# 15-130 New Ebola Cases in US by End of Year



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

> Pandemic risk expert Dominic Smith, a senior manager for life risks at Newark, California-based RMS, a leading catastrophe-modeling firm, ran a U.S. simulation this week that projected 15 to 130 cases between now and the end of December. That's less than one case per 2 million people.





> Smith's method assumes that *most cases imported to the U.S. will be American medical professionals* who worked in West Africa and returned home.


Follow the science. Quarantine for 21 days.



> "My worry is that the epidemic might spill into other countries in Africa or the Middle East, and then India or China. That could be a totally different story for everybody," Vespignani said.


 AP

I wonder what the Muslim reaction will be when Ebola spreads to the Middle East? Will it be the same as polio vaccinations?

What will happen in India where they don't have the medical infrastructure to handle Ebola?

How long before most worldwide travel is prohibited?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Many think those who are sounding the alarm are fear mongers. Seems like the boy scout motto, at least, ought to apply...


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

From the same article linked to in the OP:



> 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.


Worst case scenarios rarely come true, but even if they did, 130 cases is small considering our population. Devastating to those infected, of course, but not the epidemic the politicians are fear-mongering about. And so far, thankfully, all those correctly diagnosed in a timely fashion have recovered.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Belfrybat said:


> From the same article linked to in the OP:
> 
> Worst case scenarios rarely come true, but even if they did, 130 cases is small considering our population. Devastating to those infected, of course, but not the epidemic the politicians are fear-mongering about. And so far, thankfully, all those correctly diagnosed in a timely fashion have recovered.


While 130 is relatively a small number, it won't seem so small if you live in a city that has a cluster of Ebola cases.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I think I'll spend my limited worry time on real danger. http://m.timesfreepress.com/news/2014/oct/27/a-clear-and-present-dangerebola-may-be-more/


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I think I'll spend my limited worry time on real danger. http://m.timesfreepress.com/news/2014/oct/27/a-clear-and-present-dangerebola-may-be-more/


Don't you get a flu shot? Might be a problem though getting a ebola shot.:hammer:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

no really said:


> Don't you get a flu shot? Might be a problem though getting a ebola shot.:hammer:


Flu shots are never 100% effective and even with their widespread use tens of thousands of Americans die each year from flu related issues, even with our modern medical care. Thus far, Ebola seems very treatable and curable if identified early and treatment is begun. Flu is relatively easy to catch and transmit. Ebola seems quite the opposite. No one on the US has thus far contracted Ebola from casual contact. Even those living with the person who died in Texas didn't contract the disease. As I said, I'll spend my limited worry time on real concerns.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> I think I'll spend my limited worry time on real danger. http://m.timesfreepress.com/news/2014/oct/27/a-clear-and-present-dangerebola-may-be-more/


Then you're probably worrying about the wrong thing. 

The danger of Ebola is not the disease itself, but the potential to cripple the world's economy and throw many countries into severe depression. Flu will be here for a few months and then disappear, leaving little damage behind.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Flu shots are never 100% effective and even with their widespread use tens of thousands of Americans die each year from flu related issues, even with our modern medical care. Thus far, Ebola seems very treatable and curable if identified early and treatment is begun. Flu is relatively easy to catch and transmit. Ebola seems quite the opposite. No one on the US has thus far contracted Ebola from casual contact. Even those living with the person who died in Texas didn't contract the disease. As I said, I'll spend my limited worry time on real concerns.


That is what's so interesting about some in the US, their ability to ignore a threat until the very end. A threat that is relatively easy to degrade, Canada has from what I've read are denying visa' s now from infected nation's.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

no really said:


> That is what's so interesting about some in the US, their ability to ignore a threat until the very end. A threat that is relatively easy to degrade, Canada has from what I've read are denying visa' s now from infected nation's.


Not ignoring it. Being realistic about it. Every year the flu kills thousands in this country and hundreds of thousands more around the world. Planes continue to fly and infected people board them each day to transmit an easily spread virus to countless others. No travel bans, no borders shut down. When the medical experts speak out for quarantines and travel bans rather than the politicians I'll amp up my worry quotient. Unless I clean up contaminated bodily fluids from an ebola infected person I have little to worry about. If I touch that door handle after the flu infected person in front of me I do.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Not ignoring it. Being realistic about it. Every year the flu kills thousands in this country and hundreds of thousands more around the world. Planes continue to fly and infected people board them each day to transmit an easily spread virus to countless others. No travel bans, no borders shut down. When the medical experts speak out for quarantines and travel bans rather than the politicians I'll amp up my worry quotient. Unless I clean up contaminated bodily fluids from an ebola infected person I have little to worry about. If I touch that door handle after the flu infected person in front of me I do.


Like I said at least their is the flu shot, it does offer a fairly high degree of protection versus the non-existent ebola shot.

A little comment from a doctor here (I am working in N. Africa at this time) he said that if ebola got loose in the US the kill rate for those over 50 is 90%, he said that would solve the SS and Medicare cost problems.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Since we are talking about the flu..
I found this to be very, very interesting..
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/death-by-influenza_b_4661442.html

Very.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

chickenista said:


> Since we are talking about the flu..
> I found this to be very, very interesting..
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/death-by-influenza_b_4661442.html
> 
> Very.


Cool, something else I can move down the worry list.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Not really that surprised that the CDC might juggle the numbers.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

no really said:


> Not really that surprised that the CDC might juggle the numbers.


Plus the vast majority of deaths are in people 65 and older.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

chickenista said:


> Since we are talking about the flu..
> I found this to be very, very interesting..
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/death-by-influenza_b_4661442.html
> 
> Very.


Yeah... and here it is in a nutshell.. from that article.

_The CDC unabashedly decided to create a mass market for the flu vaccine by enlisting the media into panicking the public. An obedient and unquestioning media obliged by hyping the numbers, and 10 years later it is obliging still._

It's all about the money. 

So far, there really isn't a cash cow for ebola in place. Hence one of the reasons I would err on the side of caution, rather than the other way.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

What happens when we are considered an infected country and travel is restricted from the US? What about exporting? Looks like animals can be infected as well. How will this affect our livestock? We are only looking at people. What happens when animals start becoming infected as well? We are playing Russian Roulette by allowing potentially infected people free roam on our streets.


----------



## willbuck1 (Apr 4, 2010)

Yeah, but everyone I care about could get the flu and odds are none of them will die from it. If everyone I care about gets ebola life gets a whole lot lonelier.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

http://www.wral.com/patient-at-duke-hospital-being-monitored-for-possible-ebola/14141848/

Monitoring a person that could be patient number one for the prediction. Just FYI.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> http://www.wral.com/patient-at-duke-hospital-being-monitored-for-possible-ebola/14141848/
> 
> Monitoring a person that could be patient number one for the prediction. Just FYI.


Gee, I thought patient one was that nurse in Dallas, or that other nurse in Dallas, or the dead man's fiancÃ© in Dallas, or the homeless guy in Dallas, or the lab tech on the cruise ship, or the kid in the Northwest, or the nurse in Maine...............


----------



## Eagle-eye (Sep 16, 2014)

When there is one case of an American who gets Ebola without traveling to Africa and without being a healthcare worker, I'll consider this disease as a POSSIBLE threat.

Until then it's filed under hysteria.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

My prediction- by the end of this week there will be another headline announcing the next person with a fever being monitored for ebola and someone here will post a link and call for action.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Eagle-eye said:


> When there is one case of an American who gets Ebola without traveling to Africa and without being a healthcare worker, I'll consider this disease as a POSSIBLE threat.
> 
> Until then it's filed under hysteria.





mmoetc said:


> My prediction- by the end of this week there will be another headline announcing the next person with a fever being monitored for ebola and someone here will post a link and call for action.


I guess neither of you were a boy scout.

Be prepared.

You do realize the prediction in op was just for November and December? How many hundreds or thousands will it take before we close our borders? Treatment isn't free. Who is paying the millions it takes to treat patients in the US?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I guess neither of you were a boy scout.
> 
> Be prepared.
> 
> You do realize the prediction in op was just for November and December? How many hundreds or thousands will it take before we close our borders? Treatment isn't free. Who is paying the millions it takes to treat patients in the US?


Note the date on this article . http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/cdc-counts-68-ebola-scares-in-united-states/378850/. It appears the CDC was prepared and was paying attention long before most of us. Of course that was before election season started in earnest and politicians got involved. 

Who pays the cost of all those 21 day quarantines you want?


----------



## Eagle-eye (Sep 16, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> I guess neither of you were a boy scout.
> 
> Be prepared.
> 
> You do realize the prediction in op was just for November and December? How many hundreds or thousands will it take before we close our borders? Treatment isn't free. Who is paying the millions it takes to treat patients in the US?


Be prepared for real threats yes. Not media hype and hysteria. Close our borders because a handful of people came over with a disease?? That sounds extreme to me. 

Are you sure this isn't more about appealing to an anti-immigration sentiment? Are we making this into a political tool?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Eagle-eye said:


> Be prepared for real threats yes. Not media hype and hysteria. Close our borders because a handful of people came over with a disease?? That sounds extreme to me.
> 
> Are you sure this isn't more about appealing to an anti-immigration sentiment? Are we making this into a political tool?


Look into the future eagle-eye. What do you see?

You don't quarantine because a few people with Ebola may come to the US. You quarantine because IF Ebola becomes air born or If Ebola gets into the food chain or IF Ebola becomes more infectious, we have proven practices in place to stop it. 

A single hospital can barely care for a single Ebola patient. What happens when we have 10 Ebola patients in a given city? What if 100? Where do we get the doctors and nurses to provide care for them.

Putting in place quarantines is protection against future outbreaks.

Why even bring up anti-immigration? No one exposed to Ebola should be allowed into the US without going through 21 days of quarantine. This has nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with public health.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Note the date on this article . http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/cdc-counts-68-ebola-scares-in-united-states/378850/. It appears the CDC was prepared and was paying attention long before most of us. Of course that was before election season started in earnest and politicians got involved.
> 
> Who pays the cost of all those 21 day quarantines you want?


Quarantining 100 people for 21 days each is a lot cheaper than treating 1 person for Ebola.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Quarantining 100 people for 21 days each is a lot cheaper than treating 1 person for Ebola.


Care to break down those numbers for me?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I guess neither of you were a boy scout.
> 
> Be prepared.


I thought that was what the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 was for. What exactly did we get for our money? The CDC seemed to be overwhelmed with an epidemic of one when Duncan fell ill in Dallas.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Here's some help on those numbers. http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-30/treatment-for-ebola-can-cost-up-to-500-000. If we take the top end of Mr Duncan's treatment ($500,000) and divide it by your 100 people and divide that by 21 days we come up with a cost of about $238 per day for each quarantined person. Sounds doable until you take into account that to be truly effective those quarantined have to be kept in isolation and treated much the same way as someone ill with ebola. They must isolated and all contact must be limited. Doesn't seem like the costs would be all that different. Can't just put them in the local Radisson, can we?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Care to break down those numbers for me?


No, it's obvious.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Here's some help on those numbers. http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-30/treatment-for-ebola-can-cost-up-to-500-000. If we take the top end of Mr Duncan's treatment ($500,000) and divide it by your 100 people and divide that by 21 days we come up with a cost of about $238 per day for each quarantined person. Sounds doable until you take into account that to be truly effective those quarantined have to be kept in isolation and treated much the same way as someone ill with ebola. They must isolated and all contact must be limited. Doesn't seem like the costs would be all that different. Can't just put them in the local Radisson, can we?


