Official Ebola update thread

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Those of you whipping up hysteria, you do know that Hickox is not the first medical worker treating Ebola patients in Africa to return to the US. Dozens have returned, for months, and they haven't been in quarantine and they haven't infected anyone. We also have dozens of doctors and nurses who have treated ebola patients in this country. They haven't been quarantined and they haven't infected anyone.

No medical worker here has transmitted ebola, not a one. And they are walking around amongst us.


That's not entirely correct. Five have been put in isolation because they came back with Ebla or developed it soon after.


They had Ebola, but they didn't infect anyone. They monitored their own health and took themselves to the hospital when they were symptomatic. If you don't trust their professionalism, trust their self interest. They know that quick intervention is important and will get it as soon as they are symptomatic and contagious.


Quick intervention would have been Spencer not going bowling when he felt "fatigued." Quick intervention would have been CDC personally checking up on Vinson when she called them to report a low-grade fever. Not giving her the clear to fly that same day because the fever wasn't over 100.4 yet. Human errors. We were just lucky. And it's only been 8 days since Spencer bowled.

And as for these HCW, we don't know if they had a quick intervention or not:

A total of 523 health-care workers (HCWs) are known to have been infected with EVD up to the end of 29 October: 82 in Guinea; 299 in Liberia; 11 in Nigeria; 127 in Sierra Leone; one in Spain; and three in the United States of America (two were infected in the USA and one in Guinea). A total of 269 HCWs have died.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/137424/1/roadmapsitrep_31Oct2014_eng.pdf?ua=1




Anonymous
A fixed idea is a belief that will not move, no matter what the evidence. The person who believes that medical workers should be locked up has a fixed idea, that probably started with "the CDC is lying to us" and we all need a safe house for the post-apocalyptic Ebola-scape. There were quite a few of those folks in the beginning but they've drifted away as the facts got in the way of their fears. I think there's just one poster left with the fixed idea that there's some kind of significant threat to us ( as opposed to the truly threatened people in Africa).

As for staying away from health workers -- obviously thats your choice. Given the reporters who were swarming around her and in her face, I get the sense that not a lot of people think thats necessary.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Those of you whipping up hysteria, you do know that Hickox is not the first medical worker treating Ebola patients in Africa to return to the US. Dozens have returned, for months, and they haven't been in quarantine and they haven't infected anyone. We also have dozens of doctors and nurses who have treated ebola patients in this country. They haven't been quarantined and they haven't infected anyone.

No medical worker here has transmitted ebola, not a one. And they are walking around amongst us.


That's not entirely correct. Five have been put in isolation because they came back with Ebla or developed it soon after.


They had Ebola, but they didn't infect anyone. They monitored their own health and took themselves to the hospital when they were symptomatic. If you don't trust their professionalism, trust their self interest. They know that quick intervention is important and will get it as soon as they are symptomatic and contagious.


Why should I trust them? Hickox and Spencer acted irresponsibly. When the issue is a fatal disease for which we currently have no vaccine or cure, it is downright stupid to trust that no human error will ever happen from their irresponsibility.

A responsible nurse would self-quarantine, but she doesn't want to, but she just wants me to trust her. Ok...


Reportedly, per news outlets citing a state filing, her roommate in Africa contracted the disease. We're in the realm of politics...
Anonymous
A Nobel Prize winning scientist supports the state quarantines, apparently. That's kind of science-y, I guess.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:A Nobel Prize winning scientist supports the state quarantines, apparently. That's kind of science-y, I guess.


A Nobel prize winning scientist thought massive doses of vitamin C could prevent cancer and followed his own advice. Turns out massive doses of vitamin C increase your risk of cancer, and thats what he died of.

Believing something because one scientist (what is his area? if its not infectious diseases, I don't care) is sciency. Its not science.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:A Nobel Prize winning scientist supports the state quarantines, apparently. That's kind of science-y, I guess.


A Nobel prize winning scientist thought massive doses of vitamin C could prevent cancer and followed his own advice. Turns out massive doses of vitamin C increase your risk of cancer, and thats what he died of.

Believing something because one scientist (what is his area? if its not infectious diseases, I don't care) is sciency. Its not science.


Director of the Center for the Genetics of Host Defense at a medical center in Texas. Basically, all he is doing is expressing some skepticism about the notion that we know everything we need to know about the approach toward quarantining. I'd take his opinion over those whose science experience ended with biology or geology lab in college, for instance (which I'm guessing is many people). It's just one competing view.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:A Nobel Prize winning scientist supports the state quarantines, apparently. That's kind of science-y, I guess.


A Nobel prize winning scientist thought massive doses of vitamin C could prevent cancer and followed his own advice. Turns out massive doses of vitamin C increase your risk of cancer, and thats what he died of.

Believing something because one scientist (what is his area? if its not infectious diseases, I don't care) is sciency. Its not science.


Director of the Center for the Genetics of Host Defense at a medical center in Texas. Basically, all he is doing is expressing some skepticism about the notion that we know everything we need to know about the approach toward quarantining. I'd take his opinion over those whose science experience ended with biology or geology lab in college, for instance (which I'm guessing is many people). It's just one competing view.


A geneticist. I would take the opinion of infectious disease specialists over a geneticist.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:A Nobel Prize winning scientist supports the state quarantines, apparently. That's kind of science-y, I guess.


