Ebola (1 Viewer)

[Tom Servo]

Praying real hard that Ebola doesn't make it to the ocean.. We're all screwed then, think of all the coastal towns.

We're talking West Africa here. Where all the hurricanes start. Surely one of them is a carrier. I feel even more sorry for Bermuda now.

They are throwing Ebola infected bodies into rivers in Nigeria, documented by the World Health Organization. The virus does not survive long in water, but it still survives for several minutes.

Nigeria was just declared Ebola free you dimwit

Per the BBC.

And don't overlook this nugget:

European countries have committed more than 500m euros (£400m; $600m) but the UK is pressing to double that amount.

 

[matuski]

Praying real hard that Ebola doesn't make it to the ocean.. We're all screwed then, think of all the coastal towns.

We're talking West Africa here. Where all the hurricanes start. Surely one of them is a carrier. I feel even more sorry for Bermuda now.

They are throwing Ebola infected bodies into rivers in Nigeria, documented by the World Health Organization. The virus does not survive long in water, but it still survives for several minutes.

Nigeria was just declared Ebola free you dimwit

You guys need to stop letting him off the hook like this damnit.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

It isn't difficult to catch. If it was difficult to catch you wouldn't need to treat people in a hazmat suit. You wouldn't need airlocks and several stages of decontamination to study the virus.

Medical professionals treat all viruses the same way at first, especially ones like this with a high mortality rate. But actually yes it is very difficult to catch. All you need to do is look at few people have caught it, even in Western Africa, and then compare that to the histories of measles, smallpox, influenza, etc. which I did in this thread a few days back. All of those were murderous diseases which spread like wildfire and killed millions of people. This is nothing like that.

We have known about this virus for decades. There are more contagious diseases - and diseases that are easier to spread. However, there are very few diseases now that are as easy to spread with such a high mortality rate. Ebola is not *difficult* to catch. You don't need to be engaging in a high risk activity. You just need to come into contact with someone infected. If it was difficult to catch nurses and US healthcare workers wouldn't be getting sick when they are wearing full suits. It wouldn't matter if two square inches of bare skin is exposed on their neck (or whatever the latest claim is). If it was difficult to catch - we would know exactly *how* said healthcare workers got infected.

Another clueless post.

Please go educate yourself about the facts regarding ebola and the two nurses who contracted it.

I know all about the facts of Ebola - you are the one who is clueless here. How did she catch Ebola if you know so much? Enlighten us with your boundless knowledge.

Since I work in the facility, I have decent insight.

So here is the shocker - she "caught" ebola by coming into contact with Duncan's bodily fluids!

Glad I could lead you through that.

No kidding - *how*. Where did the process break down? How come she didn't know when/how she came in contact with the fluids? You are only proving my point here.

 

[sn0mm1s]

This time it is different because Ebola has gotten a foothold in a large population center.

It is garbage like this that promotes further garbage.

What foothold are you referring to? Not one person (as in none at all) who was not in direct contact with Duncan's bodily fluids has been infected.

That number again would be zero.

Maybe you lack reading comprehension, are trolling, or just are really this stupid. Go look at the context in which I posted that and get back to me.

Not one.

Well, if you answer not one, I can clear this up and say you are falling into the stupid bucket.

 

[matuski]

Jon, you can post how terrible things are in Liberia, and if I lived there I'm certain I'd be somewhat concerned (though not real concerned, because it's still only affecting less than .05% of the population, and difficult to catch).

But that has nothing to do with my argument. When you decide it's a good idea to simply ban ANYONE who is Liberian from coming to this country, not just those who have the disease or who are in direct contact, but ANYONE, you are giving into hysteria. It's not cautious; it's not reasonable. It's an act based on panic, fear, and lazy thinking, and you'll never be able to justify it no matter how hard you try.

It isn't difficult to catch. If it was difficult to catch you wouldn't need to treat people in a hazmat suit. You wouldn't need airlocks and several stages of decontamination to study the virus.

Medical professionals treat all viruses the same way at first, especially ones like this with a high mortality rate. But actually yes it is very difficult to catch. All you need to do is look at few people have caught it, even in Western Africa, and then compare that to the histories of measles, smallpox, influenza, etc. which I did in this thread a few days back. All of those were murderous diseases which spread like wildfire and killed millions of people. This is nothing like that.

We have known about this virus for decades. There are more contagious diseases - and diseases that are easier to spread. However, there are very few diseases now that are as easy to spread with such a high mortality rate. Ebola is not *difficult* to catch. You don't need to be engaging in a high risk activity. You just need to come into contact with someone infected. If it was difficult to catch nurses and US healthcare workers wouldn't be getting sick when they are wearing full suits. It wouldn't matter if two square inches of bare skin is exposed on their neck (or whatever the latest claim is). If it was difficult to catch - we would know exactly *how* said healthcare workers got infected.