Many would stay in their own home or apartment.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Many would stay in their own home or apartment.


Much like they've promised to do now. You don't seem to happy with scenario. To be as effective as you seem to want each of these people has to remain in complete isolation. Otherwise how do we know the $5 tip they give to the pizza guy might not have a touch of that nasty virus?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> No, it's obvious.


I love having the "obvious " explained to me.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

If there is no 'hysteria' ( by which some seemingly mean quarantining exposed individuals), then there will be cases acquired in the general population. Someone will get infected and will either make a mistake in judgement about getting treatment or be unable to do so and become an infecting corpse.

To say every public precaution is meaningless political posturing is like those who end up stranded by the side of the road because they think changing the timing belt on their car is a waste of money- after all the car is still running just fine and they need the money on other things like fast food.

Ebola is a relatively slow moving disaster, even in totally unprepared West Africa. Which is lucky for the unheeding and oblivious Americans, who have time to work out their foolish errors before they get dragged down by them. 

The test will come for the US if ebola runs through a populous country with closer ties to the US like India, Mexico, China or the Philippines. Then it will not be the occasional contact but numerous chances to spread the disease. Luckily for us, hopefully those countries will not be having useless debates about the political correctness of containing the disease but will take action to protect their citizens whatever it takes. They will, with luck, thereby protect us from death by our own arrogance.

But I must say arrogance seems to have the upper hand so far here.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Much like they've promised to do now. You don't seem to happy with scenario. To be as effective as you seem to want each of these people has to remain in complete isolation. Otherwise how do we know the $5 tip they give to the pizza guy might not have a touch of that nasty virus?


People are smart enough to work things like that out. Maybe the person in quarantine has someone assigned to them to handle just that type of thing.

The US has successfully used quarantines in the past, so I don't see any reason it can't work now.

The nurse in Maine has finally decided to quarantine herself from the town. Too bad she didn't work with the governor on coming up with a viable solution.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> People are smart enough to work things like that out. Maybe the person in quarantine has someone assigned to them to handle just that type of thing.
> 
> The US has successfully used quarantines in the past, so I don't see any reason it can't work now.
> 
> The nurse in Maine has finally decided to quarantine herself from the town. Too bad she didn't work with the governor on coming up with a viable solution.


Actually she's not quarantined herself. She's agreed to stay way from large gatherings but she's already entertained visitors and plans to do so again. According to all the mights and could be's I've heard everyone she has come into contact with thus far should also be quarantined, should they not. A true, effective quarantine prevents any contact and any possible transmission, much like holding her in a tent for three days. You either want a true quarantine because the risk is legitimate or you want some sort of quarantine-lite because it makes you feel better to think that something, no matter how ineffectual, is being done. Once again, I'll listen to the doctors and infectious disease experts who say things like quarantines and travel bans are unwarranted and counterproductive at this time.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> People are smart enough to work things like that out. Maybe the person in quarantine has someone assigned to them to handle just that type of thing.
> 
> The US has successfully used quarantines in the past, so I don't see any reason it can't work now.
> 
> The nurse in Maine has finally decided to quarantine herself from the town. Too bad she didn't work with the governor on coming up with a viable solution.


Like a lot of conservative positions, quarantine is on the wrong side of science but on the right side of public opinion. It always amazes me how Americans don't really seem to care what the experts tell them.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Like a lot of conservative positions, quarantine is on the wrong side of science but on the right side of public opinion. It always amazes me how Americans don't really seem to care what the experts tell them.


So- let's look at the currently state of ebola expertise. One man comes from an ebola epidemic country. He lies on the forms about having contact with ill people prior to travel. The forms that are the policy designed to catch problems before they cross the border. He tries to get admitted to the hospital but is sent away. Subsequently he's admitted but then no one has developed any sort of plan about actually quarantining the people who were in bed-sharing proximity to him so the experts made it up while they went along, leading to much bad press. 
Meanwhile, in the hospital, experts sorely underestimated the effectiveness of the existing expert instruction and two nurses get sick. And then the experts played the usual 'blame a nurse' game instead of acknowledging they were wrong.

Now it is obvious that none of the above would have happened if the original patient was refused admittance. 

But in order to continue unremitted criticism of the favorite whipping boy - conservatives- it is agreeable to liberals (by self definition) to keep repeating the 'expert' opinion that has proven to be wrong. 

There is a balance to be had between swallowing every bit of liberal political pseudoscience whole and shooting everyone at the border, which is the interpretation of conservative position favored in liberal debates. We are not particularly 'expert' at this whole illness. We are getting better at defining what works and what doesn't. Believing every soothing massage out of the Obama political machine is not the path to understanding as they will back pedal and blame everyone else for their mistakes.

It would help to foster a rational debate and establish the best policies if liberals did not to dismiss without acknowledgement reasonable fears because they are inconveniently expressed by people they love to the point of irrationality to hold in contempt. The statement that Obama's administration made about being willing to support policies to protect the American public as long as it didn't interfere with his plan to take action in west Africa did not inspire trust. It shows the arrogance that lead to many other failures in his administration. 

The experts you so trust had mine mostly but squandered it with the self importance. Now they can start digging out of their self created hole of distrust by showing that they rather be successful than obedient. I'm sure with the current ineffectual policies, they will have more opportunity to convince people that they can at least better deal with the resulting messes they create.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> So- let's look at the currently state of ebola expertise. One man comes from an ebola epidemic country. He lies on the forms about having contact with ill people prior to travel. The forms that are the policy designed to catch problems before the cross the border. He tries to get admitted to the hospital but is sent away. Subsequently he's admitted but then no one has developed any sort of plan about actually quarantining the people who were in bed-sharing proximity to him so the experts made it up while they went along, leading to much bad press.
> Meanwhile, in the hospital, experts sorely underestimated the effectiveness of the existing expert instruction and two nurses get sick. And tgen the experts played the usual 'blame a nurse' game instead of acknowledging they were wrong.


Most of that can be chalked-up to the hospital in Dallas screwing up, not the underlying science. They didn't follow protocols and didn't have the proper equipment on hand. They admit that. But that doesn't mean the science is wrong.

That hospital has been told that they aren't to treat any more Ebola victims, and they have agreed.

I still believe the science is sound.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Most of that can be chalked-up to the hospital in Dallas screwing up. They didn't follow protocols and didn't have the proper equipment on hand. They admit that. But that doesn't mean the science is wrong.
> 
> That hospital has been told that they aren't to treat any more Ebola victims, and they have agreed.
> 
> I still believe the science is sound.


Yesterday's science is today's disproven idea. Science is a process. I think you mean that you believe that a person who no active symptoms such as bleeding, vomitting, etc is not contagious because there has been limited study of this issue. Therefore you believe they do not need to be quarantined until then.

But it ignores the fact that, even if true, humans still are the arbiters of what is that mystical line between being symptomatic and not. Humans get it wrong. Humans lie and delude themselves constantly. They act from self interest more often than not. They simply get it wrong, even when they are provided with absolute certainty. They get rushed or have a misplace priority or think they alone know better. The doctor going to the bowling alley or the nurse traveling on an airplane for weddings arrangements have given plenty of examples of this.

in fact, in human terms, the one nurse Ms. Pham seems to have been the only responsible one. The exception in the face of reality.

But unfortunately public health authorities can not conduct themselves in the scientific petri dish. They live in the real human world. So they can not afford to assume the righteous behavior of the infected as is the basis for the cavalier dismissal of public fears. The public knows themselves and they know best that they have themselves to fear.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Most of that can be chalked-up to the hospital in Dallas screwing up, not the underlying science. They didn't follow protocols and didn't have the proper equipment on hand. They admit that. But that doesn't mean the science is wrong.
> 
> That hospital has been told that they aren't to treat any more Ebola victims, and they have agreed.
> 
> I still believe the science is sound.


And btw until the Dallas hospital screwed up so royally, it was the expert opinion that any hospital could deal with the illness. I guess from what you are saying, the next expert opinion is the reverse. 

Well it at least shows some ability to learn by experts. Too bad a little conservative unscientific fear could not have lead to better policy before people died and got sick.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Yesterday's science is today's disproven idea. Science is a process.


Yet you insist on following science for building bridges, tall buildings, and elevators.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Like a lot of conservative positions, quarantine is on the wrong side of science but on the right side of public opinion. It always amazes me how Americans don't really seem to care what the experts tell them.


You and the government have your experts and I have mine. There are many experts that have called for a quarantine of people coming from the 3 Ebola stricken west African countries. 

Do you know how many health professionals who have "followed" established protocols that have gotten Ebola?

Did you know that in the early stage of Ebola, some people have tested negative for Ebola and positive for malaria? It was a couple days later before they tested positive for Ebola. Maybe that's why patients testing negative for Ebola are being kept in isolation for observation for a few days.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Yet you insist on following science for building bridges, tall buildings, and elevators.


I tremble to my core going up in tall elevators or over high bridges- but I overcome it because it has a long history of learning after earlier failures. And it is mostly engineers I trust. Engineering is the field of making science that actually works.

But with ebola, people have called themselves experts and insisted on their authority based on no actual experience with ebola at all. And vitually no practical experience with human beings or political verities. And, most importantly, they got it so wrong at every opportunity.

If the first, second and third bridges you crossed collapsed under you, you might see the reason to question the expertise. Keeping on completely trusting someone who failed repeatedly and sought to blame you for their failure is not wisdom.


----------



## Eagle-eye (Sep 16, 2014)

The fact that, so far, only healthcare workers and people from west Africa have contracted the disease seems to validate what the CDC, WHO, and government officials have been saying all along. That this disease is only transferred by contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person.

The odds of catching this disease through casual contact, and therefore the odds of this becoming an epidemic here in the US are so low they do not warrant the extreme action being called for by some.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Yet you insist on following science for building bridges, tall buildings, and elevators.


Irritated explicative. You derailed the debate. 

It is not a matter of faith in science, which is a very wobbly idea anyway, but that human beings are incapable of being error free. Or even with some, error resistant. And with some, they are actually seeking to do damage.

People get it wrong. They know they should not risk exposing others yet more would do that for their own convenience than would not. And when people get it wrong with ebola, then other people die. If you can limit the chances of getting it wrong by limiting the number of cases, then you limit the chance for damage. 

The arguments that it would make people harder to track, when no one is bothering to track them in the first place, is ridiculous on its face and can only be a desire to avoid being called out for political incorrectness. And the argument that putting a volunteer health worker woukd discourage some from going, well that would be a good thing if they would come back with the disease.

And all this is based on the idea the the US should go into west Africa to use its expertise to eradicate ebola there and thereby insure it doesn't enter here. Such arrogance that this is even possible. Those countries are rife with beliefs that the US created ebola to kill black people. They don't trust their own governments and there will certainly be issues with the US being there at all much less being effective. 

At best, ebola will retreat some on its own as people there change to take it into account. It will be pushed back into the countryside for awhile. And will leave an increased legacy of hating the US.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Eagle-eye said:


> The fact that, so far, only healthcare workers and people from west Africa have contracted the disease seems to validate what the CDC, WHO, and government officials have been saying all along. That this disease is only transferred by contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person.
> 
> The odds of catching this disease through casual contact, and therefore the odds of this becoming an epidemic here in the US are so low they do not warrant the extreme action being called for by some.


Well you'll need to define what you consider 'extreme action.' In truth ebola is a disease of relentless slowness. It starts with a few cases and geometrically increases at a snail's pace until it is no longer capable of containment. So the fact that has only limited effect here is more a function of it being early days. It petered out in Africa several times on its own before coming back harder.

