Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny, not so long ago it was all about "one, only one" on these boards. Now it's "only two." When do we drop the "only"? When someone actually crokes? I guess wanting to prevent unnecessary deaths is qualified as hysterical now. Sad, kinda.

I never thought it was about "one only one."

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, not so long ago it was all about "one, only one" on these boards. Now it's "only two." When do we drop the "only"? When someone actually crokes? I guess wanting to prevent unnecessary deaths is qualified as hysterical now. Sad, kinda.

The "two" are from the same incident. What's more notable about that incident is that the other 70 some personnel involved didn't get infected. Nor did Duncan's family who spent two days with him after he had a fever. The obvious conclusion to draw from this is that hysteria is not justified.

I fail to see the "hysteria." You obviously haven't witnessed the real hysteria. Otherwise, you'd rethink your choice of words.

I've fallen on the wrong end of very favorable statistics before. Believe me, it's not fun. If however few people can be helped, they should be helped regardless "the needs of the many."

[Anonymous]

^^wrong side of stats

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, not so long ago it was all about "one, only one" on these boards. Now it's "only two." When do we drop the "only"? When someone actually crokes? I guess wanting to prevent unnecessary deaths is qualified as hysterical now. Sad, kinda.

The "two" are from the same incident. What's more notable about that incident is that the other 70 some personnel involved didn't get infected. Nor did Duncan's family who spent two days with him after he had a fever. The obvious conclusion to draw from this is that hysteria is not justified.

I fail to see the "hysteria." You obviously haven't witnessed the real hysteria. Otherwise, you'd rethink your choice of words.

I've fallen on the wrong end of very favorable statistics before. Believe me, it's not fun. If however few people can be helped, they should be helped regardless "the needs of the many."

I've fallen the wrong side of stats too. I've had cancer, with no risk factors, and several illnesses peopl my age rarely get. And this has absolutely nothing to do with Ebola. Yes, hysteria. When people start talking about food shortages and panic in the streets, that's hysteria. Just because I had cancer doesn't mean I've become irrational.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, not so long ago it was all about "one, only one" on these boards. Now it's "only two." When do we drop the "only"? When someone actually crokes? I guess wanting to prevent unnecessary deaths is qualified as hysterical now. Sad, kinda.

The "two" are from the same incident. What's more notable about that incident is that the other 70 some personnel involved didn't get infected. Nor did Duncan's family who spent two days with him after he had a fever. The obvious conclusion to draw from this is that hysteria is not justified.

All 4000 or however many victims are from the same incident. There was one patient zero. That is how viruses work.

So first is was, don't worry about Ebola, it won't get here
Then, if it gets here, it will be ok because of our great medical system
Then, oops, that ONE hospital screwed up Duncan's first visit, but don't worry, Ebola is hard to catch
Then, oops, the nurses got it, but don't worry, Vinson wasn't contagious on the plane
Then, oops, she was sicker sooner than we thought, maybe we better track everyone on the plane, but don't worry, because Ebola is hard to catch
And don't worry, because we are screening travelers
And don't worry, because now we're making them all come through screened airports...

At every juncture, we have screwed this up. It is only because Ebola *IS* indeed harder than some other viruses to catch, that we don't have a very serious problem on our hands. This whole thing has been an incompetent clown show. No one is competent, from the CDC down to the Dallas ER to whoever let this guy come home and go back to his regular schedule. He should have been in self quarantine at least for 21 days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dr Spencer is 33 and saw ebola in Africa. He [unless living under a rock] knew of healthcare workers who got ebola in Africa. Perhaps because he is youngish and successful there was a feeling of invulnerability.http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/24/health/new-york-ebola-timeline/

Flew into JFK, rode 3 subway lines, went to a bowling alley. Nurse Vinson was on Frontier Air. Dr Nancy Snyderman was cavorting around Manhatten when she was supposed to be on a 21 day quarantine in NJ.

Since medical professionals have exhibited reckless behavior it is time to require 21 day quarantine for all who have been in the hotzone. One US airport not five should funnel the passengers and there should be designated supervised quarantine locations.

I don't know why untrue statements are being made around here. Dr. Nancy Snyderman was seen in a car in her hometown in NJ, where a companion got out of the car to pick up food. She was never seen "cavorting around Manhattan". Why do you have to make things up?

Sorry-she was cavorting around NJ> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/10/20/former-nbc-medical-correspondent-rips-nbcs-nancy-snyderman-for-grandstanding/
Survival outside the host is possible for 4 days at room temperature and in labs there has been animal infection through small particle aerosols: http://www.msdsonline.com/resources/msds-resources/free-safety-data-sheet-index/ebola-virus.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nurse Nina Pham is being released from NIH today! Yaaay!

+1 so happy to see this!!

[Anonymous]

I am happily surprised that both nurses are healthy again.
The death rate seems much lower here that it is supposed to be. I wonder if the trick is in the transfusion of antibodies from survivors or just good intensive care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am happily surprised that both nurses are healthy again.
The death rate seems much lower here that it is supposed to be. I wonder if the trick is in the transfusion of antibodies from survivors or just good intensive care.

These, possibly combined with very early detection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am happily surprised that both nurses are healthy again.
The death rate seems much lower here that it is supposed to be. I wonder if the trick is in the transfusion of antibodies from survivors or just good intensive care.

I also wonder this. I think both the things you mention play a part in it. I'd certainly feel more confident about surviving if I got Ebola in the US than anywhere else. Not that I want to test that theory.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, not so long ago it was all about "one, only one" on these boards. Now it's "only two." When do we drop the "only"? When someone actually crokes? I guess wanting to prevent unnecessary deaths is qualified as hysterical now. Sad, kinda.

