Ebola

[PeteD01]

Governors Cuomo, NY, and Christie, NJ, show strong leadership!

Health care workers responding to the Ebola epidemic and having had direct patient care responsibilities will now be put under lockdown (quarantine) for 21 days upon return from the field.
So in NY and NJ doctors and nurses will henceforth be locked up in an attempt to curb the spread of Ebola.
Brilliant idea.
I got an even better idea: how about a Xanax prescription for the governors? It works pretty well for panic attacks, even in governors.

When I read this this morning I had to double check if I wasn't on the Onion site by accident - but it was CNN alright.

[sol]

When faced with any sort of emergency situation, the best course of action is always to round up all of the people who have the skills to help and lock them away so they can't do anything.

[PeteD01]

Christie not showing up at the hospital where the nurse is held and explaining the measures taken in person is disrespectful to the extreme.
Christie just locked up a nurse trained in epidemiology and with experience in Ebola management - this is about as good as it gets when you want to get local services up to speed during an epidemic and people like this nurse will ultimately put an end to the epidemic as long as they are allowed to work.
I invite governor Christie to don a hazmat suit and just to imagine how it must be to wear that thing in the African heat and tending to a child dying from Ebola while vomiting and having diarrhea.
He'd probably die of fear just thinking about it.
The Ebola epidemic is a real challenge and the grandstanding of guys like Cuomo and Christie is not only disgraceful but jeopardizes the hard work the volunteers are doing.
The fish rots from the head and the smell right now is almost unbearable.

And relax, the risk of contracting Ebola from someone who does not have serious symptoms is virtually nil. In the US, severely symptomatic patients are taken care of by health professionals who perform their work under very difficult conditions and are really the only ones at risk for infection.
The last thing what's needed right now is some elected irresponsible fools targeting health professionals and making the work even more difficult than it already is.

Don't let them get away with this fearmongering and spreading of panic.

Ok, off the soapbox, but please remember, this is an active issue, Kaci Hickox RN is still detained in NJ.

[surfhb]

Your odds are greater of picking up and banging Kate Upton in a Casper, Wyoming dive bar then contracting Ebola. 

So tired of this BS!   Happy I stopped watching or reading news

[GuitarStv]

Inflammatory cytokines cause vascular leaking . . . EBOLA! EBOLA!
GI tract, urethra, and rectum are bleeding . . . EBOLA! EBOLA!
Why'd I eat bats from Africa, why oh why . . . EBOLA! EBOLA!
My eyes won't stop bleeding and I'm gonna die . . . EBOLA! EBOLA!

*jazz flute solo*

How is it spread, it's not airborne right? . . . EBOLA! EBOLA!
Well it kinda is, from sneezing and mucus flight . . . EBOLA! EBOLA!
And it survives just fine on most surfaces, yikes . . . EBOLA! EBOLA!
Fortunately most people's concerns are overhyped . . . EBOLA! EBOLA!

[GuitarStv]

Oh you make my eyes-a run . . . eyes a-run
oh you make my eyes run with blood, ebola!

Never gonna stop, 'till I drop
now I'm in a bind, anywhere I drop
just a sneeze you'll have no peace of mind
my, my, my, I, noooooo
m-m-m-my Ebola!

[Overseas Stache]

Politicians MO:
When faced with something that the average american does not understand, exploit the public's fears to gain political capital. Like they say never let a crisis go to waste.

[cpa cat]

Eh. I understand the response. The particular NJ nurse had the misfortune of landing in the state without any knowledge of the newly-declared rules (it was the day of or day after the rules came into effect, I think). Obviously, she was taken by surprise.

Then she got upset and that caused a forehead temperature meter to register a fever. Well - now it's done. It doesn't really matter at that point that the measurement was not accurate. A temperature was taken that indicated a fever. They couldn't just take her word for it after that. They had to quarantine her and do the testing.

I don't know why they kept her in that tent after her Ebola tests came back negative. Technically, she was only under mandatory quarantine because she "appeared ill" - once it was clear that her ill appearance was an error, the quarantine didn't seem to apply.

I don't really understand why these medical professionals can't be a little smarter about Ebola, though. The second Texas nurse knew she'd been treating an Ebola patient, knew her coworker had Ebola and STILL decided it was a good idea to get on a plane for the all-important task of planning her wedding. And then when she started feeling sick, she decided to get BACK on a plane. "But no one told me I -couldn't- get on the plane..." - Seriously? How about some common sense?

