Well, I don 't think that it is clear-cut that you can't get it from the air and only from direct contact.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/10/15/doct ... ed-by-air/
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... a-spreads/
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/c ... l_10022014
http://nihbrp.com/Citations/completed/H ... e_1996.pdf
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspect ... tion-ebola

CDC says use droplet precautions
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/hcp/infect ... =nocontent

freeman3 wrote:Well, I don 't think that it is clear-cut that you can't get it from the air and only from direct contact.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/10/15/doct ... ed-by-air/
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... a-spreads/
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/c ... l_10022014
http://nihbrp.com/Citations/completed/H ... e_1996.pdf
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspect ... tion-ebola

CDC says use droplet precautions
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/hcp/infect ... =nocontent

This is why I think they need to ramp up the caution. After a couple of weeks with no new cases, no one will care. But, they really need to show us it's safe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/1 ... 92510.html

The most sensible media report on ebola and media coverage of ebola.
From Fox News....

Can we stick to facts instead of lectures, Ricky? For instance, the US currently has 11 hospital beds that could be used for Ebola patients (by that I mean with adequate protections for health care workers) http://us.cnn.com/2014/10/15/health/ebo ... ?c=&page=3

freeman3 wrote:Can we stick to facts instead of lectures, Ricky? For instance, the US currently has 11 hospital beds that could be used for Ebola patients (by that I mean with adequate protections for health care workers) http://us.cnn.com/2014/10/15/health/ebo ... ?c=&page=3

Amen.

I really don't get the reluctance on a travel ban (I saw that Jay Carney agreed, "{that} would demonstrate a level of seriousness in response to this that is merited at this point."

The counter-arguments:

1. It will hurt West African economies.

I don't buy this. Their economies have been slammed by Ebola. The sooner we knock this out, the sooner we can help them get right. But, #1 has to be containment.

2. People can get around it--by say flying to Brussels first.

They have to show a passport to get from Brussels to the US, yes? So, if they're from a "hot zone," they don't get to come. Further, Brussels et al are free to stop the travel too.

The virus takes 2 to 21 days to show itself. Someone could be exposed and become symptomatic after they've traveled. Why do we need to risk that?

There is no good answer to that, so Dr. Frieden and others spin nonsensical answers with poker faces.

The same folks who told us it can't come here are telling us there's no reason to stop travel from hot zones.

The same folks who told us if it did get here they were ready are telling us there's no reason to stop travel from hot zones.

The same folks who told the second nurse who got the virus that she could travel WITH symptoms are the ones telling us there's no reason to stop travel from hot zones.

Why would we trust them? Why should we?

freeman3

Can we stick to facts instead of lectures, Ricky?

I think that's what Shep Smith is saying we should do...

freeman3

For instance, the US currently has 11 hospital beds that could be used for Ebola patients (by that I mean with adequate protections for health care workers

)
Which is enough for now isn't it?
The question is, how difficult is it to quickly turn other areas into servicable quarantine rooms if they are ever required....
The experience with SARS, a far more easily communicated virus, is that modern medical facilities around the world adapted, and coped quickly. Why should anyone not have confidence that they can't cope this time...?


fate

The virus takes 2 to 21 days to show itself. Someone could be exposed and become symptomatic after they've traveled. Why do we need to risk that?

One does not become contagious until one is showing symptoms.
So if someone gets on a plane without symptoms .... there is no risk to fellow travellers.
So what was your point?

Well, SARS in 2002-2003 had a total of 8,000 cases ( most of them in Hong Kong) and a less than 10 percent fatality rate. Somehow that 70 percent fatality rate number does not seem to make a difference to you. I have read that SARS was transmitted by droplets from sneezes and that has not been ruled out in Ebola . In any case, there is a whole different level of concern between a disease with a 70 percent vs a 10 percent fatality rate. (Actually. 9.5 percent). and I know you have no idea on whether hospitals can readily make adjustments to having large numbers of Ebola cases .
With regard to the air traveler, logically there is going to be a point where it is not clear that symptoms are present or not . The nurse had an elevated temperature so apparently she did have symptoms. There is always going to be a period of time when someone may appear to asymptomatic but they do have symptoms. Again, one should be cautious about taking these statement regarding contagion at face value . I think if someone has been exposed to Ebola they should be presumed to possibly have it and possibly be contagious until 21 days after exposure. (And as Steve noted below you could go from asymptomatic to symptomatic during a flight or flights, particularly on a long trans-Atlantic flight.)
The good news, so far, is non -health care workers have not gotten it in Dallas , which is some evidence that it may be difficult to transmit.

rickyp wrote:fate

The virus takes 2 to 21 days to show itself. Someone could be exposed and become symptomatic after they've traveled. Why do we need to risk that?

One does not become contagious until one is showing symptoms.
So if someone gets on a plane without symptoms .... there is no risk to fellow travellers.
So what was your point?

I was just saying you're an idiot. But, what else is new.

You clearly cannot read. Let me rephrase and try to get it down to your reading level.

