70 percent fatality rate , number of cases growing...you wonder how do you contain an epidemic when there is much world - wide travel. Hopefully they keep it contained in Africa.www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/every-second-counts-new-ebola-report-predicts-huge-spike-without-n209616

The numbers are higher now, a week later. But there is a more co-ordinated response coming with aid and doctors being sent from across the world.

It's a pretty nasty disease due to the increasing contagiousness as it gets worse and patients need more care (which is why so many doctors and nurses catch it). It's also spreading in areas where governments are not that well trusted (most have seen civil wars in the last couple of decades), where there have been pernicious rumours about Western medicine hiding plots (cf: polio vaccine conspiracy theories), and where the healthcare systems and general infrastructure leave a lot to be desired.

The lucky thing about it is that it is not very contagious until symptoms start, and then only by contact. Boringly, the way to deal with it is vigilance and (where it is encountered) carefully following quarantine.

I'm not sure it's feasible to shut borders or stop people flying - not without starting to have a wider impact on economies and trade. It certainly can't be effectively screened for at airports (as early symptoms are like a cold/flu, and tests are not very quick, and it can incubate for several days).

It's not very contagious now but it could mutate. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... he-US.html

Maybe that's just a worst-case scenario. But we need to be pouring in resources to try and get this under control. And I don't think cutting down at least on flights from countries that have many cases is crazy talk.

Yes, it could mutate (indeed, with every new host organism a virus does mutate), but that doesn't mean it will get nastier if it does. Ebola already is very contagious, but only within bodily fluids. Becoming airborne, or even aerosol-borne is quite a leap, and the chances are that mutations would also affect its other attributes (and so potentially make it less easy to contract, or less deadly, or change the incubation period).

We could prepare for the worst (and there are far worse potential pandemics such as a new flu strain as in 1918/9).

The total number of cases is still in the order of thousands, meaning they are a tiny percentage of the population even in the worst affected countries. There are increased controls and monitoring of flights, but there should be a balance in further restrictions. Too strict and they risk creating resentment among the bulk of people who need to move around, and an incemtive to use less eegulated means of travel, whch might bring other problems.

At present, more people are dying from things like malaria, malnutrition, measles or dengue. Ebola is more scary dueto the symptoms and high death rate.

Also, I heard in.relation to the guy in Dallas that at the nearby State Fair there.were announcememts to wash hands before eating. I bet that avoids more cases of food poisoning than of Ebola (and it may have some limited effect if Ebola does break out, but not much, really).

The main problem, in my opinion, has been the lack of caution and the abundance of confidence the US has displayed on this matter. Time and time again, while it is admittedly early, we've been told this cannot get to the US, won't spread in the US, etc. And yet, so far, the President and the CDC have been . . . wrong on every turn.

I'm not living in a protective suit and I'm not worried that "ebola gonna get me." However, I'm wary of the way the government is handling this.

Why no travel ban from West Africa? Well, according to the CDC, that won't help and could make matters worse. After all, we don't want to seem like we're discriminating . . . or something.

Look, if ebola started in the Eastern US, I would support limiting travel, shutting schools, etc., to get the thing under control. This isn't about race or poverty or anything else. It is about a virus that the "experts" apparently don't know as much about as they pretend to know.

Let's exercise some caution.

Hint: "some" means "a lot more than we have so far."

I'm not convinced that a travel ban would be effective. The guy in Dallas came via Brussels, he didn't take a direct flight to the US from Liberia. The world is so interconnected now that it's very hard to isolate the disease.

Sassenach wrote:I'm not convinced that a travel ban would be effective. The guy in Dallas came via Brussels, he didn't take a direct flight to the US from Liberia. The world is so interconnected now that it's very hard to isolate the disease.

I understand. However, he still would have a Liberia passport. I don't know if a travel ban would be effective, but it would be more effective than a "free travel" policy.

From what I've read, it seems he knew he had been exposed to the virus. He lied about that.

Who can blame him for wanting to get 1st world treatment? However, the issue is letting the virus spread.

Again, I'm not trembling in fear. However, the government's rather cavalier attitude reminds me of the scene from WWZ. They're in Israel, confident they've kept the virus out . . . and then it gets in.

Arrogance is the enemy. So far, our government has demonstrated a boatload of arrogance.

