What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ebola (3 Viewers)

I've read a similar article and am surprised Osterholm would say "it would not surprise many virologists if Ebola were eventually to mutate and become airborne -- an alarming possibility that would put millions of lives at risk."

From what I've been reading virologists would be very surprised if this went airborne.
Check this out. From CNN.com, October 6th:

Ebola in the air? A nightmare that could happenToday, the Ebola virus spreads only through direct contact with bodily fluids, such as blood and vomit. But some of the nation's top infectious disease experts worry that this deadly virus could mutate and be transmitted just by a cough or a sneeze.

"It's the single greatest concern I've ever had in my 40-year public health career," said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. "I can't imagine anything in my career -- and this includes HIV -- that would be more devastating to the world than a respiratory transmissible Ebola virus."

The World Health Organization says its scientists are unaware of any virus that has dramatically changed its mode of transmission.

"For example, the H5N1 avian influenza virus... has probably circulated through many billions of birds for at least two decades. Its mode of transmission remains basically unchanged. Speculation that Ebola virus disease might mutate into a form that could easily spread among humans through the air is just that: speculation, unsubstantiated by any evidence."

Osterholm and other experts couldn't think of another virus that has made the transition from non-airborne to airborne in humans. They say the chances are relatively small that Ebola will make that jump. But as the virus spreads, they warned, the likelihood increases.

Every time a new person gets Ebola, the virus gets another chance to mutate and develop new capabilities. Osterholm calls it "genetic roulette."

Now this from yesterday's NYT:

As Ebola Spreads, So Have Several Fallacies
... Yet misconceptions about how they travel continue to circulate, including the persistent notion that Ebola, like influenza, is airborne. The uncertainty only grows when possible new cases are identified, as happened on Thursday in New York.

Recently on “Fox News Sunday,” the political commentator George F. Will said, “There are now doctors who are saying, ‘We’re not so sure that it can’t be in some instances transmitted by airborne.’ ”

When another guest on the show started to explain that experts have said this is not true, Mr. Will interrupted to say, “Every expert that you’ve seen. Here we go again.”

When scientists refer to an airborne virus, they mean one that gets into droplets called aerosols that are so tiny they can float on air currents instead of falling to the ground. Influenza can spread this way as people cough and sneeze. All the evidence scientists have gathered about Ebola, on the other hand, indicates that it spreads through contact with fluids from infected people. During an infection, the virus makes huge numbers of copies that contaminate the victim’s vomit, blood, diarrhea, urine and saliva.

The sheer numbers of viruses in those fluids raise the odds that anyone who makes contact with them will be infected. “This virus only needs a little opportunity,” said Vincent J. Munster, a virologist at the National Institutes of Health.

Ebola victims can release large, virus-laden droplets — if, for example, their vomit hits the floor. These droplets may strike people in close range or land on a wall or some other surface, where they can stay infective for hours or days.

Unlike the flu, Ebola does not lead to the kinds of coughs and sneezes that create a cloud of aerosols around a patient. Scientists who track the spread of Ebola have found that close contact with an infected person is necessary to become infected.

“The people who pass by the door and knock and say hello, we don’t find they get infected,” said Dr. Daniel G. Bausch, an associate professor of tropical medicine at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.

That’s not the pattern that airborne viruses produce. Dr. Bausch, for example, has treated hundreds of patients with Ebola and related viruses without protection from aerosols.

“If it happened frequently, I would be dead,” he said.

The outbreak of Ebola in Dallas has followed the pattern Dr. Bausch has seen in Africa. Thomas Eric Duncan, the infected man from Liberia, stayed in an apartment for eight days without passing the virus on to others there.

Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story The only two people to become infected were hospital nurses who took care of Mr. Duncan when he was most infective.

“If it were really highly contagious like the flu, there would be a whole lot more people infected with it,” said Thomas W. Geisbert, a virologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
And this from October 17th, on NPR.org:

Why Won't The Fear Of Airborne Ebola Go Away?How many times do top officials have to say that the Ebola virus is not airborne?

A lot, apparently.

Here is President Obama Thursday: "This is not an airborne disease. It is not easy to catch."