And this New York doctor. Gets back from treating Ebola patients in Africa and thinks: "Home Sweet Home! Time to jump on the subway and ride around to my favorite restaurants!" Screw staying home for a week, that guy barely made it 48 hours.

I imagine there are many medical professionals who have treated Ebola patients here and in Africa who don't immediately ride around on public transportation for fun (or don't get sick, so they don't get caught). I'm guessing the vast majority take Ebola very seriously. But a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

[justajane]

Wait, you're telling me health officials overreacted when they encountered a flushed and slightly feverish nurse who had just been in direct contact caring for patients with a communicable disease with a 50% fatality rate and a 21 day incubation period, a mere two days after a doctor in an adjacent state had visited multiple public locations in a city of 8+ million while infected with the same virus????

Shocking!!

[CommonCents]

Eh. I understand the response. The particular NJ nurse had the misfortune of landing in the state without any knowledge of the newly-declared rules (it was the day of or day after the rules came into effect, I think). Obviously, she was taken by surprise.

Then she got upset and that caused a forehead temperature meter to register a fever. Well - now it's done. It doesn't really matter at that point that the measurement was not accurate. A temperature was taken that indicated a fever. They couldn't just take her word for it after that. They had to quarantine her and do the testing.

I don't know why they kept her in that tent after her Ebola tests came back negative. Technically, she was only under mandatory quarantine because she "appeared ill" - once it was clear that her ill appearance was an error, the quarantine didn't seem to apply.

I don't really understand why these medical professionals can't be a little smarter about Ebola, though. The second Texas nurse knew she'd been treating an Ebola patient, knew her coworker had Ebola and STILL decided it was a good idea to get on a plane for the all-important task of planning her wedding. And then when she started feeling sick, she decided to get BACK on a plane. "But no one told me I -couldn't- get on the plane..." - Seriously? How about some common sense?

And this New York doctor. Gets back from treating Ebola patients in Africa and thinks: "Home Sweet Home! Time to jump on the subway and ride around to my favorite restaurants!" Screw staying home for a week, that guy barely made it 48 hours.

I imagine there are many medical professionals who have treated Ebola patients here and in Africa who don't immediately ride around on public transportation for fun (or don't get sick, so they don't get caught). I'm guessing the vast majority take Ebola very seriously. But a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

+1

To me, there is a reasonable line between extra precautions that make sense for those who were actually directly treating/touching Ebola patients and those traveling back from any random African country (where Ebola may not have even spread).  Given that it *has* spread to those treating the disease, who have been trained (albeit apparently poorly in some cases) and wearing protective gear, while you can't get it by looking at a person, it does spread more easily than we all wish it would.  And as such, it's important to come up with some reasonable precautions.  Reasonable is somewhere between fear mongering (e.g. not letting anyone back in the country who has been to an African country) and ignoring the risks (e.g. nurse flying while ill).

It is important that we treat Ebola in these countries so it doesn't spread, and I respect those doctors that are willing to travel there for that effort.  (I also respect those here in this country doing the same thing and providing care or researching it.  I have two doctor friends - one an infectious disease specialist, and one working a fellowship for the CDC that are both working on this from different angles.)  But, imho, Ebola should also be treated with respect.  I bet the bowling alley that was temporarily shut down - and likely will suffer a massive dip in clients due to it - is just thrilled the doctor had the hubris to shrug off the risk possibilities and travel willy nilly all around NYC.  [ETA: Is is really that hard to have some low key days at home for a bit rather than going out partying or traveling?  At least if you are socializing, socialize at home with people such as friends who can decide to take the risk or not.]  Agree the problem is likely with a few bad apples.

[PeteD01]

Eh. I understand the response. The particular NJ nurse had the misfortune of landing in the state without any knowledge of the newly-declared rules (it was the day of or day after the rules came into effect, I think). Obviously, she was taken by surprise.

Then she got upset and that caused a forehead temperature meter to register a fever. Well - now it's done. It doesn't really matter at that point that the measurement was not accurate. A temperature was taken that indicated a fever. They couldn't just take her word for it after that. They had to quarantine her and do the testing.

I don't know why they kept her in that tent after her Ebola tests came back negative. Technically, she was only under mandatory quarantine because she "appeared ill" - once it was clear that her ill appearance was an error, the quarantine didn't seem to apply.

I don't really understand why these medical professionals can't be a little smarter about Ebola, though. The second Texas nurse knew she'd been treating an Ebola patient, knew her coworker had Ebola and STILL decided it was a good idea to get on a plane for the all-important task of planning her wedding. And then when she started feeling sick, she decided to get BACK on a plane. "But no one told me I -couldn't- get on the plane..." - Seriously? How about some common sense?

