Anyone else worried about Ebola?

[Scott Shepherd]

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.

Like I said, you keep repeating that it's "2" people with it, so it's not something to worry about, but I bet you a doughnut that you wouldn't get on a plane if they made the announcement that the last flight contained an ebola patient that was testing positive for the disease. You can say "2" all day long, but you wouldn't take the flight. Why not? If it's not dangerous, then why wouldn't you get on the flight?

Same reason the number "2" shouldn't be focused on, but rather the 1000's now that have been unknowingly exposed to the possibility of it. Will 1000's get it? Of course not. But I'd rather be in the statistic that wasn't exposed to it or anyone that was exposed to it than not.

One of the doctors said that they needed to shut the flights down from that country, then the CDC says that's not necessary and would be harmful. Now you guys are saying that they should stop the flights. So you repeat the same thing they said and they are quacks? I don't get it.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

They keep saying the nurse who flew was not symptomatic. She had a fever- that is a symptom. ???

[David Weaver]

Like I said, you keep repeating that it's "2" people with it, so it's not something to worry about, but I bet you a doughnut that you wouldn't get on a plane if they made the announcement that the last flight contained an ebola patient that was testing positive for the disease. You can say "2" all day long, but you wouldn't take the flight. Why not? If it's not dangerous, then why wouldn't you get on the flight?

Same reason the number "2" shouldn't be focused on, but rather the 1000's now that have been unknowingly exposed to the possibility of it. Will 1000's get it? Of course not. But I'd rather be in the statistic that wasn't exposed to it or anyone that was exposed to it than not.

One of the doctors said that they needed to shut the flights down from that country, then the CDC says that's not necessary and would be harmful. Now you guys are saying that they should stop the flights. So you repeat the same thing they said and they are quacks? I don't get it.

Who said before that they shouldn't shut down flights? Me? No, but you keep asserting that I said something I didn't say. I said it's easier to contain it when it's two people and none of the transmissions so far have been anything other than routine. it's that easy. I'd appreciate it if you would quote what I said accurately without extrapolating, it's common courtesy and it's a requirement to have any kind of reasoned discussion.

I just said earlier I'd get on a plane that had been decontaminated. That's it, period. It doesn't matter whether you believe I would.

[Jim Koepke]

Someone needs to get fired for those types of decision making skills.

I saw someone on an interview program yesterday lambasting the U.S. Surgeon General for not doing more about this situation.

It seems a lot of the problems can be traced back to the Surgeon General not coordinating the various health agencies who should be involved in this mess.

Most people do not realize at this time we do not have a Surgeon General to mobilize the troops.

There are conspiracies of fear, foolishness and idiocy.

There are not conspiracies to get everyone in America infected.

I have posted on another forum about a treatment that seems to be working. Unfortunately that post contains some political nuance, so it can not be repeated in full here.

This is about all of the post that will, hopefully, be allowed:

In late July, when it looked like Dr. Kent Brantly wasn't going to make it, a small news item escaped Liberia. It spoke of Brantly's treatment – not of the Ebola vaccine, Zmapp, which Brantly later got. But of a blood transfusion. He had "received a unit of blood from a 14-year-old boy who had survived Ebola because of Dr. Brantly's care," the missive said.
Now months later, Brantly, who has since recovered from his battle with the virus, has passed on the favor. A 26-year-old Dallas nurse named Nina Pham, who contracted the illness while treating the United State's first Ebola patient, has received Brantly's blood. It's not the first time it has been used to treat Ebola patients. Recovered Ebola victim Richard Sacra got it, as well as U.S. journalist Ashoka Mukpo, who last night said he's on the mend.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...la/?tid=pm_pop

In a situation of "National Health Emergency" it is good to have the Surgeon General of the United States to guide the efforts at protecting America's health.

Some people are wondering why the U.S. Surgeon General hasn't said anything...

It is because at the current moment the United States doesn't have a Surgeon General.

jtk

[Scott Shepherd]

Who said before that they shouldn't shut down flights?

Umm, the head of the CDC.

[David Weaver]

Umm, the head of the CDC.

I guess he must've had the same name as phil or me to be confused with us saying that. I doubt the CDC is making that decision, anyway. The rest of their information has been accurate:
* it's passed only through bodily fluids
* it's not that easy to contract otherwise
* the infections that occurred in the US are due to breach of protocol

We will wait and see if any of this is accurate:
* it's the marburg virus (we already know that's false)
* it has 100% fatality if it's ebola (we already know that's false)
* ebola liquifies peoples' bodies in two days (we know that's false)
* it's easily transmissible (aerosol or whatever) - we know that's false

Pretty much the whole premise you're going on is conspiracy and the assumption that some of those above fallacies are true. Because one guy got on the radio and pretended to be a guru. The rest of the issues are obvious routine incompetence (no adherence to protocol) or leadership incompetence (failure to stop flights from ebola affected countries).

The fact that guinea has pretty much eliminated it just with competence and rigor (see the note about the guy who exposed 900 people, yet nobody got ebola from him so far) should take away the tinfoil hatting about easy transmission and other spooky false stories. Guinea is bordered by sierra leone and liberia. Same with nigeria.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSto...-luck-26249603

Get back to us when something of the later statements turns out to be true, and please use some restraint when thinking about claiming I said something I didn't.

