Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's quite 'another note'. Thank you for posting this. SHickox just got bitch-slapped by karma

I don't see how this affects Hickox at all. The State of Maine's own document says, "Any potential risk to respondent from that incident has passed". It is completely irrelevant whether her roommate had ebola or not because Hickox didn't catch it. The fact that Hickox didn't catch ebola from her roommate is hardly a point against her. If anything, it supports Hickox' case.

There is currently exactly one person in the United States with ebola. It's is going to get pretty difficult for the fear mongers to stay in business at this rate.

Snark snark snark snark snark

Dems. Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issues is that we absolutely do not have definitive evidence or science on transmission. There have been no controlled studies on humans (because it would be incredibly unethical). There have been only a few animal studies and they have not been replicated to ensure reliability and validity. Kaci Hickox is right that we don't have evidence to state that she is infectious right now. However, what she fails to comprehend is that we also don't have definitive evidence to state that she is NOT infectious.

On another note, her room-mate from her time in Africa has just been diagnosed with Ebola. That person also has jno idea how he/she got infected while caring for patients.

That's quite 'another note'. Thank you for posting this. SHickox just got bitch-slapped by karma

One of the most childish, nastiest posts I've read on DCUM in a long time and that says a lot. Offensive on so many levels.

Oh, and once you call people "dumb ass" you've lost the argument.

I don't use the phrase 'dumb-ass'. Hickox has been raising quite a ruckus stating how ridiculous we all are, and her roommate falling victim confirms that, indeed, it does happen, and Hickox is not immune. You can believe as you'd like, but telling others how they should believe is arrogance at its finest. Your freedom to be you does not supercede others rights to be free from you.

"dumbass" was a comment about the Louisiana folks-- the ones not wanting to accept another state's medical waste.

Why should they? To be nice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issues is that we absolutely do not have definitive evidence or science on transmission. There have been no controlled studies on humans (because it would be incredibly unethical). There have been only a few animal studies and they have not been replicated to ensure reliability and validity. Kaci Hickox is right that we don't have evidence to state that she is infectious right now. However, what she fails to comprehend is that we also don't have definitive evidence to state that she is NOT infectious.

On another note, her room-mate from her time in Africa has just been diagnosed with Ebola. That person also has no idea how he/she got infected while caring for patients.

That's quite 'another note'. Thank you for posting this. SHickox just got bitch-slapped by karma

One of the most childish, nastiest posts I've read on DCUM in a long time and that says a lot. Offensive on so many levels.

Oh, and once you call people "dumb ass" you've lost the argument.

+1

Being glad that a nurse got Ebola, because you don't like her ROOMMATE, is crazy. Just nucking futz.

Glad and karma proving Hickox's reassurance might not be so reassuring is not the same thing

She knows she is at risk. She is treating Ebola patients. What she ALSO knows is that YOU and the general public are not at risk until and less she becomes symptomatic.

And I have the right not to trust her to make that decision for me. Agreed?

[Anonymous]

What I am noticing is the PP defending Hickox not willing to answer whether or not others have a right to be free from her. Reason being, that's not what Hickox and her defenders are truly after. what they want is to deliver a message and to call others names. Again the activism is most important to them. Typical

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's quite 'another note'. Thank you for posting this. SHickox just got bitch-slapped by karma

I don't see how this affects Hickox at all. The State of Maine's own document says, "Any potential risk to respondent from that incident has passed". It is completely irrelevant whether her roommate had ebola or not because Hickox didn't catch it. The fact that Hickox didn't catch ebola from her roommate is hardly a point against her. If anything, it supports Hickox' case.

There is currently exactly one person in the United States with ebola. It's is going to get pretty difficult for the fear mongers to stay in business at this rate.

I disagree. The fact that her roommate got Ebola demonstrates that the facility they both worked at places health care workers at high risk of Ebola, either because of issues with their protocol or the inherent dangers of working with Ebola patients. And we don't need to have a pandemic here to justify REASONABLE control measures on returning health care workers, because Ebola is so costly, so infectious, and so dangerous. Note that while the Maine judge did not impose literal quarantine on her, she is still under legal orders to consent to intensive monitoring and informing officials of her whereabouts. She also has not said she wanted to go back to work, so that was not an issue on the table for the court, apparently.

