rickyp wrote:Actually, if you Don't have a passsport at all, your more likely to be American. (Just being a smart ass)

Not all that smart--you misspelled "passport."

Most of what has been learned about controlling pandemics have been reasonably effective.Look at how effective the response was to H1N1 a few years ago. A couple of case in the US really isn't a big deal, and the over reaction (sic) is probably more dangerous than the actual disease. Its only in countries with poor health care systems, poor public health and sanitation and little effective governemnt (sic) that pandemics kill large numbers.

All true, except for the bit about "overreaction is probably more dangerous than the actual disease." Ebola is quite serious--currently about a 70% mortality rate. If a healthcare worker in the US can get it (she did), after we have been told by the head of the CDC that every hospital in the US is prepared to deal with Ebola, then why should we not be less than confident in such pronouncements?

In a soceity imagined by Libertarians , the controls necessary to stop a apndemic wouldn't exist.

I'll let a libertarian deconstruct your theory. However, I'm fairly certain no one is worried about a "apndemic" or even knows what it is.

Is it so hard to trace for the US government to trace passengers who originated from West African flights? Ricky, you did note those two somewhat elderly Spanish priests who died? I suspect that most adult Westerners with access to First World care would survive Ebola but not the very young or old. The whole point of quarantine is to keep the number of cases to a manageable level. Over reaction may cause economic damage, under reaction could cost a lot of lifes. Which one would you prefer to risk?

rickyp wrote:Ask and thou shalt receive.

The first human clinical trials of a Canadian-developed Ebola vaccine, VSV-EBOV, begin in Maryland today to assess the vaccine's safety and determine the appropriate dosage to fight the virus that has killed more than 4,000 people, largely in West Africa, Health Minister Rona Ambrose has announced.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ebola-outb ... -1.2796859

That's pretty fantastic news. I hadn't heard a word that there was even a vaccine in the works, and here's one already in human clinical trials! Really fantastic news. Thanks for passing that along Ricky.

danivon wrote:George Atkins / Bbauska - enough straw men crowbarring of a different subject. The USA does have one of the best quality of healthcare in the world. Access and availability of it is an issue, but no-o.e has said the best of US healthcare is not up there with the best in the world.

Mine was not being a smart aleck. Mine was to draw attention that the US DOES have the best healthcare system in the world, and there are those who denigrate it... until it is needed. Then they come running. So my question on why a person would come to the US rather than the other locations such as Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Britain still stands.

freeman

Over reaction may cause economic damage, under reaction could cost a lot of lives. Which one would you prefer to risk?

Screening passengers who originate in west Africa, and quarantining those who need to be quarantined is not all that difficult.
The over reaction would be shutting down air travel. Or "Sealing the borders".
Creating an unreasonable fear by exaggerating the potential risks to ordinary citizens...

That's a media specialty. Selling fear.
Not only with ebola, but with threats of terrorism for instance.
In the mean time, 800,000 Americans every year die from heart disease.
37,000 a year die in gun incidents
26,000 supposedly die from lack of health insurance... ( a few years back)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/ ... 5720120620

Point being that these are risks people seem to have lived with without shitting in the their pants every day.At the moment Ebola is a long way from causing the kind of mayhem that any one of these seemingly acceptable risk factors already causes... And the risk that it gets out of hand to where it starts to kill in numbers, is still very , very small. .

Ebola, if not interdicted, could be pretty bad. In West Africa 4,000 people have died so far. But that is in nations with few resources to bring to battle. And where border interdiction isn't possible. Whats been set up to combat the problem in western Europe and especially in the US, where few west african travellers end up, is proving to be a pretty effective response. And doesn't deserve the fear mongering that currently exists.

bbauska

So my question on why a person would come to the US rather than the other locations such as Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Britain still stands.

All the people being treated in the US are American citizens or landed immigrants aren't they?

I don't know about the other nations but in Canada we've had two people isolated and quarantined as suspected Ebola patients. They were given the all clear today....

How could the vaccine be tested unless someone was exposed to the virus? And Owen I think we need to make a compact with western caregivers that if they go to West Africa and contract Ebola they will be brought back for top-level treatment. If we did not do that, we might find few willing to volunteer at this point and I think that would be worse than the risk of contagion.

bbauska wrote:Mine was not being a smart aleck. Mine was to draw attention that the US DOES have the best healthcare system in the world, and there are those who denigrate it... until it is needed.

How do you know it is the "best"? On what measures do you know this to be the case? I would say that it clearly is better than others (or even all) on certain things, but not on all aspects of care. Other nations have worldbeating care in particular disciplines too. Not that your culture or media would admit anything other than that USA! USA! is No 1.

If you ignore aspects like Access or Lifestyles even, the USA is not number one according to this http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/20 ... countries/

On care Quality overall, 5th. On Co-ordination, 6th. On Safety (which is perhaps the most relevant here), 7th.

The USA is among the best in the world. But it is not the best, not at everything.

Then they come running. So my question on why a person would come to the US rather than the other locations such as Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Britain still stands.

The guy had family - a son - in Dallas. I expect family ties were a primary factor in his choice of destination.

