Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So we must ask the question...should we detain all healthcare worker? I say yes.

Okay, why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didnt Hickox test free of the Ebola virus? I thought I read that.

The test will be negative until the level of virus in the body rises enough to be detected. Most people become sick within the 21 days. Some have gone 40 days past exposure before the virus has replicated enough to be detected. So one negative test doesn't mean the person is not going to become sick in a few days.

This is why the public wants travel restrictions for all nonessential persons in the region and/or a pause on issuing new visas from the region. A person can fly in free of fever, then become sick weeks after.

But with Hickox being the wagging dog, we've shifted to arguing the history and legality of quarantine instead of continuing to ask why these visas are being granted and which city will be host to the next Duncan.

This is why conservatives and FOX News wants a travel ban, not the general public. The general public doesn't piss its pants quite as quickly as conservatives do.

Duncan came here with ebola from a country where it is epidemic. We don't want more. Obama said 'tough crap' in his speech.

So tell me, who are you willing to sacrifice in exchange for the lack ofva travel ban?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you arguing about civil liberties - I don't think there's a single judge in this nation that would not uphold Maine's right to impose a 21 day home quarantine on a returning Ebola health care worker. Not a chance. I don't see this as even a close issue. We just don't have civil liberties fundamentalists on the bench anymore; and even if we do, this is a case where the due process concerns clearly weigh in favor of the state. If someone has another interpretation based on review of actual quarantine caselaw, I'd like to see it.

She is less contagious that a lot of people with HIV spreading it around. The judges need to read biology.

Totally different case. There is a highly rational reason to believe that she will contract a highly contagious (MUCH more contagious than HIV, and much more deadly) disease during the quarantine period.

Not so, it is unlikely that she contracted it. Even if she develops ebola, right now she is not contagious.
HIV was 99% fatal before treatment. There were people running around intentionally infecting people and we did not quarantine. All they had to say was "whoops, I did not know I had it, gosh!"
Ebola is not as lethal, so far in the US, only 1 person has died from it.

It is unlikely that she contracted it, yes I can agree with that. But letting her do as she pleases sets bad precedent and eventually you will see another HCW return to the US carrying infection. The statistics are on her side as an individual HCW. The statistics will not be on our side if we don't in some way monitor people returning from hot zones.

She's riding a bicycle - not licking handrails on a metro. Let's be rational.
The quarantine is optional - so she's not defying anything.
It would be more effective if the quarantine restricted her from going to large public gathering places where tracking people would be difficult if not impossible - like a movie theater. But bicycling? Geez.

Of course she chose to ride her bike. She's the town pariah. She knows if she shows up in public, they'll go batshit. But what's the harm in an innocent bike ride? She even wore her helmet. Totally. Orchestrated.

Or maybe she just wanted to get out of the house and enjoy a beautiful fall day after spending the last couple of months in a hazmat suit in equatorial Africa, followed by a few days in tent in New Jersey.

Or maybe she was on the Today show two days ago, threatening to break her quarantine on Thursday. Heroes don't threaten the public, period. She gave up her hero status to focus on being an activist brat.

It's terrible to say but I wish she'd get ebola just to prove her wrong. She's being an arrogant bitch and she really can't say for certain she doesn't have it until the incubation period is over, regardless of her testing negative for it at this juncture.

I wish YOU would get Ebola and then have healthcare workers refuse to treat you. You're being an ignorant, hysterical bitch who is imposing house arrest on a nurse who poses 0 danger to public health because you are pissing your pants.

Look, I'm not pissing in my pants nor do I think I'm even close to being in danger of getting Ebola but I think that nurse is ballsy and arrogant. She needs to accept the fact that several healthcare professionals have been treated here after developing ebola after treating patients in Africa.

Yes. They have been. And not a single one of them infected another person. All of them reported to the hospital for treatment as soon as they were symptomatic. Some of them were aware that they were symptomatic within 90 minutes because they were taking their temp that often. Every single one of them is aware that his/her life is on the line and the lives of other people are on the line and are carefully monitoring their temperature for the sake of THEIR OWN HEALTH! If you can't trust them to be professionals who care about public health, then you should trust them to be careful because

Health care workers are at serious risk from their patients. The general public is not at risk from health care workers. She isn't putting you at risk because she rode her bike. The doctor didn't put anyone at risk by taking the Metro. The nurse didn't infect anyone on the plane.

Until you can point to a specific case in which a healthcare worker has infected someone else, you are punishing healthcare workers for no reason.

Why should we wait for this to happen? Why be reactionary when we can actually have a policy to prevent such infections?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I cannot stand this woman. Her flaunting and showboating it totally obnoxious. My 3 yo is more rational and mature.

She looks SO much like Wasserman-Shultz. You think? Nah

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we must ask the question...should we detain all healthcare worker? I say yes.

Okay, why?[/quote
Maybe because they get the disease far more than anybody else even when protective clothing is used. Six of seven Americans who have been treated here for the disease are healthcare workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we must ask the question...should we detain all healthcare worker? I say yes.

Okay, why?

Maybe because they get the disease far more than anybody else even when protective clothing is used. Six of seven Americans who have been treated here for the disease are healthcare workers.