Upshot: the risk to HCW and the risk of Ebola more than justify legally enforceable control measures. At a minimum, direct monitoring by public health workers, no return to work in a health care setting, informing of whereabouts, avoiding public places.

[Anonymous]

I don't think many workplaces will put returning health care providers back to work within the 21 day period. Imagine the reputation all damage if they passed it on to patients, never mind possible legal liability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I am noticing is the PP defending Hickox not willing to answer whether or not others have a right to be free from her. Reason being, that's not what Hickox and her defenders are truly after. what they want is to deliver a message and to call others names. Again the activism is most important to them. Typical

We do not lock people up in this country because we have some kind of mythical right to be free from them. There is no such right. Government does have the ability to quarantine people in very, very limited circumstances. This one does not meet the legal requirements. If you want to be free from her, avoid her, but our constitution and our laws do not create rights to be free from people we are afraid of. You keep bringing up this mythical right. It doesn't exist. What is a right is to be free from being locked up, unless a very limited set of circumstances exists.

There are at least dozens of people walking around our country, probably more, who have treated people with Ebola, here and in Africa, and they haven't been quarantined, self or otherwise. You are not free from them. You are not free from the guy with the flu who goes to work even though he is more of a danger to you. You are not free from the kids who go to school with your kids with colds.

[Anonymous]

I am not at all concerned about Ebola transmission here in the US, except for sporadic cases that should quickly be contained. The fatality rate here for this infected has also been very low.

The situation in Sierra Leone on the other hand, is horrifying. And worse than has been thought.

http://news.yahoo.com/leone-ebola-outbreak-catastrophic-aid-group-msf-223833151.html

Barcelona (AFP) - Ebola has wiped out whole villages in Sierra Leone and may have caused many more deaths than the nearly 5,000 official global toll, a senior coordinator of the medical aid group MSF said Friday.

Rony Zachariah of Doctors Without Borders, known by its French initials MSF, said after visiting Sierra Leone that the Ebola figures were "under-reported", in an interview with AFP on the sidelines of a medical conference in Barcelona.

"The situation is catastrophic. There are several villages and communities that have been basically wiped out. In one of the villages I went to, there were 40 inhabitants and 39 died," he said.

(snip)

He stressed that "whole communities have disappeared but many of them are not in the statistics. The situation on the ground is actually much worse."

No one knows how many people in these small communities have been killed. They are not going to hospital care because there is no care, and they are not getting counted.

[Anonymous]

The only place I see coverage of the nurse's roommate is on far-right wing websites. These are the folks trying to blame Obama for Ebola and twisting every little fact. Its one of those Fox News memes that they whip up people within their bubble. This is about politics, not health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issues is that we absolutely do not have definitive evidence or science on transmission. There have been no controlled studies on humans (because it would be incredibly unethical). There have been only a few animal studies and they have not been replicated to ensure reliability and validity. Kaci Hickox is right that we don't have evidence to state that she is infectious right now. However, what she fails to comprehend is that we also don't have definitive evidence to state that she is NOT infectious.

On another note, her room-mate from her time in Africa has just been diagnosed with Ebola. That person also has no idea how he/she got infected while caring for patients.

That's quite 'another note'. Thank you for posting this. SHickox just got bitch-slapped by karma

One of the most childish, nastiest posts I've read on DCUM in a long time and that says a lot. Offensive on so many levels.

Oh, and once you call people "dumb ass" you've lost the argument.

+1

Being glad that a nurse got Ebola, because you don't like her ROOMMATE, is crazy. Just nucking futz.

Glad and karma proving Hickox's reassurance might not be so reassuring is not the same thing

She knows she is at risk. She is treating Ebola patients. What she ALSO knows is that YOU and the general public are not at risk until and less she becomes symptomatic.