Doctor Fate wrote:I understand. However, he still would have a Liberia passport. I don't know if a travel ban would be effective, but it would be more effective than a "free travel" policy.

He may have a Liberian passport, but then again a passport is not evidence that someone recently travelled to a country - and a lack of a West African passport is certainly no evidence. Someone with a French passport, or a US passport could have been there in the last 3 days.

This is why screening may well work, but perhaps not when designed by the armchair pandemicists...

From what I've read, it seems he knew he had been exposed to the virus. He lied about that.

Maybe - he helped someone who was sick get to hospital, but we don't know that he knew what she had.

Who can blame him for wanting to get 1st world treatment? However, the issue is letting the virus spread.

So why didn't he present straight away if it was to get first world treatment? Or present in Belgium (which is also 1st world)? Because he was just going home to his residence in the USA, where he's lived since fleeing the civil war, perhaps?

Again, I'm not trembling in fear. However, the government's rather cavalier attitude reminds me of the scene from WWZ. They're in Israel, confident they've kept the virus out . . . and then it gets in.

Suddenly Hollywood disaster movies are a model for what we should or should not do? sheesh.

Arrogance is the enemy. So far, our government has demonstrated a boatload of arrogance.

in 5, 4, 3...

Blame Obama! (sung to the tune of the Blame Canada, from South Park)

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I understand. However, he still would have a Liberia passport. I don't know if a travel ban would be effective, but it would be more effective than a "free travel" policy.

He may have a Liberian passport, but then again a passport is not evidence that someone recently travelled to a country - and a lack of a West African passport is certainly no evidence. Someone with a French passport, or a US passport could have been there in the last 3 days.

Right. Like having an American passport doesn't mean you've recently been to the US, but it greatly enhances the probability, doesn't it?

This is why screening may well work, but perhaps not when designed by the armchair pandemicists...

Yeah, so far, the "experts" are doing a bang-up job.

Btw, I'm not suggesting "screening" protocols. I'm suggesting they don't come here until the virus is under control. You can blather all you like, but if travel to/from those areas is restricted to strictly medical issues, food, and essential matters, then the virus is far more likely to be contained than under the current system. That is inarguable.

From what I've read, it seems he knew he had been exposed to the virus. He lied about that.

Maybe - he helped someone who was sick get to hospital, but we don't know that he knew what she had.

Not sure you know what you're talking about:

Mr. Duncan’s case began with him playing the part of good Samaritan on another continent. Mr. Duncan — a Liberian national in his mid-40s who had come to America to visit relatives in Dallas — had direct contact with a woman stricken by Ebola in Monrovia, the Liberian capital, on Sept. 15, days before he left Liberia for the United States, the woman’s parents and Mr. Duncan’s neighbors said.

The family of the woman, Marthalene Williams, 19, took her by taxi to a hospital with Mr. Duncan’s help after failing to get an ambulance. Ms. Williams was turned away for lack of space in the hospital’s Ebola treatment ward, the family said, and they took her back home in the evening, hours before she died. Mr. Duncan helped carry her because she was no longer able to walk. In the taxi, Ms. Williams, who was seven months pregnant, had been convulsing.

Then again, maybe Mr. Duncan called you prior to dying and gave you different info? If not, please re-read the portion that says "Ms. Williams was turned away for lack of space in the hospital’s Ebola treatment ward . . ."

Duncan knew.

Who can blame him for wanting to get 1st world treatment? However, the issue is letting the virus spread.

So why didn't he present straight away if it was to get first world treatment? Or present in Belgium (which is also 1st world)? Because he was just going home to his residence in the USA, where he's lived since fleeing the civil war, perhaps?

Yes, the illegal alien who just wanted to work and disobey the law of the US. Good thing we don't enforce laws under this Administration . . . otherwise a healthcare worker in Dallas would not have contracted Ebola.

Again, I'm not trembling in fear. However, the government's rather cavalier attitude reminds me of the scene from WWZ. They're in Israel, confident they've kept the virus out . . . and then it gets in.

Suddenly Hollywood disaster movies are a model for what we should or should not do? sheesh.

You're being a straight-up jerk.

I did not say that. I said the arrogance "reminds me." You do have "remind" in your dictionary, yes?