The "two" are from the same incident. What's more notable about that incident is that the other 70 some personnel involved didn't get infected. Nor did Duncan's family who spent two days with him after he had a fever. The obvious conclusion to draw from this is that hysteria is not justified.

All 4000 or however many victims are from the same incident. There was one patient zero. That is how viruses work.

So first is was, don't worry about Ebola, it won't get here
Then, if it gets here, it will be ok because of our great medical system
Then, oops, that ONE hospital screwed up Duncan's first visit, but don't worry, Ebola is hard to catch
Then, oops, the nurses got it, but don't worry, Vinson wasn't contagious on the plane
Then, oops, she was sicker sooner than we thought, maybe we better track everyone on the plane, but don't worry, because Ebola is hard to catch
And don't worry, because we are screening travelers
And don't worry, because now we're making them all come through screened airports...

At every juncture, we have screwed this up. It is only because Ebola *IS* indeed harder than some other viruses to catch, that we don't have a very serious problem on our hands. This whole thing has been an incompetent clown show. No one is competent, from the CDC down to the Dallas ER to whoever let this guy come home and go back to his regular schedule. He should have been in self quarantine at least for 21 days.

Nobody ever said it wouldn't get here. That is simply another example of the constant false information being spread. As far as the second point is concerned, that has proven accurate. While the initial reaction left a lot to be desired, one of the two infected nurses is now ebola free and the second is well on her way. Nobody else has been reported to have been infected by Duncan.

As for "all 4,000 are the same incident", that is only true in the sense that all of us are children of Eve. If someone in New York is infected as a result of the doctor, that is clearly a new incident not related to Duncan.

You can make as many lists of alleged screw-ups as you want. The fact remains that the US has only seen two secondary infections and those have been or are being treated successfully. That's a pretty good track record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, not so long ago it was all about "one, only one" on these boards. Now it's "only two." When do we drop the "only"? When someone actually crokes? I guess wanting to prevent unnecessary deaths is qualified as hysterical now. Sad, kinda.

The "two" are from the same incident. What's more notable about that incident is that the other 70 some personnel involved didn't get infected. Nor did Duncan's family who spent two days with him after he had a fever. The obvious conclusion to draw from this is that hysteria is not justified.

All 4000 or however many victims are from the same incident. There was one patient zero. That is how viruses work.

So first is was, don't worry about Ebola, it won't get here
Then, if it gets here, it will be ok because of our great medical system
Then, oops, that ONE hospital screwed up Duncan's first visit, but don't worry, Ebola is hard to catch
Then, oops, the nurses got it, but don't worry, Vinson wasn't contagious on the plane
Then, oops, she was sicker sooner than we thought, maybe we better track everyone on the plane, but don't worry, because Ebola is hard to catch
And don't worry, because we are screening travelers
And don't worry, because now we're making them all come through screened airports...

At every juncture, we have screwed this up. It is only because Ebola *IS* indeed harder than some other viruses to catch, that we don't have a very serious problem on our hands. This whole thing has been an incompetent clown show. No one is competent, from the CDC down to the Dallas ER to whoever let this guy come home and go back to his regular schedule. He should have been in self quarantine at least for 21 days.

I don't think anyone thought Ebola would not come here at all. We have been told all along that it was not likely that we would see an *epidemic* in the States.
Patients ARE okay, because of the great medical system. Our mortality rate in this country is 1/9 so far, which is 11 percent.
Ebola Is hard to catch unless you are touching an actively sick or dead person.
Vinson was not contagious on the plane.
Screening travelers is always going to be a crapshoot, because some infected people will not be sick enough to trigger the system. Like this case in NY.

As long as the epidemic continues in Africa, there is a possibility that individual infected travelers are going to get here. You need to reconcile yourself to that fact.

[Anonymous]

Sooo.

If Ebola spreads to people (I'm not saying many but lets say 25) that haven't been to West Africa. Are health care workers supposed to put on a hazmat suit for everybody with the flu?

[Anonymous]

Well we would have had a vaccine by now, but the budget for the vaccine by NIH was cut by the republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please people, get a grip. Not a single person in this country has contracted Ebola from casual contact. Not a one. The only people who have contracted it were nurses working with an end stage patient's bodily fluids and wearing inappropriate protection. No one living with Duncan, or who came in contact with Duncan, contracted the disease. Not a single health care worker who has treated an Ebola patient outside of this rinky dink hospital in Texas has contracted the disease.

Please tell me how somehow who works at the world bank is going to be exposed to an Ebola patient's bodily fluids. I don;t think these folks are putting in IVs and cleaning up vomit.

So many of you are just being ridiculous.

You are stunningly stupid. Is it denial?

Wha? These are the facts.

A world bank employee on a work trip to monrovia could absolutely come into contact with ebola patients just by virtue of being in a city with an epidemic.

How does being in a city with ebola patients expose him to their bodily fluids?

The reason it spread so badly in Africa is because people were caring for dying family members themselves, they were exposing themselves to highly infectious bodily fluids during traditional funeral ceremonies and their hospitals did not have enough people to clean the bodily fluids produced by patients.

We've had Ebola patients walking around our cities. Duncan and the two nurses. They infected no one.

Agree that the risk from the us patients is low, but only because other than Duncan they got to the hospital early. In monrovia people are dying on the streets - the risk of casual contact is much higher. Anyone in monrovia is at rism, hence they are a risk returning here where we have to just have faith they will be isolated early.