And how many have been infected by all of the American doctors who have been in West Africa? Zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only 3 health care workers have contracted Ebola from patients of the thousands working with Doctors Without Borders. One is the guy in NYC. They are very, very good at taking precautions. They have to be.

If she files a lawsuit she will win. There's someone else coming back to NYC who is also planning to file a lawsuit. He will win. The science is behind them.

I'm getting the sense that some of the hysteria is dying down as the infected health care workers have gotten better and after its become clear that unless you are working with end stage Ebola patients in a hospital not providing proper protection, you just aren't going to get it.

It turns out that the CDC was right.

Your information is not correct --as of mid-September 14 Doctors Without Borders healthcare workers had gotten ebola. That information is 6 weeks old and doesn't include, at a minimum, Dr. Spencer. Overall more than 240 healthcare workers have gotten ebola in Africa, including at least 3 other American aid workers (all of whom were treated here). Most of these statistics come right from the Doctors without borders website. http://www.msf.org/article/ebola-workers-risk-tragic-reality-ebola-response-west-africa

24 MSF workers have gotten ebola. http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/q-msf%E2%80%99s-ebola-response-and-protocols Sadly people who have gotten ebola like Brantley cannot pinpoint when but believe it to have been when not fully hazmatted. Now would he or the camerman have touched some one unprotected while that person was emitting copious amounts of bodily fluids? No. So that is the heart of the problem.

24 out of some number that is more than 3200. MSF currently has 3200 people working in response to ebola in the field, presumably they have had more than 3200 over the time period during which the organization has been responding to ebola.

Of those 24, 21 of them were citizens of Guinea, Sierra Leone, or Liberia, who lived in communities impacted by ebola, and may have contracted the disease outside of work.

So, if we take 24/3200 as the likelihood that she would have contracted the disease, we get .075 %. That's less than 1/1000, and that's overestimating since the 3200 assumes that anyone who has ever worked for MSF on ebola is currently still doing so and thus reflected in the 32000. So the odds are actually far smaller than 1/1000. Oh, and then there's the fact that the 24/3200 is over the course of an entire trip with MSF. Obviously Ms. Hickox wasn't infected early in her trip, so let's drop the odds further.

So, we're talking about maybe a 1/5000 chance that she'll contract the virus. Then multiply that by the vanishingly small likelihood that if she contracts the virus while she's following the MSF self monitoring protocol. Are we really comfortable with denying people civil rights because of a 1 in a million chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we must ask the question...should we detain all healthcare worker? I say yes.

Okay, why?

Maybe because they get the disease far more than anybody else even when protective clothing is used. Six of seven Americans who have been treated here for the disease are healthcare workers.

And how many have been infected by all of the American doctors who have been in West Africa? Zero.[/quote
Small sample thus far. Healthcare workers have infected others in Africa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we must ask the question...should we detain all healthcare worker? I say yes.

Okay, why?

Maybe because they get the disease far more than anybody else even when protective clothing is used. Six of seven Americans who have been treated here for the disease are healthcare workers.

And how many have been infected by all of the American doctors who have been in West Africa? Zero.

Small sample thus far. Healthcare workers have infected others in Africa.

Yes, healthcare workers without access to gloves or sterile needles have infected patients. The foreign aid workers have gloves, chlorine, etc.

Patrick Sawyer infected others by urinating on them. Are we holding him up as the example healthcare worker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only 3 health care workers have contracted Ebola from patients of the thousands working with Doctors Without Borders. One is the guy in NYC. They are very, very good at taking precautions. They have to be.

If she files a lawsuit she will win. There's someone else coming back to NYC who is also planning to file a lawsuit. He will win. The science is behind them.

I'm getting the sense that some of the hysteria is dying down as the infected health care workers have gotten better and after its become clear that unless you are working with end stage Ebola patients in a hospital not providing proper protection, you just aren't going to get it.

It turns out that the CDC was right.

Your information is not correct --as of mid-September 14 Doctors Without Borders healthcare workers had gotten ebola. That information is 6 weeks old and doesn't include, at a minimum, Dr. Spencer. Overall more than 240 healthcare workers have gotten ebola in Africa, including at least 3 other American aid workers (all of whom were treated here). Most of these statistics come right from the Doctors without borders website. http://www.msf.org/article/ebola-workers-risk-tragic-reality-ebola-response-west-africa

24 MSF workers have gotten ebola. http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/q-msf%E2%80%99s-ebola-response-and-protocols Sadly people who have gotten ebola like Brantley cannot pinpoint when but believe it to have been when not fully hazmatted. Now would he or the camerman have touched some one unprotected while that person was emitting copious amounts of bodily fluids? No. So that is the heart of the problem.

I don't know how you are defining the 240 health care workers. there are many caretakers in Africa who are not associated with Doctors without Borders and do not have their level of protection.

Of the 24 who were infected, 21 were locals who are believed to have gotten the virus outside of work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So we must ask the question...should we detain all healthcare worker? I say yes.

That is an excellent way to allow this epidemic to spread even further.