And this New York doctor. Gets back from treating Ebola patients in Africa and thinks: "Home Sweet Home! Time to jump on the subway and ride around to my favorite restaurants!" Screw staying home for a week, that guy barely made it 48 hours.

I imagine there are many medical professionals who have treated Ebola patients here and in Africa who don't immediately ride around on public transportation for fun (or don't get sick, so they don't get caught). I'm guessing the vast majority take Ebola very seriously. But a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

Wrong on all counts: Individuals infected with Ebola and not yet showing symptoms apart from low grade fever pose an extremely low risk of infection for even close contacts. There is virtually no risk for contacts in the public arena. The infectivity of an individual carrying the Ebola virus parallels the symptoms the patient exhibits and goes from virtually nil to representing a Biohazard Level 4 in patients with vomiting, diarrhea and bleeding. The body of a person deceased from Ebola also represent a Biohazrd Level 4 risk. These characteristics of the Ebola infection allow for straightforward control of the spread of infection in developed countries. The transmissions having occurred in developed countries so far have been due to inadequate responses of public health authorities and the inability of hospitals to provide patient care while maintaining Biohazard Level 4 precautions. Maintaining Biohazard Level 4 precautions in a patient care setting is difficult, costly and not without risk to the health care providers. The availability of qualified personnel with pertinent experience is essential in managing and minimizing the risk of Ebola transmission in the healthcare setting. Ebola in developed countries is mainly a disease affecting health care workers and poses no or negligible risk to the general public.

Get your Flu shot and support the courageous people who will eventually put an end to the tragedy of Ebola.

Kaci Hickox RN is being released from detention in NJ - I am sure her lawyers will have a field day questioning the lawfulness of her detention.

[DSA]

The fascinating thing about the Ebola outbreak is how rapidly folks on the Left and the Right have politicized the issue and converged on what each of their standard talking points are. I thought this was a good article about it: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/10/16/five-case-studies-on-politicization/

Over the past few days, my friends on Facebook have been making impassioned posts about how it’s obvious there should/shouldn’t be a quarantine, but deluded people on the other side are muddying the issue. The issue has risen to an alarmingly high level of 0.05 #Gamergates, which is my current unit of how much people on social media are concerned about a topic. What’s more, everyone supporting the quarantine has been on the right, and everyone opposing on the left. Weird that so many people suddenly develop strong feelings about a complicated epidemiological issue, which can be exactly predicted by their feelings about everything else.

On the Right, there is condemnation of the CDC’s opposition to quarantines as globalist gibberish, fourteen questions that will never be asked about Ebola centering on why there aren’t more quarantine measures in place, and arguments on right-leaning biology blogs for why the people opposing quarantines are dishonest or incompetent. Top Republicans call for travel bans and a presenter on Fox, proportionate as always, demands quarantine centers in every US city.

On the Left (and token libertarian) sides, the New Yorker has been publishing articles on how involuntary quarantines violate civil liberties and “embody class and racial biases”, Reason makes fun of “dumb Republican calls for a travel ban”, Vox has a clickbaity article on how “This One Paragraph Perfectly Sums Up America’s Overreaction To Ebola”, and MSNBC notes that to talk about travel bans is “borderline racism”.

How did this happen? How did both major political tribes decide, within a month of the virus becoming widely known in the States, not only exactly what their position should be but what insults they should call the other tribe for not agreeing with their position? There are a lot of complicated and well-funded programs in West Africa to disseminate information about the symptoms of Ebola in West Africa, and all I can think of right now is that if the Africans could disseminate useful medical information half as quickly as Americans seem to have disseminated tribal-affiliation-related information, the epidemic would be over tomorrow.

[cpa cat]

Wrong on all counts:

I'm not entirely sure what I was wrong about. I don't disagree with what you've said - but it doesn't appear to be a counterpoint to anything I discussed.

Maybe you're trying to say that you don't think health-care workers with direct contact with Ebola patients should have any responsibility whatsoever to self-quarantine themselves for a reasonable amount of time? After all, the risk of contagion is relatively low early on. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if that's what you're saying, then I do disagree with you. I don't think it's responsible for these health-care workers to knowingly inflict that low risk on the public when all they really need to do to prevent any risk is to stay home for a week and get take out delivered.

All it takes is one immuno-suppressed kid to turn that relatively low risk into a serious problem - and for what? Because a Doctor wanted to go bowling within a week of coming into contact with Ebola? Because a nurse couldn't plan her wedding over the telephone? Because we don't want to hurt Ms Hickox' feelings?

