Ebola - all or nothing?

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

It does look like the CDC at least is getting its act together, and one might commend them on acknowledging their initial errors and addressing them.

As long as you deny there is a problem, then you can't do anything to fix the situation, because you don't even see anything that needs fixing.


I'm not concerned about a widespread epidemic breaking out. I'm fairly confident that we'll be able to contain and control Ebola cases inside the US.


The bigger concern to me is that we give phony assurances that are too optimistic, and thereby lose credibility. I'd feel a lot better if they said, from the outset, "we expect a few dozen cases eventually, the disease is so contagious and world-wide travel is so common. We are gearing up to identify those prospective cases right away, isolate them, and prevent the spread beyond them, through timely and assertive action when and as needed."

Well said. I agree.

[St. Clown]

Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

I'm just not personally worried. There is essentially no chance that I will come across the ebola virus in its current state.

Well, it's in many states. We have the guy who died in Dallas, the nurse in Cleveland with the strippers, the doctor in New York, and I don't really know where the other cases are located. Still, that's at least three states.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

Well, it's in many states. We have the guy who died in Dallas, the nurse in Cleveland with the strippers, the doctor in New York, and I don't really know where the other cases are located. Still, that's at least three states.

To the bunker!!

See you all in the spring. Maybe.

[joecct]

To the bunker!!

See you all in the spring. Maybe.

That will be your downfall!

[unofan]

Right, and so appointing a career political operative with no medical experience whatsoever as "Ebola czar" is the best way to defuse the political aspects, eh?



are you Josh Earnest in disguise?

The real problems are (1) that the disease, once one is infected, has a high death rate, and (2) the authorities bungled their initial response.

It does look like the CDC at least is getting its act together, and one might commend them on acknowledging their initial errors and addressing them.

As long as you deny there is a problem, then you can't do anything to fix the situation, because you don't even see anything that needs fixing.


I'm not concerned about a widespread epidemic breaking out. I'm fairly confident that we'll be able to contain and control Ebola cases inside the US.


The bigger concern to me is that we give phony assurances that are too optimistic, and thereby lose credibility. I'd feel a lot better if they said, from the outset, "we expect a few dozen cases eventually, the disease is so contagious and world-wide travel is so common. We are gearing up to identify those prospective cases right away, isolate them, and prevent the spread beyond them, through timely and assertive action when and as needed."


Most people are grownups and can deal with problems if they are presented in a matter-of-fact manner. The single biggest political problem has been government spokespeople talking down to the rest of us as if we were children who needed to be lied to because we were too immature to handle the truth. We can see several instances of that on this thread already.


Tell people you expect several dozen cases, and then when only 15 or 20 appear, people are reassured. Tell people there will be no further cases at all, and then when 5 or 10 appear, people get nervous.

They did say (and I'm paraphrasing) they expected more cases from the get go, likely from people who directly interacted with an infected person, but could contain it before it became an outbreak in this country. In other words, exactly what you wanted them to say.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

SS: There have been lots of things that have helped keep this country from experiencing some of the epidemic scourges of olden times. Slow travel getting here only being one of them. It most certainly did help that most of the sick died before they could get here. Perhaps going further back, not being discovered by the Europeans before the 15th century helped also. The development of various disease treating drugs were of no doubt major significance. The fact that some diseases were just limited to tropical environments was also of some benefit. I was merely pointing out that the ball game has changed. Diseases and epidemics that were rarely to ever even thought of here, are now able to reach our doorstep in hours rather than weeks to months. Even the pattern and spread of influenza is vastly different now that it was as recent as the 1950's. Back then, the Asian or Hong Kong Flu(as they were called) took longer to arrive and spread throughout the US allowing for more time to institute containment and control measures(whether they worked or not is another question).
There is some really bad stuff out there(just watch the show on Animal Planet 'Monsters Within Me' on Thursday nights). Some treatable, some not. I am just pointing out that we are not as safe from them as we were generations ago and that we need to be taking some extra (and new) precautions to protect. For some of these entities it is not as important as others-some are either not all that bad or not all that contagious. But the clock is ticking for the time when we do face one that is both-dangerously lethal and very contagious. I am just not sure how truly ready we are to face something like the 1917 outbreak of Spanish Flu that swept the world and killed millions in a rather short period of time. A combination of virulence and contagion that we really had not seen before. Of course, this is just my opinion after almost 50 years of medical practice.

Edit: I am suddenly reminded of the Kevin Bacon character in 'Animal House" at the end when all heck breaks loose at the final parade yelling-"All is Well" and "Remain Calm"

Point was that we're decades removed from slow travel being an incubator and yet we're also decades removed from the last pandemic. It's not to say we're in the clear but rather if we're not this is the least of our concerns in fighting the next big thing.

[DrDemento]

Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

I'm not claiming to be a doctor, but I can do math.