[Pat Barry]

The rest of their information has been accurate:
* it's passed only through bodily fluids
* it's not that easy to contract otherwise
* the infections that occurred in the US are due to breach of protocol

I think the jury is still out on any and all of these statements. I think the CDC would like to see the breach of protocol so they can transfer blame from them being wrong to some nurse making a mistake. In reality it seems the CDC doesn't really have a good handle on this as demonstrated by them telling the second nurse it was OK to fly, by the CDC lowering the temperature required to be called a fever, by the head of the CDC spending lots of time on TV but not providing and real proactive measures, by the transfer of the nurses to new facilities - proving its not easy to manage. Lots of issues in my mind. THey better step up their response pronto or we are going to be pretty chaotic very soon.

[Scott Shepherd]

I went back and found the phone call into the show. It wasn't easy but you have made some assumptions that aren't correct and it's mainly a time based difference.

He said he had a team of 100 and some people back in the 60's when it was discovered. AT THAT TIME, the mortality rate was 100% and the only way to stop it was to shut off the villages and let it run it's course and kill everyone in the village. So mapping that comment into today's numbers, and then saying he's a liar for what he's saying isn't quite accurate.

He also says this is NOT ebola, it's Marburg and tells the difference. If you research Marburg and Ebola, I'm not sure how any of us would know the difference. The symptoms are identical. He explains the difference between the two reasonable well.

Here's a link to it. You need to fast forward to 24:50. A side note, I apologize for posting a call into the show it's on. I can't stand the show, don't listen to it, and turn it off every time I get in the car and it's on, so don't throw me in the host. I actually thought the host was a complete jerk to the guy, talking over him, talking about actresses and movies, etc. I listen to the station for local news on the way to work and then it's on when I get in the car to drive home, which is how I caught the interview, the guy had just come on when I started the car.

Listen to it, see if you think he sounds credible. To me, he did. To you, maybe not so much. He also had an interesting theory on why they weren't calling it by it's rightful name. No conspiracy theory.

http://download.premiereinteractive....20Hour%201.mp3

[Bruce Page]

Folks, this thread has had several edits to remove political comments.

It contains some good information so please refrain from the politics.

[David Weaver]

Listen to it, see if you think he sounds credible. To me, he did. To you, maybe not so much. He also had an interesting theory on why they weren't calling it by it's rightful name. No conspiracy theory.\

Salespeople, con men and politicians make a career of sounding credible while not necessarily telling the truth too often.

I don't care much about what sounds credible or doesn't sound credible, I care only about what is correct.

[Myk Rian]

I can see nothing but this thread going south, in a hurry.

[Scott Shepherd]

Salespeople, con men and politicians make a career of sounding credible while not necessarily telling the truth too often.

I don't care much about what sounds credible or doesn't sound credible, I care only about what is correct.

What does that mean? How in the world you put that guy in the category with a con man is odd to me. What was the "con" or "scam" he's running? To talk to people about Ebola? What's he gained out of it? He never once mentioned publicly the company he works for, what their products were, or anything that would be self promoting.

You don't want to believe a word the guy says, but you'll believe everything the CDC posts or says out of the box, even though their credibility has been wiped out. Look at the headline of every news site around the WORLD, not just the USA, they are all pointing to the fact that the CDC leader couldn't possibly make any more mistakes than he has.

If you held your sources to the standard you hold one guy on the radio, I'd understand it all.

Bizarre. How we got here from me saying "I heard a guy on a radio" that disagrees with what's being said is amazing to me.

Forget the 10 other doctors that have been saying similar things. I could post 10 more and you'd discredit them all too, so what's the point.

Instead, you might say "That was interesting, but I don't agree with anything he said", we get that response. Last time I checked, none of us were more knowledgeable than he was, or any other doctor that's been on tv. I guess I should assume all doctors that don't agree with the World Health Organization are liars from this point on in my life. Got it. Instead of listening to ALL sides, I should just listen to one side. Got it.

[David Weaver]

The guy isn't necessarily in that category, the point is that there are a lot of people who sound credible but are not interested in providing facts.

The CDC isn't the only group who has ever come across ebola. Their comments about transmission are held up by everyone else and not refuted by any of the physicians treating ebola patients. The fact that there are not practitioners saying "no, people are getting it just from proximity or casual contact" is enough for me.

And, no, i didn't listen to the guy, so I'm not implying he said anything, my earlier comments about what he said are only a repeat of what you told us.

What frustrates me in these discussions is not when people have an "anything is possible" point of view, but when they give fringe ideas just as much weight as what is likely and what is already observed. I have no interest in it, it sends people down rabbit holes for ridiculous things.

Like I said, when we start seeing mysterious cases of it that don't involve people in close contact with someone infected or in contact with bodily fluids, then I'll pay attention to fantastic scenarios. Until then, I'll stick with what's likely and already known. There's 40 years of knowledge of this disease already and no documentation of anything aerosolized other than one lab case of non-human primates, and the exposed humans were unaffected.

So far everything has fit the CDC's description. If it didn't, we'd have dozens and dozens or hundreds of cases here, and not 2.

You can believe what you like, but you shouldn't expect other people to agree that it's likely when you can't prove it is.

[David Weaver]

OK, I just broke down and listened to it. The guy has no credibility. Somewhere someone is boasting about how they hoaxed that show with a call in.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Earlier I said that my fear was something like this would get on a cruise ship. "Whoop- there it is..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...try-in-belize/

Our hospitals in the Caribbean are not even remotely ready to handle a large outbreak. Although I am sure this person will end up not having ebola, the story shows that one person can get on a cruise ship with this disease and boom- every island on the cruise gets exposed.