Another clueless post.

Please go educate yourself about the facts regarding ebola and the two nurses who contracted it.

I know all about the facts of Ebola - you are the one who is clueless here. How did she catch Ebola if you know so much? Enlighten us with your boundless knowledge.

Since I work in the facility, I have decent insight.

So here is the shocker - she "caught" ebola by coming into contact with Duncan's bodily fluids!

Glad I could lead you through that.

No kidding - *how*. Where did the process break down? How come she didn't know when/how she came in contact with the fluids? You are only proving my point here.

I'm gonna let you keep thinking you have a point.

They let my other fish off the hook so I won't ruin my fun the next couple hours.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm quite sure Jon meant Liberia. But even so, the notion that Ebola could last in the river long enough for somebody to catch it seems inane even by your standards, Jon. Do you have a medical expert who has stated the danger of this? Or evidence that this has happened ?

Water is not a known means of being passed and certainly concerns about the water supply are unfounded. But if dead bodies are in the river which contain live virus, it would be high risk. Of course the person would have to be close to the body as the virus will die in several minutes. I doubt if there is a known incident at this point. And of course I was talking about Liberia (except for the Nigeria remark, which was a mistake), as I have stated numberous times already.

 

[3C's]

According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks.

Liberia has some lousy exponents

5000 raised to the power of 2.1625/2....exponentially.

 

[jon_mx]

According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks.

Liberia has some lousy exponents

5000 raised to the power of 2.1625/2....exponentially.

Exponential growth is a result of a constant growth rate. It is like compounding interest.

 

[3C's]

According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks.

Liberia has some lousy exponents

5000 raised to the power of 2.1625/2....exponentially.

Exponential growth is a result of a constant growth rate. It is like compounding interest.

Probably more like linear growth than exponential growth.

 

[Doug B]

Ebola is not *difficult* to catch. You don't need to be engaging in a high risk activity.

Yes, you do -- dealing with the body fluids of an Ebola patient carries risk.

You just need to come into contact with someone infected.

Untrue as posted. If even an externally symptomatic Ebola patient had recently been bathed with hospital soap (some % alcohol content) & water. then put on a face mask to guard against sneezes/coughs, it would be completely safe to shake that patient's hand.

If it was difficult to catch nurses and US healthcare workers wouldn't be getting sick when they are wearing full suits.

Pham and Vinson are not cases of this happening. See the Ebola treatments at Emory, at Bethesda, and in Omaha, and their nurses' hit rate..What was going on in Dallas is not comparable.

It wouldn't matter if two square inches of bare skin is exposed on their neck (or whatever the latest claim is).

That exposed skin was not how Pham & Vinson caught the virus, IMHO. Can't link it or prove it, but there you go.

If it was difficult to catch - we would know exactly *how* said healthcare workers got infected.

Not necessarily -- there were problems at Texas Health Presbyterian with both clothing-removal protocols and with contaminated-waste management. Other protocols were not followed, as well (e.g. sample taking). The nurses in Dallas were wholly untrained and had to do the best they could under the circumstances. Still, only 2 of 77 healthcare workers who treated Duncan have come down with the virus to date. Two too many, no doubt -- but if Ebola spread easier it would be something like 20-30 out if 77.

 

[timschochet]

I'm quite sure Jon meant Liberia. But even so, the notion that Ebola could last in the river long enough for somebody to catch it seems inane even by your standards, Jon. Do you have a medical expert who has stated the danger of this? Or evidence that this has happened ?

Water is not a known means of being passed and certainly concerns about the water supply are unfounded. But if dead bodies are in the river which contain live virus, it would be high risk. Of course the person would have to be close to the body as the virus will die in several minutes. I doubt if there is a known incident at this point. And of course I was talking about Liberia (except for the Nigeria remark, which was a mistake), as I have stated numberous times already.

Then in that case, wouldn't you admit that your statement "it's in the rivers", which was meant as a justification for having a travel ban for all people in Liberia that want to visit the USA, was completely bogus and ridiculous?

 

[jon_mx]

According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks.

Liberia has some lousy exponents

5000 raised to the power of 2.1625/2....exponentially.

Exponential growth is a result of a constant growth rate. It is like compounding interest.

Probably more like linear growth than exponential growth.

And you would be wrong. If something has a constant growth rate, it is growning exponentially.

 

[the moops]

According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks.

Liberia has some lousy exponents

5000 raised to the power of 2.1625/2....exponentially.

 

[3C's]

According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks.

