Anyone else worried about Ebola?

[Phil Thien]

Isolation is, in fact, the method that was used to combat (successfully) all previous outbreaks of Ebola. We were lucky because the outbreaks were limited to small villages that were inherently very isolated.

Mobility and time are our enemies here. If anyone flying with the travelling nurse falls ill, I'm afraid effective isolation is off the table. People developing early symptoms will simply refuse to self-report because their fever could mean just a mild flu coming on. But if they self-report, their chances of exposure to others with Ebola increase exponentially.

Our failure was nipping this in the bud.

The best approach in these cases is using your biggest artillery (isolation/quarantine) early on. Otherwise, by the time you're ready to roll-out the big guns, it is already too late.

[ray hampton]

It does seem to make sense doesn't it? Bar incoming flights from outbreak countries, continue to monitor anyone coming in from other countries because they could be from those, and the * people who have had material exposure / contact * with someone who has ebola - should be placed somewhere that they literally can't go anywhere for 3 weeks, make an emergency legislative bill that doesn't allow them to be fired from their employers and that pays them back wages for three weeks.

it's not in everyones' best interest to have people who provide a substantial risk flying around on airplanes or visiting restaurants in new jersey. It's a problem that could be solved *easily*. Easily.

what can we do to stop and kill this disease short of using a nuke bomb

[Phil Thien]

The Ebola that is killing people is doing so by liquifying their organs.

What I said the guy, and other doctors since then, said was that we're not being told the truth and that it's a lot more dangerous than they are saying, which we are finding out to be true every single day.

Over 200 health care workers have died from Ebola this year alone, globally, so I hardly think it's a "harmless" as some are portraying it to be. Two days ago, they upped the mortality rate to 70%. That's a lot closer to the dangerous levels those doctors interviewed have indicated.

I think the test is simple. It's easy to quote statistics from wikipedia, but if you were sitting in an airport, waiting for a plane, and they announced that your flight had just transported an infected ebola patient and it had not been properly cleaned, would you get on the plane. I seriously doubt it.

(1) Whether their organs are liquefied is irrelevant. They're dead.

(2) You see a conspiracy to deceive, I see only incompetence.

(3) I don't think anyone is portraying this outbreak as "harmless."

(4) The Wikipedia #'s are from WHO. I'll take that data over the hysteria, thanks.

(5) Do you seriously need me to answer this? They announce they transported an infected patient and failed to adequately clean the plane afterwards and my refusal to get on the plane is evidence of what?

[David Weaver]

(5) Do you seriously need me to answer this? They announce they transported an infected patient and failed to adequately clean the plane afterwards and my refusal to get on the plane is evidence of what?

Personally, I don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff, either, and would also not get on the plane. What we don't know about the person riding the plane is if they had a BR accident in their pants or something, or if they wiped their nose or mouth and got it on something, things that literally are disease transmitting *without any conspiracy theories*.

Not getting on a plane that hasn't been properly cleaned is just common sense.

If someone told me the plane had been cleaned with CDC supervision, I would then get on it. There are lots of risks in the world. A properly decontaminated area is not one I'd be concerned about - I could just as easily get hit by a bus while thinking about it - something I have actually seen in this city several times (and I don't worry about that, either).

[Scott Shepherd]

(1) Whether their organs are liquefied is irrelevant. They're dead.

(2) You see a conspiracy to deceive, I see only incompetence.

(3) I don't think anyone is portraying this outbreak as "harmless."

(4) The Wikipedia #'s are from WHO. I'll take that data over the hysteria, thanks.

(5) Do you seriously need me to answer this? They announce they transported an infected patient and failed to adequately clean the plane afterwards and my refusal to get on the plane is evidence of what?

(2) Where did I say there was a conspiracy? A conspiracy to do what? I don't believe it's a "conspiracy", but I do believe it's truly unqualified people handling the situation (meaning the top level, not the people in the trenches).

(3) Sure they are, read through this thread, David even breaks it down for us saying "It's only 2 people with it", and they aren't dead, so there's not much to worry about.

(4) I think I'll take doctors on the ground over a WHO website, thanks. The CDC website hasn't even been updated for healthcare workers about it since July 30th. How's that sane? No additional precautions about it on the CDC website?

(5) It proves that it's easy to dismiss the seriousness of it all when it's not your health at risk. The point being, quite simply, that if they announced that, no one would get on the plane, instead, they DIDN'T announce it and ALLOWED people, up to 5 plane loads to get on that same aircraft. If you don't think that wreaks of complete and total incompetence, then I'm not sure what would qualify.

[David Weaver]

(3) Sure they are, read through this thread, David even breaks it down for us saying "It's only 2 people with it", and they aren't dead, so there's not much to worry about.

that's not actually what I said. What I said was that with removal of the incompetency to do simple things that make sense based on a known facts basis, those cases could stop with those two (plus maybe anyone else who has been given the disease due to stupidity).