And the day before: "It is not like the flu. It is not airborne."

And Friday, a reporter asked the inevitable question about airborne Ebola when Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, held a press briefing about nurse Nina Pham's transfer to the National Institute of Health.

"There is no evidence whatsoever that this virus is airborne-transmitted," said Fauci emphatically. "Everything we know about this virus is that it is direct contact with bodily fluids."

This gets said over and over. It's backed up by epidemiological studies of past outbreaks. Yet the possibility of Ebola spreading through the air keeps being raised.

...

Still, what if the Ebola virus mutates? That's another fear that keeps surfacing. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, spoke about that on CNN this week.

"I'm worried about it because we know so little about it," he said. "You'll hear different people describe whether it could become airborne." He said that scientists did not agree. "I don't know who's right. I don't want to take that chance. So I'm taking it very seriously."

It's true that researchers can't absolutely rule out the idea that mutations might change how the virus spreads, but this seems unlikely, says Alan Schmaljohn, a virologist the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He said the chance of that is "very low, probably in the range of winning the multi-state lottery."

On Capitol Hill, the CDC's director said his team has been on the lookout for any significant genetic mutations. "What we've seen is very little change in the virus," Frieden told lawmakers. "We don't think it is spreading by any different way."

Chances are that's not the last time he'll have to say that.
 
Here is an article that gives the background explanation of why ebola isn't going to go airborne:

Why Ebola is very unlikely to go airborneEbola is not currently an airborne disease. You can't catch Ebola by sitting across the room from someone who has it. You can only catch Ebola from coming into direct contact with the bodily fluids of someone who has the disease and is showing symptoms.

(One caveat: If someone with Ebola symptoms sneezes or coughs and the saliva or mucus hits your eyes, nose, or mouth, that can transmit the disease, but this is rare, and it's mainly a concern for health workers. It's also not what people mean by "airborne.")

Back in September, however, an op-ed by Michael Osterholm in The New York Times raised a disturbing possibility — what if the Ebola epidemic in West Africa goes on long enough and the virus keeps mutating? Could Ebola somehow become airborne then? And wouldn't that allow the disease to spread even faster around the world? More recently, Dr. Oz raised the specter of airborne Ebola on The Today Show.

This is a scary scenario. But fortunately for the world, most infectious disease experts remain very skeptical that Ebola will ever become airborne. "This is way down on the list of possible futures for Ebola and in all probability will never happen," explained Ian Jones, a virologist with the University of Reading, back in September.

'We've never seen a human virus change the way it is transmitted'

But why are experts so confident Ebola won't become airborne? It's worth reading this long post by Vincent Racaniello, a virologist at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University.

He goes into detail about how viruses mutate, but here's his bottom line: "We have been studying viruses for over 100 years, and we've never seen a human virus change the way it is transmitted":

When it comes to viruses, it is always difficult to predict what they can or cannot do. It is instructive, however, to see what viruses have done in the past, and use that information to guide our thinking. Therefore we can ask: has any human virus ever changed its mode of transmission?

The answer is no. We have been studying viruses for over 100 years, and we've never seen a human virus change the way it is transmitted.

HIV-1 has infected millions of humans since the early 1900s. It is still transmitted among humans by introduction of the virus into the body by sex, contaminated needles, or during childbirth.

Hepatitis C virus has infected millions of humans since its discovery in the 1980s. It is still transmitted among humans by introduction of the virus into the body by contaminated needles, blood, and during birth.

There is no reason to believe that Ebola virus is any different from any of the viruses that infect humans and have not changed the way that they are spread.

I am fully aware that we can never rule out what a virus might or might not do. But the likelihood that Ebola virus will go airborne is so remote that we should not use it to frighten people. We need to focus on stopping the epidemic, which in itself is a huge job.

This jibes with what Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told the Senate in mid-September: "Very, very rarely does [a virus] completely change the way it's transmitted."