There are only so many cases needing intense treatment before the medical resources here can't function normally. First resources are used up by people without ebola but being possibly infected taking time. Then the normal rush of winter illnesses get pushed out and a few more would die when they might not have if the hospitals were able to keep up. It simply would not take an epidemic to cause deaths.they just won't be called ebola deaths.

If we have not resolved the best plan of containment before it spreads, we will have to take that action anyway when it spreads, if it does, to other countries with much more contact here. It is best to look down the road to plan for it and hope for the best than try to contain various hot spots here and try to develop a plan in a rush.

Or we can hope for an effective vaccination program.


----------



## Litlbits (Jan 6, 2014)

Dr Godfrey George in Sierra Leone died today from Ebola. He had not treated Ebola patients. He was treating people with other diseases such as malaria. The WHO thinks that one of those patients had both Ebola and another disease at the same time and that is how the Dr became infected. He became ill last Friday and died today.

The current count is 13,703 infections with 4920 deaths. It is surging in Sierra Leone but slowing a bit in Liberia. However it comes in waves of infection so the are suspecting there will be another wave in Liberia coming.

Ebola can penetrate skin abrasions such as from scratching, it does not have to be an open cut or wound. The amount of Ebola in 1/5 teaspoon of blood is 10 to 50 BILLION viral particles. This info is from WHO and CDC reports from the people in West African countries.

A rash is one of the symptoms listed for Ebola. It is much more than a rash!
If any one would want to see for themselves what Ebola looks like when it is full blown within the body you can access pictures by typing "Ebola on skin". WARNING: these pictures are extremely graphic and not for the squeamish. 

I have posted this information because I feel it is important to know as much about a disease as possible before it comes to our neighborhoods. Pictures are worth a 1000 words.


----------



## Eagle-eye (Sep 16, 2014)

Volcanoes are dangerous too. Are you researching and preparing for one?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Irritated explicative. You derailed the debate.


Not really. My point was that you're picking and choosing which science to believe and which to discard. If you always want to be in the safe side why not require bridges and tall buildings to use materials that are more substantial than engineers specify? Sure, it will be a lot more expensive, but it will be safer.


----------



## Litlbits (Jan 6, 2014)

Perhaps. Seriously, if there was information concerning volcanos in Missouri or surrounding states that might affect Missouri then yes, I would be researching as much as possible. I realize you think we are all a bit overboard on this Ebola and maybe we are but I would rather know ahead of time than wait till it is at my back door. We are all at liberty to pursue what we think is best in dismissing what is going on or take heed and prepare. The U.S. has done a good job so far at keeping it from spreading here, granted there have been some mistakes along the way too. As long as there are only a few suspected cases or actual cases we will be just fine but if clusters start here I think it will be a disaster. The world is wide open and people and their diseases travel all over all the time. 

The Spanish flu which was actually H1N1 back in 1918 and 1919 started with very few infected in Europe, it spread here by our military troops in World War 1. It went global and killed 50 million or more. Travel was not near as widespread as today. It came in three waves of infection here in the states during the spring of 1918, then then fall of 1918 and finally in the spring of 1919. 

It is said that those who do not learn from what has happened in the past are bound to repeat it. I prefer to learn, research, investigate as much as I can and be prepared and to share whatever knowledge and information with others.


----------



## trulytricia (Oct 11, 2002)

This is just a short page to read about Russia http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...tizens-not-to-travel-abroad-because-of-ebola/

Do they know something we don't know?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Eagle-eye said:


> Volcanoes are dangerous too. Are you researching and preparing for one?


As soon as they start flying in from Africa I will.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

trulytricia said:


> This is just a short page to read about Russia http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...tizens-not-to-travel-abroad-because-of-ebola/
> 
> Do they know something we don't know?


Yeah, their economy is going down the tubes and they want to keep as much currency in Russia as they can.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Irritated explicative. You derailed the debate.
> 
> It is not a matter of faith in science, which is a very wobbly idea anyway, but that human beings are incapable of being error free. Or even with some, error resistant. And with some, they are actually seeking to do damage.
> 
> ...


Of course humans are prone to error. That's also why the false security engendered by quarantines and travel bans is false security. Somewhere, someday someone will mess up and render those meaningless. If ebola is allowed to progress uncontained in Africa what makes you think travel bans and quarantines will make you safe? The slow rate of transmission which you have mentioned repeatedly is the very same thing that makes ebola containable. Rather than relying on some vague scientific speculation about what might happen we could look at someplace like Nigeria. Close to the outbreak, much less advanced in infrastructure than the US and yet they somehow managed to contain their own outbreak and become ebola free. http://nypost.com/2014/10/20/nigeria-is-officially-ebola-free/

I'll now point out the irony of you wanting to establish government policies based on science that is , at best, theoretical and unproven, yet it is exactly that kind of science and policy making that is criticized in the climate change debate.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> That's also why the false security engendered by quarantines and travel bans is false security.


No one is recommending quarantines as the only preventative measure, but that quarantines should be part of a broader public health approach. 



> Rather than relying on some vague scientific speculation about what might happen we could look at someplace like Nigeria. Close to the outbreak, much less advanced in infrastructure than the US and yet they somehow managed to contain their own outbreak and become ebola free.


Ebola was brought into Nigeria by a person from Liberia. That person infected 19 other people. If the person from Liberia had been quarantined, wouldn't Ebola have stopped right there? Or even better, how about if the border was closed?

You are arguing for managing Ebola and we are arguing for preventing Ebola first and managing second.


----------



## Eagle-eye (Sep 16, 2014)

Litlbits said:


> Perhaps. Seriously, if there was information concerning volcanos in Missouri or surrounding states that might affect Missouri then yes, I would be researching as much as possible. I realize you think we are all a bit overboard on this Ebola and maybe we are but I would rather know ahead of time than wait till it is at my back door. We are all at liberty to pursue what we think is best in dismissing what is going on or take heed and prepare. The U.S. has done a good job so far at keeping it from spreading here, granted there have been some mistakes along the way too. As long as there are only a few suspected cases or actual cases we will be just fine but if clusters start here I think it will be a disaster. The world is wide open and people and their diseases travel all over all the time.
> 
> The Spanish flu which was actually H1N1 back in 1918 and 1919 started with very few infected in Europe, it spread here by our military troops in World War 1. It went global and killed 50 million or more. Travel was not near as widespread as today. It came in three waves of infection here in the states during the spring of 1918, then then fall of 1918 and finally in the spring of 1919.
> 
> It is said that those who do not learn from what has happened in the past are bound to repeat it. I prefer to learn, research, investigate as much as I can and be prepared and to share whatever knowledge and information with others.


Yes, but you have to be able to assess a threat and react proportionately. I mentioned volcanoes because the odds of Ebola becoming a real threat are so low its not worth the amount of concern and extreme responses that some are having to it.

If you give every possible threat equal time, energy and resource then you aren't going to be very effective in dealing with any of them. Right now, Ebola is something to be watched. It is serious. But when I hear people calling for us to seal the borders and stop all flights and immigration, it sounds like panic to me. Way out of proportion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> No one is recommending quarantines as the only preventative measure, but that quarantines should be part of a broader public health approach.
> 
> Ebola was brought into Nigeria by a person from Liberia. That person infected 19 other people. If the person from Liberia had been quarantined, wouldn't Ebola have stopped right there? Or even better, how about if the border was closed?
> 
> You are arguing for managing Ebola and we are arguing for preventing Ebola first and managing second.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/why-an-ebola-flight-ban-wouldnt-work/

Here's a little analysis of why those preventive measures won't work. All the flight and other movement of people from the infected areas to Western Europe and the United States and how many cases of ebola have been contracted by any member of the general public? Zero. All cases outside of Africa have been in people who contracted it there or were treating someone in a hospital environment. To focus on prevention first is a fool's errand. There may come a time when travel bans and hard quarantines are justified. But the people who know about such things, scientists, doctors and epidemiologists, say they aren't necessary or effective now. You've claimed cost savings you can't show and experts you haven't produced. Others have claimed science they presume. I'll listen to rational minds trying to work to solve this problem, not politicians and talking heads looking to capitalize on the fear it produces. I'll stay aware and take whatever precautions the experts deem prudent but I won't advocate for policies that waste precious resources and those same experts say are unnecessary.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Litlbits said:


> Dr Godfrey George in Sierra Leone died today from Ebola. He had not treated Ebola patients. He was treating people with other diseases such as malaria. The WHO thinks that one of those patients had both Ebola and another disease at the same time and that is how the Dr became infected. He became ill last Friday and died today.
> 
> The current count is 13,703 infections with 4920 deaths. It is surging in Sierra Leone but slowing a bit in Liberia. However it comes in waves of infection so the are suspecting there will be another wave in Liberia coming.
> 
> ...


Our paper had a full page explaining ebola. Just what it does to one's body. I'm thinking most who are poo-pooing it, comparing it to the flu, don't know any of this.
It gets into every cell of your body, replicates itself. If any of you know anything about blood components, you know what T-cells are...1st line of defense in the body. Ebola destroys these. Then eats away at organs; blood vessels become like sieves. That is why the victims bleed out of every orifice. 
It is nothing like the flu.
And if you've had ebola, and survived, you have horrendous problems the rest of your life, depending on which body organ got ravenged the most.
The 2 RNs that got it from the Dallas ebola patient, got treatment immediately, I believe got transfusions from a survivor & that is why they got well so quickly...I have'nt read about side effects, what they may be left with. Could be minor since they recovered so quickly.

Have to tell those who are taking this lightly...you've got no cred w/me.


----------



## Eagle-eye (Sep 16, 2014)

Do you know what hot lava from a volcano can do to the human body? Victims burn and their insides boil. It incinerates every cell in your body. And if you have been burned by hot lava, and survived, you are never the same. This is nothing like Ebola.

People poo-pooing this or shrugging this off have obviously never been the victim of a volcano.

We have to act now. Lets build lava walls around every city ( especially those bordering Mexico where the volcano threat is heaviest ). Cost is no object, the people in Pompeii died from a volcano and so that means we might too. Our government is failing us and the "officials" who are telling us that volcanoes aren't an imminent threat are wrong. They are using "science" which we all know is nonsense.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Our paper had a full page explaining ebola. Just what it does to one's body. I'm thinking most who are poo-pooing it, comparing it to the flu, don't know any of this.
> It gets into every cell of your body, replicates itself. If any of you know anything about blood components, you know what T-cells are...1st line of defense in the body. Ebola destroys these. Then eats away at organs; blood vessels become like sieves. That is why the victims bleed out of every orifice.
> It is nothing like the flu.
> And if you've had ebola, and survived, you have horrendous problems the rest of your life, depending on which body organ got ravenged the most.
> ...


Ebola is a horrible disease. So are a lot of other things. I don't lose sleep at night over them either or advocate that we ban and quarantine people who have traveled to areas where these diseases exist. Do you? The issue isn't what ebola does to someone. The issue is about how remote the chances are that you'll contract ebola in this country and how outsized the reaction has been to this remote chance. The very nature of how ebola is transmitted is what makes it containable in a country like ours. You even point out that with quick and effective treatment, readily available here, that ebola doesn't seem to be the death sentence it is an areas where such health care isn't available. Making that health care available and stopping ebola in areas where it is endemic is the only long term solution. 

Now I'll go back to worrying about the coming zombie apocalypse.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> To focus on prevention first is a fool's errand.


That would make a good slogan for a drug company. 

Prevention is cheaper than treatment.


