Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

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

More money would be nice, of course. But Ebola and Marburg are difficult because they occur infrequently, in inaccessible areas, and don't last very long. Since the '70s, there have been 34 outbreaks total, 26 of those with single or double digits reported cases, which is not all that many.

[Anonymous]

^^^ The cite for that is the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/history/chronology.html

[Anonymous]

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

If you had read through some of the posts, you would see your claim is debunked.
You are either demonstrating ignorance or arrogance. Pick one.

[Anonymous]

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

Agree but there are very many anti-vaxers plus the huge portion of the country who are so anti-government that they wouldn't take an Ebola vaccine on principle. I would expect herd immunity for this disease to be compromised because a lot of folks will refuse.

Also we don't know yet the lower age limit for the forthcoming vaccine(s). Could be a problem for parents of the very young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Agree but there are very many anti-vaxers plus the huge portion of the country who are so anti-government that they wouldn't take an Ebola vaccine on principle. I would expect herd immunity for this disease to be compromised because a lot of folks will refuse.

Also we don't know yet the lower age limit for the forthcoming vaccine(s). Could be a problem for parents of the very young.

Are you talking about here or West Africa?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

More money would be nice, of course. But Ebola and Marburg are difficult because they occur infrequently, in inaccessible areas, and don't last very long. Since the '70s, there have been 34 outbreaks total, 26 of those with single or double digits reported cases, which is not all that many.

Exactly. In fact, until this recent outbreak, I am surprised anyone bothered with trying to come up with a vaccine at all seeing that the disease was incredibly rare. No matter how much money NIH or anyone else has, money is not unlimited and treatments for diseases that are more widespread would be getting first dibs. Until this outbreak, you had more chance of being struck by lightning than getting ebola or even knowing someone who got ebola.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I applaud anyone willing to go over and help out, after the latest diagnosis in NYC, I think all returning personnel from the affected countries should be quarantined for 21 days - paid leave, no public transit whatsoever, avoid sex etc. Clearly any signs of fatigue etc and said person should NOT go out in public even if they have not fever or other symptoms. How this highly trained medical doctor thought he wasn't a serious risk just because he didn't see how his gear could have been breached is pure stupidity and arrogance. Seriously, WTF on his part?! Plenty of MSF staff have come down with Ebola. While they have the most stringent protocols, they are clearly still not foolproof.

Personally I think in an effort by global leaders to downplay this to avoid panic, food shortages and financial market crashes, it means we are playing with fire. This has the potential to change/take away life for millions over the next few years unless they get an effective vaccine and the virus doesn't mutate to negate said vaccine.

Mother Nature can be very sneaky and we need to be pouring more resources into this. IMO, this has far more potential to kill more humans than any wars elsewhere or terrorist acts (short of a nuclear explosion in metro area or weaponized bioterror, including ebola).

You realize that in the US more people die of college football injuries each year than of Ebola?

[Anonymous]

'No one said it would get here' is an example of double-speak.

We could have stopped its coming here using travel bans. What, they'll just cone over the porous borders? Exactly, because the Administration has failed there too.

This WAS preventable. Saying it wouldn't over and over again is a way of steering the conversation away from what should have been done. But those things aren't politically correct so here we are.

[Anonymous]

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/10/22/health-ebola-redcross-idINKCN0IB0W520141022

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/10/22/health-ebola-redcross-idINKCN0IB0W520141022

Thanks PP, and for those who who won't click through here's the take-home.

Closing borders will not effectively curb Ebola infections, the head of the Red Cross said on Wednesday, amid debate over whether bans on travel from hardest-hit African countries would help combat the spread of the deadly virus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/10/22/health-ebola-redcross-idINKCN0IB0W520141022

Thanks PP, and for those who who won't click through here's the take-home.

Closing borders will not effectively curb Ebola infections, the head of the Red Cross said on Wednesday, amid debate over whether bans on travel from hardest-hit African countries would help combat the spread of the deadly virus.

Irrational only for political reasons, according to the article.

"Health experts warn that excessive constraints on air travel could have severe economic consequences that could destabilise the region and possibly disrupt essential health and humanitarian services."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/10/22/health-ebola-redcross-idINKCN0IB0W520141022

Thanks PP, and for those who who won't click through here's the take-home.

Closing borders will not effectively curb Ebola infections, the head of the Red Cross said on Wednesday, amid debate over whether bans on travel from hardest-hit African countries would help combat the spread of the deadly virus.

Irrational only for political reasons, according to the article.

"Health experts warn that excessive constraints on air travel could have severe economic consequences that could destabilise the region and possibly disrupt essential health and humanitarian services."

Nothing I've read has stated that travel bans wouldn't work to keep Ebola out of the US, only that it would harm Africa, which would turn harm the US in other ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I believe it was called an unlikely event that ebola would reach our shores. I just want to point out that unlikely events do happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

That's the question isn't it?

That's the situation that we will likely be facing within 6 months, if the epidemic in West AFrica isn't under control.

No, there aren't enough hazmat suits or money for all HCW to put on hazmat suits for every case of stomach flu.

They are going to be expected to just deal with it, take the risk. Risk that any one individual has ebola will be very low of course. But they will be expected to take the risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I believe it was called an unlikely event that ebola would reach our shores. I just want to point out that unlikely events do happen.

Twice in one month, even.