[PeteD01]

In Africa, Ebola response teams have been accused of spreading the disease and some healthcare workers have been killed. In the US and in Spain, healthcare workers were accused of spreading the disease and scientifically baseless detention policies were enacted and, in one case, instituted.
These responses to epidemic diseases are nothing new to health care professionals as they are well aware that the stigma of the disease is passed on to them just as to the patients. The AIDS pandemic is a case in point. The stigma of the disease is not something to be too concerned about as long as it is not exploited for political gain or interferes with the management of an outbreak. Unfortunately, this has occurred over the weekend in NY and NJ. Not only did some politicians try to score some political points but their actions also potentially interfere with the effectiveness of public health policy in managing the outbreak. Fortunately, the healthcare community is well entrenched politically in the US and it will become very clear over time that political gains cannot be expected from inciting panic. The only thing politicians engaging in that sort of thing can expect in the long run is to be exposed as being ignorant fearmongerers. We are about to experience an increasing number of healthcare workers and soldiers coming back from Ebola areas and many of them will be classified as close contacts. Inevitably, with the increased deployment of medical and other personnel to Ebola areas, the number of Ebola cases treated in the US will increase. Fueling public anxiety at a time when case numbers are expected to increase and jeopardizing the resources needed to manage the issue is the opposite of good leadership.


Get the facts and get the flu shot.

[cpa cat]

Get the facts and get the flu shot.

I'm starting to think you're some kind of bot designed to promote flu shots. Do you post this stuff on all the Ebola threads?

[BlueMR2]

When faced with any sort of emergency situation, the best course of action is always to round up all of the people who have the skills to help and lock them away so they can't do anything.

It would help a ton if those skilled people would quit showing exceptionally poor judgment (and public relations).  Once you break the public's trust, there's going to be some overreaction.

[PeteD01]

Get the facts and get the flu shot.

I'm starting to think you're some kind of bot designed to promote flu shots. Do you post this stuff on all the Ebola threads?

No, I'm not a bot but maybe a flu-bot is needed. It is just that people tend to have stronger opinions on the Ebola virus than on the influenza virus which is peculiar because just during the last flu season somewhere between 20 an 30k people in the US died from the flu. In my line of work, I see several flu deaths a week during the season and most are unvaccinated. So my take is when someone is concerned about viral illnesses they should go and get their flu shot first and then come back and have a chat about Ebola.
The perception of risk and actual risk are incredibly divergent and with Ebola and infuenza in particular - I am not aware that a single American has died from Ebola yet... the flu is a different story.

[PeteD01]

Wrong on all counts:

I'm not entirely sure what I was wrong about. I don't disagree with what you've said - but it doesn't appear to be a counterpoint to anything I discussed.

Maybe you're trying to say that you don't think health-care workers with direct contact with Ebola patients should have any responsibility whatsoever to self-quarantine themselves for a reasonable amount of time? After all, the risk of contagion is relatively low early on. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if that's what you're saying, then I do disagree with you. I don't think it's responsible for these health-care workers to knowingly inflict that low risk on the public when all they really need to do to prevent any risk is to stay home for a week and get take out delivered.

All it takes is one immuno-suppressed kid to turn that relatively low risk into a serious problem - and for what? Because a Doctor wanted to go bowling within a week of coming into contact with Ebola? Because a nurse couldn't plan her wedding over the telephone? Because we don't want to hurt Ms Hickox' feelings?

There are now dozens of health care workers treating or having treated Ebola patients on US soil and who are classified as having direct patient contact and their number is going to increase. Let's also not forget the people who are tasked with managing highly infective garbage and bodies. Do you think that all these people should put their life on hold without a shred of scientific evidence that this is necessary apart from soothing public anxiety?
I think you are gravely underestimating the consequences of the  imposition of quarantine on Ebola workers with no evidence of disease has on the effectiveness of the response to Ebola. Major epidemics are logistical nightmares as it is and adding complexity without scientific evidence jeopardizes the effort. Active monitoring of contacts and prompt isolation of cases is all that is currently supported by science.

[PeteD01]

When faced with any sort of emergency situation, the best course of action is always to round up all of the people who have the skills to help and lock them away so they can't do anything.

It would help a ton if those skilled people would quit showing exceptionally poor judgment (and public relations).  Once you break the public's trust, there's going to be some overreaction.

That is correct. The CDC messed up big time. I could not believe the initial iteration of the recommendations for personal protective equipment and other requirements when taking care of Ebola cases. Major case of incompetence on the part of the CDC.