> But the people who know about such things, scientists, doctors and epidemiologists, say they aren't necessary or effective now.


Many doctors and scientists are recommending a 21 day quarantine. What makes your experts better than mine?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> That would make a good slogan for a drug company.
> 
> Prevention is cheaper than treatment.
> 
> Many doctors and scientists are recommending a 21 day quarantine. What makes your experts better than mine?


When I can actually find one of those doctors or scientists you continue to allude to but provide no evidence of I'll judge their veracity. Until then I'll listen to doctors like these http://abc7chicago.com/health/doctors-challenge-21-day-quarantine-for-ebola-workers/367223/ .


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

"When people start dying here I'll worry about ebola"- why yes you will but then there's those inconvenient dead people littering up the landscape, all those closed schools, all those people sick from other things not getting treated, all that expense for treatments, while few in number, eat up lots of resources, all those hidden hot spots that keep turning up because who knows where ebola lurks when people are not getting sick.

"More people die of the flu so I'll worry more about that"- why yes that is true so now you choose to have those deaths and ebola deaths too? 

"I believe the experts who say that ebola can never become epidemic here"- probably true but that does not mean that even the estimated cases that are permitted to start will not be a social, financial and political burden, not to mention the long term physical toll on the people actually infected because the government chose to throw them to the wolves when a limited exclusion on visas and a reasonable length of quarantine in some situations would have minimized the numbers. And heaven forbid that the "experts" turn out to be as incorrect as they have already been- something conveniently ignored by the "don't worry, be happy" faction.

And it's the dismissive blyth attitude of those experts that is the really scary, along with those who support them by deriding those not so easily lead. It's the people who look possibilities in the face and worry about them that keep the non-thinkers safe despite themselves.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Eagle-eye said:


> Do you know what hot lava from a volcano can do to the human body? Victims burn and their insides boil. It incinerates every cell in your body. And if you have been burned by hot lava, and survived, you are never the same. This is nothing like Ebola.
> 
> People poo-pooing this or shrugging this off have obviously never been the victim of a volcano.
> 
> We have to act now. Lets build lava walls around every city ( especially those bordering Mexico where the volcano threat is heaviest ). Cost is no object, the people in Pompeii died from a volcano and so that means we might too. Our government is failing us and the "officials" who are telling us that volcanoes aren't an imminent threat are wrong. They are using "science" which we all know is nonsense.


I'm appalled.
I sincerely hope you or your relatives/friends DO NOT have to deal w/ebola. And I hope no one who contracted it learns of your sick jokes.
Do you in all honesty think you are making an analogy? B/c if you are, you have no idea how to do it, and sound like the typical left-leaning lib.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Not really. My point was that you're picking and choosing which science to believe and which to discard. If you always want to be in the safe side why not require bridges and tall buildings to use materials that are more substantial than engineers specify? Sure, it will be a lot more expensive, but it will be safer.


Why yes- I do make choices. And I do exercise judgement. I'm surprised you admit to not doing so. There is good science and poor science. Science is designed to be an actual counterbalance to the faith you advocate. It exists to be able to withstand questioning and can not function without it.

I do so even to the point of evaluating the quality of "expertise" being cited. If a bridge failed the first time it was used (read CDC expert guidance on ebola protocols), it would make me look more carefully at their succeeding standards. Imagine how much better it would have been to think deeply enough to have foreseen what actually turned out to have happened and developed things that actually worked. Now that would have been a faith builder.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> "When people start dying here I'll worry about ebola"- why yes you will but then there's those inconvenient dead people littering up the landscape, all those closed schools, all those people sick from other things not getting treated, all that expense for treatments, while few in number, eat up lots of resources, all those hidden hot spots that keep turning up because who knows where ebola lurks when people are not getting sick.
> 
> "More people die of the flu so I'll worry more about that"- why yes that is true so now you choose to have those deaths and ebola deaths too?
> 
> ...


You mean people who look possibilities in the face and worry about them like those scientists who speak about climate change and man's role in it. Why dismiss one group of scientists yet champion another group( who's work you have yet to produce)? Why argue against government intrusion in one case, yet argue for it in another? 

You try to dismiss those of us not willing to run around like our hairs on fire as being some sort of Pollyannas. A reasonable amount of concern and reasonable action to deal with ebola are warranted. Thinking that we can somehow lock ourselves in this country and be immune to it and not deal with in Africa is true magical thinking.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Why yes- I do make choices. And I do exercise judgement. I'm surprised you admit to not doing so. There is good science and poor science. Science is designed to be an actual counterbalance to the faith you advocate. It exists to be able to withstand questioning and can not function without it.


I guess I just don't understand the suggestion that your judgement might be more credible than the opinions of people who have devoted their lives to a particular corner of science.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

Eagle-eye said:


> Do you know what hot lava from a volcano can do to the human body? Victims burn and their insides boil. It incinerates every cell in your body. And if you have been burned by hot lava, and survived, you are never the same. This is nothing like Ebola.
> 
> People poo-pooing this or shrugging this off have obviously never been the victim of a volcano.
> 
> We have to act now. Lets build lava walls around every city ( especially those bordering Mexico where the volcano threat is heaviest ). Cost is no object, the people in Pompeii died from a volcano and so that means we might too. Our government is failing us and the "officials" who are telling us that volcanoes aren't an imminent threat are wrong. They are using "science" which we all know is nonsense.


SPOT ON!!!! Excellent analogy!:clap::clap:


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm appalled.
> *I sincerely hope you or your relatives/friends have to deal w/ebola...*.


WOW. That is one ugly post.^^


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Trainwrek said:


> WOW. That is one ugly post.^^


More compassionate conservatism.

I'll accept TG's edit and subsequent apology for the typo as sincere and withdraw my snarkiness.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> You mean people who look possibilities in the face and worry about them like those scientists who speak about climate change and man's role in it. Why dismiss one group of scientists yet champion another group( who's work you have yet to produce)? Why argue against government intrusion in one case, yet argue for it in another?
> 
> You try to dismiss those of us not willing to run around like our hairs on fire as being some sort of Pollyannas. A reasonable amount of concern and reasonable action to deal with ebola are warranted. Thinking that we can somehow lock ourselves in this country and be immune to it and not deal with in Africa is true magical thinking.


Find where I said what you declare I said. You argue against your own assumptions about those disagreements, not mine.

And yes- I do choose to try to distinguish good science from bad science. Attaching the word scientist to a pronouncement does not make it gospel. Bad science lead to two nurses getting ebola- bad science and arrogance that what has not been personally experienced does not exist. Remember the CDC official hysterically announcing the nurses got it wrong just before changing what was best guidance to be safe? 

If you wish to have civil discourse, then you can not belittle your opponent as ignorant, belittling them and leave it at that. And you can't get so emotionally invested in shooting others down that you can not read what they actually say before getting angry at them for not falling in line with you personally.

And I certainly do not think of you as a Pollyanna, whose fault was that she thought of everyone and everything as equally good. She was kind with a strong dose of obliviousness.

How can you rant about dismissing you without noticing you start a debate in that way? What do you think your statement about going back to worrying about the zombie apocalypse is? 



.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Bad science lead to two nurses getting ebola


To be accurate, there was nothing wrong with the science. The problem was in the application of available technology. The nurses didn't follow protocol and the hospital didn't provide the proper supplies. You can't blame the underlying science for a failure to apply proper technology.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Find where I said what you declare I said. You argue against your own assumptions about those disagreements, not mine.
> 
> And yes- I do choose to try to distinguish good science from bad science. Attaching the word scientist to a pronouncement does not make it gospel. Bad science lead to two nurses getting ebola- bad science and arrogance that what has not been personally experienced does not exist. Remember the CDC official hysterically announcing the nurses got it wrong just before changing what was best guidance to be safe?
> 
> ...


All I ask is that you show me your science. The nurses didn't get ill because the science was bad, they got ill because they didn't follow the science. I'll dismiss opinion backed by nothing but more opinion. I'll pay attention to facts. I've tried to find those scientists you and others claim back you. I have thusfar failed in that quest. Please, enlighten me.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I guess I just don't understand the suggestion that your judgement might be more credible than the opinions of people who have devoted their lives to a particular corner of science.


Because scientists are humans who bicker,play politics, engage in vendettas, get defensive about their pet ideas, are tyrants, are bullied, refuse to admit they are wrong, lie, cheat and steal at the same rate other humans do. 

I will give them a longer hearing based on the assumption of higher knowledge due to deeper study but refuse to surrender my right to question solely on the basis of that. 

I've known too many academic scientist to swallow their lines without checking it out as best I can. And that doesn't include journalists getting it totally wrong when reporting it.

Too many times there has been "scientific" authority cites for what turned out to be nonsense. A history of science is a very enlightening study. And the world is full of 'scientific' studies that are misapplied, if not fundamentally flawed.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> To be accurate, there was nothing wrong with the science. The problem was in the application of available technology. The nurses didn't follow protocol and the hospital didn't provide the proper supplies. You can't blame the underlying science for a failure to apply proper technology.


But isn't that lack of understanding and execution reason enough to question the real world application? Even if the 'scientists', which do not neccessarily include all those with degrees, are correct about the basics. If the science can not be applied, then knowing it is not particularly helpful. Even if right......


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Because scientists are humans who bicker,play politics, engage in vendettas, get defensive about their pet ideas, are tyrants, are bullied, refuse to admit they are wrong, lie, cheat and steal at the same rate other humans do.


While that's all true, it's very difficult to get away with any of it in scientific discovery. The thing is that during public disclosure of scientific discovery there are people doing similar work who will expose that kind of dishonesty for what it is. It's unlikely that a scientist's pettiness would make it into scientific literature.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> But isn't that lack of understanding and execution reason enough to question the real world application? Even if the 'scientists', which do not neccessarily include all those with degrees, are correct about the basics. If the science can not be applied, then knowing it is not particularly helpful. Even if right......


The science CAN be applied. None of the nurses at Emory came down with Ebola. How do you explain that? Dumb luck?

The problem was with the hospital in Dallas, and there's no excuse for it. Evidently the worst that hospital will get is that they can't treat Ebola patients. I see what they did as criminal negligence.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> All I ask is that you show me your science. The nurses didn't get ill because the science was bad, they got ill because they didn't follow the science. I'll dismiss opinion backed by nothing but more opinion. I'll pay attention to facts. I've tried to find those scientists you and others claim back you. I have thusfar failed in that quest. Please, enlighten me.


I'm trying but you won't listen.. Find anything I've said quoting a scientist on anything. And the facts, although you have been vague on which facts you actually want, are that the results so far, in the first cases of ebola, have not been reassuring. The hospital got it wrong, two nurses got infected, the doctor in New York, who was best educated to make decisions, got hauled out of his apartment which was later decontaminated, after going to large public venues.
This is not "science"- this is history. First two cases that came to the US without a diagnosis. Both badly handled. 

There is a remark about not paying attention to history and therefore repeating it. But that's the minimum to be taken away. A better use of resources is to figure out what the end will be and be right before it becomes history. And in that 'science', which not godlike, is only a tool among others.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The science CAN be applied. None of the nurses at Emory came down with Ebola. How do you explain that? Dumb luck?
> 
> The problem was with the hospital in Dallas, and there's no excuse for it. Evidently the worst that hospital will get is that they can't treat Ebola patients. I see what they did as criminal negligence.


