Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of the assumptions about stopping Ebola in its tracks rest on bureaucrats' view of human beings engaging in rational behavior. It was not rational behavior for the dr to (allegedly) travel to Brooklyn or wherever via mass transit. Not good.

He didn't have symptoms and he rode the subway. It's not rational to panic about this.

From a PR perspective, terrible idea to ride the subway. But actual risk? None.

Ok, then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of the assumptions about stopping Ebola in its tracks rest on bureaucrats' view of human beings engaging in rational behavior. It was not rational behavior for the dr to (allegedly) travel to Brooklyn or wherever via mass transit. Not good.

He didn't have symptoms and he rode the subway. It's not rational to panic about this.

From a PR perspective, terrible idea to ride the subway. But actual risk? None.

He told the hospital he was feeling poor since Tuesday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids go to a preschool with a lot of world bank and IMF staffers. I wasn't worried before, but I think that this doctor shows that people who really should be self-quarantining are not, nor are their organizations requiring them to do so. Anyone know what requirements international orgs are placing on employees returning from W. Africa?

Our Montessori preschool has a lot of parents at the WB or IMF too, including one who just returned from 2 weeks in West Africa. I'm not worried. Ebola needs direct contact, and even then, it's hard to catch. It's not airborne like the flu.

People need to seriously relax. My husband is a virologist at the NIH and everybody there is concerned - not about Ebola, but about the rising tide of hysteria!

You just said that the NIH is not concerned about Ebola. That's a strange comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of the assumptions about stopping Ebola in its tracks rest on bureaucrats' view of human beings engaging in rational behavior. It was not rational behavior for the dr to (allegedly) travel to Brooklyn or wherever via mass transit. Not good.

He didn't have symptoms and he rode the subway. It's not rational to panic about this.

From a PR perspective, terrible idea to ride the subway. But actual risk? None.

He told the hospital he was feeling poor since Tuesday.

He said he felt sluggish. No fever, no other symptoms.

If he had a 103 fever on wed night, he wouldn't have been hopping on the subway. Do you know how bad you feel with a 103 fever?

I sort of understood the ignorance and the government is lying to us about how ebola is spread crap before and during the Duncan case. But seeing what happened there, what are you people thinking?

Two people who cared for him when he was extremely, gravely ill and didn't have proper protection got sick. That's it.

[Anonymous]

I'd hope the folks at NIH have a grip on the actual risk, and not the perceived risk. I agree with the people at NIH.

[Anonymous]

Not to mention the Nurse who flew with a low fever? Flight was over 10 days ago. Most likely window to get ebola is 8-10 days after exposure. More evidence that this disease is not that easy to catch if you aren't in direct contact with a very ill person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd hope the folks at NIH have a grip on the actual risk, and not the perceived risk. I agree with the people at NIH.

But the PP said that NIH isn't concerned about Ebola.

[Anonymous]

And yet it would have been super simple for him to just...not go bowling. The next morning he would have known why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of the assumptions about stopping Ebola in its tracks rest on bureaucrats' view of human beings engaging in rational behavior. It was not rational behavior for the dr to (allegedly) travel to Brooklyn or wherever via mass transit. Not good.

He didn't have symptoms and he rode the subway. It's not rational to panic about this.

From a PR perspective, terrible idea to ride the subway. But actual risk? None.

He told the hospital he was feeling poor since Tuesday.

He said he felt sluggish. No fever, no other symptoms.

If he had a 103 fever on wed night, he wouldn't have been hopping on the subway. Do you know how bad you feel with a 103 fever?

I sort of understood the ignorance and the government is lying to us about how ebola is spread crap before and during the Duncan case. But seeing what happened there, what are you people thinking?

Two people who cared for him when he was extremely, gravely ill and didn't have proper protection got sick. That's it.

No one knows what his temperature was on the subway. Vomit and urine are common features on the NYC subway, but there have been zero reports that this individual had anything other than an uneventful ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of the assumptions about stopping Ebola in its tracks rest on bureaucrats' view of human beings engaging in rational behavior. It was not rational behavior for the dr to (allegedly) travel to Brooklyn or wherever via mass transit. Not good.

He didn't have symptoms and he rode the subway. It's not rational to panic about this.

From a PR perspective, terrible idea to ride the subway. But actual risk? None.