Liberia has some lousy exponents

5000 raised to the power of 2.1625/2....exponentially.

Exponential growth is a result of a constant growth rate. It is like compounding interest.

Probably more like linear growth than exponential growth.

And you would be wrong. If something has a constant growth rate, it is growning exponentially.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm quite sure Jon meant Liberia. But even so, the notion that Ebola could last in the river long enough for somebody to catch it seems inane even by your standards, Jon. Do you have a medical expert who has stated the danger of this? Or evidence that this has happened ?

Water is not a known means of being passed and certainly concerns about the water supply are unfounded. But if dead bodies are in the river which contain live virus, it would be high risk. Of course the person would have to be close to the body as the virus will die in several minutes. I doubt if there is a known incident at this point. And of course I was talking about Liberia (except for the Nigeria remark, which was a mistake), as I have stated numberous times already.

Then in that case, wouldn't you admit that your statement "it's in the rivers", which was meant as a justification for having a travel ban for all people in Liberia that want to visit the USA, was completely bogus and ridiculous?

I was pointing it out because Liberia is in horrible shape and their health care professionals and government has lost complete control of the situation, so it is impossible to say who has and who hasn't been exposed. Until Liberia can get some help, any person there is at risk of carrying the disease unless they are living in a bubble.

 

[jon_mx]

According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks.

Liberia has some lousy exponents

5000 raised to the power of 2.1625/2....exponentially.

Exponential growth is a result of a constant growth rate. It is like compounding interest.

Probably more like linear growth than exponential growth.

And you would be wrong. If something has a constant growth rate, it is growning exponentially.

Why not take a math course sometime?....or in this case google would be your friend.

 

[timschochet]

As far the "exponential growth": most of the WHO concerns about this were made over a month ago. But it hasn't happened. In West Africa, 3 months ago, there were about 7-8,000 people known to have Ebola. Now there are 9,000 people known to have Ebola. That's not exponential growth. Even if it's underreported which is likely, it's still not exponential.

Again, let's go back to 1918 and the influenza which killed millions. When it reached the US, there were 3 cases in a New York hospital. Within one week, there were 100 cases reported. Within one month, 50,000 cases. Within 3 months, 5 million cases reported. That's exponential.

 

[timschochet]

I'm quite sure Jon meant Liberia. But even so, the notion that Ebola could last in the river long enough for somebody to catch it seems inane even by your standards, Jon. Do you have a medical expert who has stated the danger of this? Or evidence that this has happened ?

Water is not a known means of being passed and certainly concerns about the water supply are unfounded. But if dead bodies are in the river which contain live virus, it would be high risk. Of course the person would have to be close to the body as the virus will die in several minutes. I doubt if there is a known incident at this point. And of course I was talking about Liberia (except for the Nigeria remark, which was a mistake), as I have stated numberous times already.

Then in that case, wouldn't you admit that your statement "it's in the rivers", which was meant as a justification for having a travel ban for all people in Liberia that want to visit the USA, was completely bogus and ridiculous?

I was pointing it out because Liberia is in horrible shape and their health care professionals and government has lost complete control of the situation, so it is impossible to say who has and who hasn't been exposed. Until Liberia can get some help, any person there is at risk of carrying the disease unless they are living in a bubble.

I have a greater risk of dying in a car crash today. Shall we ban all automobiles?

 

[Doug B]

So sorry....just quote the World Health Organization. You know, that right-wing kook organization.

22 September 2014 ¦ GENEVA - Unless Ebola control measures in west Africa are enhanced quickly, experts from the WHO and Imperial College, London, predict numbers will continue to climb exponentially, and more than 20 000 people will have been infected by early November, according to a new article in the New England Journal of Medicine released 6 months after WHO was first notified of the outbreak in west Africa.

Jon -- the part in red is the most important part of the passage, not what you bolded. The WHO was warning that the status quo was untenable, not that exponential growth in Ebola cases was inevitable in West Africa.

 

[bagger]

I have no issue with parents taking little Johnny out of school. If the facts aren't clear (which haven't been in the majority of reporting) I would rather my kids stay at home and look like a kook then have it turn out someone messed up the reporting of African counties they were at and my kid get Ebola even if it was. .00000001 chance it was somehow "throw up in your child's mouth day" at elementary school.

With that said I would understand that's a complete overreaction but wouldn't really care.

if you are concerned about the .00000001 chance of something terrible happening to your kid. I have some really, really bad news for you.

its about controllable risk and reward.certainly there is a considerably higher chance my kids being killed in a car crash every day. but it is necessary to get them from point a to point b. if a known threat that appears to be minor but facts are murky and the downside is not taking them to school, why wouldnt i? who cares if they miss 2+2 for one day until the facts are known.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm quite sure Jon meant Liberia. But even so, the notion that Ebola could last in the river long enough for somebody to catch it seems inane even by your standards, Jon. Do you have a medical expert who has stated the danger of this? Or evidence that this has happened ?

