Anyone else worried about Ebola?

[Jim Koepke]

Keith,

Apparently you missed the video linked earlier in this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qj4X0MsQjM

This appears to be a straight forward piece by Shepard Smith (from FOX) saying this isn't the time to foment fear and panic among the American public.

Trying to point fingers of blame and spreading disinformation will not help in the effort to stop this disease.

We can do better tracking of people and the disease by not having travel bans. Travel bans will have possibly infected people going to another country without travel bans to travel to our shores without screening. Having protocols in place in the areas where Ebola is epidemic will do more to keep it from getting beyond its present confines.

If you want a fact that is scary, even a bit terrifying is we currently do not have a Surgeon General in the United States to form a coordinated response. This is due to political posturing and fear of big money being used against candidates.

To me these factors are currently a bigger threat to our lives and freedoms than a handful of Ebola cases caused by medical missteps that are now being addressed.

As the days advance on this, medical teams are being made aware of proper handling and procedures to deal with those who may have come into contact with Ebola infected patients.

We can take a reasoned approach to this challenge. The alternative is to scream and shout while running in circles and causing mass hysteria.

My choice is almost always to take the reasoned approach. Develop a plan and adjust it as needed.

jtk

[Phil Thien]

Travel bans will have possibly infected people going to another country without travel bans to travel to our shores without screening.

You just don't issue visas to people that can't demonstrate at least 21 days of residency outside of the effected countries.

Am I missing something? I guess I keep hearing what you're saying repeated by others but I don't understand why someone would think it would be an easy matter to get to the US via a hop to another country?

If the argument is that screening is more effective than a travel ban, that is simply untrue. We have no test for Ebola, screening is nearly completely worthless. In fact, it isn't unusual to find people WITHOUT exposure to Ebola and that have elevated temperatures. How are you going to figure out which ones are pre-symptomatic and which ones aren't?

[Jim Koepke]

You just don't issue visas to people that can't demonstrate at least 21 days of residency outside of the effected countries.

Am I missing something? I guess I keep hearing what you're saying repeated by others but I don't understand why someone would think it would be an easy matter to get to the US via a hop to another country?

If the argument is that screening is more effective than a travel ban, that is simply untrue. We have no test for Ebola, screening is nearly completely worthless. In fact, it isn't unusual to find people WITHOUT exposure to Ebola and that have elevated temperatures. How are you going to figure out which ones are pre-symptomatic and which ones aren't?

Just because the U.S. imposes a travel ban doesn't mean neighboring countries will do the same.

Will we ban travel home to the 3,000 or so U.S. soldiers and doctors who are currently in the areas where Ebola is endemic?

Maybe we could shut down all travel world wide until there are no more infections. As if that would be feasible or possible.

If there is no test for Ebola, how do they know people have it?

No there is not a definitive test that can give results in minutes. If people have elevated temperatures they could be quarantined or banned from travel. I do not want to be on a plane with someone who is infected with the flu. I never liked those "faithful soldiers" showing up for work when they should be home in bed. They came to work and infected half the work force just to look like a trooper.

jtk

[Phil Thien]

Just because the U.S. imposes a travel ban doesn't mean neighboring countries will do the same.

Maybe in time they will. Countries with outbreaks can be added to our travel ban. But just because someone can leave an outbreak area and travel to (for example) Canada doesn't mean that once they're in Canada they can come to the U.S.

Will we ban travel home to the 3,000 or so U.S. soldiers and doctors who are currently in the areas where Ebola is endemic?

I'd suggest we may need to quarantine them. We'd obviously have to compensate these people handsomely. I'm willing to write checks.

Maybe we could shut down all travel world wide until there are no more infections. As if that would be feasible or possible.

I didn't suggest that, you suggested that and then said it wasn't possible???

If there is no test for Ebola, how do they know people have it?

That is why you need a travel ban.

No there is not a definitive test that can give results in minutes. If people have elevated temperatures they could be quarantined or banned from travel. I do not want to be on a plane with someone who is infected with the flu. I never liked those "faithful soldiers" showing up for work when they should be home in bed. They came to work and infected half the work force just to look like a trooper.

jtk

Remember, the only success we've had against Ebola is containment. That's it, nothing else works.

So I don't understand why people would be arguing against travel bans.

I think I've done a disservice by playing down the WHO #'s and likely erroneous reports of waves of 10k infected coming very soon.

You guys DO realize, I hope, that at 9000 cases now and an average daily growth rate of 2.3%, that those #'s alone will get us to a total infected of about 3M+ in twelve months, right?

That is a 100% certainty and probably optimistic, unless the outbreaks are contained. Ebola won't just go away.

