay.

In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores, we’ve taken new measures so that we’re prepared here at home. We’re working to help flight crews identify people who are sick, and more labs across our country now have the capacity to quickly test for the virus. We’re working with hospitals to make sure that they are prepared, and to ensure that our doctors, our nurses and our medical staff are trained, are ready, and are able to deal with a possible case safely."--President Obama, speaking at the CDC, September 16

Btw, true or false: even those cured of Ebola can suffer chronic after-effects.

You know, if you persuade people in the West that Ebola poses no threat to them, they might very well decide that we do not need to send large amount of resources to West Africa. Even if people are overly concerned about Ebola in the West, what exactly is the harm being caused? Yeah, a few people are quarantined and they don't like it but what else? Because, in my mind, it would be far worse if people were convinced that this was only a West African problem.

Right now, Ebola is still not a big problem for us. The number of patients grows at R2 (which is exponential, 2 patients give the virus to 4 others, who give it to 8 other, and so on). The number cases is doubling every three weeks. So there are say 10,000 cases now, there will be 20,000 cases in 3 weeks, 40,000 in 6 weeks, 80, 000 in 9 weeks, 160,000 in 12 weeks, 240,000 in 15 weeks, 480,000 in 18 weeks, 960,000 in 21 weeks and so on....You're not going to have 1 million cases in West Africa without that affecting us.http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

Of course, we expect to retard the growth of the outbreak, but if it continues as it is going right now the number of cases will approach 1 million in 5 months.

The doctor that treated Dr. Brantley in Georgia lists several reasons why there will be better survival rates in US. hospitals:

"The ability to replace fluid and electrolytes if a patient is losing them. The ability to replace platelets if that count is low and a patient is starting to bleed. The ability to replace protein in the blood that may be deficient. A developed country has the capability because of our infrastructure to provide that level of support is at a much higher level than a hospital dealing with patients in west Africa."

The doctor noted that the facility that his patients came from in Liberia did not even a complete blood count test. He also noted that 21 nurses, 5 doctors and hundreds of support [staff?] (I am not sure what he means here) were involved in the care of two patients.

Just when I was thinking we could blood test people to see if they have Ebola and not quarantine them, there is this. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/10 ... tion-early

If it were me, I would be sending massive resources to West Africa to stop this thing. I would not take a chance that this could spiral out of control. It does not look like we are sending enough resources. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/o ... es-liberia

By the way, survivors report some long-term side effects, so survival does not mean there is no long-term damage.

Here is a brief intro to Ebola written by an expert and published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases (in 1999 but I am not sure we have learned that much more in the interim). It begans with the statement "Filoviridae is the only known virus family about which we have such profound ignorance." http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/1 ... _1/ix.long

Fortunately, we have Ricky to feel in the gaps of our ignorance...

You preach it, freeman3. I'll turn the pages--in a partisan manner.

Doctor Fate wrote:Btw, I know they have risked much, but it is the "professionals" who are getting sick. Apparently, knowledge they are dealing with a deadly virus is not keeping them from getting sick.

Sneer-quotes noted around professionals.

Yes, they are professionals, and they are risking their lives to help deal with an outbreak of a disease. They are not perfect, and accidents will happen, which is why it's a tragedy.

"Scaremongering" = "pointing to government failures to live up to standards they set."

Okay.

In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores, we’ve taken new measures so that we’re prepared here at home. We’re working to help flight crews identify people who are sick, and more labs across our country now have the capacity to quickly test for the virus. We’re working with hospitals to make sure that they are prepared, and to ensure that our doctors, our nurses and our medical staff are trained, are ready, and are able to deal with a possible case safely."--President Obama, speaking at the CDC, September 16

repeatedly quoting this does not change the meaning of it.

There is no 'standard' set to never have any cases arrive or for the medical staff in private hospitals to be flawless.

Btw, true or false: even those cured of Ebola can suffer chronic after-effects.

True. And? I've said already that it is a nasty disease and should be taken seriously. But the Western panic about it is overshadowing the real problem in Africa. I wish people would be shouting and wailing and panicking about the death toll there.

freeman3 wrote:You know, if you persuade people in the West that Ebola poses no threat to them, they might very well decide that we do not need to send large amount of resources to West Africa. Even if people are overly concerned about Ebola in the West, what exactly is the harm being caused? Yeah, a few people are quarantined and they don't like it but what else? Because, in my mind, it would be far worse if people were convinced that this was only a West African problem.

Of course, we could approach the outside world as if the people in it were as human as we are, and look at the harm there objectively, rather than waiting until it causes a scare at home.

It is primarily a West African problem (and with a separate unrelated outbreak in Congo, it's also a Central African problem). But we should not pander to the parochial nature of humanity - we should challenge it, in this case for our own good.

The other harm is that you get people being victimised for coming from West Africa (or somewhere else in Africa thousands of miles away) by idiots http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/o ... c-ebola-us

The other harm is that you put off potential volunteers to help.

The other harm is that you spend so much time and effort pandering to first-world fears that the actual outbreak gets less attention than the potential one.

Right now, Ebola is still not a big problem for us. The number of patients grows at R2 (which is exponential, 2 patients give the virus to 4 others, who give it to 8 other, and so on). The number cases is doubling every three weeks. So there say 10,000 cases now, there will be 20,000 cases in 3 weeks, 40,000 in 6 weeks, 80, 000 in 9 weeks, 160,000 in 12 weeks, 240,000 in 15 weeks, 480,000 in 18 weeks, 960,000 in 21 weeks and so on....You're not going to have 1 million cases in West Africa without that affecting us.http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

Of course, we expect to have retard the growth of the outbreak, but if it continues as it is going right now the number of cases will approach 1 million in 5 months.

These extrapolations are based on a lack of intervention in West Africa. We are intervening (at last), and the rate of growth is lower than the projections already.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelfume ... wing-down/

If it were me, I would be sending massive resources to West Africa to stop this thing. I would not take a chance that this could spiral out of control. It does not look like we are sending enough resources. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/o ... es-liberia

I agree. I wish that people in the USA who were making so much noise about quarantines and flight bans were all making the same noise about the need to intervene at source. You are. Others, not so much.