Water is not a known means of being passed and certainly concerns about the water supply are unfounded. But if dead bodies are in the river which contain live virus, it would be high risk. Of course the person would have to be close to the body as the virus will die in several minutes. I doubt if there is a known incident at this point. And of course I was talking about Liberia (except for the Nigeria remark, which was a mistake), as I have stated numberous times already.

Then in that case, wouldn't you admit that your statement "it's in the rivers", which was meant as a justification for having a travel ban for all people in Liberia that want to visit the USA, was completely bogus and ridiculous?

I was pointing it out because Liberia is in horrible shape and their health care professionals and government has lost complete control of the situation, so it is impossible to say who has and who hasn't been exposed. Until Liberia can get some help, any person there is at risk of carrying the disease unless they are living in a bubble.

I have a greater risk of dying in a car crash today. Shall we ban all automobiles?

Probably true. But the only way to stop Ebola is to isolate it. The biggest risk is probably not spreading here, because we have the resources to deal with it. But spreading to other poor African nations is te real danger.

 

[3C's]

According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks.

Liberia has some lousy exponents

5000 raised to the power of 2.1625/2....exponentially.

Exponential growth is a result of a constant growth rate. It is like compounding interest.

Probably more like linear growth than exponential growth.

And you would be wrong. If something has a constant growth rate, it is growning exponentially.

Why not take a math course sometime?....or in this case google would be your friend.

I'm not saying constant rate of growth is not exponential growth. I'm saying, going back to your original post, that going from 5000 to 10000 is not necessarily exponential growth. What exactly is the exponent to get from 5000 to 10000? (I already posted it). It's closer to/more like linear growth.

 

[Doug B]

If it was difficult to catch nurses and US healthcare workers wouldn't be getting sick when they are wearing full suits.

Pham and Vinson are not cases of this happening. See the Ebola treatments at Emory, at Bethesda, and in Omaha, and their nurses' hit rate..What was going on in Dallas is not comparable.

Further on this point: wearing the proper gear is only part of the puzzle. Removing infected gear safely is just as important ... and the Texas Health Presbyterian nurses were winging it early on. There was no specific training whatsoever.

...

Regarding the hazmat suits: these aren't worn because Ebola transmission is so easy. They're worn because the cost of having Ebola is so high at the moment. Some doctors feel like surgery-sterile protocol/protection is largely sufficient in dealing with Ebola patients, but doesn't quite get the risk down close enough to zero for peace of mind. If Ebola treatment ever gets to the point where we treat it with anti-virals and a pill, the hazmat suits will go away.

 

[jon_mx]

According to WHO it is spreading exponentially. 5,000 cases today could easily be 10,000 in a couple weeks.

Liberia has some lousy exponents

5000 raised to the power of 2.1625/2....exponentially.

Exponential growth is a result of a constant growth rate. It is like compounding interest.

Probably more like linear growth than exponential growth.

And you would be wrong. If something has a constant growth rate, it is growning exponentially.

Why not take a math course sometime?....or in this case google would be your friend.

I'm not saying constant rate of growth is not exponential growth. I'm saying, going back to your original post, that going from 5000 to 10000 is not necessarily exponential growth. What exactly is the exponent to get from 5000 to 10000? (I already posted it). It's closer to/more like linear growth.

Exponential growth can be growing from 100 to 101. Exponential growth in no way implies the growth is going to more than double in a time period. Saying something is not exponential based upon two points is just being plain ignorant of the math. You can not say with any certainty if the growth is a line or a curve based upon two points.

 

[timschochet]

I'm quite sure Jon meant Liberia. But even so, the notion that Ebola could last in the river long enough for somebody to catch it seems inane even by your standards, Jon. Do you have a medical expert who has stated the danger of this? Or evidence that this has happened ?

Water is not a known means of being passed and certainly concerns about the water supply are unfounded. But if dead bodies are in the river which contain live virus, it would be high risk. Of course the person would have to be close to the body as the virus will die in several minutes. I doubt if there is a known incident at this point. And of course I was talking about Liberia (except for the Nigeria remark, which was a mistake), as I have stated numberous times already.

Then in that case, wouldn't you admit that your statement "it's in the rivers", which was meant as a justification for having a travel ban for all people in Liberia that want to visit the USA, was completely bogus and ridiculous?