Fauci noted that viruses do mutate a lot, in ways that might make the disease more virulent or a little bit more efficient at spreading. That's why researchers are currently trying to monitor the mutations. But with all the dire things to worry about with Ebola, he said, the prospect of the disease going airborne is not "something I would put at the very top of the radar screen."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From Scientific American, 9/16/2014:

Fact or Fiction?: The Ebola Virus Will Go Airborne

... Here is what it would take for it to become a real airborne risk: First off, a substantial amount of Ebola virus would need to start replicating in cells that reside in the throat, the bronchial tubes and possibly in the lungs. Second, the airborne method would have to be so much more efficient than the current extremely efficient means of transmission that it would overcome any genetic costs to the virus stemming from the mutation itself. Substantial natural hurdles make it unlikely that either event will occur.

Currently, Ebola typically gains entry into the body through breaks in the skin, the watery fluid around the eye or the moist tissues of the nose or mouth. Then it infects various cells of the immune system, which it tricks into making more copies of itself. The end result: a massive attack on the blood vessels, not the respiratory system.

Even viruses that are well adapted to attacking the respiratory system often have a hard time getting transmitted through the airways. Consider the experience so far with avian flu, which is easily transmitted through the air in birds but hasn’t yet mutated to become easily spreadable in that fashion among people.

What's the hold-up? “The difficulty is that those [flu] viruses don’t have the protein attachments that can actually attach to cells in the upper airway. They have to develop attachments to do that,” Schaffner says. So even if a virus were exhaled, it would need to lodge onto something in another person’s cells that are already prepared for it in the upper airway. “Since the virus doesn’t have attachment factors that can work in the upper airway, it’s very rare for it to go human to human, and then it almost always stops and doesn’t get to a third person,” Schaffner notes. Similarly for Ebola, the virus would have to develop attachments that would allow it to easily attach receptors in the upper respiratory pathway—something that neither it (nor any of its viral cousins) has been known to do in the wild.
 
Osterholm seems like an alarmist to me, tho I did not go to medical school. We sure he's not a FBG posting in this thread with an alias?

 
WhatDoIKnow said:
We are overlooking something very important. How serious of a bowler is this doctor? Did he bring his own ball and shoes? The fate of the human race may be decided by this.
On a scale of A to E, I'd call him an E Bowler

:drumroll:

 
TheIronSheik said:
matuski said:
3C said:
Good chance an MD doesn't know he has a fever.
He was self monitoring, knowing he was at risk.

He was taking his own temperature twice a day. :thumbup:
Guy is out bowling and partying it up around NYC. I think we might be giving him too much credit to assume that he was self monitoring, knowing he was at risk and taking his temperature twice a day.
Again, it isn't complicated.

He had zero symptoms, was self monitoring... not contagious. Bowl away, ride on subways all day, get on a plane, uber it up.

He was the one who quarantined himself when his temp when up. Good on him.

Disclaimer: I got these facts from a FOX news update on the radio, ymmv.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just sneezed, and am running a slightly elevated temperature.

I suggest you all self-quarantine for 21-days, just to be sure.
Were you in direct contact with an Ebola patient?
I was looking at some pictures of ebola patients on-line. So I would say yes. And I'm afraid I sneezed all over the monitor, so I am pretty sure most of you have been exposed.

I have contacted CDC, and am awaiting further instructions. Unfortunately. I also post on a message board based in England, and I might have just jump-started this whole epidemic.

 
Osterholm seems like an alarmist to me, tho I did not go to medical school. We sure he's not a FBG posting in this thread with an alias?
While he is not an M.D., Michael Osteholm is a legit researcher in the field. His specialty is biosecurity.

That specialty might be a double-edged sword. While he definitely knows tons about pandemics and such, his familiarity with the subject matter may have bred contempt -- he might be overcautious and hesitant to rule out one-in-a-bazillion scerarios.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There have been 4 or 5 aid workers get Ebola in West Africa. I wonder how many US aid workers have been there during that time frame? Surely it is less than 1% of aid workers getting sick. Its pretty low regardless. Not sure its good public policy to de-incentivize people from going over there to help, by forcing a 21 day quarantine on them when they return.

 
I think you guys are missing one extremely important fact about this disease, as it relates to it's spread in the USA:

Most people recover.