Of course there was an excuse- the hospital was cruising on CDC soothing noises from the flyers sent around. Both the CDC and most of the hospitals were living in a never-never land- the one created by thinking it could never happen here and they could never get incomplete advice. Neither was ready when they could have been if the worrywarts had be listened to. Imagine- no more resouces expended than a flyer. Arrogance.

And that's is if you cut a lot of slack with the CDC and its preference for political correctness over science.

Expecting that much from a hospital probably already running as hard as it can to cope with the ordinary is the defect that was inexcusable. The CDC has learned a bit about reality - they are taking ebola more seriously. But I haven't seen anything but embarrassed silence to make me think they have been chastened enough to be reliable now.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> And that's is if you cut a lot of slack with the CDC and its preference for political correctness over science.


I don't cut the CDC any slack at all. Bush got the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, which provided them with all the money and political clout they needed to keep us safe from epidemics. The first time we saw it in actions was an epidemic of one in Dallas, and they were totally overwhelmed. Someone has some explaining to do.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I don't cut the CDC any slack at all. Bush got the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, which provided them with all the money and political clout they needed to keep us safe from epidemics. The first time we saw it in actions was an epidemic of one in Dallas, and they were totally overwhelmed. Someone has some explaining to do.


Amen. But so far deafening silence


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> While that's all true, it's very difficult to get away with any of it in scientific discovery. The thing is that during public disclosure of scientific discovery there are people doing similar work who will expose that kind of dishonesty for what it is. It's unlikely that a scientist's pettiness would make it into scientific literature.


I can't resist saying that many a maverick scientist has found to his regret that, while he may prove to be correct at some point, the collective raspberries sounded by the scientific establishment on various revolutionary ideas can be really damaging to a career.

This has been especially true for various bacterial and virus researchers from Pasteur to Warren and Marshall. Although science has noble goals, it is stocked with the same flawed egos as anywhere else.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> I can't resist saying that many a maverick scientist has found to his regret that, while he may prove to be correct at some point, the collective raspberries sounded by the scientific establishment on various revolutionary ideas can be really damaging to a career.


New ideas have to be firmly based in existing science. If you have an new idea but it requires a belief that water runs uphill, then you're going to have a problem with acceptance.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> New ideas have to be firmly based in existing science. If you have an new idea but it requires a belief that water runs uphill, then you're going to have a problem with acceptance.


I'd rather be right than be accepted.

What doctor's practice is not science but accepted practices.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I'd rather be right than be accepted.


So if republicans take control of the senate, they'll stomp out Ebola?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Interesting article.
http://www.sott.net/article/288172-Think-your-insurance-company-will-cover-you-for-Ebola-Think-again


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I don't cut the CDC any slack at all. Bush got the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, which provided them with all the money and political clout they needed to keep us safe from epidemics. The first time we saw it in actions was an epidemic of one in Dallas, and they were totally overwhelmed. Someone has some explaining to do.


And then Obama cut $600 million from that.... And it was never intended to keep us safe from natural epidemics anyway. Its purpose was to protect us from biological attacks.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> And then Obama cut $600 million from that.... And it was never intended to keep us safe from natural epidemics anyway. Its purpose was to protect us from biological attacks.


So if there had been a bioterrorism attack we would have just been out of luck?

What exactly did the act do to protect us from attacks?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> So if there had been a bioterrorism attack we would have just been out of luck?
> 
> What exactly did the act do to protect us from attacks?


Probably, yes. I doubt it would be very effective in the event of an attack, but there are provisions for stockpiling drugs for treating things like anthrax...obviously that isn't going to help much with ebola.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> Probably, yes. I doubt it would be very effective in the event of an attack, but there are provisions for stockpiling drugs for treating things like anthrax...obviously that isn't going to help much with ebola.


Sounds like some defense contractor made a bundle.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Sounds like some defense contractor made a bundle.


Maybe. Probably some pharmaceutical companies, too. Most likely, the government itself swallowed up the vast majority of that money and produced little to nothing of benefit for it. I could be wrong about the effectiveness, though. Maybe they did prevent a bio-attack, or maybe we are well-prepared for one...but I doubt it.

Either way, ebola probably wasn't a big focus of that law because it wouldn't be a very good weapon.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> Maybe. Probably some pharmaceutical companies, too. Most likely, the government itself swallowed up the vast majority of that money and produced little to nothing of benefit for it. I could be wrong about the effectiveness, though. Maybe they did prevent a bio-attack, or maybe we are well-prepared for one...but I doubt it.


That's the problem with anti-terrorism measures. They don't tell us what they're doing so it remains secret from terrorists. That leaves us vulnerable to be fleeced. I think that's exactly what happened to us with that act.

One thing I can tell you for sure, if I was preparing for a bioterrorism attack I would develop infrastructure to deal with an epidemic.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

All I know is that if they expect us to have that many cases in just 8 weeks, we had better get busy!

At the rate we are going we won't have that many cases going by Easter.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> One thing I can tell you for sure, if I was preparing for a bioterrorism attack I would develop infrastructure to deal with an epidemic.


What kind of epidemic? There are many, and one size does not fit all. And what kind of infrastructure?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> What kind of epidemic? There are many, and one size does not fit all. And what kind of infrastructure?


Any contagious epidemic. The protocol, dress and materials are the same. Seems like a no-brainer to me.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Any contagious epidemic. The protocol, dress and materials are the same. Seems like a no-brainer to me.


If it were a no-brainer, even the government could get it right....

On a serious note, though, the protocols should vary quite a bit depending on the contagion. For example, there are quarantine provisions in the Bioterrorism Act of 2002...should we use those provisions for "any contagious epidemic"? See what I mean about one size does not fit all? Different infections also require different drugs to treat.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> I'm trying but you won't listen.. Find anything I've said quoting a scientist on anything. And the facts, although you have been vague on which facts you actually want, are that the results so far, in the first cases of ebola, have not been reassuring. The hospital got it wrong, two nurses got infected, the doctor in New York, who was best educated to make decisions, got hauled out of his apartment which was later decontaminated, after going to large public venues.
> This is not "science"- this is history. First two cases that came to the US without a diagnosis. Both badly handled.
> 
> There is a remark about not paying attention to history and therefore repeating it. But that's the minimum to be taken away. A better use of resources is to figure out what the end will be and be right before it becomes history. And in that 'science', which not godlike, is only a tool among others.


You're absolutely right. You've quoted no scientists to back up any of your thoughts or opinions. I haven't been vague at all. I've simply asked for one expert in this field who says that quarantines and flight bans are warranted at this time as you and others have called for. I have yet to see even that simple request addressed. I'm not interested in basing national policy on your thoughts or feelings, or the hyped up fears or political ambitions of anyone else.

Let's compare and contrast the handling of those first two cases. In the first the hospital ignored its own protocols and didn't admit the patient when they should. Upon admittance they made a number of other mistakes leading to two more cases. I'll even admit this was an abject failure. In the second case, upon becoming symptomatic the patient was admitted to the hospital and treatment was begun. According to reports the patient is responding to treatment and getting better. We have, thus far, seen no new infections resulting from this. Right now this would have to be considered a qualified success proving that we can learn from our mistakes and the science is valid.

The end game should be to figure out a way to contain this outbreak in Africa and to ensure that the infrastructure is in place in Western Africa to contain any future outbreaks before they explode. I have faith that sound policy based on the best science available can accomplish this. I have little faith that policy based on your vague fears and seeming distrust of science will work.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Trainwrek said:


> WOW. That is one ugly post.^^


So to say you hope someone's family/friends do not have to deal w/ebola is UGLY?
I try, I mean I really try, to understand the mindset of libs. 
I guess I shoulda said I hope no one gets run over by lava.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Ok, I see the problem. Went back to my post...I certainly MEANT to type "DO NOT get ebola". Good grief, most here shojld know that typos are in 'bout every post I type.
Ack.
So sorry.


----------



## Eagle-eye (Sep 16, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Ok, I see the problem. Went back to my post...I certainly MEANT to type "DO NOT get ebola". Good grief, most here shojld know that typos are in 'bout every post I type.
> Ack.
> So sorry.


Gosh I hope so. I would hope that we can disagree as to the issue of Ebola without wishing ill on one another's families!

I would also like to dispel the idea that this is some sort of conservative vs liberal issue, as for some very partisan political types, everything in life seems to fall that way. Many self styled 'conservatives' have been referring to me as a liberal and even some liberal posters pointed at others referring to them as 'conservatives' based on their opinion of the Ebola virus.

This is getting to the point of a national sickness. It's absurd and you should all be embarrassed. Ebola is a disease, NOT a political debate!! Some of you ( you know who you are ) have to stop this, you are going over the deep end. Stop listening to your partisan talking heads, stop only reading newspapers and tv shows that affirm your membership in one of two political teams. It's clouding your judgement and making you stubborn and argumentative.

For what its worth, when I vote, I happen to vote Republican. But I also have common sense and know the limits of political huckery. I have the ability to hold an opinion that might actually have nothing to do with the party line.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> You're absolutely right. You've quoted no scientists to back up any of your thoughts or opinions. I haven't been vague at all. I've simply asked for one expert in this field who says that quarantines and flight bans are warranted at this time as you and others have called for. I have yet to see even that simple request addressed. I'm not interested in basing national policy on your thoughts or feelings, or the hyped up fears or political ambitions of anyone else.
> 
> Let's compare and contrast the handling of those first two cases. In the first the hospital ignored its own protocols and didn't admit the patient when they should. Upon admittance they made a number of other mistakes leading to two more cases. I'll even admit this was an abject failure. In the second case, upon becoming symptomatic the patient was admitted to the hospital and treatment was begun. According to reports the patient is responding to treatment and getting better. We have, thus far, seen no new infections resulting from this. Right now this would have to be considered a qualified success proving that we can learn from our mistakes and the science is valid.
> 
> The end game should be to figure out a way to contain this outbreak in Africa and to ensure that the infrastructure is in place in Western Africa to contain any future outbreaks before they explode. I have faith that sound policy based on the best science available can accomplish this. I have little faith that policy based on your vague fears and seeming distrust of science will work.


For someone that you are not interested in my opinion, you sure use up enough space protesting it. Curiously conflicting.

But the point you seem to want to make is that it is your opinion that ebola has been scientifically proven to be hard to contract and therefore does not need to have quarentines, which the Obama Administration says is not needed and would be in fact harmful. Simple.

Now if you choose to actually listen to my opinion as it actually exists, it is that ebola is most likely to be less easily contracted than the flu that is so often trotted out as a real problem. It is as follows as of this point-

1) Ebola does not, as of this point, spread very freely but that it is so relentless an illness that the only treatment is hugely expensive as is all the neccessary contract tracing that has so far proven to be the only method of containing it. And the current examples of humans screwing up, even if one accepts the infallibility of the god Science, is almost at 100%. Being lucky so far that the nurse, who was showing symptoms when she flew, for example, did not spread the disease is not an excuse for laziness. 

2) That, although the US medical system is much more highly funded than west Africa's, it is also much, much, much more expensive and demanding. 

3) The US medical establishment does not have a large excess capacity above current needs and it will not take many such demanding ebola cases to push other normally expected cases out of treatment, since many places are not overworked to the point of incapability now with just normal American demands.

4) if a quarantine could eliminate even half of the people needing such resources, the hospitals and doctors would be less stressed and less Americans would be pushed out of needed care and would be more likely to survive from non-ebola illness.

