Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

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

Sy is against travel bans yet uses the word contain .

[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 we took all the money spent on housing, educating and hospital expenses spent on people who are here illegally and spent it on a vaccine we would have it in a week.

[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.

If we took all the money spent on housing, educating and hospital expenses spent on people who are here illegally and spent it on a vaccine we would have it in a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please, this isn't even coherent. First of all they only test people who have recently been in west Africa. If you called your doctor tomorrow and said you had a fever and an upset stomach they wouldn't rush you to the hospital and put on hazmat suits, they would tell you to drink plenty of fluids and rest.

I have this theory that as reality sets in and we all see that (1) Ebola is really not that contagious and, (2) most people in this country who have it survive, posters here can't let go of that adrenaline rush of "something is happening" and are therefore stretching for crazier and crazier theories to maintain alarm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please, this isn't even coherent. First of all they only test people who have recently been in west Africa. If you called your doctor tomorrow and said you had a fever and an upset stomach they wouldn't rush you to the hospital and put on hazmat suits, they would tell you to drink plenty of fluids and rest.

I have this theory that as reality sets in and we all see that (1) Ebola is really not that contagious and, (2) most people in this country who have it survive, posters here can't let go of that adrenaline rush of "something is happening" and are therefore stretching for crazier and crazier theories to maintain alarm.

You are correct -- right now, outbreaks are in three West African countries and those are the countries health care workers ask about.

Within the next 6 months however, I believe that the outbreak will spread to many more countries. Not uncontrollably, but there will be several small outbreaks in many more countries. Within 6 months, we will see spread to the US or a European country from a traveller NOT from one of those three countries.

That is what we will be dealing with. Once we realize the patient has ebola, further transmission of disease will be halted, but it will be like little mini-bombs going off, unexpectedly, all over the world. One case here, out of the blue, one case here out of the blue. (and a little HCW transmission ....) Like Whack a Mole.

It is going to be the new normal.

[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."

Wow, so how many people do we allow to come into the US from an Ebola country until we learn a lesson? We are screwed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please, this isn't even coherent. First of all they only test people who have recently been in west Africa. If you called your doctor tomorrow and said you had a fever and an upset stomach they wouldn't rush you to the hospital and put on hazmat suits, they would tell you to drink plenty of fluids and rest.

I have this theory that as reality sets in and we all see that (1) Ebola is really not that contagious and, (2) most people in this country who have it survive, posters here can't let go of that adrenaline rush of "something is happening" and are therefore stretching for crazier and crazier theories to maintain alarm.

So true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Wow, so how many people do we allow to come into the US from an Ebola country until we learn a lesson? We are screwed!

You can't understand how or why destabilization would contribute to the global spread of ebola?

[Anonymous]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/24/newark-quarantined-ebola-fever_n_6045262.html

A female healthcare worker with Doctors Without Borders who was quarantined because she had contact with Ebola patients in Sierra Leone has developed a fever after arriving at Newark Liberty Airport, the New Jersey State Health Department said on Friday.

She has been isolated and is being evaluated at University Hospital in Newark. The woman was tested for Ebola on Friday, and results were expected on Saturday, WABC reported.

She had no symptoms upon arrival in Newark, but said she had contact with patients while in Sierra Leone when questioned at the airport, The Register reported. She was put under quarantine due to the possibility she was exposed to Ebola. The New York Times and WABC said that she had treated patients in the West African country.

She developed a fever while under quarantine later on Friday night, the New Jersey State Health Department said.

[Anonymous]

It's news if she tests positive. I don't think a special report is needed everytime someone barfs or has a fever.


I decided to read some ebola conspiracy theories. Have the people who believe these stories ever taken a science class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's news if she tests positive. I don't think a special report is needed everytime someone barfs or has a fever.


I decided to read some ebola conspiracy theories. Have the people who believe these stories ever taken a science class?

She's tested negative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's news if she tests positive. I don't think a special report is needed everytime someone barfs or has a fever.


I decided to read some ebola conspiracy theories. Have the people who believe these stories ever taken a science class?

She's tested negative.

Preliminary results. She is still being monitored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's news if she tests positive. I don't think a special report is needed everytime someone barfs or has a fever.


I decided to read some ebola conspiracy theories. Have the people who believe these stories ever taken a science class?

I agree not every singe person with a fever is news.

A health care worker returning from treating Ebola patients with a fever? Yes, that's news.

[Anonymous]

I've lost count of the number of reports of scares that ended up with the person testing negative.

Its not news. And by now we should have learned the lesson not to get worked up until there's a positive Ebola test.

Really we should not get worked up at all.

[Anonymous]

I want to know why the fiancee of the doctor in NY is already of quarantine. I don't understand the time line