A Nobel prize winning scientist thought massive doses of vitamin C could prevent cancer and followed his own advice. Turns out massive doses of vitamin C increase your risk of cancer, and thats what he died of.

Believing something because one scientist (what is his area? if its not infectious diseases, I don't care) is sciency. Its not science.


Director of the Center for the Genetics of Host Defense at a medical center in Texas. Basically, all he is doing is expressing some skepticism about the notion that we know everything we need to know about the approach toward quarantining. I'd take his opinion over those whose science experience ended with biology or geology lab in college, for instance (which I'm guessing is many people). It's just one competing view.


A geneticist. I would take the opinion of infectious disease specialists over a geneticist.


It depends what the issue is.
Anonymous
The issue is Ebola.
Anonymous
I think the issue is fear, in spite of evidence.
Anonymous
I think the issue is evidence and finding a rational response. We go with the best evidence and facts as we know them, but also, as the Nobel prize winner more or less says, we proceed with caution and not hubris. The human impulse to point fingers and make fun of people for fear is often a mask for people's own insecurities. In other words, sit back and let others do the dirty work.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:3/700 msf ex-pat staffers have gotten ebola. i think that more than justifies reasonable quarantine. Msf and feds need to realize that people in us will not tolerate this risk level and they need to respect that if they want to meet goal of sending health care workers in a sustainable manner. Msf docs may be cowboys as far as risk tolerance goes, but the rest of us are not. We do not want a pediatrician just back from Guinea treating our children.

I believe most. americans will support this effort whole heartedly and will treat these doctors and nurses like heroes. But not if our reasonable fears are ignored.

Hickox and supporters keep on saying that this about science not politics, but that is not true. Science can tell us tje risks (maybe) but cannot dictate how we interpret and respond to risks.


Oh please. They're not treating your kids for 21 days, they just want to be at home, able to step out occasionally while checking their temperature. Or riding a bike.


That's not true. MSF's policy is NOT self-quarantine. They do say they "discourage" returning to work for 21 days - but NOT out of concern for patients! They say it's to avoid "stress" (to the health care worker and his collegues, not to patients!) if the health care worker comes down with the flu or some other sickness while they are treating US patients during the incubation period, and mistakenly thinks they have Ebola. So according to MSF it would be ABSOLUTELY FINE to step off a plane from an Ebola clinic in Guinea and go straight to treating babies in the NICU, or labor and delivery floor, or pediatrician's office. Read the policy for yourself: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/msf-protocols-staff-returning-ebola-affected-countries

MSF is an amazing organization, and deserve our support. BUT they need to accept that citizens in the home countries of their volunteers have rights as well.



Anonymous
Do you trust the opinion of these folks?

STANFORD, Calif. (AP) -- Top medical experts studying the spread of Ebola say the public should expect more cases to emerge in the United States by year's end as infected people arrive here from West Africa, including American doctors and nurses returning from the hot zone and people fleeing from the deadly disease.

But how many cases?

No one knows for sure how many infections will emerge in the U.S. or anywhere else, but scientists have made educated guesses based on data models that weigh hundreds of variables, including daily new infections in West Africa, airline traffic worldwide and transmission possibilities.

This week, several top infectious disease experts ran simulations for The Associated Press that predicted as few as one or two additional infections by the end of 2014 to a worst-case scenario of 130.

"I don't think there's going to be a huge outbreak here, no," said Dr. David Relman, a professor of infectious disease, microbiology and immunology at Stanford University's medical school. "However, as best we can tell right now, it is quite possible that every major city will see at least a handful of cases."


...
These predictions may be okay with some people; due to law of averages your chance of contracting Ebola is slim. Especially if you don't live in a large city. It's not okay with my family. We have a lot of nurses and with the 2-day Kaiser strike for safer Ebola training set for next month, I am very concerned as to what will happen if we get the worst-case scenario-- cases in the hundreds and nurses start refusing to treat.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Do you trust the opinion of these folks?

STANFORD, Calif. (AP) -- Top medical experts studying the spread of Ebola say the public should expect more cases to emerge in the United States by year's end as infected people arrive here from West Africa, including American doctors and nurses returning from the hot zone and people fleeing from the deadly disease.

But how many cases?

No one knows for sure how many infections will emerge in the U.S. or anywhere else, but scientists have made educated guesses based on data models that weigh hundreds of variables, including daily new infections in West Africa, airline traffic worldwide and transmission possibilities.

This week, several top infectious disease experts ran simulations for The Associated Press that predicted as few as one or two additional infections by the end of 2014 to a worst-case scenario of 130.

"I don't think there's going to be a huge outbreak here, no," said Dr. David Relman, a professor of infectious disease, microbiology and immunology at Stanford University's medical school. "However, as best we can tell right now, it is quite possible that every major city will see at least a handful of cases."


...
These predictions may be okay with some people; due to law of averages your chance of contracting Ebola is slim. Especially if you don't live in a large city. It's not okay with my family. We have a lot of nurses and with the 2-day Kaiser strike for safer Ebola training set for next month, I am very concerned as to what will happen if we get the worst-case scenario-- cases in the hundreds and nurses start refusing to treat.



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_EBOLA_HOW_BAD_CAN_IT_GET?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-01-10-25-24
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is fear, in spite of evidence.




post reply Forum Index » Health and Medicine
Message Quick Reply
Go to: