Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is fear, in spite of evidence.

Anonymous wrote:Do you trust the opinion of these folks?

STANFORD, Calif. (AP) -- Top medical experts studying the spread of Ebola say the public should expect more cases to emerge in the United States by year's end as infected people arrive here from West Africa, including American doctors and nurses returning from the hot zone and people fleeing from the deadly disease.

But how many cases?

No one knows for sure how many infections will emerge in the U.S. or anywhere else, but scientists have made educated guesses based on data models that weigh hundreds of variables, including daily new infections in West Africa, airline traffic worldwide and transmission possibilities.

This week, several top infectious disease experts ran simulations for The Associated Press that predicted as few as one or two additional infections by the end of 2014 to a worst-case scenario of 130.

"I don't think there's going to be a huge outbreak here, no," said Dr. David Relman, a professor of infectious disease, microbiology and immunology at Stanford University's medical school. "However, as best we can tell right now, it is quite possible that every major city will see at least a handful of cases."

...
These predictions may be okay with some people; due to law of averages your chance of contracting Ebola is slim. Especially if you don't live in a large city. It's not okay with my family. We have a lot of nurses and with the 2-day Kaiser strike for safer Ebola training set for next month, I am very concerned as to what will happen if we get the worst-case scenario-- cases in the hundreds and nurses start refusing to treat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3/700 msf ex-pat staffers have gotten ebola. i think that more than justifies reasonable quarantine. Msf and feds need to realize that people in us will not tolerate this risk level and they need to respect that if they want to meet goal of sending health care workers in a sustainable manner. Msf docs may be cowboys as far as risk tolerance goes, but the rest of us are not. We do not want a pediatrician just back from Guinea treating our children.

I believe most. americans will support this effort whole heartedly and will treat these doctors and nurses like heroes. But not if our reasonable fears are ignored.

Hickox and supporters keep on saying that this about science not politics, but that is not true. Science can tell us tje risks (maybe) but cannot dictate how we interpret and respond to risks.

Oh please. They're not treating your kids for 21 days, they just want to be at home, able to step out occasionally while checking their temperature. Or riding a bike.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Nobel Prize winning scientist supports the state quarantines, apparently. That's kind of science-y, I guess.

A Nobel prize winning scientist thought massive doses of vitamin C could prevent cancer and followed his own advice. Turns out massive doses of vitamin C increase your risk of cancer, and thats what he died of.

Believing something because one scientist (what is his area? if its not infectious diseases, I don't care) is sciency. Its not science.

Director of the Center for the Genetics of Host Defense at a medical center in Texas. Basically, all he is doing is expressing some skepticism about the notion that we know everything we need to know about the approach toward quarantining. I'd take his opinion over those whose science experience ended with biology or geology lab in college, for instance (which I'm guessing is many people). It's just one competing view.

A geneticist. I would take the opinion of infectious disease specialists over a geneticist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Nobel Prize winning scientist supports the state quarantines, apparently. That's kind of science-y, I guess.

A Nobel prize winning scientist thought massive doses of vitamin C could prevent cancer and followed his own advice. Turns out massive doses of vitamin C increase your risk of cancer, and thats what he died of.

Believing something because one scientist (what is his area? if its not infectious diseases, I don't care) is sciency. Its not science.

Director of the Center for the Genetics of Host Defense at a medical center in Texas. Basically, all he is doing is expressing some skepticism about the notion that we know everything we need to know about the approach toward quarantining. I'd take his opinion over those whose science experience ended with biology or geology lab in college, for instance (which I'm guessing is many people). It's just one competing view.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Nobel Prize winning scientist supports the state quarantines, apparently. That's kind of science-y, I guess.

A Nobel prize winning scientist thought massive doses of vitamin C could prevent cancer and followed his own advice. Turns out massive doses of vitamin C increase your risk of cancer, and thats what he died of.

Believing something because one scientist (what is his area? if its not infectious diseases, I don't care) is sciency. Its not science.

Anonymous wrote:A Nobel Prize winning scientist supports the state quarantines, apparently. That's kind of science-y, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you whipping up hysteria, you do know that Hickox is not the first medical worker treating Ebola patients in Africa to return to the US. Dozens have returned, for months, and they haven't been in quarantine and they haven't infected anyone. We also have dozens of doctors and nurses who have treated ebola patients in this country. They haven't been quarantined and they haven't infected anyone.

No medical worker here has transmitted ebola, not a one. And they are walking around amongst us.

That's not entirely correct. Five have been put in isolation because they came back with Ebla or developed it soon after.

They had Ebola, but they didn't infect anyone. They monitored their own health and took themselves to the hospital when they were symptomatic. If you don't trust their professionalism, trust their self interest. They know that quick intervention is important and will get it as soon as they are symptomatic and contagious.

Why should I trust them? Hickox and Spencer acted irresponsibly. When the issue is a fatal disease for which we currently have no vaccine or cure, it is downright stupid to trust that no human error will ever happen from their irresponsibility.

A responsible nurse would self-quarantine, but she doesn't want to, but she just wants me to trust her. Ok...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you whipping up hysteria, you do know that Hickox is not the first medical worker treating Ebola patients in Africa to return to the US. Dozens have returned, for months, and they haven't been in quarantine and they haven't infected anyone. We also have dozens of doctors and nurses who have treated ebola patients in this country. They haven't been quarantined and they haven't infected anyone.

No medical worker here has transmitted ebola, not a one. And they are walking around amongst us.

That's not entirely correct. Five have been put in isolation because they came back with Ebla or developed it soon after.

They had Ebola, but they didn't infect anyone. They monitored their own health and took themselves to the hospital when they were symptomatic. If you don't trust their professionalism, trust their self interest. They know that quick intervention is important and will get it as soon as they are symptomatic and contagious.