5) Any quarantine rules could be devised and adapted to minimize the effect on US citizens engaging in charity work but it is simply not unreasonable to expect that grown up doctors can't manage to avoid to go bowling for three weeks, as an example. If he was not to come to work for three weeks as a precaution, as determined by your revered Science, then it was reasonable to expect he would keep out of crowds and not have to need a hugh public and private expense to go following his path to clean up and warn others to monitor themselves. And, since he was not going back to work for those three weeks,the argument Iis specious that imposing a quarantine would keep him from work.

Therefore a quarantine, protested against being imposed on them by heath care workers who impose it on themselves already, is just a fearful control freak nouse where they chose to retain the freedom of choice when their almost universal chouce is to use the freedom to not go to work but use the freedom instead to expise the public to danger and expense that thebpublic did not volunteer to accept.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> 4) if a quarantine could eliminate even half of the people needing such resources, the hospitals and doctors would be less stressed and less Americans would be pushed out of needed care and would be more likely to survive from non-ebola illness.


What do strict constitutionalists think of quarantine?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> What do strict constitutionalists think of quarantine?


Rationally? You can not rationally argue yourself for the supremacy of science, yet criticize those who chose to listen to it as violating the Constitution. Science, that poor wobbly boat so many liberals pile into and out of as the mood takes them, has establish the 21 day period for symptoms to display but it is the humans who make the call. So far pretty foolishly.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Rationally? You can not rationally argue yourself for the supremacy of science, yet criticize those who chose to listen to it as violating the Constitution. Science, that poor wobbly boat so many liberals pile into and out of as the mood takes them, has establish the 21 day period for symptoms to display but it is the humans who make the call. So far pretty foolishly.


People advocating quarantine don't have science on their side. They may have public opinion on their side, but not science.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Eagle-eye said:


> Gosh I hope so. I would hope that we can disagree as to the issue of Ebola without wishing ill on one another's families!
> 
> 
> 
> For what its worth, when I vote, I happen to vote Republican. But I also have common sense and know the limits of political huckery. I have the ability to hold an opinion that might actually have nothing to do with the party line.


But this whole debate in this forum has fallen, especially the nasty attacking ones, has fallen along all the other liberal versus conservative lines. In fact, while I consider my position to be eminently rational, all it seems to take is a difference of opinion to line the forces of liberals, busy reading into it what they chose, to attack. 

That is the way it is. And, I suspect, the way it is chosen to be. Many people can't debate otherwise that trying to make opposing arguments seem idiotic by ridicule. 

And this I say to lavaman. That was a pretty egregious example, of what you complain about, as is the usual assumption as was Nevada's recent post assuming that he can bring his own intrepretation of 'strict Constitutionalism' and use it to batter my arguments.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> People advocating quarantine don't have science on their side. They may have public opinion on their side, but not science.


But but but- don't the Doctors Without Borders people recommend no working in hospitals based on 'science?' How can it be science for them but a different one for the rest of the world? 

So far, most argument against it keep touting science will protect but it is people who screw up.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Let me give you all who can't see any form of quarantine as other that conservative fear mongering an example. What if this self imvolved doctor or poorly advised nurse who had ebola got in a car accident or was mugged and ended up in the hospital. What are the chances that they would have strenously kept paramedics or bystanders away til the people showed up in hazmat suits? They did not think of themselves as infected- they did not truly believe that their precious selves could dare be infected. That is normal human attitudes.
But that would not have kept them from exposing a lot of others to their contaminated 'body fluids.' And, even if not one else became infected, there would have been a hugh panic and expense "contact tracing."

The US has been very lucky despite errors at all levels. The illness is unlikely to be kept out but the number of incidences can be reduced through sensible precautions. And relying on avid bowlers and nurses with wedding plans in their heads to restrict their movements for a lousy three weeks seems to be a total failure. That something did not happen was sheer luck and had nothing to do with science.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nevada said:


> What do strict constitutionalists think of quarantine?


Maybe we should ask one who's thinking about running for president. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6089760. But then, maybe his answer is affected by the fact he's thinking about running.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Let me give you all who can't see any form of quarantine as other that conservative fear mongering an example. What if this self imvolved doctor or poorly advised nurse who had ebola got in a car accident or was mugged and ended up in the hospital. What are the chances that they would have strenously kept paramedics or bystanders away til the people showed up in hazmat suits? They did not think of themselves as infected- they did not truly believe that their precious selves could dare be infected. That is normal human attitudes.
> But that would not have kept them from exposing a lot of others to their contaminated 'body fluids.' And, even if not one else became infected, there would have been a hugh panic and expense "contact tracing."
> 
> The US has been very lucky despite errors at all levels. The illness is unlikely to be kept out but the number of incidences can be reduced through sensible precautions. And relying on avid bowlers and nurses with wedding plans in their heads to restrict their movements for a lousy three weeks seems to be a total failure. That something did not happen was sheer luck and had nothing to do with science.


You speak of sensible precautions. What is unsensible about precautions that have, thus far, kept every American, even those who came into casual contact with the traveling nurse and bowling doctor from contracting a single case of ebola? Or anyone who has come into contact with the hundreds, if not thousands, of doctors, nurses and other aid workers who have traveled from Africa to the US in the months from contracting the disease. Luck, or sound science?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> You speak of sensible precautions. What is unsensible about precautions that have, thus far, kept every American, even those who came into casual contact with the traveling nurse and bowling doctor from contracting a single case of ebola? Or anyone who has come into contact with the hundreds, if not thousands, of doctors, nurses and other aid workers who have traveled from Africa to the US in the months from contracting the disease. Luck, or sound science?


Luck in that there has been little opportunity and a great deal of money and effort in patching up the mistakes.

There trouble in reasoning comes in assuming that luck will continue to insure that only 'casual' contact occurs. It is luck (more like odds) that have kept contacts casual. 

If ebola was as hard to catch as you insist is the safeguard, it would not be an epidemic. Duncan himself seems to have contracted it from helping carry a sick woman into a cab. That level of "casual contact" reduction is what a reasonable quarantine would ensure. Not everyone who is ill carts themselve off for treatment immediately. Which is why it is important to track and make sure there are no symptoms. I read that everyone who was involved with that woman, including the cab drive who refused to touch her is now dead. So far, people have sought medical care but so far those at risk have proven to irresponsible and unreliable at minimizing their outside contacts.

Why there is an insistence that the expense and risk must be the general public's because it is seen as acceptably low rather than a few who chose the risk in the first place should be inconvenienced for three weeks is strange. Now if those at risk would have to pay for all the cleaning following their diagnosis, along with all the costs involved in contact tracing, they would probably minimize their contacts themselves out of self interest that gets their attention What their actions have so far shown is that , as long as the financial and social and health burden is to be born by others, they mostly can not see any reason to abide by any limitation that inconveniences themselves and refuse minimal self discipline for three lousy weeks. This has been true for the NBC report through a doctor, with just one exception, the nurse Ms. Pham.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Luck in that there has been little opportunity and a great deal of money and effort in patching up the mistakes.
> 
> There trouble in reasoning comes in assuming that luck will continue to insure that only 'casual' contact occurs. It is luck (more like odds) that have kept contacts casual.
> 
> ...


If ebola were so easy to contract, as you seem to presume counter to what science tells us, the epidemic would be much worse. It is unlikely that Mr Duncan didn't come into contact with blood or other infected secretions from the woman he carried. He didn't just pass get on the street or shake her hand. We can also look to those Mr Duncan was staying with in Dallas. Despite living in close proximity with someone who was symptomatic and quite ill none contracted the disease. Quite "lucky" indeed.

The thing is about all the clean up costs and procedures is that while they are prudent and make us feel safer there is no evidence they are necessary. No one who entered the bowling alley after the doctor and before disinfection contracted has the virus thus far. Once again, science point to specific secretions as being the transmitter. None were present, no cases, science prevails.

You ask why we should pay for things because we deem the risk acceptably low. I'd ask why we should give in to yet another infringement of our rights for a risk that has thus far proven to be nonexistent. Come back to me when you can show with definitive proof that your quarantines of health care workers would have stopped even a single case of ebola in this country.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

https://www.internationalsos.com/ebola/index.cfm?content_id=435&
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-did-nigeria-quash-its-ebola-outbreak-so-quickly/




mmoetc said:


> If ebola were so easy to contract, as you seem to presume counter to what science tells us, the epidemic would be much worse. It is unlikely that Mr Duncan didn't come into contact with blood or other infected secretions from the woman he carried. He didn't just pass get on the street or shake her hand. We can also look to those Mr Duncan was staying with in Dallas. Despite living in close proximity with someone who was symptomatic and quite ill none contracted the disease. Quite "lucky" indeed.
> 
> The thing is about all the clean up costs and procedures is that while they are prudent and make us feel safer there is no evidence they are necessary. No one who entered the bowling alley after the doctor and before disinfection contracted has the virus thus far. Once again, science point to specific secretions as being the transmitter. None were present, no cases, science prevails.
> 
> You ask why we should pay for things because we deem the risk acceptably low. I'd ask why we should give in to yet another infringement of our rights for a risk that has thus far proven to be nonexistent. Come back to me when you can show with definitive proof that your quarantines of health care workers would have stopped even a single case of ebola in this country.


Luck prevails. So far. Science is not a magic wand that can wave away facts. If Mr. Duncan had not had a visa to come, the nurses would not have become infected. 

Come back to me (only throwing a rude statement back because of course you nor I are in charge of other people's participation nor should we presume to try to do so) when you can explain how Nigeria came to defend itself by using only the tools you dismiss as unneccessary when it is clear that just one sick person lead to many other infections almost immediately. Where other countries not taking such steps are in the throws of an epidemic.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> https://www.internationalsos.com/ebola/index.cfm?content_id=435&
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-did-nigeria-quash-its-ebola-outbreak-so-quickly/
> 
> 
> ...


I commend Nigeria for what they did. I've never argued against what they did. I've never argued against screening travelers. I've never argued against isolating and treating those showing symptoms. I've never argued against monitoring the contacts of those infected for signs of the disease. In fact, that's what science says we should do and what we are doing. I've argued against locking up people against their will because some think it will make us safer. Safety they can't prove without inserting many "what ifs" into every scenario.

At the risk of further being accused of being rude I'll ask again. One case- even one case?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> At the risk of further being accused of being rude I'll ask again. One case- even one case?


Not yet- just luck. Duncan could have developed symtoms and throw up in two seperate airports here but we lucked out. Because, despite the word of the CDC that symptomatic people are too sick to travel, that Nigerian case shows it is not true.

People can certainly stay home for their quarantine if they display the willingness to do so. The trouble is that most, almost every one, of the examples of people appropriately expected to keep their word to do so have not. So there needs to be some method of insuring their personal judgement does not override considered public health concerns. In other words, if they are notified about a first level exposure, they see quarantine is not a whim to be dismissed.

It is unfortunate that it comes to this, but letting the idea float around that it's all silly overraction has lead most people to put their own concerns first. So the standards can be made clear as experience is had but allowing the total disregard, treating quarantine as an inside joke, means that can't happen.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Not yet- just luck. Duncan could have developed symtoms and throw up in two seperate airports here but we lucked out. Because, despite the word of the CDC that symptomatic people are too sick to travel, that Nigerian case shows it is not true.
> 
> People can certainly stay home for their quarantine if they display the willingness to do so. The trouble is that most, almost every one, of the examples of people appropriately expected to keep their word to do so have not. So there needs to be some method of insuring their personal judgement does not override considered public health concerns. In other words, if they are notified about a first level exposure, they see quarantine is not a whim to be dismissed.
> 
> It is unfortunate that it comes to this, but letting the idea float around that it's all silly overraction has lead most people to put their own concerns first. So the standards can be made clear as experience is had but allowing the total disregard, treating quarantine as an inside joke, means that can't happen.