The way to control it is to control it in Africa. The way to control it in Africa is to send medical workers over to help. And the way to send medical workers is not to treat them like criminals.

The courts will not uphold these quarantines. The case law goes back many decades. the science just won't support it. This is all being driven by hysteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only 3 health care workers have contracted Ebola from patients of the thousands working with Doctors Without Borders. One is the guy in NYC. They are very, very good at taking precautions. They have to be.

If she files a lawsuit she will win. There's someone else coming back to NYC who is also planning to file a lawsuit. He will win. The science is behind them.

I'm getting the sense that some of the hysteria is dying down as the infected health care workers have gotten better and after its become clear that unless you are working with end stage Ebola patients in a hospital not providing proper protection, you just aren't going to get it.

It turns out that the CDC was right.

Your information is not correct --as of mid-September 14 Doctors Without Borders healthcare workers had gotten ebola. That information is 6 weeks old and doesn't include, at a minimum, Dr. Spencer. Overall more than 240 healthcare workers have gotten ebola in Africa, including at least 3 other American aid workers (all of whom were treated here). Most of these statistics come right from the Doctors without borders website. http://www.msf.org/article/ebola-workers-risk-tragic-reality-ebola-response-west-africa

24 MSF workers have gotten ebola. http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/q-msf%E2%80%99s-ebola-response-and-protocols Sadly people who have gotten ebola like Brantley cannot pinpoint when but believe it to have been when not fully hazmatted. Now would he or the camerman have touched some one unprotected while that person was emitting copious amounts of bodily fluids? No. So that is the heart of the problem.

24 out of some number that is more than 3200. MSF currently has 3200 people working in response to ebola in the field, presumably they have had more than 3200 over the time period during which the organization has been responding to ebola.

Of those 24, 21 of them were citizens of Guinea, Sierra Leone, or Liberia, who lived in communities impacted by ebola, and may have contracted the disease outside of work.

So, if we take 24/3200 as the likelihood that she would have contracted the disease, we get .075 %. That's less than 1/1000, and that's overestimating since the 3200 assumes that anyone who has ever worked for MSF on ebola is currently still doing so and thus reflected in the 32000. So the odds are actually far smaller than 1/1000. Oh, and then there's the fact that the 24/3200 is over the course of an entire trip with MSF. Obviously Ms. Hickox wasn't infected early in her trip, so let's drop the odds further.

So, we're talking about maybe a 1/5000 chance that she'll contract the virus. Then multiply that by the vanishingly small likelihood that if she contracts the virus while she's following the MSF self monitoring protocol. Are we really comfortable with denying people civil rights because of a 1 in a million chance?

The facts that no one gives two shits that Guantanamo still has how many people who may or may not be guilty, that our no-fly list is a bit of a joke, or that Republicans are still chasing the voter fraud canard suggests that, yes, most people are quite comfortable with that. The nurse is probably just fine to keep self-monitoring. The difference between her self-reporting and the many people in actually afflicted countries is that a) she has notoriety. She gets so much as a sniffle and people will dial 911 for her and b) here if she develops an infection, she calls 911 and is transported safely to the hospital where they have treatments that are at least somewhat effective. No one in Africa has had that luxury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didnt Hickox test free of the Ebola virus? I thought I read that.

The test will be negative until the level of virus in the body rises enough to be detected. Most people become sick within the 21 days. Some have gone 40 days past exposure before the virus has replicated enough to be detected. So one negative test doesn't mean the person is not going to become sick in a few days.

This is why the public wants travel restrictions for all nonessential persons in the region and/or a pause on issuing new visas from the region. A person can fly in free of fever, then become sick weeks after.

But with Hickox being the wagging dog, we've shifted to arguing the history and legality of quarantine instead of continuing to ask why these visas are being granted and which city will be host to the next Duncan.

This is why conservatives and FOX News wants a travel ban, not the general public. The general public doesn't piss its pants quite as quickly as conservatives do.

Well this has made some strange bedfellows of us all, because I'm part of the general public and have never voted R, I, Tea Party in my life, and I want a travel ban.

+1. Life long Democrat, loathe FOX et al, and think a travel ban or at least a quarantine is reasonable. The reasons presented against these measures is specious - there's no reason why healthcare workers can't be granted access to and from the US as long as they maintain some distance from the general public for 21 days. I certainly don't want to be tended to by a nurse or doctor who returned from Sierra Leone five days ago. Supposedly medical workers are "self monitoring" but given the hubris demonstrated by Hickox and others I'm not convinced that actually means anything.

+2

+3

Sorry. I take it back. I should know that many people in my party are freakin' idiots.

Just because someone usually agrees with the party line doesn't mean it'll happen with every issue. I didn't agree to give up thinking critically when the voter ID card came in the mail.

Your dismissal of the general population's concern is condescending, and statements like your last one is what'll drive people to vote outside the party. Best to only comment on feel-good stories and updates about Pham's dog until after the elections.

I'm the one who posted about the nurse's dog, not the person you're snarking at.

Oh, sorry Anon. My bad.

[Anonymous]

Wtf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/cdc-ebola_n_6078072.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wtf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/cdc-ebola_n_6078072.html

amazing