Much of the concern regarding Ebola, even more than how it spreads (which we've spent pages and pages discussing) is that it's a deadly disease, fatal to anyone who catches it. Well that's not even true in Africa where the mortality rate for victims is still under 50%. Here it's not true at all. Only one person has died thus far, and proper treatment was lacking. Before it's all said and done , the percentage of people who die from the common flu may be higher.

So if you're one of the extremely few people who will ever catch this disease in the USA (you have a better chance of being struck by lightning twice in the same day, I would guess) you'll likely recover.

 
I think you guys are missing one extremely important fact about this disease, as it relates to it's spread in the USA:

Most people recover.

Much of the concern regarding Ebola, even more than how it spreads (which we've spent pages and pages discussing) is that it's a deadly disease, fatal to anyone who catches it. Well that's not even true in Africa where the mortality rate for victims is still under 50%. Here it's not true at all. Only one person has died thus far, and proper treatment was lacking. Before it's all said and done , the percentage of people who die from the common flu may be higher.

So if you're one of the extremely few people who will ever catch this disease in the USA (you have a better chance of being struck by lightning twice in the same day, I would guess) you'll likely recover.
We don't know this. This is just wild speculation at this point. It may prove to be the case, but after 5 or 6 cases, it's pretty silly to think you've been able to jump to this conclusion.

 
There have been 4 or 5 aid workers get Ebola in West Africa. I wonder how many US aid workers have been there during that time frame? Surely it is less than 1% of aid workers getting sick. Its pretty low regardless. Not sure its good public policy to de-incentivize people from going over there to help, by forcing a 21 day quarantine on them when they return.
How long are they gone for? Why does 21 days seem like a long time to you? As I've stated before, I'm sure there is other work that they can do over there for 21 days that doesn't require them touching Ebola patients. Why not finish out your stay there by putting in 21 days of non-contact work?

 
Any comment yet from the ebola czar?
Yes.

Fennis said:
Ebola patients treated in US: 9

Patients Infected in Africa: 7

Patients infected in US: 2

Non health care workers infected in US: 0

Patients released: 7

Patients under treatment: 1

Deceased: 1

Current mortality rate of Americans treated in US: 0%.

Current mortality rate of all treated in US: 11%

Cured: Nina Pham (nurse of Duncan); Amber Vinson (nurse of Duncan); Ashoka Mukpo (cameraman), Unidentified Aid Worker (AKA CIA), Dr. Kent Brantley , Dr. Rick Sacra, Nancy Writebol

Under treatment: Dr. Craig Spencer (the bowling, uber riding, hipster, doctors without border doctor)

Deceased: Thomas Duncan
 
Any comment yet from the ebola czar?
Yes.

Fennis said:
Ebola patients treated in US: 9

Patients Infected in Africa: 7

Patients infected in US: 2

Non health care workers infected in US: 0

Patients released: 7

Patients under treatment: 1

Deceased: 1

Current mortality rate of Americans treated in US: 0%.

Current mortality rate of all treated in US: 11%

Cured: Nina Pham (nurse of Duncan); Amber Vinson (nurse of Duncan); Ashoka Mukpo (cameraman), Unidentified Aid Worker (AKA CIA), Dr. Kent Brantley , Dr. Rick Sacra, Nancy Writebol

Under treatment: Dr. Craig Spencer (the bowling, uber riding, hipster, doctors without border doctor)

Deceased: Thomas Duncan
:lmao:

 
Any comment yet from the ebola czar?
Yes.

Fennis said:
Ebola patients treated in US: 9

Patients Infected in Africa: 7

Patients infected in US: 2

Non health care workers infected in US: 0

Patients released: 7

Patients under treatment: 1

Deceased: 1

Current mortality rate of Americans treated in US: 0%.

Current mortality rate of all treated in US: 11%

Cured: Nina Pham (nurse of Duncan); Amber Vinson (nurse of Duncan); Ashoka Mukpo (cameraman), Unidentified Aid Worker (AKA CIA), Dr. Kent Brantley , Dr. Rick Sacra, Nancy Writebol

Under treatment: Dr. Craig Spencer (the bowling, uber riding, hipster, doctors without border doctor)

Deceased: Thomas Duncan
:lmao: :thumbup:

 
Ebola is very hard to catch if you do everything right. And this doctor was responsible enough to self monitor himself when he got home.