[cpa cat]

So my take is when someone is concerned about viral illnesses they should go and get their flu shot first and then come back and have a chat about Ebola.

Yeah... I got the flu shot. They lined us up at work at shot us up for free. I even managed not to complain about my civil rights when asked to take a perfectly reasonable precaution against the flu.

Do I pass your test for having an opinion about Ebola now?

There are now dozens of health care workers treating or having treated Ebola patients on US soil and who are classified as having direct patient contact and their number is going to increase. Let's also not forget the people who are tasked with managing highly infective garbage and bodies. Do you think that all these people should put their life on hold without a shred of scientific evidence that this is necessary apart from soothing public anxiety?

Other than the nurses who have contracted Ebola within the United States, you mean? That evidence? We now know that US hospitals are not properly prepared to handle Ebola. We also know that West African hospitals are under-supplied and have successfully sent us multiple Ebola-infected health care workers. Given that the majority of US hospitals are not prepared to protect workers or the public from Ebola, it seems reasonable to exercise an over-abundance of caution to prevent those workers from spreading the disease further.

So yes, they should put their life on hold. It is a minor inconvenience. US healthcare workers who need to do this due to Ebola treatment within the USA should be placed on paid leave during this time. Healthcare workers who need to do this as part of volunteer efforts, should include the quarantine period as part of their plans.

EDITED TO ADD: I can see the argument for eliminating the quarantine period for healthcare workers in the three specialized hospitals that have proven that they CAN effectively control/treat Ebola. Given that all Ebola patients are now being sent to these three hospitals, very few workers within the USA would be affected by a quarantine. But I fail to see how we could drop any requirement for people arriving from overseas. These individuals are particularly at risk, due to their contact with Ebola in less than ideal healthcare settings.

[sol]

Major case of incompetence on the part of the CDC.

As Congress decides to continue reducing funding for government agencies as part of the long term deficit reduction plan, I think we can expect to see more and more cases of this kind of incompetence.  And I work for a federal agency.

We can't hire new people who have current skills.  We can't fire dead weight employees who underperform.  We can't replace workers who retire.  Every year our capital budgets get smaller and we have to figure what thing that we have always done we are going to decide to stop doing this year.  Every year our available square feet of office space is reduced.  Every year the definition of "necessary core capabilities" gets smaller and smaller. 

At the current funding trajectory, it's only a matter of time before some major emergency gets horribly botched.  The new paradigm in government operations is minimal staff with minimal budgets, just enough to keep the lights on, but definitely not enough to respond to any sort of major event.

[PeteD01]

So my take is when someone is concerned about viral illnesses they should go and get their flu shot first and then come back and have a chat about Ebola.

Yeah... I got the flu shot. They lined us up at work at shot us up for free. I even managed not to complain about my civil rights when asked to take a perfectly reasonable precaution against the flu.

Do I pass your test for having an opinion about Ebola now?

There are now dozens of health care workers treating or having treated Ebola patients on US soil and who are classified as having direct patient contact and their number is going to increase. Let's also not forget the people who are tasked with managing highly infective garbage and bodies. Do you think that all these people should put their life on hold without a shred of scientific evidence that this is necessary apart from soothing public anxiety?

Other than the nurses who have contracted Ebola within the United States, you mean? That evidence? We now know that US hospitals are not properly prepared to handle Ebola. We also know that West African hospitals are under-supplied and have successfully sent us multiple Ebola-infected health care workers. Given that the majority of US hospitals are not prepared to protect workers or the public from Ebola, it seems reasonable to exercise an over-abundance of caution to prevent those workers from spreading the disease further.

So yes, they should put their life on hold. It is a minor inconvenience. US healthcare workers who need to do this due to Ebola treatment within the USA should be placed on paid leave during this time. Healthcare workers who need to do this as part of volunteer efforts, should include the quarantine period as part of their plans.

EDITED TO ADD: I can see the argument for eliminating the quarantine period for healthcare workers in the three specialized hospitals that have proven that they CAN effectively control/treat Ebola. Given that all Ebola patients are now being sent to these three hospitals, very few workers within the USA would be affected by a quarantine. But I fail to see how we could drop any requirement for people arriving from overseas. These individuals are particularly at risk, due to their contact with Ebola in less than ideal healthcare settings.