I'll ask again, what public health concerns? There are no concerns unless and until someone comes into contact with a symptomatic person's blood, vomit or other bodily secretion. To presume otherwise is to presume that someone in the US, with all of the contacts that Duncan had outside the hospital, all the contacts that the nurse had in her travels to Cleveland and back, or the doctor had traipsing around NYC, someone, somewhere should have contracted the disease. None have. No nation is that lucky. Prudent, science based precautions are prudent.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'll ask again, what public health concerns? There are no concerns unless and until someone comes into contact with a symptomatic person's blood, vomit or other bodily secretion. To presume otherwise is to presume that someone in the US, with all of the contacts that Duncan had outside the hospital, all the contacts that the nurse had in her travels to Cleveland and back, or the doctor had traipsing around NYC, someone, somewhere should have contracted the disease. None have. No nation is that lucky. Prudent, science based precautions are prudent.


Well, with such continuing circular reasoning such as " Science shows that no quarantine is needed because so far it hasn't been needed here", there is no further need to respond. It all leads no where.
Luckily, I doubt if public health official are so blythe as they keep trying to use it appropriately despite the rigorously health insights of lawyers and the CDC versions one, two and three. So maybe luck will last long enough to keep away what foresight is prevented from stopping.
I'm stepping off the merry-go-round. Enjoy the ride.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Eagle-eye said:


> Volcanoes are dangerous too. Are you researching and preparing for one?


Yes, I do got kit set up.
And a plan for Tsunami too


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Well, with such continuing circular reasoning such as " Science shows that no quarantine is needed because so far it hasn't been needed here", there is no further need to respond. It all leads no where.
> Luckily, I doubt if public health official are so blythe as they keep trying to use it appropriately despite the rigorously health insights of lawyers and the CDC versions one, two and three. So maybe luck will last long enough to keep away what foresight is prevented from stopping.
> I'm stepping off the merry-go-round. Enjoy the ride.


But that wasn't my logic. Logic doesn't rely on something like luck to prove or disprove its validity. It relays on observations and analyzing results. It's interesting that even in Texas the top health officials aren't calling for quarantines and travel bans. http://www.kvue.com/story/news/state/2014/11/06/texas-reaches-ebola-monitoring-endpoint/18597561/

I suppose we can all hope their "luck" holds. Hope you enjoyed the ride.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I like the constitution. My grandfather and his sister lived thru being quarantined. There is a societal benefit and true need at time to take action that under normal situations may seem odd or wrong.


I firmly believe in throwing out babies from burning buildings when that is the last logical safest way to preserve life.

I wouldn't chase the fools from under the beds and in closets as the limited time left would be saved for my personal jump.

There is a time to get out of the closet. Stay in you die


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Now, look I will even prove that quarantine saves lives.
The majority of fetuses quarantined to the womb for 9 months live where as when allowed to leave the womb at 1 day while in the mordula phase of development all die.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

A quick update. There are currently no active cases of ebola being treated in the US. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ebola-craig-spencer-doctor-released/18847045/

If we're going to get to 130 cases in the next 8 weeks we're going to have to try a lot harder.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Or even 15.... 

The researcher mentioned in the OP said he thinks most of the cases imported to the U.S. would be U.S. healthcare workers coming home from West Africa. I wonder if he factored in the holidays, expecting a much larger wave to come back than the trickle that has been since spring. Could be more people who live in West Africa coming to visit family for the holidays, too.

Either way, I'll be surprised if we get double digits by the end of the year.


----------



## happycat47111 (Nov 23, 2013)

So we have again a case of scientists being (apparently) wrong in predicting/handling this ebola thing. Either a) we're being lied to about the true numbers, or b) we're being lied to about how deadly the outbreak in Africa is (send money now or people will die!!!). Or maybe c) it's both. And it's probably none of the above. 

What about cases in other countries? Anyone have stats on those? That might be a good indication of what's really going on. Because I'm starting to think it's a trumped up way to get us to spend dollars going to a problem that has ulterior motives, if that makes any sense. It's early still so I'm not quite conscious.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

happycat47111 said:


> So we have again a case of scientists being (apparently) wrong in predicting/handling this ebola thing. Either a) we're being lied to about the true numbers, or b) we're being lied to about how deadly the outbreak in Africa is (send money now or people will die!!!). Or maybe c) it's both. And it's probably none of the above.
> 
> What about cases in other countries? Anyone have stats on those? That might be a good indication of what's really going on. Because I'm starting to think it's a trumped up way to get us to spend dollars going to a problem that has ulterior motives, if that makes any sense. It's early still so I'm not quite conscious.


It is certainly early days. Even in places with the poorest health care systems, it took months for the epidemic to raise the fear level.

I wonder if it is slower starting in the most easily overcome countries because 1) not many people migrate from a poor country to another poor country, so less exposure, 2) some poor countries where there would be more exchage from west African have closed their borders period and 3) countries with poor populations that do not have ties to west Africa are not impeded by lots of lawyers ready to sue successfully if the government takes strict actions. 

Unlike the US, which seems driven to import as many opportunities for trouble as possible.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> Or even 15....
> 
> The researcher mentioned in the OP said he thinks most of the cases imported to the U.S. would be U.S. healthcare workers coming home from West Africa. I wonder if he factored in the holidays, expecting a much larger wave to come back than the trickle that has been since spring. Could be more people who live in West Africa coming to visit family for the holidays, too.
> 
> Either way, I'll be surprised if we get double digits by the end of the year.


The end if the year is little more than a month away. I would worry more about it becoming a chronic financial drain on our overburdened health system in the indefinite future.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

where I want to said:


> The end if the year is little more than a month away. I would worry more about it becoming a chronic financial drain on our overburdened health system in the indefinite future.


Certainly could happen, but the prediction is 15-130 cases by the end of the year. I think we can be fairly confident that guy was wrong...but we'll see soon enough.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Just thought I'd post an update. The outbreak in Africa seems to be diminishing. Mali had been declared Ebola free. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6497330. It's fading in Liberia. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...cc3e2c-9b52-11e4-86a3-1b56f64925f6_story.html. And I haven't seen one politician on a tarmac demanding quarantines or drastic actions since the elections in November. Our luck continiyrs to hold.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Just thought I'd post an update. The outbreak in Africa seems to be diminishing. Mali had been declared Ebola free. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6497330. It's fading in Liberia. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...cc3e2c-9b52-11e4-86a3-1b56f64925f6_story.html. And I haven't seen one politician on a tarmac demanding quarantines or drastic actions since the elections in November. Our luck continiyrs to hold.


Do you think there were Ebola patients treated in US we weren't told about?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Do you think there were Ebola patients treated in US we weren't told about?


Oh please, all conservatives want is more government restrictions to keep us safe. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

How did you get that from MR's question? Is this another drunken posting night?


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Do you think there were Ebola patients treated in US we weren't told about?


There have been rumors of a fifth patient being treated at Emory without any details being released. If this is true, we must respect their right to privacy.

In part, it's the violation of privacy that has led to this lawsuit, also something that was rumored for some time to be in the pipeline. Apparently, Nina Pham DID NOT authorize the release of her name or other information.  :hair

http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/nina-pham/


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I thought we'd all be dead by ebola, by now!

Frankly, I'm a little disappointed.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> I thought we'd all be dead by ebola, by now!
> 
> Frankly, I'm a little disappointed.


We are too. I thought my plans to cope would have a chance to be tried out. But it was not what I feared after the first couple of cases were so screwed up by the government. 
Oh well, some times being prepared is not needed. Please keep trying not being prepared so I can compare.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Now, look I will even prove that quarantine saves lives.
> The majority of fetuses quarantined to the womb for 9 months live where as when allowed to leave the womb at 1 day while in the mordula phase of development all die.


But you see, we got through the Ebola thing without drastic action. Just have faith in science.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders/

Sheesh- 50,000 per year. 
Nina Pham
Killer Bees
Fukushima Daishi

etc


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders/
> 
> Sheesh- 50,000 per year.
> Nina Pham
> ...


If your point is that science can be wrong or can even be distorted by some to enact bad public policy you might wish to rethink your position about ebola. The science you were counting on and the scientists you believed have, thus far, been proven wrong. No travel bans, no mass quarantines, no new ebola outbreak in the US or Western Europe or anywhere else. The best news is no politicians standing on airport tarmacks. Sometimes science is right, too.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> If your point is that science can be wrong or can even be distorted by some to enact bad public policy you might wish to rethink your position about ebola. The science you were counting on and the scientists you believed have, thus far, been proven wrong. No travel bans, no mass quarantines, no new ebola outbreak in the US or Western Europe or anywhere else. The best news is no politicians standing on airport tarmacks. Sometimes science is right, too.


But depending on the level of harm and the utter misery of cost of mistakes, being cautious is reasonable. That it so far has been fairly correct ( if you ignore the opening fiasco of the first cases) just meant that "science's" limited understanding and human tendency to error rolled the dice with my welfare and won. This time, so far.
But it still is difficult to be patient with this blind faith in the godlike quality of the magic word "science" when demanding that everyone also never question authority. It is a weapon to use against those who want to be cautious- the 'I'm a doctor and I know what is best" so just lie there and shut up philosophy of tyranny.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> But depending on the level of harm and the utter misery of cost of mistakes, being cautious is reasonable. That it so far has been fairly correct ( if you ignore the opening fiasco of the first cases) just meant that "science's" limited understanding and human tendency to error rolled the dice with my welfare and won. This time, so far.
> But it still is difficult to be patient with this blind faith in the godlike quality of the magic word "science" when demanding that everyone also never question authority. It is a weapon to use against those who want to be cautious- the 'I'm a doctor and I know what is best" so just lie there and shut up philosophy of tyranny.


Questioning authority is always important. I questioned the authority of governors standing on tarmacks calling for disruptions to international travel and freedom of movement for the very aid workers who are helping to fight ebola. I questioned the costs and misery of the results of these actions. I questioned the science behind these assertions. I don't blindly follow science. I look at and evaluate science. I try to separate science from politics. I don't believe luck had much to do with ebola not breaking out here. I do believe good science and good scientific principals have worked in keeping us safe and containing ebola in Africa. 

Let's look at one item on the list you provided about scientific failures. EMF and the danger of living under transmission lines. Science has proven there is no danger. Did science fail or did science get it right. Did those claiming harm do it for scientific reasons or for some personal gain? Did a governor standing on a runway calling for the travel bans and quarantines you wanted do it based on science or for political gain? You question your authority, I'll question all authority.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Questioning authority is always important. I questioned the authority of governors standing on tarmacks calling for disruptions to international travel and freedom of movement for the very aid workers who are helping to fight ebola. I questioned the costs and misery of the results of these actions. I questioned the science behind these assertions. I don't blindly follow science. I look at and evaluate science. I try to separate science from politics. I don't believe luck had much to do with ebola not breaking out here. I do believe good science and good scientific principals have worked in keeping us safe and containing ebola in Africa.
> 
> Let's look at one item on the list you provided about scientific failures. EMF and the danger of living under transmission lines. Science has proven there is no danger. Did science fail or did science get it right. Did those claiming harm do it for scientific reasons or for some personal gain? Did a governor standing on a runway calling for the travel bans and quarantines you wanted do it based on science or for political gain? You question your authority, I'll question all authority.


