US can contain Ebola like Senegal... I wonder what African countries are doing to prevent Ebola from spreading into their country... travel restrictions, maybe ?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... Travel-Ban

Here is an article on the question of whether there should be a travel ban. The arguments cited against a ban are ridiculous. http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-ebol ... tml#page=1

The first argument is that a ban on flights would make it difficult to get supplies to affected countries. I am sure we could make exceptions for that. The second one is that somehow it will cause the reverse of what is intended as Ebola victims go underground and we can't identify them and isolate them. Huh? But we don't need to identify them because they won't be coming here. The argument that has some merit (and not cited in the article) is that it will harm West African economies. I think that can be dealt with by sending economic aid.

rickyp wrote: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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if they were not so much concerned with inanimate objects transmitting Ebola, but now they are.

bbauska wrote:

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...

Yes, you were writing off the nurse in the plane as immaterial, no threat. Contra you, the CDC says when you're symptomatic, you're contagious.

Either you or the CDC is wrong. I'm guessing it's you.

fate

Yes, you were writing off the nurse in the plane as immaterial, no threat. Contra you, the CDC says when you're symptomatic, you're contagious.

Here's what i wrote earlier:

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?

So its obvious I understood the actual threat that ebola represents.
What I pooed on was your strained, improbable scenario....
You oughta write science fiction
If Ebola were transmitted by other than bodily fluids transfer your scenario might have a little credence.
Because even if through some implausible scenario like yours one does end up on a plane with a symptomatic Ebola victim you still have to have a great deal of intimacy to risk infection.
Those in the US who've contracted Ebola in the US were busy changing IV lines of the first victim...
If you start doing that in a plane...

This article puts things into perspective a little bit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... frica.html

In truth I'm kind of with Ricky here. Ebola is really not that big of a deal for affluent countries with well developed healthcare systems. Ultimately it's not worth getting panicky about. We've dealt with it before and we'll do it again.

rickyp wrote:fate

Yes, you were writing off the nurse in the plane as immaterial, no threat. Contra you, the CDC says when you're symptomatic, you're contagious.

Here's what i wrote earlier:

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?

So its obvious I understood the actual threat that ebola represents.

Um, no.

"So if someone gets on a plane without symptoms . . ." does not exclude the possibility that they become symptomatic while on the plane. For example, with the second nurse, her first symptom was a low fever. That is not something that is inherently obvious (like uncontrolled vomiting, for example). However, she is no less contagious AND since she might not realize she's contagious (she had been advised by the CDC she was "okay" to travel), who knows what contact with body fluids are possible in an airplane? Supposing she uses the restroom and does not wash her hands? Or, she does, but leaves trace amounts of "fluid" on the sink or toilet?

Again, you want to go in right after her? Feel free.

What I pooed on was your strained, improbable scenario....
You oughta write science fiction

You ought to read. If you did, you'd understand that this is very contagious. They (CDC) have not told us how nurse #2 got the virus, nor how the NBC cameraman got it--unless you believe he washed down a known to be contaminated car for no apparent reason.

If Ebola were transmitted by other than bodily fluids transfer your scenario might have a little credence.

How much fluid does it take? What level of contact is needed? How long can Ebola survive outside of the human body?

Go ahead. You seem to know. So, please, do enlighten.

Because even if through some implausible scenario like yours one does end up on a plane with a symptomatic Ebola victim you still have to have a great deal of intimacy to risk infection.

Is that true? Explain. Hint: this is not HIV. It does not take sexual contact or a blood exchange to transmit Ebola.

Those in the US who've contracted Ebola in the US were busy changing IV lines of the first victim...
If you start doing that in a plane...

Have you ever had blood taken? Don't they wear gloves? How does someone get Ebola by changing an IV line? There should be no blood emission.

And, do you have a source for this claim that it was this activity that infected both nurses?