I was pointing it out because Liberia is in horrible shape and their health care professionals and government has lost complete control of the situation, so it is impossible to say who has and who hasn't been exposed. Until Liberia can get some help, any person there is at risk of carrying the disease unless they are living in a bubble.

I have a greater risk of dying in a car crash today. Shall we ban all automobiles?

Probably true. But the only way to stop Ebola is to isolate it. The biggest risk is probably not spreading here, because we have the resources to deal with it. But spreading to other poor African nations is te real danger.

Agreed. But if that is the case, the USA doesn't need to succumb to panicky moves like banning all travel from west Africa.

 

[bagger]

If it was difficult to catch nurses and US healthcare workers wouldn't be getting sick when they are wearing full suits.

Pham and Vinson are not cases of this happening. See the Ebola treatments at Emory, at Bethesda, and in Omaha, and their nurses' hit rate..What was going on in Dallas is not comparable.

Further on this point: wearing the proper gear is only part of the puzzle. Removing infected gear safely is just as important ... and the Texas Health Presbyterian nurses were winging it early on. There was no specific training whatsoever.

...

Regarding the hazmat suits: these aren't worn because Ebola transmission is so easy. They're worn because the cost of having Ebola is so high at the moment. Some doctors feel like surgery-sterile protocol/protection is largely sufficient in dealing with Ebola patients, but doesn't quite get the risk down close enough to zero for peace of mind. If Ebola treatment ever gets to the point where we treat it with anti-virals and a pill, the hazmat suits will go away.

this is a better analogy than tims banning automobiles strawman. i am sure fennis will be along shortly to let the nurses know that since the risk is so low of transmission that these nurses are also being overprotective.

 

[jon_mx]

"The number of Ebola cases in West Africa has been doubling about every three weeks. There is little evidence so far that the epidemic is losing momentum."

That is from the Washington Post from October 9, 2014. That would indicate Ebola is still growing exponentially in West Africa.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm quite sure Jon meant Liberia. But even so, the notion that Ebola could last in the river long enough for somebody to catch it seems inane even by your standards, Jon. Do you have a medical expert who has stated the danger of this? Or evidence that this has happened ?

Water is not a known means of being passed and certainly concerns about the water supply are unfounded. But if dead bodies are in the river which contain live virus, it would be high risk. Of course the person would have to be close to the body as the virus will die in several minutes. I doubt if there is a known incident at this point. And of course I was talking about Liberia (except for the Nigeria remark, which was a mistake), as I have stated numberous times already.

Then in that case, wouldn't you admit that your statement "it's in the rivers", which was meant as a justification for having a travel ban for all people in Liberia that want to visit the USA, was completely bogus and ridiculous?

I was pointing it out because Liberia is in horrible shape and their health care professionals and government has lost complete control of the situation, so it is impossible to say who has and who hasn't been exposed. Until Liberia can get some help, any person there is at risk of carrying the disease unless they are living in a bubble.

I have a greater risk of dying in a car crash today. Shall we ban all automobiles?

Probably true. But the only way to stop Ebola is to isolate it. The biggest risk is probably not spreading here, because we have the resources to deal with it. But spreading to other poor African nations is te real danger.

Agreed. But if that is the case, the USA doesn't need to succumb to panicky moves like banning all travel from west Africa.

But to stop it, the people in that area must be isolated. They should not be traveling anywhere.

 

[Doug B]

this is a better analogy than tims banning automobiles strawman. i am sure fennis will be along shortly to let the nurses know that since the risk is so low of transmission that these nurses are also being overprotective.

Yes ... but consider what the nurses are having to do with the Ebola patient -- take blood, clean up any spilled blood, clean vomit, clear #s 1 and 2, etc. No one's ever going to catch Ebola from going into a patient's room and, say, changing an IV bag or something.

 

[bagger]

this is a better analogy than tims banning automobiles strawman. i am sure fennis will be along shortly to let the nurses know that since the risk is so low of transmission that these nurses are also being overprotective.

Yes ... but consider what the nurses are having to do with the Ebola patient -- take blood, clean up any spilled blood, clean vomit, clear uri#s 1 and 2, etc. No one's ever going to catch Ebola from going into a patient's room and, say, changing and IV bag or something.

they certainly have a higher risk than someone walking down the street next to someone with ebola. i wouldnt say ever because there is some chance they might, albeit extremely extremely low.its the same reason people dont leave their kids at home alone sleeping to go out to dinner. the .00001% chance that the house catches on fire or someone breaks in is not worth even the smallest of incremental risks.

 

[jon_mx]

“This has been a particularly difficult outbreak because of the difficulty getting a lot of data quickly out of the countries,” said Martin Meltzer, a CDC researcher who models epidemics. “My crystal ball is painted a deep black. It’s like tracking a hurricane.”