As I've said earlier, time and incompetence are the enemies here. Every day we delay travel bans, the total number of cases and dead is increased, as is the likelihood of increases in that daily growth rate.

[Jim Koepke]

Maybe in time they will. Countries with outbreaks can be added to our travel ban. But just because someone can leave an outbreak area and travel to (for example) Canada doesn't mean that once they're in Canada they can come to the U.S.

How would we stop them or even know who to stop? What if they first travel to South Africa (or any other nation) then to Europe before coming to North America?

I didn't suggest that, you suggested that and then said it wasn't possible???

That is known as a rhetorical proposition. It was used to indicate how travel bans would mostly be a useless endeavor.

That is why you need a travel ban.

There are medical tests for Ebola. Like many medical tests they not are useful on a minute by minute basis.

So I don't understand why people would be arguing against travel bans.

Because they are next to useless in stopping the spread of this disease. It is better to have full scale screening in the areas most affected by Ebola and at the boarders leading out of those areas.

I think I've done a disservice by playing down the WHO #'s and likely erroneous reports of waves of 10k infected coming very soon.

Sounds like fear mongering to me.

Are these 10K standing at our boarders just waiting for their symptoms before they come streaming in?

Some really paranoid people are spreading rumors of terrorists who are getting infected so they can start coughing all over food at salad bars.

Like many other things an epidemic will soon reach a saturation point and have nowhere to spread beyond its origin as long as we do not get complacent and allow people with detectable signs of infection to infect others.

Instead we should focus on containment/isolation of the infected and proper handling of waste materials to prevent the spread of Ebola.

In the areas where Ebola is endemic there needs to be better education so people can avoid infection.

In our own nation it seems the staff and management at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas were woefully unprepared to care for such a case. Hopefully more of their workers will be spared the terror of contracting this disease.

Hopefully this will also serve as a wake up call to other health care providers on handling the patients and waste involved with not only Ebola but other infectious disease.

jtk

[Phil Thien]

How would we stop them or even know who to stop? What if they first travel to South Africa (or any other nation) then to Europe before coming to North America?

Again, you just don't allow them a visa until they demonstrate 21 days of residency outside of an outbreak region.

That is known as a rhetorical proposition. It was used to indicate how travel bans would mostly be a useless endeavor.

Huh.

There are medical tests for Ebola. Like many medical tests they not are useful on a minute by minute basis.

There is no rapid test that can be performed.

Because they are next to useless in stopping the spread of this disease. It is better to have full scale screening in the areas most affected by Ebola and at the boarders leading out of those areas.

Again, screenings are completely ineffective. The only success in battling Ebola has been containment. Screenings are not containment.

Travel bans DO work. In fact, after 9/11, they found the influenza season was delayed by about two weeks due to the post 9/11 travel bans.

Sounds like fear mongering to me.

Are these 10K standing at our boarders just waiting for their symptoms before they come streaming in?

Some really paranoid people are spreading rumors of terrorists who are getting infected so they can start coughing all over food at salad bars.

Oh there is undeniably fear mongering.

But now there is something possibly even worse: People who confuse their politically correct rhetoric with enlightenment.

And the #'s are the #'s. Nothing has changed much in the daily growth rate now for months. It bumps up and down, but has been an average of 2.3% per day. With over 9k cases now, that means over 3M in a year unless we shake things up.

Like many other things an epidemic will soon reach a saturation point and have nowhere to spread beyond its origin as long as we do not get complacent and allow people with detectable signs of infection to infect others.

Lack of travel bands = complacency. Ebola isn't going to run out of possible hosts for a long, long time.

Instead we should focus on containment/isolation of the infected and proper handling of waste materials to prevent the spread of Ebola.

In the areas where Ebola is endemic there needs to be better education so people can avoid infection.

In our own nation it seems the staff and management at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas were woefully unprepared to care for such a case. Hopefully more of their workers will be spared the terror of contracting this disease.

Hopefully this will also serve as a wake up call to other health care providers on handling the patients and waste involved with not only Ebola but other infectious disease.

jtk

Again, taking someone's temperature is not containment or isolation.

[Jason Roehl]

I'm mostly with Phil on this--there is a disproportionate amount of panic and fear-mongering going on. Am I currently worried about Ebola? Not a bit. However, I think it's pretty clear that travel bans and containment are the ONLY policies that will keep it from becoming a major problem in the U.S. over the next year. Just check passports. Got a stamp from one of the affected West African countries? Sorry, you don't fly unless you've spent 21 days in an approved quarantine area set up in your country of origin.

Considering that the early symptoms of Ebola are similar to the flu, it's going to get ugly going into flu season unless we can definitively say that nobody in the U.S. has Ebola. Can you imagine what that will look like at every single E.R. in the country once the flu gets into full swing?