He did not seek medical attention for four days after arriving, suggesting he didn't know he had the disease until later. Indeed, he did not come back for another four days when it became much worse. If he was there to seek medical attention for Ebola, why not do so earlier, or at the first entry to hospital?

What I expect is that what he was doing was leaving the country to get away from the outbreak. He fell ill but was hoping not to have it. He was possible also afraid of being sent back.

Ricky:

In the mean time, 800,000 Americans every year die from heart disease.
37,000 a year die in gun incidents
26,000 supposedly die from lack of health insurance... ( a few years back)

But heart attacks aren't contagious. You have to make a different calculation on contagious diseases.

Brad:

So my question on why a person would come to the US rather than the other locations such as Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Britain still stands.

Although if you are looking for a new womb, Sweden is the place to go.

freeman3 wrote:How could the vaccine be tested unless someone was exposed to the virus? And Owen I think we need to make a compact with western caregivers that if they go to West Africa and contract Ebola they will be brought back for top-level treatment. If we did not do that, we might find few willing to volunteer at this point and I think that would be worse than the risk of contagion.

Of course we should do as we have been so far, and caring for those who go out to fight the disease and have as a result caught it, and doing that by bringing them home. Especially while facilities out there are not up to scratch and are overloaded.

I believe with the vaccine, there are various tests that can be undertaken without trying to expose someone to infection. You can do some on uninfected people, and check what antibodies they end up with, and then possible even see if those antibodies work in vitro rather than exposing the person to the disease. One way to check the antibodies is to compare them to those in a person who has recovered from the disease.

There are big ethical questions about exposing people to a disease (even a less deadly one than Ebola) and so there are protocols developed so we don't have to.

freeman

How could the vaccine be tested unless someone was exposed to the virus?

First it has been tested on animals. And been found both safe and 100% effective.
Second, vaccines are made using only a part of th virus. The body builds up immunity from vaccine provided exposure to just benign parts of the virus. e
Third. The human test is first to test on side effects, if any. Its not intended as a test against exposure to ebola. I guess that live use of the vaccine in likely exposure might happen if there are no significant side effects discovered in this first test. Considering the way things are spreading in West Africa that might be as part of a necessary reaction to keep the contagion down and not a controlled study.

ray

But heart attacks aren't contagious. You have to make a different calculation on contagious diseases.

The calculation i'm talking about is a rational response to risk.
Today, the risk that you might actually contract Ebola in the US is somewhere between 2 in 300 million and 36 in 300 million.(Known cases and known possibly exposed people) 150 million to 1 to 8.333,334 to 1)
The risk you might catch a bullet 37,000 in 300 million. (8110 to 1)
The risk you die this year from heart disease 800,000 in 300 million.375 to 1

Neither of the latter risks have been hyped in the media to present an irrational out side fear of either happening to the average American. Maybe they should have. Perhaps if it had, more would be done to reduce the occurrences.... But even though there are politicians saying the `government should do everything it can to protect Americans`(from Ebola or terrorism) when it comes down to things that are actual risks ....not so much.
Other than screening and quarantines, which an organized capable government with a good public health agency can accomplish quickly, all other measures need time and government investment. And those other measures are a vaccine for the populace as a whole, and therapies for those affected.The work on the last two, can't really be advanced after the fact. So, its good news that a government had decided that funding the development of an Ebola vaccine made sense a few years ago. A calm rational decision that didn`t require panic.

The vaccine has not been to show to work on human beings--if that actually happens that will be great, but it hasn't happened yet. As for screening, as I understand it the Ebola virus can take up to 21 days before a person starts to show symptoms. So a person could come to the United States, look and feel fine and then go out and come into contact with a large people of people. The real issue is how infectious the disease is. Apparently, it is not airborne but it is at least drople- borne.( See this interesting discussion about how contagious Ebola is. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... a-spreads/ ).

They are monitoring 76 people in Dallas. You have heard of the concept of six degrees of separation? One of the concepts behind that theory is that there are certain people that a lot of people know and that is why you can randomly choose a person in say New York and a person in Los Angeles and connect them through six people or maybe even less (friend of a friend of a friend, etc.) It will not take very many cases until many people come into contact with people who have the virus. And, yes, you can get it from someone sneezing because it is droplet-borne. So it seems only prudent that anyone coming from West Africa have to be certified to have gone through 21 days without symptoms before they can come in to the United States. That is the only kind of effective screening there is.

Ricky:

The calculation i'm talking about is a rational response to risk.
Today, the risk that you might actually contract Ebola in the US is somewhere between 2 in 300 million and 36 in 300 million.(Known cases and known possibly exposed people) 150 million to 1 to 8.333,334 to 1)
The risk you might catch a bullet 37,000 in 300 million. (8110 to 1)
The risk you die this year from heart disease 800,000 in 300 million.375 to 1

I understand your larger point that people have a hard time judging risk. Policies are often irrational in that regard.

But you cannot take that attitude with infection diseases. Those risks can change radically. In 1913 the risk of dying from the Spanish flew was less than 1 in a million. In 1918 is was more than 1 in 100.