Meltzer helped produce a report in late September that said that at current rates of infection, as many as 1.4 million people would become infected by January. That number, officials stressed, was a straight extrapolation of the explosive spread of Ebola at a time when the world had managed to mount only a feeble response. The more vigorous response underway is designed to bend that curve.

 

[Apple Jack]

Why are southerners so easily freaked out?

 

[sn0mm1s]

Yes, you do -- dealing with the body fluids of an Ebola patient carries risk.

Untrue as posted. If even an externally symptomatic Ebola patient had recently been bathed with hospital soap (some % alcohol content) & water. then put on a face mask to guard against sneezes/coughs, it would be completely safe to shake that patient's hand.

Pham and Vinson are not cases of this happening. See the Ebola treatments at Emory, at Bethesda, and in Omaha, and their nurses' hit rate..What was going on in Dallas is not comparable.

That exposed skin was not how Pham & Vinson caught the virus, IMHO. Can't link it or prove it, but there you go.

Not necessarily -- there were problems at Texas Health Presbyterian with both clothing-removal protocols and with contaminated-waste management. Other protocols were not followed, as well (e.g. sample taking). The nurses in Dallas were wholly untrained and had to do the best they could under the circumstances. Still, only 2 of 77 healthcare workers who treated Duncan have come down with the virus to date. Two too many, no doubt -- but if Ebola spread easier it would be something like 20-30 out if 77.

Handling fluids is high risk - but you don't need to be handling said fluids to contract the disease. You just need to come in contact with the fluids - which opens up a much broader range of seemingly benign or normal activities that could expose oneself to the virus.

Your hand shaking example comes with plenty of risks. You are basically saying that washing up with some alcohol destroys all the virus and skin to skin contact is completely safe. The logic would then hold that if said patient vomited on your bare hands that only some soap, water, and alcohol would clean you right up. No doctor in their right mind would ever do what you are suggesting.

I have read about Pham and Vinson. It is hard to tell what is true and when certain protocols were put in place. That said, it doesn't appear that they were treating Duncan like any other patient. There were extra precautions taken to treat him and they still don't know how/when they got infected. Was it a surface? Was it taking care of him? Was it his actual fluids? Etc. etc. You would think, that they would note when said patient vomited blood on their shoes, or hands, or clothers. The problem is... it is all still a mystery. And again, I am not a chicken little saying the sky is falling nor do I think the US is at much of a risk. All I have been saying is that the average hospital doesn't have the training and infrastructure to handle ebola patients. That is a problem that should be taken seriously. When people say, it isn't a big deal, and it isn't all that contagious, that really isn't true. If it wasn't a big deal and it wasn't that contagious labs that do research on the virus wouldn't need the protocols and failsafes to handle it. We were shown that rather sharply and rather poignantly when our first attempt to take care of an Ebola patient outside the specially designed hospitals resulting in two more ill.

20-30 more spread is a pretty high number considering some protocols were in place. Also, we don't know what all the others were doing. Taking care of might mean as little as handling forms he filled out or as much as helping him out of his bed because he vomited all over himself.

 

[3C's]

Why are southerners so easily freaked out?

BECAUSE WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

Someday

 

[sdp1226]

I just sneezed on a flight from Dallas and got a few stares.

 

[Scoresman]

Why are southerners so easily freaked out?

because they're southerners

 

[the moops]

if I ever stick to my guns like Jon when 99% of posters are telling me I'm an idiot, please someone destroy my internet

 

[timschochet]

Why are southerners so easily freaked out?

Officials revealed the teacher at Strong Elementary School in Strong, Maine, was placed on mandatory 21-day leave after going to an educational conference and staying in a hotel 9.5 miles from Texas Health Presbyterian, where 'patient zero' Thomas Eric Duncan was diagnosed and treated before he died.

She was one of five million people who commute through the Texas city.

However, the school cited 'parents' concerns' and ordered the teacher to remain in isolation for three weeks - the incubation period for Ebola, Portland Press Herald reported.

People freak out all over the place.

 

[the moops]

I want to get a Liberia t-shirt to wear when I fly to CA on Friday.

 

[Doug B]

The logic would then hold that if said patient vomited on your bare hands that only some soap, water, and alcohol would clean you right up. No doctor in their right mind would ever do what you are suggesting.

Honestly, if an Ebola patient barfed on my bare hand -- assuming I didn't get vomit anywhere else -- I'd wash up with pure isopropyl (ideally a basin full so I could soak my hand in it), followed by hydrogen peroxide (in a basin, please), and then soap-&-water with as high a water temperature as I could stand (~180 degrees). Could fit a bleach-water step in there, too. After that, I'd consider myself A-OK.