Sassenach wrote:This article puts things into perspective a little bit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... frica.html

In truth I'm kind of with Ricky here. Ebola is really not that big of a deal for affluent countries with well developed healthcare systems. Ultimately it's not worth getting panicky about. We've dealt with it before and we'll do it again.

So true. However, the problem is not containment; it's incompetence.

It's a bit like "Jurassic Park." They had everything under control until they didn't.

We were assured it would not come here. It did.

We were assured it could not spread. It has.

We were told the CDC would adhere to its guidelines. It hasn't.

Yes, it's "only" a few cases--tell that to the victims. Further, there are probable chronic complications--even if one survives.

Sure, but the point is that thousands of people die every year from other preventable diseases that aren't such a sexy news story so nobody bats an eyelid. 2 people die from ebola and all hell breaks loose. It's not a rational response.

Sassenach wrote:Sure, but the point is that thousands of people die every year from other preventable diseases that aren't such a sexy news story so nobody bats an eyelid. 2 people die from ebola and all hell breaks loose. It's not a rational response.

Why is that?

Maybe because the way it's been handled so far, both in over-promising and in under-preparing, give no confidence in future results. Once competence is demonstrated, confidence will be restored.

I don't think it works like that unfortunately. In reality it's impossible to fully prevent the spread of ebola. What can be done is to minimise the impact of the disease in highly developed societies with high quality healthcare systems, so maybe one or two people will die but on the whole the impact on our society will be negligible. This is essentially what's happening in the States right now. The problem is that this doesn't make for a hair-raising news story that can be blamed on somebody, so instead we have to see mass panic spread by media outlets who have a vested interest in seeing an ignorant populace whipped up into a hysteria that isn't warranted by the actual health risks of the disease in question. We saw exactly the same thing happen with H1N1, Swine flu, SARS etc (all of which were far more dangerous than ebola btw, even though their overall effect was miniscule in the grand scheme of things).

Mass public health panics come with a major cost attached. In Britain we spent millions of pounds building up a stockpile of Tamiflu, a drug that was supposed to tackle swine flu but which in actual fact had almost no tangible benefit whatsoever. We did it bcause the politicians panicked in the face of a brief media firestorm and felt the need to be seen to do something. Something similar will no doubt happen with the ebola scare. It makes no real sense but who cares, it's only taxpayers money, right ?

Sassenach wrote:I don't think it works like that unfortunately. In reality it's impossible to fully prevent the spread of ebola.

Understood. However, I'm not after completely stopping the spread. I'm after competence. Turning the Liberian man, Mr. Carter, away? Incompetent. There has been mistake after mistake. And, this is AFTER the President said it would not come to the US and after the head of the CDC assured us every health care worker was trained and ready to go.

That's my point: so far, they look like a highly paid set of incompetent people. When there are no new cases, or at least no more reports of stupidity, then the fear will subside.

What can be done is to minimise the impact of the disease in highly developed societies with high quality healthcare systems, so maybe one or two people will die but on the whole the impact on our society will be negligible.

The problem, again, is that we don't know it will be that limited yet. I think it will be, but the "system" has instilled zero confidence thus far.

This is essentially what's happening in the States right now. The problem is that this doesn't make for a hair-raising news story that can be blamed on somebody, so instead we have to see mass panic spread by media outlets who have a vested interest in seeing an ignorant populace whipped up into a hysteria that isn't warranted by the actual health risks of the disease in question.

Oh, it's not hysteria by any means. Look, when we get a warning of a few inches of snow, the stores sell out of most basics--that is hysteria. What we are seeing in the US? Curiosity, concern, and anger--incompetence always makes Americans angry.

We saw exactly the same thing happen with H1N1, Swine flu, SARS etc (all of which were far more dangerous than ebola btw, even though their overall effect was miniscule in the grand scheme of things).

Talk to me in about a month. Right now, none of those things matters and I never worried about them in the first place. I'm not really worried now. However, there is a trip I could take and I'm not going to. Why would I? I don't have to go and I'll go when this has blown over.