That is not how it is going to go down. There is no way that the three "specialized hospitals" will be able to care for all cases of Ebola expected in the US in the future. The epidemic is still in its exponential stage and deployment of personnel to Africa in larger numbers is just getting underway. The lates Ebola case is not managed at one of the hospitals with biocontainment facilities but at Bellevue in NYC. I mentioned above that a patient severely ill with Ebola presents a Level 4 Biohazard. Biocontainment facilities in the "specialized hospitals", to the best of my knowledge, comply with Biohazard Level 4 laboratory standards and infection risk is virtually eliminated. Unfortunately, although an Ebola patient may present a Level 4 hazard, facilities who will have to care for these patients cannot comply with Biohazard Level 4 laboratory standards. However, it is widely understood that effective personal protection during the care of an Ebola patient does not necessarily have to comply with Biohazard Level 4 laboratory standards although the Ebola agent is a Level 4 hazard. The newest CDC recommendations reflect this. This is obviously a tradeoff between risk of transmission and available resources, welcome to the real world of healthcare resource management.
To believe that all Ebola cases will be taken care of at biocontainment hospitals is wishful thinking. That there will be no cases of transmission to healthcare workers in CDC compliant settings is also wishful thinking.
That appropriate medical care of Ebola patients in CDC compliant settings can be accomplished and that the spread of disease outside the healthcare setting can be prevented with an active monitoring program of contacts is not wishful thinking but grounded in solid science and empirical evidence. This approach represents current state of the art Ebola management.

[cpa cat]

That appropriate medical care of Ebola patients in CDC compliant settings can be accomplished and that the spread of disease outside the healthcare setting can be prevented with an active monitoring program of contacts is not wishful thinking but grounded in solid science and empirical evidence. This approach represents current state of the art Ebola management.

When these hospitals prove that they can effectively control Ebola, then I'm all for not worrying about it. As I said, there are a few hospitals that have managed to treat Ebola patients without spreading it to staff. Clearly, it is possible. But as of right now, nursing organizations have specifically told the media that they are NOT prepared and that they lack essential supplies and training. I imagine that the situation is improving as we speak - although the CDC had previously said that Ebola patients would no longer be treated in whatever hospital is closest, and instead be transported to better-equipped facilities, which is - as you've pointed out - not true. So who knows.

That said - I don't know how that helps us with people who want to volunteer in West Africa. The majority of Ebola patients in the USA contracted Ebola outside of the country. I certainly don't want to go to my immunologist only to discover - too late - that he got back from West Africa 48 hours ago and happens to have Ebola.

It's unfortunate that placing restrictions on volunteers might discourage people from volunteering - but if the United States is truly concerned about that, then they should be sending those volunteers to West Africa with proper gear, supplies and training - not just warm feelings. If doctors/nurses stopped coming back from West Africa with Ebola, there would be no quarantine.

For now, I would think that public safety (or even public comfort) is more important than some doctor's need to go bowling, or some nurse's desire to meet her wedding planner. These people cared enough to take their own temperature twice a day, but didn't care enough to avoid inflicting themselves on massive numbers of unknowing individuals and businesses for a paltry 2-3 week period. I don't have a lot of sympathy for that.

[frugalnacho]

And this New York doctor. Gets back from treating Ebola patients in Africa and thinks: "Home Sweet Home! Time to jump on the subway and ride around to my favorite restaurants!" Screw staying home for a week, that guy barely made it 48 hours.

I imagine there are many medical professionals who have treated Ebola patients here and in Africa who don't immediately ride around on public transportation for fun (or don't get sick, so they don't get caught). I'm guessing the vast majority take Ebola very seriously. But a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

I know! Now we have hundreds of new yorkers exposed to and getting ebola from this doctor! Oh wait, that's not how ebola is transmitted you say?

I don't need to reitter all of PeteD01's points, but he seems to be one of the only rational and informed people in this thread.

[sol]

I don't need to reitter all of PeteD01's points, but he seems to be one of the only rational and informed people in this thread.

Quick, somebody ban him from the forum before he tries to help somebody.  I demand a quarantine!

[frugalnacho]

I don't need to reitter all of PeteD01's points, but he seems to be one of the only rational and informed people in this thread.

Quick, somebody ban him from the forum before he tries to help somebody.  I demand a quarantine!

Why not just quarantine everybody permanently?  We can all live in sterile bubbles.

[cpa cat]

I know! Now we have hundreds of new yorkers exposed to and getting ebola from this doctor! Oh wait, that's not how ebola is transmitted you say?