Nonsense- I just question your demand (and that is what this level of insistence is) that I accept what you accept. You assume that you have all the right. Me- I thought the poor handling of the first cases were enough reason to be cautious. And to err on the side of caution until they reformed their stupidity.
However, since I don't insist you relinquish your belief to follow mine, I'm ok with what seems to be an over reliance on tecnology's ability to overcome human fallibility. What I do object to is the insistance that I have no right to my own evaluation for myself.
You express contempt for those whose opinion differ, making up silly scenarios to associate with them so as to point and laugh rather than discuss real issues. And it must be so important to you on a personal level that you need the gratification of repeating that abuse on as issue that is no longer active. 
The point of the linked article was to make people who treat the word "science" like the way others treat the word "Bible" pause in their belief that this is infallable. 
And responding that you never said it was infallable because you sure seem to use it as a weapon for that purpose. In that there is no tolerance for the thought that the people who create "science" are the same species who created ether, spontaneous generation and eugenics.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Nonsense- I just question your demand (and that is what this level of insistence is) that I accept what you accept. You assume that you have all the right. Me- I thought the poor handling of the first cases were enough reason to be cautious. And to err on the side of caution until they reformed their stupidity.
> However, since I don't insist you relinquish your belief to follow mine, I'm ok with what seems to be an over reliance on tecnology's ability to overcome human fallibility. What I do object to is the insistance that I have no right to my own evaluation for myself.
> You express contempt for those whose opinion differ, making up silly scenarios to associate with them so as to point and laugh rather than discuss real issues. And it must be so important to you on a personal level that you need the gratification of repeating that abuse on as issue that is no longer active.
> The point of the linked article was to make people who treat the word "science" like the way others treat the word "Bible" pause in their belief that this is infallable.
> And responding that you never said it was infallable because you sure seem to use it as a weapon for that purpose. In that there is no tolerance for the thought that the people who create "science" are the same species who created ether, spontaneous generation and eugenics.


I don't demand anything from you. You seemed to demand back I the fall that it was only luck that was preventing an outbreak in this country. You seemed to demand that travel bans and quarantines of all aid workers and travelers were the only things that could keep us safe. I have simply pointed our that our luck seems to have held and that absent any of the measures you demanded were neccessary to keep us safe we haven't had one case of ebola transmitted within the United States or Western Europe. I'm not sure how much safer your demands would have made us. You can believe anything you wish. You can publish any of your opinions you wish. Because I disagree with your opinions and refute your logic doesn't mean I don't think you have a right to express them. I will disagree with them and object to public policy based on them. Just as you do with mine.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I don't demand anything from you. You seemed to demand back I the fall that it was only luck that was preventing an outbreak in this country. You seemed to demand that travel bans and quarantines of all aid workers and travelers were the only things that could keep us safe. I have simply pointed our that our luck seems to have held and that absent any of the measures you demanded were neccessary to keep us safe we haven't had one case of ebola transmitted within the United States or Western Europe. I'm not sure how much safer your demands would have made us. You can believe anything you wish. You can publish any of your opinions you wish. Because I disagree with your opinions and refute your logic doesn't mean I don't think you have a right to express them. I will disagree with them and object to public policy based on them. Just as you do with mine.


From the Theory of Evolution to the discovery of antibiotics, luck has played a part. And the denial of humanity's condition is what I mean by worshipping on at the altar of Science.
And you are wrong about the transmission on US soil- the nurses in Texas got it. At that point your surety was not based on much. There was a hundred precent poor result until the family left quarantine. Because a plane has crashed, it causes a review to find out why, not a blithe reliance on the science of wing lift. Maybe even grounding until the problem is fixed. 
But thank you for your permission for me to speak in opposition. I am so relieved. But it would be more comforting to have an actual response to what I said rather than you assign to me.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> And you are wrong about the transmission on US soil- the nurses in Texas got it.


But now we know that the hospital wasn't applying best technology. They're being sued for it, and they deserve to be sued.

The point is that it didn't just happen. The hospital completely dropped the ball. That's what to expect when you don't apply science.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> From the Theory of Evolution to the discovery of antibiotics, luck has played a part. And the denial of humanity's condition is what I mean by worshipping on at the altar of Science.
> And you are wrong about the transmission on US soil- the nurses in Texas got it. At that point your surety was not based on much. There was a hundred precent poor result until the family left quarantine. Because a plane has crashed, it causes a review to find out why, not a blithe reliance on the science of wing lift. Maybe even grounding until the problem is fixed.
> But thank you for your permission for me to speak in opposition. I am so relieved. But it would be more comforting to have an actual response to what I said rather than you assign to me.


I stand corrected. I will state that since the failings of one hospital in their application of proper procedures no case of ebola has been transmitted from one person to another in North America. It is impossible to argue against or even quantify the role luck plays in human endeavor. But to rely on it soley or to claim any outcome is only based on it is, in my opinion, ludicrous. And yet good luck has been your only explanation that ebola hasn't spread here. You seem to give no credit to the science of containment and epidemiology that have proven successful in Africa. You haven't explained how embracing travel bans and quarantines would have made us any safer or been without cost. You can't even seem to acknowledge that politics, not science, had much to do with the calls for drastic action. It is interesting the current silence of those who were crying loudest for action prior to the elections. Good science learns from its errors and evolves. Because a plane crashe doesn't mean we throw years of aeronotical learning and the Bernoulli effect out the window and claim that planes can't possibly fly. We do try to find the reasons for that crash and adjust our learning accordingly.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> The point of the linked article was to make people who treat the word "science" like the way others treat the word "Bible" pause in their belief that this is infallable.
> And responding that you never said it was infallable because you sure seem to use it as a weapon for that purpose. In that there is no tolerance for the thought that the people who create "science" are the same species who created ether, spontaneous generation and eugenics.


The Bible is not science, but not because of infallibility. It's not a question of who might be wrong and who might be right, it's a question of where the information comes from. Science is the study of our surroundings. While it's possible for the Bible to be right and science to be wrong, even if that's true it doesn't make it science. It just makes it right.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

where I want to said:


> We are too. I thought my plans to cope would have a chance to be tried out. But it was not what I feared after the first couple of cases were so screwed up by the government.
> Oh well, some times being prepared is not needed. Please keep trying not being prepared so I can compare.


What do you mean by "the first couple of cases"? Do you mean the first two missionaries who were brought back here last summer? I thought everybody did everything right, considering that there had never been a known case of Ebola in an American citizen, nor one in this country. (I believe that there have been cases that were not correctly diagnosed.) 

Nancy Writebol and her husband went back to Liberia last weekend. On the way, they stopped at Emory Hospital, where she donated plasma to be used in research, and her husband said that he is a participant in the vaccine trial. I definitely wish them the best.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

thesedays said:


> What do you mean by "the first couple of cases"? Do you mean the first two missionaries who were brought back here last summer? I thought everybody did everything right, considering that there had never been a known case of Ebola in an American citizen, nor one in this country. (I believe that there have been cases that were not correctly diagnosed.)
> 
> Nancy Writebol and her husband went back to Liberia last weekend. On the way, they stopped at Emory Hospital, where she donated plasma to be used in research, and her husband said that he is a participant in the vaccine trial. I definitely wish them the best.


The two nurses in Texas who where exposed by the patient who contracted it in Africa and subsequently developed ebola.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The Bible is not science, but not because of infallibility. It's not a question of who might be wrong and who might be right, it's a question of where the information comes from. Science is the study of our surroundings. While it's possible for the Bible to be right and science to be wrong, even if that's true it doesn't make it science. It just makes it right.


Heavy sigh..... the point was that some people treat the word science as if they thought it was infallible. Without an understanding of the details of where and how such "science" is derived and what its applicability, even if reasonable, is.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Heavy sigh..... the point was that some people treat the word science as if they thought it was infallible. Without an understanding of the details of where and how such "science" is derived and what its applicability, even if reasonable, is.


You can't have differing theories and believe that scientific knowledge is infallible at the same time. That's absurd on its face.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> The two nurses in Texas who where exposed by the patient who contracted it in Africa and subsequently developed ebola.


That's what you should expect when isolation protocol is not followed. You can't blame science when the science wasn't followed.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> That's what you should expect when isolation protocol is not followed. You can't blame science when the science wasn't followed.


Heavier sigh.... again I am not blaming "science", although there can be bad "science", but I am finding fault with people using the word "science" without understanding its applicability, origin, relevance, limitations, reliabilility, etc as if it was a magic word to end all questioning. 
It is very possible to question the science of anything , in fact is part of the process, but in this case the objection is to people who claim it as the basis of their arguments or actions but clearly don't even understand its limits or uses. If they can't question it themselves nor allow the validity of anyone else's questions, they are treating "science" in a way that is unscientific.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Heavier sigh.... again I am not blaming "science", although there can be bad "science", but I am finding fault with people using the word "science" without understanding its applicability, origin, relevance, limitations, reliabilility, etc as if it was a magic word to end all questioning.
> It is very possible to question the science of anything , in fact is part of the process, but in this case the objection is to people who claim it as the basis of their arguments or actions but clearly don't even understand its limits or uses. If they can't question it themselves nor allow the validity of anyone else's questions, they are treating "science" in a way that is unscientific.


You put your life in the hands of science every day. You do it every time you cross a bridge or enter a tall building. If you didn't have faith in science you would have to be crazy to do things like that.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Heaviest sigh possible....


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

where I want to said:


> The two nurses in Texas who where exposed by the patient who contracted it in Africa and subsequently developed ebola.


That's what I thought you meant.

This story, which appeared today, may explain some of the "people in isolation with Ebola symptoms" that hit the news last fall. TL : DR - they were in trials for the vaccine, which in itself made them sick. David Writebol said the vaccine made him sick too, but he felt it was a small price to pay for medical research.

:goodjob:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/h...NextInCollection&region=Footer&pgtype=article


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

When he was discharged from the hospital last summer, he looked like one of those late-stage AIDS patients you used to see around, and now he's almost starting to get a bit of a gut on him! He does look healthy now; however, he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast, and he was wearing thick glasses, which made me wonder just how fully recovered he really is.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg2dnJpzg-U[/ame]

It's a podcast of Dr. Brantly speaking at a Christian school in the Atlanta area. My guess is that he was really in town for a checkup at Emory, but he said his sister and BIL used to teach there, and he went to basketball camp there when he was a teenager.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

The epidemic was recognized a year ago today, and seems to be rekindling in some areas. 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/health/ebola-one-year-later/

In the meantime, an unidentified American citizen was diagnosed in Sierra Leone, and sent to the NIH in Bethesda, MD for treatment. No reports have been filed that I know of since the patient's condition was downgraded to critical; I wish this person a speedy recovery. A British citizen working in the same area was also diagnosed and sent to London. About a dozen people who worked with them were considered to be at risk for exposure and were also sent back to their home nations, mostly the U.S. One was kept in isolation for a day or two with possible symptoms, but this turned out to be a false alarm.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Haven't heard any more about the British case, but I did hear earlier today that the patient at NIH is on the road to recovery.

:goodjob:


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

The British case, a military nurse who looked just like Julia Roberts, was discharged from the hospital a couple weeks ago, and the American case, who remains unidentified but appears to be male, left the NIH yesterday.

Both are expected to make full recoveries.

:thumb:


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

This was written by the reporter who himself got Ebola and recovered. He too went back to report on updated conditions there; this essay is about the safety net (or lack of one) that exists for survivors.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/4/12/ebola-survivors-liberia-struggle-to-cope.html


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Thought I'd post an update. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-32671520. Liberia declared ebola free. Think Governor Christie will hold an announcement on the same tarmac he used to call for those travel bans and quarantines?


----------