Mass public health panics come with a major cost attached. In Britain we spent millions of pounds building up a stockpile of Tamiflu, a drug that was supposed to tackle swine flu but which in actual fact had almost no tangible benefit whatsoever. We did it bcause the politicians panicked in the face of a brief media firestorm and felt the need to be seen to do something. Something similar will no doubt happen with the ebola scare. It makes no real sense but who cares, it's only taxpayers money, right ?

And, with Tamiflu they had an answer. It didn't matter that it didn't work. The placebo effect of "they have this under control" is what it represented--even if it was false.

In this instance, they have been wrong almost every step of the way. And, when nurses are getting it, that hardly inspires confidence. It's a bit like the cop who shoots himself in the foot or the fireman who accidentally burns his own house down--it calls into question the competence of the system. What kind of training are they giving these people if they know they're dealing with a man from Liberia and send him home? What kind of training are they giving them if they know they have an Ebola patient and still get the virus? Until the failures stop, these kind of questions are going to leave the public somewhat uneasy.

Again, is it a panic? I don't think so. It's more like discomfort and a loud cry for the government to . . . well . . . govern.

Fate

Again, is it a panic? I don't think so. It's more like discomfort and a loud cry for the government to . . . well . . . govern

You sound panicked when you come up with all your implausible unlikely scenarios, and ignore the history of how other events like Ebola have been dealt with in the past...

And when you say, the government should govern...
You live in a Federal system. Perhaps the most difficult and complex of systems. And in the USA, you manage to make it even more complex. So, if there are some mistakes, and there have been one or two, where are they?
1) At the Texas Hospital? Certainly. Front line emergency care workers made a mistake on the initial diagnoses of Duncan. Happens all the time. Human error. Systemic? How? (I discount the notion that Duncan was turned away in part because he was uninsured. But it is possible the status of an individuals insurance influences how emergency wards treat patients differently at triage. And maybe thats a systemic problem. But not with Ebola, if the emergency staff understand Ebola) By the way Bbauska, doesn't this failure challenge the notion that the US is the best health care system in the world? Shouldn't the best in the world cope with 1 infected Ebola patient more competently then they did in Texas? Shouldn't they have more effectively trained the front line workers and provided totally effective protective clothing the second the patient is noted as a potential Ebola victim? Who's that down to? I think the people who manage the hospital... Of course with your legal system, they'll always do whatever they can to deny liability .... and confuse the situation...

2) In Texas only? They handle the way Texas hospitals prepare and follow CDC guidelines. The CDC doesn't have the power to enforce conditions on Texas. They can only recommend.
3) The CDC? Maybe they should have communicated better to the Hospitals? Even the two CDC at the Hospital couldn't do more than comment and recommend. When protective clothing on hand was found lacking they couldn't magically manufacture proper covering. (By the way, doctors who worked in Liberia said you could cover yourself with plastic bags and be afe as long as you correctly take the gear off....)
4) Political leaders? lets not suggest that those who refuse to listen to scientific experts and communicate nonsense situations that enflame impressionable dolts for political aims are in any way being positive. All they do is create confusion.
5) The Executive? Every time you look back at how the Executive has responded to situations like this, they have a hard time "leading". They end up responding to a public who have gotten way out of control and lost their minds. See Tamiflu.
Mostly because of the main culprit in this. The Media.
6) Shep Smith said it all.... Few of his peers seem to have listened to him. I saw a little of Anderson Cooper last night... The over reaction to this is ridiculous.
And its almost entirely due to the unbalanced and ridiculous coverage by the media.