From the CDC:

When an infection does occur in humans, the virus can be spread in several ways to others. Ebola is spread through direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes in, for example, the eyes, nose, or mouth) with
•blood or body fluids (including but not limited to urine, saliva, sweat, feces, vomit, breast milk, and semen) of a person who is sick with Ebola
•objects (like needles and syringes) that have been contaminated with the virus

So at every restaurant he ate at, someone is worried about the fact that they picked up his plates and eating utensils or used the bathroom after him. They probably won't catch anything though, so who really cares about a few lowly restaurant workers - they are not hero Ebola Doctors. So they incur a few medical bills for uneccesary medical visits to check up on possible Ebola symptoms, it doesn't really matter.

The bowling alley is shut down for disinfecting because no one knows which ball he sweated into, or what shoes he wore. It will probably go out of business, due to public fear. But who cares about that place. Dude needed to bowl.

Naturally, he had a few encounters with his fiancee (not sure even quarantine would stop that). At least he was monogamous, as far as we know, and didn't go pick up at the bar. But whatever. Who cares if he did? Why should anyone worry about that.

During outbreaks of Ebola, the disease can spread quickly within healthcare settings (such as a clinic or hospital).

He did not immediately return to work and come into contact with countless patients, staff members or medical equipment - a fact, I am sure, his workplace is thankful for. But who cares if he did, right? Nothing to be concerned with there! Placing limitations in this person would be a mockery of common sense.

Guys, I'm out. But I totally understand why New Yorkers are angry and why a "feverish" nurse got quarantined on her way back from West Africa. It doesn't really matter how low the risk of transmission is. Dealing with public comfort is a big part of disease management. It's too bad a couple of highly-publicized health care workers didn't take public concern seriously - all they had to do was stay home for a week after being exposed to Ebola, and there would be no outcry. Oh yeah - and someone sent that one guy home with antibiotics. That probably didn't help.

[PeteD01]

I know! Now we have hundreds of new yorkers exposed to and getting ebola from this doctor! Oh wait, that's not how ebola is transmitted you say?

From the CDC:

When an infection does occur in humans, the virus can be spread in several ways to others. Ebola is spread through direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes in, for example, the eyes, nose, or mouth) with
•blood or body fluids (including but not limited to urine, saliva, sweat, feces, vomit, breast milk, and semen) of a person who is sick with Ebola
•objects (like needles and syringes) that have been contaminated with the virus

So at every restaurant he ate at, someone is worried about the fact that they picked up his plates and eating utensils or used the bathroom after him. They probably won't catch anything though, so who really cares about a few lowly restaurant workers - they are not hero Ebola Doctors. So they incur a few medical bills for uneccesary medical visits to check up on possible Ebola symptoms, it doesn't really matter.

The bowling alley is shut down for disinfecting because no one knows which ball he sweated into, or what shoes he wore. It will probably go out of business, due to public fear. But who cares about that place. Dude needed to bowl.

Naturally, he had a few encounters with his fiancee (not sure even quarantine would stop that). At least he was monogamous, as far as we know, and didn't go pick up at the bar. But whatever. Who cares if he did? Why should anyone worry about that.

During outbreaks of Ebola, the disease can spread quickly within healthcare settings (such as a clinic or hospital).

He did not immediately return to work and come into contact with countless patients, staff members or medical equipment - a fact, I am sure, his workplace is thankful for. But who cares if he did, right? Nothing to be concerned with there! Placing limitations in this person would be a mockery of common sense.

Guys, I'm out. But I totally understand why New Yorkers are angry and why a "feverish" nurse got quarantined on her way back from West Africa. It doesn't really matter how low the risk of transmission is. Dealing with public comfort is a big part of disease management. It's too bad a couple of highly-publicized health care workers didn't take public concern seriously - all they had to do was stay home for a week after being exposed to Ebola, and there would be no outcry. Oh yeah - and someone sent that one guy home with antibiotics. That probably didn't help.

The risk of transmission of Ebola in the NY doctor's case is virtually zero because he was never sick from Ebola while not in isolation.
People sick from Ebola do not go bowling, go out to eat or go to work.
The husband of the Spanish nurse Teresa Romero lived for days with her having low grade fevers and didn't catch it because she wasn't sick yet.
Come to think of it, the family of the Dallas patient did not catch the disease despite him being sick for days in the same apartment.
Ebola is really difficult to contract in the absence of a seriously ill close contact or African bats.

[frugalnacho]

I know! Now we have hundreds of new yorkers exposed to and getting ebola from this doctor! Oh wait, that's not how ebola is transmitted you say?