There are no cases without contact to bodily fluids to anyone, and as much as I didn't like the CDC head's immediate finger pointing to lack of protocol following at the hospital involved with those exposures, it took less than a day for nurses united to blow up the attempt at claiming that there were no breaches of protocol.

So, we're right back to where we were. Several cases that were properly handled appear to have created no exposure. Several people who lived in proximity to TED, who had a very high viral count and was literally vomiting at the apartment building he was in - also have not come up with ebola yet. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that at least one of those people may have had exposure to bodily fluids - TED was literally spewing them out, so if someone from that apartment turns up positive, I wouldn't be surprised. And I would also expect that it was literally due to contact with bodily fluids, and not from proximity alone. We have seen no cases otherwise.

I agree with phil, the concern here is incompetence and the inability of any leadership to do anything despite known risks. Concern for tinfoil hate nuclear shock wave unexpected transmissions of ebola otherwise? I don't think so. If the guy you quoted on the radio was quoted accurately, he still sounds like a quack and the actual facts justify that.

[Pat Barry]

It does seem to make sense doesn't it? Bar incoming flights from outbreak countries, continue to monitor anyone coming in from other countries because they could be from those, and the * people who have had material exposure / contact * with someone who has ebola - should be placed somewhere that they literally can't go anywhere for 3 weeks, make an emergency legislative bill that doesn't allow them to be fired from their employers and that pays them back wages for three weeks.

it's not in everyones' best interest to have people who provide a substantial risk flying around on airplanes or visiting restaurants in new jersey. It's a problem that could be solved *easily*. Easily.

Quarantine? Where? Who gets admitted (Sentenced)? When you have a small number you can manage this. If there are 1000 then it seems like it will be come an interment camp - just like the Nazi prison camps - people waiting to die. What if you catch a cold, your neighbor sees you coughing, your pharmacist sees you buying Tyllenol, they call the authorities and they proceed to lock you up. It won't be pleasant, thats for sure. It will be lawless and totally un-American.

No, the answer is better to stop anyone from leaving those countries at the center of the infection problem. Not try to screen them coming to America, just don't let them come at all. Right now the only effective way to stop this is to keep it from spreading.

[Phil Thien]

(2) Where did I say there was a conspiracy? A conspiracy to do what? I don't believe it's a "conspiracy", but I do believe it's truly unqualified people handling the situation (meaning the top level, not the people in the trenches).

(3) Sure they are, read through this thread, David even breaks it down for us saying "It's only 2 people with it", and they aren't dead, so there's not much to worry about.

(4) I think I'll take doctors on the ground over a WHO website, thanks. The CDC website hasn't even been updated for healthcare workers about it since July 30th. How's that sane? No additional precautions about it on the CDC website?

(5) It proves that it's easy to dismiss the seriousness of it all when it's not your health at risk. The point being, quite simply, that if they announced that, no one would get on the plane, instead, they DIDN'T announce it and ALLOWED people, up to 5 plane loads to get on that same aircraft. If you don't think that wreaks of complete and total incompetence, then I'm not sure what would qualify.

(2) "What I said the guy, and other doctors since then, said was that we're not being told the truth and that it's a lot more dangerous than they are saying, which we are finding out to be true every single day." Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

(3) David doesn't think this is harmless, he is trying to be proportional.

(4) The WHO data comes from doctors on the ground, as well as other sources.

(5) I do not believe the airline was made aware that they had transported a possibly infected individual as soon as they should have been. That is where the incompetence comes in.

[David Weaver]

Pat - regarding the exposed and people already infected, don't you think it would make more sense to put a stop to the situation right now? It may be that nobody who has been exposed will get it, anyway. It's not unamerican at all, our history is peppered with examples of segregation of people who are diseased in order to prevent other people from getting it. It's a lot easier to do when the cadre of exposed folks is 150 than it would be if it's 150,000.

But even if flights are stopped from libera, sierra leone, etc. those folks can still come here by coming through another country. In addition, we have several thousand soldiers over there putting up buildings and possibly getting exposed to people one way or another. They, along with other health workers, will be coming back here and some may be affected.

putting a stop to the cases that arrive in country so that there are no more people in the country who contract it here should be priority number one. "to keep it from spreading" as you say. It has to be a two pronged-strategy. One to try to limit when it comes in (to health workers and soldiers) and two, to eliminate the chance it will be transmitted once it's here.

[Pat Barry]

If someone told me the plane had been cleaned with CDC supervision, I would then get on it.

Count me out. I think the CDC is failing us all miserably and they need to quit directing the efforts because they are so far over their head they don't know which way is up. They have had 40 years to figure this out. It seems to me they should have something substantial. They don't. The guy in charge is a bureaucrat and doesn't understand the problem or the solutions.

[David Weaver]

If you have ever worked with government agencies, you'd get a sense about why nobody is taking charge. Nobody within them wants to make a decision on the fly because the rules they operate under are so complex. They need leadership that has authority and backbone, and the support of congress to do what preserves life, it's that simple.