And I have the right not to trust her to make that decision for me. Agreed?

Then quarantine yourself.

You don't have the right to limit HER civil liberties on the basis of YOUR irrational feaer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I am noticing is the PP defending Hickox not willing to answer whether or not others have a right to be free from her. Reason being, that's not what Hickox and her defenders are truly after. what they want is to deliver a message and to call others names. Again the activism is most important to them. Typical

Quarantine yourselves. Your fears are irrational. You don't have the right to limit the civil liberties of healthcare professionals because of your irrational fears. If you are so freaking afraid, lock yourselves in your houses, see no one, and get your groceries delivered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am noticing is the PP defending Hickox not willing to answer whether or not others have a right to be free from her. Reason being, that's not what Hickox and her defenders are truly after. what they want is to deliver a message and to call others names. Again the activism is most important to them. Typical

We do not lock people up in this country because we have some kind of mythical right to be free from them. There is no such right. Government does have the ability to quarantine people in very, very limited circumstances. This one does not meet the legal requirements. If you want to be free from her, avoid her, but our constitution and our laws do not create rights to be free from people we are afraid of. You keep bringing up this mythical right. It doesn't exist. What is a right is to be free from being locked up, unless a very limited set of circumstances exists.

There are at least dozens of people walking around our country, probably more, who have treated people with Ebola, here and in Africa, and they haven't been quarantined, self or otherwise. You are not free from them. You are not free from the guy with the flu who goes to work even though he is more of a danger to you. You are not free from the kids who go to school with your kids with colds.

Once upon a time, people wanted to put people with HIV in camps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know if any of the posters who are so fearful of Ebola are the same people who don't vaccinate their kids, or who don't get flu shots. Now that is some scary stuff.

As far as I know, one (uninsured, Liberian, initially untreated) person has died of Ebola in the U.S. Is that right?

Dem, pro-vax, agnostic. I'm not so worried about catching the disease as concerned about the financial and legal costs we are incurring. It takes thousands of dollars a day to treat one patient in the US. Seems like visa restrictions and comfortable quarantines would make new cases less likely here. For the record, I'm fine with those quarantined going out to exercise or blow off steam.

I AM worried about the rest of the world. Seems to me that if the US followed the lead of Canada and Australia and restricted visas, more countries would become aware and would join in the eradication at the source. A "medical moon mission" is how one doctor described it. The possible spread to places like India, Egypt, Sudan etc. is a concern, because multiple sources means more expense and waste.

Great post

Thx. Who knows though, maybe Ebola will actually be a money-maker here. We can do nothing until enough people become infected, then declare a War on Ebola, cure them and then profit from selling their antibodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And I have the right not to trust her to make that decision for me. Agreed?

I agree 100%. You have the right to quarantine yourself in your own home, or take an extended holiday in Australia, OT to buy a hazmat suit and wear it to the grocery store. You don't have the right to lock someone up because of your irrational fears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am noticing is the PP defending Hickox not willing to answer whether or not others have a right to be free from her. Reason being, that's not what Hickox and her defenders are truly after. what they want is to deliver a message and to call others names. Again the activism is most important to them. Typical

We do not lock people up in this country because we have some kind of mythical right to be free from them. There is no such right. Government does have the ability to quarantine people in very, very limited circumstances. This one does not meet the legal requirements. If you want to be free from her, avoid her, but our constitution and our laws do not create rights to be free from people we are afraid of. You keep bringing up this mythical right. It doesn't exist. What is a right is to be free from being locked up, unless a very limited set of circumstances exists.

There are at least dozens of people walking around our country, probably more, who have treated people with Ebola, here and in Africa, and they haven't been quarantined, self or otherwise. You are not free from them. You are not free from the guy with the flu who goes to work even though he is more of a danger to you. You are not free from the kids who go to school with your kids with colds.

Dramatic, much? Home quarantine is not being "locked up," and voluntary home quarantine remains the CDC protocol for "high risk" exposure. Spencer's fiance and two friends are currently on home quarantine.