Yet, somehow he got Ebola.

 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/23/trump-ebola-twitter-obama/17815841/

Real estate mogul Donald Trump is in the center of another Twitter scuffle, this one involving the recent diagnosis of the Ebola virus with a doctor in New York City.

Shortly after officials confirmed Craig Spencer had tested positive for the virus after treating Ebola patients in Guinea, Africa, Trump tweeted: "Ebola has been confirmed in N.Y.C., with officials frantically trying to find all of the people and things he had contact with. Obama's fault."



About 7 minutes after that, Trump tweeted,

"I have been saying for weeks for President Obama to stop the flights from West Africa. So simple, but he refused. A TOTAL incompetent!"

Trump went in further during a series of tweets.



In one, he made reference to the name Barry Soetoro, which appears on Obama's Columbia University identification card. "I never thought I'd say it in my lifetime, but President Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Sotoro, is a far worse president than Jimmy Carter!"

In another, he offered more insults.

"President Obama, you are a complete and total disaster, but you have a chance to do something great and important: STOP THE FLIGHTS!"

The White House did not immediately respond to an e-mail requesting comment.





 
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
Good chance an MD doesn't know he has a fever.
Yes. Because every doctor knows immediately when their temperature is no longer 98.6. Excellent point.
I know when my temp is higher than normal. Not rocket science.
Congratulations?
It's like a gift I suppose. One that I apparently share with almost everyone other than you. Sorry nature was so unkind.
Yes. Everyone knows when their temperature hits 98.7. You are truly a genius.
98.7 automatically means you have a fever?

 
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
Good chance an MD doesn't know he has a fever.
Yes. Because every doctor knows immediately when their temperature is no longer 98.6. Excellent point.
I know when my temp is higher than normal. Not rocket science.
Congratulations?
It's like a gift I suppose. One that I apparently share with almost everyone other than you. Sorry nature was so unkind.
Yes. Everyone knows when their temperature hits 98.7. You are truly a genius.
And at 98.7 is he spreading the virus? Tell us wise one!

 
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
Good chance an MD doesn't know he has a fever.
Yes. Because every doctor knows immediately when their temperature is no longer 98.6. Excellent point.
I know when my temp is higher than normal. Not rocket science.
Congratulations?
It's like a gift I suppose. One that I apparently share with almost everyone other than you. Sorry nature was so unkind.
Yes. Everyone knows when their temperature hits 98.7. You are truly a genius.
98.7 automatically means you have a fever?
Apparently. Somehow I thought running a fever was closer to 100. Who knew?

 
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
Good chance an MD doesn't know he has a fever.
Yes. Because every doctor knows immediately when their temperature is no longer 98.6. Excellent point.
I know when my temp is higher than normal. Not rocket science.
Congratulations?
It's like a gift I suppose. One that I apparently share with almost everyone other than you. Sorry nature was so unkind.
Yes. Everyone knows when their temperature hits 98.7. You are truly a genius.
98.7 automatically means you have a fever?
I would think anyone over the normal temperature would have a fever, yes. Do you not think that? If not, what temperature do you consider a fever?

 
We don't know this. This is just wild speculation at this point. It may prove to be the case, but after 5 or 6 cases, it's pretty silly to think you've been able to jump to this conclusion.
There's no magic number of recoveries that you reach where you can then say "OK ... we know how to treat this successfully". I, for one, don't believe Brantly, Vinson, Pham, etc. just got lucky. I believe they were giving purposeful, researched treatments that were fully expected to result in recovery.

 
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
Good chance an MD doesn't know he has a fever.
Yes. Because every doctor knows immediately when their temperature is no longer 98.6. Excellent point.
I know when my temp is higher than normal. Not rocket science.
Congratulations?
It's like a gift I suppose. One that I apparently share with almost everyone other than you. Sorry nature was so unkind.
Yes. Everyone knows when their temperature hits 98.7. You are truly a genius.
And at 98.7 is he spreading the virus? Tell us wise one!
Look, dip ####. I'm sorry you got butt hurt in the weather thread. I get it. It hurts to be wrong. I've been wrong before. But you should be happy that not a lot of people care about that thread. So only a select few saw that you were an idiot. It's not that big of deal. Let it go. It's OK that you were completely wrong. Move on.