Now then -- in the current climate about the disease, I'd have to go on 21-day quarantine. No doubt about it. But I'd be totally confident in not contracting Ebola.

 

[sn0mm1s]

if I ever stick to my guns like Jon when 99% of posters are telling me I'm an idiot, please someone destroy my internet

To be fair... here are graphs of the known Ebola cases. Patient 0 was suspected to be a kid in December 2013 but these only go back about 6 months. It looks like these graphs were updated about a week ago. That said, pretty much any contagious disease spreads in the manner indicated if there aren't any preventative measures (like vaccines) or methods of treating it once it reaches a critical number of people. Ebola isn't special in this regard.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/ebola-forecast-graphs_n_5889520.html

 

[shader]

As far the "exponential growth": most of the WHO concerns about this were made over a month ago. But it hasn't happened. In West Africa, 3 months ago, there were about 7-8,000 people known to have Ebola. Now there are 9,000 people known to have Ebola. That's not exponential growth. Even if it's underreported which is likely, it's still not exponential.

Again, let's go back to 1918 and the influenza which killed millions. When it reached the US, there were 3 cases in a New York hospital. Within one week, there were 100 cases reported. Within one month, 50,000 cases. Within 3 months, 5 million cases reported. That's exponential.

Tim,

This is false

 

[timschochet]

As far the "exponential growth": most of the WHO concerns about this were made over a month ago. But it hasn't happened. In West Africa, 3 months ago, there were about 7-8,000 people known to have Ebola. Now there are 9,000 people known to have Ebola. That's not exponential growth. Even if it's underreported which is likely, it's still not exponential.

Again, let's go back to 1918 and the influenza which killed millions. When it reached the US, there were 3 cases in a New York hospital. Within one week, there were 100 cases reported. Within one month, 50,000 cases. Within 3 months, 5 million cases reported. That's exponential.

Tim,

This is false

Could be, because it was something I heard on TV and can't verify the source. I'm sure you have better numbers.

In any case, it's still small enough that I am confident in my earlier assertion that it's a difficult disease to catch, which really should be our main concern in terms of discussing whether or not we should seriously consider such drastic moves as travel bans.

 

[jon_mx]

if I ever stick to my guns like Jon when 99% of posters are telling me I'm an idiot, please someone destroy my internet

Like in most cases, the 99% are wrong.

 

[shader]

As far the "exponential growth": most of the WHO concerns about this were made over a month ago. But it hasn't happened. In West Africa, 3 months ago, there were about 7-8,000 people known to have Ebola. Now there are 9,000 people known to have Ebola. That's not exponential growth. Even if it's underreported which is likely, it's still not exponential.

Again, let's go back to 1918 and the influenza which killed millions. When it reached the US, there were 3 cases in a New York hospital. Within one week, there were 100 cases reported. Within one month, 50,000 cases. Within 3 months, 5 million cases reported. That's exponential.

Tim,

This is false

Could be, because it was something I heard on TV and can't verify the source. I'm sure you have better numbers.

In any case, it's still small enough that I am confident in my earlier assertion that it's a difficult disease to catch, which really should be our main concern in terms of discussing whether or not we should seriously consider such drastic moves as travel bans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/ebola-forecast-graphs_n_5889520.html

According to that chart, there were 964 cases 3 months ago. The growth from then to now is in fact exponential. Cases are doubling every 3 weeks. That is exponential. Yeah, it's not as quickly as the spanish flu, but this isn't as contagious as the spanish flu.

That fact should scare the living daylights out of everyone in Africa. Nigeria for instance, is cheering the news that they are "ebola-free", but unless the growth rate is quickly stopped, ebola will be back, and it will be back in force.

 

[jon_mx]

As far the "exponential growth": most of the WHO concerns about this were made over a month ago. But it hasn't happened. In West Africa, 3 months ago, there were about 7-8,000 people known to have Ebola. Now there are 9,000 people known to have Ebola. That's not exponential growth. Even if it's underreported which is likely, it's still not exponential.

Again, let's go back to 1918 and the influenza which killed millions. When it reached the US, there were 3 cases in a New York hospital. Within one week, there were 100 cases reported. Within one month, 50,000 cases. Within 3 months, 5 million cases reported. That's exponential.

Tim,

This is false

Could be, because it was something I heard on TV and can't verify the source. I'm sure you have better numbers.

In any case, it's still small enough that I am confident in my earlier assertion that it's a difficult disease to catch, which really should be our main concern in terms of discussing whether or not we should seriously consider such drastic moves as travel bans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/ebola-forecast-graphs_n_5889520.html

According to that chart, there were 964 cases 3 months ago. The growth from then to now is in fact exponential. Cases are doubling every 3 weeks. That is exponential. Yeah, it's not as quickly as the spanish flu, but this isn't as contagious as the spanish flu.