What other events like Ebola have we dealt with in the recent past, Ricky? That is pretty much the foundation for your argument that we have nothing to worry about--essentially, that we have dealt with similar infectious diseases in the past and it was no big deal . But the only problem is that the statement is not accurate. I showed you the fatality rate of SARS which was 10 percent ; Ebola's has been 70 percent.
There is panic and then there is prudence. African countries are closing their borders and canceling air travel. Why? Because they know that people cannot be adequately screened for Ebola. There is no reason for us to act differently in that regard. And at this point that is all we need to do really.
What you see as panic is really anger at a government acting stupidly. This is a very dangerous disease and it is stupid to allow people to come in from three affected countries. Does that mean we're going to have a big outbreak or that we're running to get emergency supplies ? No, not at all.

I am confident that we will handle things as long as the outbreak is contained in West Africa. The WHO came up with this worst -case scenario that there could be 1.4 million cases by January. That does not seem likely. But if the outbreak is not contained in Africa, we're going to eventually going to have problems here. And it will be a big deal. I don't really know the chances that Ebola will be contained in West Africa; I don't know how you could know. But comparisons to past infectious diseases are inapt and assumptions that our health care system could readily such a deadly disease or that the disease will be contained in West Africa are simply guesses. I hope you and Sass are right but we don't really have a similar disease/outbreak to compare Ebola to and therefore rosy predictions may not be accurate.

freeman

What other events like Ebola have we dealt with in the recent past, Ricky?

In the past decade, the United States had 5 imported cases of Viral Hemorrhagic Fever (VHF) diseases similar to Ebola (1 Marburg, 4 Lassa). None resulted in any transmission in the United State

s.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/ ... ca/qa.html

Freeman

I showed you the fatality rate of SARS which was 10 percent ; Ebola's has been 70 percent.

Its 70 to 80% when patients begin treatment late. Earlier diagnoses and treatment, (primarily continuous hydration) cuts the Ebola rate to below 50%. When a patient can get a transfusion from an Ebola survivor, early inidcations are that the survival rate appears to be much higher...
A modern western medical system should be able to respond effectively to a handful of isolated cases. The problem with Ebola is in the countries where it is getting out of control and where the medical systems cannot cope.
But there is no reason for panic elsewhere.

Knowledge is our best weapon against such diseases. SARS could only be spread efficiently by severely ill patients, most often in hospitals. It was eliminated by the simple expedient of isolating any and all hospital patients with pneumonia
With that in mind, here are four key things to know about Ebola:

1. It’s fundamentally spread from animal to human, not human to human.
2. Unlike SARS, this outbreak won’t end quickly.
3. Quarantine was abandoned a century ago
4. Ebola may cause a scare, but it can’t cause an outbreak in Canada. (replace with other country name...)

Occasionally apparently well people incubating Ebola infection will travel to other countries, as they have already to Nigeria. These travellers may even infect a few unfortunate contacts, including health-care workers. But they cannot and will not trigger sustained outbreaks as occurred with SARS. In Canada, it’s unlikely that we will see any cases of Ebola at all. It’s not a meaningful threat to Canadians unless we travel to specific regions in Africa. Still, it’s reasonable for our hospitals to keep out a watchful eye for infected travellers to protect our front-line health-care workers.
.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e20211486/

freeman

There is panic and then there is prudence. African countries are closing their borders and canceling ]air travel. Why? Because they know that people cannot be adequately screened for Ebola. There is no reason for us to act differently in that regard. And at this point that is all we need to do really.

From the above link...

here is an essential difference between quarantine and case isolation. Quarantine targets well people potentially incubating an infection; it’s impractical, ineffective and economically disruptive. Case isolation, on the other hand, targets individuals showing symptoms of disease and is the cornerstone of effective infection control.

Quarantine didn’t help control SARS and it won’t help control Ebola. Because of fear of Ebola, whole areas of West Africa are being cordoned off and airlines are cancelling services. These are forms of quarantine. They will hinder the flow of aid without stopping the disease’s spread.

The way to battle Ebola is on the ground in the affected countries with trained personnel, well equipped, and well provisioned. To isolate and treat patients there.
Needless worry about an out break elsewhere is counter productive.