As spreading the disease, the doctors do not know the EXACT temperature that you become contagious. If you think you do, you're a bigger moron than I thought in the weather thread. But my point was that not everyone knows when their temperature is no longer normal. And by "not everyone", I mean no one.

 
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
Good chance an MD doesn't know he has a fever.
Yes. Because every doctor knows immediately when their temperature is no longer 98.6. Excellent point.
I know when my temp is higher than normal. Not rocket science.
Congratulations?
It's like a gift I suppose. One that I apparently share with almost everyone other than you. Sorry nature was so unkind.
Yes. Everyone knows when their temperature hits 98.7. You are truly a genius.
98.7 automatically means you have a fever?
I would think anyone over the normal temperature would have a fever, yes. Do you not think that? If not, what temperature do you consider a fever?
Consequently, an accurate measurement of body temperature (best is rectal core temperature) of 100.4 F (38 C) or above is considered to be a "fever."

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/fever_in_adults/article_em.htm

 
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
Good chance an MD doesn't know he has a fever.
Yes. Because every doctor knows immediately when their temperature is no longer 98.6. Excellent point.
I know when my temp is higher than normal. Not rocket science.
Congratulations?
It's like a gift I suppose. One that I apparently share with almost everyone other than you. Sorry nature was so unkind.
Yes. Everyone knows when their temperature hits 98.7. You are truly a genius.
98.7 automatically means you have a fever?
Apparently. Somehow I thought running a fever was closer to 100. Who knew?
:lol:

 
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
Good chance an MD doesn't know he has a fever.
Yes. Because every doctor knows immediately when their temperature is no longer 98.6. Excellent point.
I know when my temp is higher than normal. Not rocket science.
Congratulations?
It's like a gift I suppose. One that I apparently share with almost everyone other than you. Sorry nature was so unkind.
Yes. Everyone knows when their temperature hits 98.7. You are truly a genius.
And at 98.7 is he spreading the virus? Tell us wise one!
Look, dip ####. I'm sorry you got butt hurt in the weather thread. I get it. It hurts to be wrong. I've been wrong before. But you should be happy that not a lot of people care about that thread. So only a select few saw that you were an idiot. It's not that big of deal. Let it go. It's OK that you were completely wrong. Move on.

As spreading the disease, the doctors do not know the EXACT temperature that you become contagious. If you think you do, you're a bigger moron than I thought in the weather thread. But my point was that not everyone knows when their temperature is no longer normal. And by "not everyone", I mean no one.
Aw, did I touch a nerve? Poor little fella.

 
We don't know this. This is just wild speculation at this point. It may prove to be the case, but after 5 or 6 cases, it's pretty silly to think you've been able to jump to this conclusion.
There's no magic number of recoveries that you reach where you can then say "OK ... we know how to treat this successfully". I, for one, don't believe Brantly, Vinson, Pham, etc. just got lucky. I believe they were giving purposeful, researched treatments that were fully expected to result in recovery.
I agree with you on this, GB. I really do. But my point is that after 5 cases, I think it's ridiculous to say, "OK. We've figured this thing out. No reason to worry about it anymore."

 
Ebola is very hard to catch if you do everything right. And this doctor was responsible enough to self monitor himself when he got home.

Yet, somehow he got Ebola.
Why the "yet"? It's not meaningful when someone who treated an Ebola patient contracts Ebola themselves. This is a known risk that not even the very best of human-implemented protocols can get down to 0%. 0.00001%** or whatever is about as good as it's going to get.

