Anonymous wrote:Has anyone seen this yet?



"A tipster with knowledge of the emergency response told ARLnow.com that the patient recently traveled from the West African nation of Sierra Leone. That has been confirmed by D.C. health department officials. The tipster also said that four first responders are being held at the hospital due to possible exposure. That tip could not be immediately confirmed.

Arlington medic units and Fairfax hazmat units are on scene at Inova Fairfax Hosptial, according to news helicopter footage.

Arlington firefighters and the hazmat team cleared the scene at the Pentagon around 1:45 p.m.

The bus the woman boarded was later stopped and detained near D.C.’s Capitol Hill neighborhood.

[link to www.arlnow.com]

They allowed the bus to continue into fucking DC!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:3rd person screened positive at Baylor, transferred to Pres for testing. Patient had contact with someone with ebola

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama lied to you. He knew the risk was not extremely low:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-found-nearly-25-percent-chance-ebola-184611722.html

Oh, please.

The study found there was a twenty-five percent chance that we would see a case here. Despite this, the president said our overall Ebola vulnerability remains very low, which is true. Importing a single case does not equal a U.S. epidemic, as evidenced by the fact that we have seen only two additional cases since Duncan and none outside the hospital setting. The president was right. We will contain it, just as Nigeria did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was all-for travel restrictions until I actually looked into it. Commercial airliners are the only real way to get equipment, supplies and medical personnel into the affected countries to stop this thing. Until it's stopped at the source, we are going to keep having incidents here.

Um, how about dedicating a few for this purpose?

Why can't the military fly those supplies in?

+ 1000

+ another 1000. Commercial airplanes are never the only way to fly. They might be the most economical way to do it but I don't think we should be most worried about finances right now. I'd hate to see organizations like MSF and Samaritan's Purse take a hit right now because of having to use private aircraft, but it's been than the death toll exploding because people are vomiting all over commercial airplanes.

Hell, the military can drop supplies from altitude.

Please provide even one example of a person with Ebola vomiting all over a commercial airplane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Texas hospital worker who treated Duncan is currently quaratined on a fricking cruise ship.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/17/us-health-ebola-usa-idUSKCN0I61BO20141017

WTF????? Weren't these people NOT supposed to be traveling????

And Mexico would not let the ship dock in Cozumel. The banned it because of the potential ebola threat. Brilliant.

Anonymous wrote:
Yes - I actually think about this a lot. That every non-essential dollar I spend or we spend is shameful when we think about the desperation of other humans all around the world. Why should I be buying my kids more plastic crap toys that they will quickly lose interest in when there are starving children in (fill in the blank). Think about the amount of money we spend on say, the White House Christmas Tree lighting, or Fourth of July fireworks, or our own personal vacations....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Texas hospital worker who treated Duncan is currently quaratined on a fricking cruise ship.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/17/us-health-ebola-usa-idUSKCN0I61BO20141017

WTF????? Weren't these people NOT supposed to be traveling????

And Mexico would not let the ship dock in Cozumel. The banned it because of the potential ebola threat. Brilliant.

Anonymous wrote:Another Texas hospital worker who treated Duncan is currently quaratined on a fricking cruise ship.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/17/us-health-ebola-usa-idUSKCN0I61BO20141017

WTF????? Weren't these people NOT supposed to be traveling????

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Yes, the situation in Dallas was mishandled. But, based on current information, it has still be contained. Hopefully, we've learned from that experience and we won't need lots of drastic and damaging measures.

We do not know that it "has" been contained yet. And they just UPPED the maximum incubation period from 21 days after exposure to 40 days after exposure until 1st symptons appear.

2 nurses contracted it. Thomas Duncan was treated by approximately 70 nurses/attendants - while he was contagious. Those nurses also treated other patients. They are being tracked by the CDC.

On top of that, Nurse Amber potentially exposed 2 plane loads of people plus several airports (that was only after the CDC gave her the OK; She seems to have been very very careful to her credit & I wish her the best).

40 days is a long time. In this case, time will tell if it is contained at all in the US. But its too soon to say.