You go to West Africa. You frolic around in ebola-filled vomit. You go to the airport. You are not sick yet. You have a long layover in Brussels. You're still not sick. You get on the plane. You have a long layover in Atlanta. You're still not sick. You board a plane for Montreal. During the flight, you get sick.

Every person on that plane now has to wonder if they're going to get sick.

Why?

Because we let you go to West Africa and return while Ebola is raging.

It's no different for people coming from hot zones to the US. They have no inherent right to come here, so why are we permitting this until the crisis has passed?

freeman3 wrote:Well, SARS in 2002-2003 had a total of 8,000 cases ( most of them in Hong Kong) and a less than 10 percent fatality rate. Somehow that 70 percent fatality rate number does not seem to make a difference to you. I have read that SARS was transmitted by droplets from sneezes and that has not ruled out in Ebola . In any case, there is a whole different level of concern between a disease with a 70 percent vs a 10 percent fatality rate. (Actually. 9.5 percent).
With regard to the air traveler, logically there is going to be a point where it is not clear that symptoms are present or not . The nurse had an elevated temperature so apparently she did have symptoms. There is always going to be a period of time when someone may appear to asymptomatic but they do have symptoms. Again, one should be cautious about taking these statement regarding contagion at face level. I think if someone has been exposed to Ebola they should be presumed to possibly have it and possibly be contagious until 21 days after exposure.
The good news, so far, is non -health care workers have not gotten , which is some evidence that it may be difficult to transmit.

Exactly.

Further, what we have seen so far, dear rickyp, is a lot of human error. The more we permit the virus to be transported about, the more errors will be committed and the more people will die.

You might think it's worth it. I don't. And, last I checked, bless his heart, Shep Smith is not a doctor and has no expertise in infectious disease control.

rickyp wrote:freeman3

Can we stick to facts instead of lectures, Ricky?

I think that's what Shep Smith is saying we should do...

I think they were asking you to not lecture and stick to facts, Not Mr. Smith.

What seems interesting, also - and correct me if my info is out-of-date, is that they apparently want to monitor or get in touch with the passengers/crew of that Frontier airline the 2nd sick nurse flew on. Yet they never bothered to isolate all of the hospital staff who came into contact with the late Mr. Duncan.

While we don't have anywhere near an outbreak, what is startling to me is how fly-by-the-seat our responses are. They are reactions post factum. They seem to be deliberately casual, in spite of the apparent fact that they keep changing their mind about how this stuff gets transmitted. The fact that the CDC cleared the 2nd nurse to travel - who after that manifested Ebola - shows that our serious disease protocols do not seem well-thought out or implemented.

fate

You go to West Africa. You frolic around in ebola-filled vomit. You go to the airport. You are not sick yet. You have a long layover in Brussels. You're still not sick. You get on the plane. You have a long layover in Atlanta. You're still not sick. You board a plane for Montreal. During the flight, you get sick

Your scenario is prepostorus. As are you.
Even though someone becomes ill mid-flight, the risk of infecting anyone else is minimal.

bbauska

I think they were asking you to not lecture and stick to facts, Not Mr. Smith

I am sticking to facts. And Mr. Smith was doing the lecturing. I posted it because it as a rare instance of the media reporting facts and not ignoring them. It was a rare instance of media actually reporting on real risk not postulating improbable scenarios. It was a rare instance of media reminding citizens that the experts have handled situations like ebola before, and that the prepostorus scenarios that were speculated upon with Swine Flu, Bird Flu and SARS did not come to fruition.
It was a rare instance of responsible media .

georgeatkins

They seem to be deliberately casual, in spite of the apparent fact that they keep changing their mind about how this stuff gets transmitted

Who has changed their mind about how ebola is transmitted? Source?
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/ ... ca/qa.html

rickyp wrote:fate

You go to West Africa. You frolic around in ebola-filled vomit. You go to the airport. You are not sick yet. You have a long layover in Brussels. You're still not sick. You get on the plane. You have a long layover in Atlanta. You're still not sick. You board a plane for Montreal. During the flight, you get sick

Your scenario is prepostorus. As are you.

Actually, you understood something! I finally found your reading level! See rickyp run!

Even though someone becomes ill mid-flight, the risk of infecting anyone else is minimal.

Please post a pic of your certification as an expert in infectious disease.

Uh-oh. That's 5th grade reading. You'll never understand.

Newsflash, Ace: even the CDC says when you're symptomatic, you're contagious. Oh, and they recommend full cover bio suits when dealing with a symptomatic person. Why is that? Why not ask the NBC cameraman who caught Ebola while washing a car (or, that's the story)?

You know nothing, yet you pretend to have knowledge.

UN HEALTH AGENCY: EBOLA OUTBREAK OVER IN SENEGAL

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ ... TE=DEFAULT

If Senegal can deal with an individual bringing Ebola in, the USA can.


fate

even the CDC says

Even the CDC?
What do you mean "Even" the CDC.
You have sources that you trust more? Why?

rickyp wrote:Even the CDC?
What do you mean "Even" the CDC.
You have sources that you trust more? Why?

I think he was comparing the CDC, and your commentary, not the CDC to anyone else...