[Pat Barry]

Pat - regarding the exposed and people already infected, don't you think it would make more sense to put a stop to the situation right now? It may be that nobody who has been exposed will get it, anyway. It's not unamerican at all, our history is peppered with examples of segregation of people who are diseased in order to prevent other people from getting it. It's a lot easier to do when the cadre of exposed folks is 150 than it would be if it's 150,000.

But even if flights are stopped from libera, sierra leone, etc. those folks can still come here by coming through another country. In addition, we have several thousand soldiers over there putting up buildings and possibly getting exposed to people one way or another. They, along with other health workers, will be coming back here and some may be affected.

putting a stop to the cases that arrive in country so that there are no more people in the country who contract it here should be priority number one. "to keep it from spreading" as you say. It has to be a two pronged-strategy. One to try to limit when it comes in (to health workers and soldiers) and two, to eliminate the chance it will be transmitted once it's here.

Oh yes David, I agree completely. We just can't allow the unchecked spread of this. But, if we don't and the numbers grow it will quickly become unmanageable. Matter of fact, who would manage it? Right now it seems we would need to quarantine an entire hospital, workers and all. Of course, if we did that, probably half of them could die before its over.

[Scott Shepherd]

(2) "What I said the guy, and other doctors since then, said was that we're not being told the truth and that it's a lot more dangerous than they are saying, which we are finding out to be true every single day." Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

(3) David doesn't think this is harmless, he is trying to be proportional.

(4) The WHO data comes from doctors on the ground, as well as other sources.

(5) I do not believe the airline was made aware that they had transported a possibly infected individual as soon as they should have been. That is where the incompetence comes in.

(2) So they were right, it is more dangerous than reported by the CDC. So that makes them conspiracy theorists? Let's examine the facts, they said what is happening now was going to happen. So they were right, the CDC was wrong. If you chose to call that a conspiracy, then that's on you, not me. I call it (and they seemed to as well) incompetence, not conspiracy.

Since none of you heard the interviews, you're just making these doctors into the boogie man. How about finding out what they actually said and comment on that instead of relying on me (a non-medical person) trying to paraphrase a conversation I heard in passing and didn't realize I'd be tested on later????

Go back to what was first said by CDC and look at where they are today. In less than 2 weeks, just about every thing they have said has been wrong. They contradict themselves daily. I don't think there's a master plan to deceive us. I think they really are that incompetent.

How anyone, anywhere, on any planet can think it's okay to put a symptomatic ebola patient on a commercial, public flight is proof of that. The CDC told her to get on that flight, not some doctor on the radio, yet some of you want to hold the doctor on the radio to higher standards.

[David Weaver]

Well, it's not that transmittable. I was talking to a neighbor yesterday, and I'd say find a resort that's just closed due to financial issues and put the people in it. If they get a fever, fly them to one of the expert treatment hospitals and it's solved. The remaining folks could literally have their own rooms or several rooms at such a resort, even if there are hundreds of them, and they would not be exposed to each other. Give them the tools to take their own temperatures and have someone take their temperatures once a day.

That's easier to do right now than it would be with a lot of people.

What would such a just-closed resort cost - $50 million? Just pay it. I'll bet you could literally set up a federal paypal account and people in the US would donate enough to do it.

But get some federal agencies involved and nobody wants to be the person to green light such a thing. They make decisions in weeks, not minutes, and those are small individual decisions. It's clear that many of the folks have a reflexive reaction to place blame on someone else, because they feel they don't have any authority to do anything and thus don't want to take blame, even when they're at fault. I would expect that in a society like ours where information flows freely and academic type folks should be in charge of places like the CDC that have complex fluid problems to deal with that the last thing we would get is political blame-gaming (and I don't mean partisan, I mean spinning blame to someone else) when those folks talk on TV, but it's clear that the messages from everyone, from the hospital to the agency heads are very carefully crafted. Now is not the time for that.

[David Weaver]

(2) So they were right, it is more dangerous than reported by the CDC. So that makes them conspiracy theorists? Let's examine the facts, they said what is happening now was going to happen. So they were right, the CDC was wrong. If you chose to call that a conspiracy, then that's on you, not me. I call it (and they seemed to as well) incompetence, not conspiracy.

How is it more dangerous? So far, we have two people who are infected who were working somewhere that protocols were apparently not followed. Both people have had direct contact with bodily fluids of someone who is in the death throes from the disease.

What about the rest of the people who lived with TED, or who were in the ER with him the two times he was in there? And the rest of the people who were in the hospital in various rooms or places he might have been transferred to?

There has been no material change. Just incompetence in dealing with *already known* risks.

As they say on shark tank, as far as this discussion goes, "I'm out" until or unless something substantial comes along to believe that anything thus far has been inaccurate other than the advertised competence or leadership of the agencies (that's been proven otherwise).