If this bug were easily transmitted, there'd be far, far more cases in the u.s. and Europe already. Duncan was sent home with a low grade fever, yet none of his housemates got infected, let alone random neighbors or people who may have shared airspace with him.

My offer of a bet is still on the table. I believe more people in the U.S. will die from the flu than ebola this winter. Funny how none of the fear mongers will take that one, though.

Absolutely correct, and I fear the flu far more than this Ebola stuff. But then again, I have always had a healthy respect for the influenza virus which can at any time become one of the worst epidemics known to mankind. We have been able to treat it somewhat and develop some vaccines that ameliorate the strains we can identify. But truth be known, we really are not all all prepared for what that incredible infectious agent can do if it ever decides to alter itself into something far more virulent.

[DrDemento]

Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

It is bothersome when we find a case and the reaction is-'well it's only one case'. Then we find another case and the reaction is-'well it's only 2 cases'. For those who think this way-think of a number that would be significant and would be cause for alarm and let me know when we reach it. In the early 1980's we had the same scenario with what was then called GRID. 'Well it's only 8 cases and they are only in San Fransisco'. Then only 12 cases and only in San Fransisco and on Long Island NY. I would not be upset about a few cases here-if, and only if, I knew exactly how contagious it was and the exact steps needed to be taken to avoid that contagion. I would also not be upset at all, if we knew we had a treatment that was even moderately effective and was not just supportive and keeping our fingers crossed.
Nothing would make me more happy than to have this be the last case we find and to have no one who was exposed test positive. But there is just too much unknown about this entity to take as many precautions as possible against it.

[FreshFish]

Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

I don't really know where the other cases are located.

World-wide map here, with links to stories about each location listed.

a map showing confirmed Ebola cases and the locations where they have been treated

5 locations in US, 7 in Europe, 6 countries in Africa (though Senegal and Nigeria have since been declared Ebola-free by WHO).

It looks like some of the locations are where people have been moved to for treatment after case was initially diagnosed elsewhere, though I haven't gone through each story location-by-location.

[Timothy A]

Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

I'm not claiming to be a doctor, but I can do math.

If this bug were easily transmitted, there'd be far, far more cases in the u.s. and Europe already. Duncan was sent home with a low grade fever, yet none of his housemates got infected, let alone random neighbors or people who may have shared airspace with him.

My offer of a bet is still on the table. I believe more people in the U.S. will die from the flu than ebola this winter. Funny how none of the fear mongers will take that one, though.

The death rate from Ebola is much higher than the flu. My point is that there are too many unknowns (all the false assurances as someone stated) right now and there's no harm that can come from being too cautious, whereas there's a lot of harm that can come from being too casual about it. It's not my intent to be a fear monger, it's my wish that we take systematic measures to ensure public safety.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

I would also not be upset at all, if we knew we had a treatment that was even moderately effective and was not just supportive and keeping our fingers crossed.

So far, cases that have been treated here are crushing the typical mortality rate. The only one lost to my knowledge is the Liberian national and who knows how far along he was before he got here or therapies began.

[FreshFish]

Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

I would not be upset about a few cases here-if, and only if, I knew exactly how contagious it was and the exact steps needed to be taken to avoid that contagion. I would also not be upset at all, if we knew we had a treatment that was even moderately effective and was not just supportive and keeping our fingers crossed.

Bad news and good news reply:
we only how contagious it is right now, it is demonstrably mutating as it moves from person from person and even as it spreads within one person's body (see New Yorker article cited earlier). So far those mutations do not seem to have affected its method of transmission. The scary potential mutation would be one that is less lethal, people might then catch it and remain debilitated for a longer period of time. Right now, either you die or you recover pretty quickly. A virus transmitted through a person's bodily fluids, if that includes perspiration, if it mutates to be less deadly, then no one will ever want to touch a doorknob or a railing or any other place people touch with bare hands. Let's pray this never happens!

Good news, one treatment that seems "moderately effective" is to use blood serum from people who have recovered. Apparently these people now have anti-bodies that attack the protein shell that encapsulates the RNA.

It is starting to look exactly as you said, DrD: our biggest problem now is complacency.

[FreshFish]

Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

it's my wish that we take systematic measures to ensure public safety.

Bingo!

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

So far, cases that have been treated here are crushing the typical mortality rate. The only one lost to my knowledge is the Liberian national and who knows how far along he was before he got here or therapies began.

This.

[unofan]

there's no harm that can come from being too cautious

Perhaps not physically (though I won't be shocked if someone in the south shoots someone out of misguided fear of being infected), but there are already a few stories out there of people losing jobs, being put on forced leave, or otherwise being harassed for no reason other than public panic because EBOLA!!!!. The longer the news media hype continues, the more fear driven and less measured the responses will become.

Times of stress usually cause the American public to react both magnanimously and horrifically at the same time. I don't think it's out of line to attempt to counter the fear driven media's attempt to drive us towards the latter.