He told the hospital he was feeling poor since Tuesday.

He said he felt sluggish. No fever, no other symptoms.

If he had a 103 fever on wed night, he wouldn't have been hopping on the subway. Do you know how bad you feel with a 103 fever?

I sort of understood the ignorance and the government is lying to us about how ebola is spread crap before and during the Duncan case. But seeing what happened there, what are you people thinking?

Two people who cared for him when he was extremely, gravely ill and didn't have proper protection got sick. That's it.

No one knows what his temperature was on the subway. Vomit and urine are common features on the NYC subway, but there have been zero reports that this individual had anything other than an uneventful ride.

Again, have you had a temperature above 101 as an adult? I have and could barely function. Little kids power through, but a high fever in an adult is very debilitating. I wasn't there to take the guy's temp, but doubt it was high if he was out and functioning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of the assumptions about stopping Ebola in its tracks rest on bureaucrats' view of human beings engaging in rational behavior. It was not rational behavior for the dr to (allegedly) travel to Brooklyn or wherever via mass transit. Not good.

He didn't have symptoms and he rode the subway. It's not rational to panic about this.

From a PR perspective, terrible idea to ride the subway. But actual risk? None.

He told the hospital he was feeling poor since Tuesday.

He said he felt sluggish. No fever, no other symptoms.

If he had a 103 fever on wed night, he wouldn't have been hopping on the subway. Do you know how bad you feel with a 103 fever?

I sort of understood the ignorance and the government is lying to us about how ebola is spread crap before and during the Duncan case. But seeing what happened there, what are you people thinking?

Two people who cared for him when he was extremely, gravely ill and didn't have proper protection got sick. That's it.

No one knows what his temperature was on the subway. Vomit and urine are common features on the NYC subway, but there have been zero reports that this individual had anything other than an uneventful ride.

Again, have you had a temperature above 101 as an adult? I have and could barely function. Little kids power through, but a high fever in an adult is very debilitating. I wasn't there to take the guy's temp, but doubt it was high if he was out and functioning.

You're rationalizing--or trying to rationalize--what should have been an obvious decision upon feeling unwell: stay home and call the health authorities.

[Anonymous]

From what I've read, high fever is often one of the first symptoms of ebola-- not that it is the single first marker of the virus and the first point at which the person is contagious. For him, his first symptoms were his general fatigue. The fever spiked soon after.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From the NYTimes:
"A health care worker at the hospital said that Dr. Spencer seemed very sick, and it was unclear to the medical staff why he had not gone to the hospital earlier, since his fever was high."

Sounds like he should have checked himself in yesterday or the day before. Apparently his temp was already 103 when he checked in.

It seems like he was in denial about the risks. I wonder if you have to have a bit of feeling of invincibility/ego to have to courage to volunteer to be a doctor in West Africa. It's almost like their strengths could be their weaknesses in terms of a self-quarantine (e.g. I am different/too careful/too good, etc., it won't happen to me.)

All the more reason for mandatory quarantines and travel bans. No brainer

Don't agree with a travel ban,,but do with mandatory quarantines. The past two weeks have shown that even those who should know better act in very foolish manner despite exposure.

He passed enhanced screening.

[Anonymous]

I just read he ran 3 miles on Wednesday. How sluggish can you feel and run 3 miles?

I wonder if it's the type of thing where you look back and think...well maybe I did feel kind of off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From the NYTimes:
"A health care worker at the hospital said that Dr. Spencer seemed very sick, and it was unclear to the medical staff why he had not gone to the hospital earlier, since his fever was high."

Sounds like he should have checked himself in yesterday or the day before. Apparently his temp was already 103 when he checked in.

It seems like he was in denial about the risks. I wonder if you have to have a bit of feeling of invincibility/ego to have to courage to volunteer to be a doctor in West Africa. It's almost like their strengths could be their weaknesses in terms of a self-quarantine (e.g. I am different/too careful/too good, etc., it won't happen to me.)

All the more reason for mandatory quarantines and travel bans. No brainer

Don't agree with a travel ban,,but do with mandatory quarantines. The past two weeks have shown that even those who should know better act in very foolish manner despite exposure.

He passed enhanced screening.

Which shows that the enhanced screening is imperfect.