Please note that I wrote, "based on current information". Of course, current information may change. But, based on current information, even without a travel ban, only a single infected person has arrived in the US. Another person literally slept with that individual and was not infected. Nor were other family members who remained inside the house of the infected person for days. The most likely scenario for the infection of the two nurses is that they were exposed in the two days between Duncan's admission to the hospital and the confirmation that he had ebola. During those two days, no special protective gear was utilized by the hospital staff and Duncan was exhibiting acute symptoms.

Again, based on current information, this is not developing like a Hollywood movie in which merely being in the same airport terminal as a carrier means certain death. There is every reason to believe that we can successfully contain this disease. Nigeria and Senegal have both done stellar jobs in much more challenging circumstances. It is quite defeatist to suggest that the US is not able replicate their success.

Anonymous wrote:Pentagon situation with woman who was in Africa

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/17/243760/ebola-scare-limits-access-to-pentagon.html

She has been taken to Inova Fairfax as a precautionary move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that the kind of solutions being discussed here are not as simple as people would like to believe. They have real ramifications in terms of time, energy and monetary resources that could be devoted to addressing the situation at it's root--in West Africa. We're talking about diverting resources away from a place where hundreds are dying every week to (theoretically) prevent the the possibility of a few isolated cases here in the US and to partially alleviate the worry/inconvenience that goes along with that possibility.

Seems borderline unethical to me.

The problem is that the "few isolated cases" here are very costly as well, which is also a diversion of resources. And that's assuming that they stay few and isolated.
Second -- if you think that spending resources on dealing with problems here that are less severe than in other parts of the world is unethical, then basically every spending decision we make is unethical. We should just give our entire GDP as foreign aid, by that logic. Yes, we prioritize ourselves. Yes, I will feed my kids before other kids. That may be unethical, or it may just be the nature of humans.
I totally agree we need to address it in W.A. We should have long ago. But we didn't. Now it's here, and we should be both addressing it there and preventing further importation of it. The arguments as to why we can't do that seem very unconvincing to me. Because we'd damage the airline industry? Sorry, but I already know people who've changed their travel plans to avoid flying right now. That's damaging the airline industry. Because we can't manage to charter flights for aid purposes? Why not? Because we can't set up quarantine centers near airports? Sure we can.
All of it costs money. We should stop saying "we can't" and start being honest and saying "we don't want to spend the money".

Do you really think that implementing a flight ban will prevent every false alarm? We're already hearing ridiculous theories about Ebola patients sneaking across our border from Mexico. We're going to be forced to continue expending resources on these kinds of situations regardless because as long as the situation continues unabated in West Africa, people will continue to be fearful. And that assumes a flight ban is actually successful in preventing further importation of new cases. It's not at all clear that that would be so.

By focusing our resources on West Africa we are prioritizing both ourselves (by implementing the most effective strategy for preventing spread of the virus overseas) AND West Africans. A win-win.

We already agree on focusing our resources on W.A. But I do think that a flight ban from those countries where the epidemic is not controlled (with quarantine for those who need/want to fly anyway) is still worthwhile. I find the "some people will get in anyway" argument specious. Of course some will. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. yes, there will still be costly "scares", but there will be far fewer.
If there are real reasons to think that the flight bans will do more harm than good, I haven't heard them. I have only heard arguments for why they can't be 100% effective and why they might be costly. Big deal. Neither can PPE -- should we give up on that too? Vaccines aren't 100% effective, should we give up on them?

Why would we take resources away from the most effective strategy to invest them in a strategy that is less effective? That makes no sense.

Who says there is already a finite pie has to be divided between WA and a travel ban?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Yes, the situation in Dallas was mishandled. But, based on current information, it has still be contained. Hopefully, we've learned from that experience and we won't need lots of drastic and damaging measures.

We do not know that it "has" been contained yet. And they just UPPED the maximum incubation period from 21 days after exposure to 40 days after exposure until 1st symptons appear.

2 nurses contracted it. Thomas Duncan was treated by approximately 70 nurses/attendants - while he was contagious. Those nurses also treated other patients. They are being tracked by the CDC.

On top of that, Nurse Amber potentially exposed 2 plane loads of people plus several airports (that was only after the CDC gave her the OK; She seems to have been very very careful to her credit & I wish her the best).

40 days is a long time. In this case, time will tell if it is contained at all in the US. But its too soon to say.