[Mark Bolton]

Will we ban travel home to the 3,000 or so U.S. soldiers and doctors who are currently in the areas where Ebola is endemic?

There has been talk that this concept alone is limiting the support from people in the medical field. They know that if this thing blows up they will be trapped outside the US and unable to get home. The answer is yes, if someone, no matter who it is, is possibly contaminated, they dont come in. Including POTUS

[Roger Feeley]

I think it only makes sense to follow the Mormon philosophy of 'providential living'. Mormons try to be prepared for natural disasters by keeping some emergency supplies on hand. Make no mistake here. I am not suggesting 'prepping'. For the Mormons (someone correct me if I'm wrong), it's more about not being a burden while the supply chains are re-established.

It's very reasonable to be prepared to hunker down for a few weeks. If, for instance, Ebola were to become a problem in your area, the smart play would be to just stay home. Could you do that for a couple of weeks while it burns itself out?

[Frank Drew]

Roger,

Sheltering in place (hunkering down at home) is a very reasonable response to certain kinds of infectious epidemics, particularly those with airborne transmission, and the experience of some U.S. cities vs others during the 1919-20 Spanish Flu pandemic bore that out. We're not there yet, and I hope we don't get there, but if we do we can't carry on business as usual.

[Phil Thien]

I think it only makes sense to follow the Mormon philosophy of 'providential living'. Mormons try to be prepared for natural disasters by keeping some emergency supplies on hand. Make no mistake here. I am not suggesting 'prepping'. For the Mormons (someone correct me if I'm wrong), it's more about not being a burden while the supply chains are re-established.

It's very reasonable to be prepared to hunker down for a few weeks. If, for instance, Ebola were to become a problem in your area, the smart play would be to just stay home. Could you do that for a couple of weeks while it burns itself out?

At least Sierra Leone has attempted (I think) one three day curfew. They provided advance notice so the population could stock up on staples. It ended Sep. 22 and although they thought then they may have turned the corner, it seems to have had little impact. Three days probably just isn't long enough.

[Keith Hankins]

Keith,

Apparently you missed the video linked earlier in this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qj4X0MsQjM

This appears to be a straight forward piece by Shepard Smith (from FOX) saying this isn't the time to foment fear and panic among the American public.

Trying to point fingers of blame and spreading disinformation will not help in the effort to stop this disease.

We can do better tracking of people and the disease by not having travel bans. Travel bans will have possibly infected people going to another country without travel bans to travel to our shores without screening. Having protocols in place in the areas where Ebola is epidemic will do more to keep it from getting beyond its present confines.

If you want a fact that is scary, even a bit terrifying is we currently do not have a Surgeon General in the United States to form a coordinated response. This is due to political posturing and fear of big money being used against candidates.

To me these factors are currently a bigger threat to our lives and freedoms than a handful of Ebola cases caused by medical missteps that are now being addressed.

As the days advance on this, medical teams are being made aware of proper handling and procedures to deal with those who may have come into contact with Ebola infected patients.

We can take a reasoned approach to this challenge. The alternative is to scream and shout while running in circles and causing mass hysteria.

My choice is almost always to take the reasoned approach. Develop a plan and adjust it as needed.

jtk

Oh i'm sorry it's in print on the internet it must be true! Again, live in the fantasy land if you want.

[Mel Fulks]

I like the network shep smith is on ,but I think he is their weakest journalist. Just a sharp dresser with an unusual voice. His
ridicule and implied accusations toward the meter reader who had seen the remains of a child ,notified police and later
testified in the Casey Anthony case was outrageous and cruel. I hope to see a civil suit over it.

[Harold Burrell]

I cannot say that I am particularly "worried" about EBOLA, however...I have moved my casket project higher up on my to-do list.

[David Weaver]

Phil, I agree with you on the travel restrictions. Even if people come from a different country than their flight origin, it shouldn't be that difficult to make sure they don't fly here without 21 days without any possible exposures, and if they do, put them on a plane and send them back.

We're a week on, and the two nurses are the only new infections despite a whole bunch of hysteria (not surprising, we have been told for a while what needs to happen for someone to get it).

However, I think with what we know, the set of rules has to be a little bit more restrictive until the other countries get a handle on it. We saw how easily TED gave it to two nurses who were not up to speed on protocol early on.

(and to mel's point, I never give any extra nod toward anyone delivering the news, unless it comes along with comedy. Otherwise, most of the folks providing the news are totally involved with self adulation, more sensitive to how people think about them than they are about getting things right, and often looking for the next way to drive ratings. I'd prefer to read the news).