** number pulled out of the air

 
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
Good chance an MD doesn't know he has a fever.
Yes. Because every doctor knows immediately when their temperature is no longer 98.6. Excellent point.
I know when my temp is higher than normal. Not rocket science.
Congratulations?
It's like a gift I suppose. One that I apparently share with almost everyone other than you. Sorry nature was so unkind.
Yes. Everyone knows when their temperature hits 98.7. You are truly a genius.
98.7 automatically means you have a fever?
Apparently. Somehow I thought running a fever was closer to 100. Who knew?
:lol:
Now, do me a favor and go shove a thermometer up your ###. :thumbup:

 
We don't know this. This is just wild speculation at this point. It may prove to be the case, but after 5 or 6 cases, it's pretty silly to think you've been able to jump to this conclusion.
There's no magic number of recoveries that you reach where you can then say "OK ... we know how to treat this successfully". I, for one, don't believe Brantly, Vinson, Pham, etc. just got lucky. I believe they were giving purposeful, researched treatments that were fully expected to result in recovery.
I agree with you on this, GB. I really do. But my point is that after 5 cases, I think it's ridiculous to say, "OK. We've figured this thing out. No reason to worry about it anymore."
And I never said that. All I am trying to say is that the recovery rate is just as important, or even more important, with how fast it spreads. Right now I do not expect to catch this disease. But if I did catch it, I fully expect to recover. There is no reason to regard Ebola as a fatal disease, and a lot of the fear about it that we have seen take over this country in the last month or so is based on this false notion of fatality.

 
Fennis said:
Swing 51 said:
Just saw a crawl. He tested positive for Ebola
damn it. I thought I was going to be done.

Deceased: Thomas Duncan
Need an update as Pham is good to go :cool:
Wow, Pham and Vinson sure recovered quickly.

Ebola patients treated in US: 9

Patients Infected in Africa: 7

Patients infected in US: 2

Non health care workers infected in US: 0

Patients released: 7

Patients under treatment: 1

Deceased: 1

Current mortality rate of Americans treated in US: 0%.

Current mortality rate of all treated in US: 11%

Cured: Nina Pham (nurse of Duncan); Amber Vinson (nurse of Duncan); Ashoka Mukpo (cameraman), Unidentified Aid Worker (AKA CIA), Dr. Kent Brantley , Dr. Rick Sacra, Nancy Writebol

Under treatment: Dr. Craig Spencer (the bowling, uber riding, hipster, doctors without border doctor)

Deceased: Thomas Duncan
While factually accurate. Attempting to draw any broad conclusion from this data set is misleading.

1) The sample size is extremely small.

2) Sample size is not comprised of a wide demographic set - limited to (prior to catching the disease) healthy adults.

3) Patients are being treated in specialized hospitals with maximum round the clock professional specialist medical care who have no concern for cost control.

To have any measure of significance/effect of how an outbreak of Ebola would impact in America, I think you'd want to see at a minimum:

1) A much larger sample size - 100 would be much better...1000 more so.

2) Sample size including adults as well as children and senior citizens.

3) Patients that have been treated in local hospitals - with consideration to cost control (like all other diseases).

Certainly don't think Ebola is cause for great concern at this point but cause for zero concern based on such data is silly.

 
Ebola is very hard to catch if you do everything right. And this doctor was responsible enough to self monitor himself when he got home.

Yet, somehow he got Ebola.
What does this mean? And what Is your overall point here?
That means that if doctors wear the protective gear, scrub up and make sure they are taking all precautions to avoid contracting Ebola. Yet, somehow he managed still to get it. So when someone on the Internet says, "Don't worry. He's a doctor. He was self monitoring and making sure he was taking his temperature as to not spread the disease", it makes me think that maybe we shouldn't just assume that doctors know enough to contain the disease.

 
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
TheIronSheik said:
3C said:
Good chance an MD doesn't know he has a fever.
Yes. Because every doctor knows immediately when their temperature is no longer 98.6. Excellent point.
I know when my temp is higher than normal. Not rocket science.
Congratulations?
It's like a gift I suppose. One that I apparently share with almost everyone other than you. Sorry nature was so unkind.
Yes. Everyone knows when their temperature hits 98.7. You are truly a genius.
98.7 automatically means you have a fever?
Apparently. Somehow I thought running a fever was closer to 100. Who knew?
:lol:
Now, do me a favor and go shove a thermometer up your ###. :thumbup:
Aw, did I touch a nerve? Poor little fella.