That fact should scare the living daylights out of everyone in Africa. Nigeria for instance, is cheering the news that they are "ebola-free", but unless the growth rate is quickly stopped, ebola will be back, and it will be back in force.

Of course it is. I am not sure where the confusion is. Perhaps just a lack of understanding of what exponential growth means.

 

[cstu]

I want to get a Liberia t-shirt to wear when I fly to CA on Friday.

"I went to Liberia and all I got was this lousy t-shirt and ebola"

 

[shader]

As far the "exponential growth": most of the WHO concerns about this were made over a month ago. But it hasn't happened. In West Africa, 3 months ago, there were about 7-8,000 people known to have Ebola. Now there are 9,000 people known to have Ebola. That's not exponential growth. Even if it's underreported which is likely, it's still not exponential.

Again, let's go back to 1918 and the influenza which killed millions. When it reached the US, there were 3 cases in a New York hospital. Within one week, there were 100 cases reported. Within one month, 50,000 cases. Within 3 months, 5 million cases reported. That's exponential.

Tim,

This is false

Could be, because it was something I heard on TV and can't verify the source. I'm sure you have better numbers.

In any case, it's still small enough that I am confident in my earlier assertion that it's a difficult disease to catch, which really should be our main concern in terms of discussing whether or not we should seriously consider such drastic moves as travel bans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/ebola-forecast-graphs_n_5889520.html

According to that chart, there were 964 cases 3 months ago. The growth from then to now is in fact exponential. Cases are doubling every 3 weeks. That is exponential. Yeah, it's not as quickly as the spanish flu, but this isn't as contagious as the spanish flu.

That fact should scare the living daylights out of everyone in Africa. Nigeria for instance, is cheering the news that they are "ebola-free", but unless the growth rate is quickly stopped, ebola will be back, and it will be back in force.

Of course it is. I am not sure where the confusion is. Perhaps just a lack of understanding of what exponential growth means.

Ebola should be easy to stop if handled quick. It's why the US will likely wipe out ebola in a month or so, and the "ebola craze" will wane down just as it's exponentially breaking out in Africa. It seems dumb to let that nurse ride a plane and traverse the country, and it is. But worst-case scenario is likely that she infected 1 or 2 different people and spread it to a new city. There is practically zero risk of her infecting 5,10 or "hundreds" as some worry and talk about.

But when 10,000 people are infected and each person infects 2....you can see how the numbers can quickly explode. Especially if there isn't good medical care.

 

[sn0mm1s]

The logic would then hold that if said patient vomited on your bare hands that only some soap, water, and alcohol would clean you right up. No doctor in their right mind would ever do what you are suggesting.

Honestly, if an Ebola patient barfed on my bare hand -- assuming I didn't get vomit anywhere else -- I'd wash up with pure isopropyl (ideally a basin full so I could soak my hand in it), followed by hydrogen peroxide (in a basin, please), and then soap-&-water with as high a water temperature as I could stand (~180 degrees). Could fit a bleach-water step in there, too. After that, I'd consider myself A-OK.

Now then -- in the current climate about the disease, I'd have to go on 21-day quarantine. No doubt about it. But I'd be totally confident in not contracting Ebola.

Confident enough to go touch a baby in the NICU? I highly doubt it. IIRC, the viral load needed to spread the disease was thought to be pretty small (this may have changed since I last read up on all the filoviruses) and in the later stages of the disease there are so many virus particles in a single cell that the cells appear crystal like so a large quantity of actual fluid wouldn't be needed in the first place.

I linked this earlier - but here is what is required/recommended to work on Ebola in a controlled laboratory setting:

http://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/bmbl5_sect_iv.pdf

Now, not all of that applies to Ebola (since from what we know it isn't airborne) but regardless, that is *nothing* like the *average* hospital setting and I think you are being a little cavalier to think a very thorough hand washing would be enough to assume that you are in the clear. My issue has been all along that if someone contracts Ebola they should be immediately quarantined in a medical facility specifically built to handle such diseases - not the average hospital. Those saying the average hospital can effectively manage Ebola patients are being some combination of naive, arrogant, dangerous, and irresponsible. After the nurses got sick I would appear that whatever higher up are advising whatever other higher ups agreed and put those nurses in hospitals that have biocontainment units.

 

[Henry Ford]

Ebola......Obama....sound simiiar, right? Coincidence?

You can't spell Ebola Ma without Obama.

I hear he's a sick cellist.