Try something new--don't be a jerk.

Arrogance is the enemy. So far, our government has demonstrated a boatload of arrogance.

in 5, 4, 3...

Blame Obama! (sung to the tune of the Blame Canada, from South Park)

Too late. It must be in your DNA--the jerk gene.

No, I'm not blaming Obama. I said "the government." Obama did state Ebola would not come to the US. He was wrong.

Most of the "arrogance" belongs to the guy at the CDC. He has lectured the American people endlessly on the need to expose them to Ebola. Oh, he uses other words--but, their effect is that we need to let people come here who may have Ebola because we can handle it. Ask the woman in Texas who now has it.

PS: seriously, try really hard not to be such a jerk. It will do wonders for you.

Hey, when did the US medical system get promoted? I thought the only really good, first class medical help was in Cuba; or maybe the Scandinavian countries. Or everywhere else in Europe. Seems like coming here for treatment is what you do if the other countries have no room for you.

georgeatkins wrote:Hey, when did the US medical system get promoted? I thought the only really good, first class medical help was in Cuba; or maybe the Scandinavian countries. Or everywhere else in Europe. Seems like coming here for treatment is what you do if the other countries have no room for you.

A fine question. Why didn't he go to Canada? They have the best health care...

I think a travel ban to the three affected countries would be a good idea. We probably should have a limited screening of at least a few questions for everyone flying in to the US. I agree that this knee-jerk reaction to be more concerned about calming people rather than dealing with the threat is irresponsible, particularly since we don't understand the virus very well. It is disturbing that a nurse in Dallas wearing protective gear got Ebola. This is a terrible disease and I don't care that someone gets inconvenienced because they are asked a few questions or have to get tested before they are allowed to come into the country. As for a travel ban, we are simply trying to quarantine a dangerous disease. We will quarantine anyone in the US who has been exposed to Ebola and it is not unreasonable to suppose that someone who is from the afflicted countries has been exposed. And if you want to visit those countries you should expect a 21 day quarantine. Meanwhile, we should be trying to develop a vaccine.

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.

Freeman - a travel ban may work, but it can be subverted. For example, Duncan did not come direct from Liberia, he came via Belgium. Alternatively, the borders in West Africa are not necessarily as easy to police, and a strict no fly policy may easily create demand to move through other means. We don't want to see the disease spread in the region either.

As I understand it, none of the impacted countries has more than 0.1% infected (Liberia has the highest rate at about 4,000 out of 4 million, the other nations have lower numbers of cases and higher populations). Even if the figures are a an underestimate (the WHO is working on the basis of a factor of 2.5), it is still a very low proportion. The precautionary pinciple would tend towards greater controls, but it does need to be considered and not just kneejerk.

The main issue for me with Ebola is that it really needs a lot of effort to be done in the affected cpuntries. It is heartening that commitments have been stepped up - although conversion to assets on the ground is not always as quick as verbal commitments. I was peeved at Senator Imhofe's reluctance to release funds last week - he finally did on Friday. That is not simply about sealing those countries off, it is about facilities, equipment and trained personnel. Medical staff are particularly at risk and we need to be aware that there will be breaches.

And sometimes it does make sense to treat people in the US or elsewhere - the two people in the UDA who were treated and survived were a demonstration that with the right care, and a potential treatment, people can survive.

Oh, on moving cases once diagnosed, I don't know if it is a great idea so long as they are getting good care in a safe place where they are. Surely every time you move people with an infectious disease, you increase the number of people, objects and places that could be contacted. Sending cases from Dallas to Atlanta or the desert may placate locals in Texas and make it 'look' like something is being done, but it may not really do much good, and could be harmful.

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.

Exactly! The US is always pummeled for louse health care service [Edit: and poor spelling, perhaps?]. Even Michael Moore admitted that Cuba had a more accessible and successful system, along with the UK. But I do agree - mine was just a smart-aleck, opportunistic remark, underlying some bigger issues best served in a different thread. Thanks, Danivon!

freeman

Meanwhile, we should be trying to develop a vaccine.

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

fate

Right. Like having an American passport doesn't mean you've recently been to the US, but it greatly enhances the probability, doesn't it

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

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 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 that pandemics kill large numbers.

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