 
We don't know this. This is just wild speculation at this point. It may prove to be the case, but after 5 or 6 cases, it's pretty silly to think you've been able to jump to this conclusion.
There's no magic number of recoveries that you reach where you can then say "OK ... we know how to treat this successfully". I, for one, don't believe Brantly, Vinson, Pham, etc. just got lucky. I believe they were giving purposeful, researched treatments that were fully expected to result in recovery.
I agree with you on this, GB. I really do. But my point is that after 5 cases, I think it's ridiculous to say, "OK. We've figured this thing out. No reason to worry about it anymore."
And I never said that. All I am trying to say is that the recovery rate is just as important, or even more important, with how fast it spreads. Right now I do not expect to catch this disease. But if I did catch it, I fully expect to recover. There is no reason to regard Ebola as a fatal disease, and a lot of the fear about it that we have seen take over this country in the last month or so is based on this false notion of fatality.
Just to calm things down here a little, GB, I'm not arguing with you angrily. Seriously. And if it seems like I was implying I put words in your mouth, that was not my intention. What I got from your post was that you said it was no longer a fatal disease. If that's not what you said, I apologize.

 
Fennis said:
Swing 51 said:
Just saw a crawl. He tested positive for Ebola
damn it. I thought I was going to be done.

Deceased: Thomas Duncan
Need an update as Pham is good to go :cool:
Wow, Pham and Vinson sure recovered quickly.

Ebola patients treated in US: 9

Patients Infected in Africa: 7

Patients infected in US: 2

Non health care workers infected in US: 0

Patients released: 7

Patients under treatment: 1

Deceased: 1

Current mortality rate of Americans treated in US: 0%.

Current mortality rate of all treated in US: 11%

Cured: Nina Pham (nurse of Duncan); Amber Vinson (nurse of Duncan); Ashoka Mukpo (cameraman), Unidentified Aid Worker (AKA CIA), Dr. Kent Brantley , Dr. Rick Sacra, Nancy Writebol

Under treatment: Dr. Craig Spencer (the bowling, uber riding, hipster, doctors without border doctor)

Deceased: Thomas Duncan
While factually accurate. Attempting to draw any broad conclusion from this data set is misleading.

1) The sample size is extremely small.

2) Sample size is not comprised of a wide demographic set - limited to (prior to catching the disease) healthy adults.

3) Patients are being treated in specialized hospitals with maximum round the clock professional specialist medical care who have no concern for cost control.

To have any measure of significance/effect of how an outbreak of Ebola would impact in America, I think you'd want to see at a minimum:

1) A much larger sample size - 100 would be much better...1000 more so.

2) Sample size including adults as well as children and senior citizens.

3) Patients that have been treated in local hospitals - with consideration to cost control (like all other diseases).

Certainly don't think Ebola is cause for great concern at this point but cause for zero concern based on such data is silly.
I understand the sample size is small. I started tracking in response to people coming in to the thread in a panic. We don't know the mortality rate in America, but we do know it won't be the 50-70% rate that everyone threw around. The US is not Africa.

We will never have 1000 people with Ebola in the US. I seriously doubt we will ever have 100.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ebola is very hard to catch if you do everything right. And this doctor was responsible enough to self monitor himself when he got home.

Yet, somehow he got Ebola.
What does this mean? And what Is your overall point here?
That means that if doctors wear the protective gear, scrub up and make sure they are taking all precautions to avoid contracting Ebola. Yet, somehow he managed still to get it. So when someone on the Internet says, "Don't worry. He's a doctor. He was self monitoring and making sure he was taking his temperature as to not spread the disease", it makes me think that maybe we shouldn't just assume that doctors know enough to contain the disease.
Fair enough. No offense, but I think you're being absurd. This doctor just spend who knows how long treating Ebola patients in West Africa. He probably engaged in hundreds of hours of close personal contact with those known to be stricken with the disease, and he may have also come into contact with people who had caught the disease but were not yet under a doctor's care. His chances of catching Ebola are going to be phenomenally higher than anyone who doesn't spend their time treating Ebola patients, no matter what precautions he takes.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top