From the CDC:

When an infection does occur in humans, the virus can be spread in several ways to others. Ebola is spread through direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes in, for example, the eyes, nose, or mouth) with
•blood or body fluids (including but not limited to urine, saliva, sweat, feces, vomit, breast milk, and semen) of a person who is sick with Ebola
•objects (like needles and syringes) that have been contaminated with the virus

So at every restaurant he ate at, someone is worried about the fact that they picked up his plates and eating utensils or used the bathroom after him. They probably won't catch anything though, so who really cares about a few lowly restaurant workers - they are not hero Ebola Doctors. So they incur a few medical bills for uneccesary medical visits to check up on possible Ebola symptoms, it doesn't really matter.

The bowling alley is shut down for disinfecting because no one knows which ball he sweated into, or what shoes he wore. It will probably go out of business, due to public fear. But who cares about that place. Dude needed to bowl.

Naturally, he had a few encounters with his fiancee (not sure even quarantine would stop that). At least he was monogamous, as far as we know, and didn't go pick up at the bar. But whatever. Who cares if he did? Why should anyone worry about that.

During outbreaks of Ebola, the disease can spread quickly within healthcare settings (such as a clinic or hospital).

He did not immediately return to work and come into contact with countless patients, staff members or medical equipment - a fact, I am sure, his workplace is thankful for. But who cares if he did, right? Nothing to be concerned with there! Placing limitations in this person would be a mockery of common sense.

Guys, I'm out. But I totally understand why New Yorkers are angry and why a "feverish" nurse got quarantined on her way back from West Africa. It doesn't really matter how low the risk of transmission is. Dealing with public comfort is a big part of disease management. It's too bad a couple of highly-publicized health care workers didn't take public concern seriously - all they had to do was stay home for a week after being exposed to Ebola, and there would be no outcry. Oh yeah - and someone sent that one guy home with antibiotics. That probably didn't help.

As has already been stated the reason the bowling alley was shut down was fear, panic, and over cautiousness.  You can't cite that as an example to prove your point that people aren't reacting irrationally to fear.   I find it funny that you seem to be condemning the doctor for his actions of "sweating onto a ball" (while not contagious), and stating the bowling alley might (or will?) go out of business, but not condemning the public at all for their part in this.  One doctor following CDC protocol must be an asshole, but an entire nation going bat shit crazy about unfounded and irrational fears escapes responsibility completely.

It does matter how low the risk of transmission is.  It matters very much.  Dealing with public comfort is a big part of politics, not necessarily disease management.  The virus cares very little for large displays of irrational public fear. 

The incubation period is 21 days (not a week).  There would still be HUGE public outcry if they were only quarantined for 7 days when symptoms can develop up to 21 days after exposure.  The internet would be full of idiots claiming the 7 day quarantine was insufficient and we should have had a mandatory 21 day period (and predictably it already is) regardless of the cost or inconvenience, and RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.

[frugalnacho]

The risk of transmission of Ebola in the NY doctor's case is virtually zero because he was never sick from Ebola while not in isolation.
People sick from Ebola do not go bowling, go out to eat or go to work.
The husband of the Spanish nurse Teresa Romero lived for days with her having low grade fevers and didn't catch it because she wasn't sick yet.
Come to think of it, the family of the Dallas patient did not catch the disease despite him being sick for days in the same apartment.
Ebola is really difficult to contract in the absence of a seriously ill close contact or African bats.

Good points.  May I counter with this: PANIC! Everybody panic! I heard the virus can be transmitted over the internet.  I mean it probably can't, but why not just incinerate all your computers and internet connected devices. You know, just to be safe?

[Overseas Stache]

I think these cases in the USA should reduce the fear of Ebola in the USA. Of course they are being used to drum up fear and panic but if looked at objectively it shows how difficult it is to spread Ebola when the fever starts. It is only when the patient is actively spewing bodily fluids that it becomes easy to catch. After all Duncan was sick in his apartment for several days and yet none of his family got sick. Monitoring of temperatures twice a day for people who have been exposed to the virus seems to be the correct response. Although the sample size is very small but all the cases where patients in Spain and USA have received treatment very quickly they have recovered from the virus. On the other hand Duncan waited several days for treatment and he didn't make it, so really it is in the best interest of the people who have been exposed to monitor their temperature very carefully.

Or on the other hand you could listen to Glen beck "this will literally be the death of all of us"..."close the borders"..."Obama is not doing his job to protect us".. etc.

[PeteD01]

This is what happens if fear induced regulations with no base in science are imposed on healthcare workers who happen to be experts in the disease and its mangement.
On the surface, it looks like that the nurse is making a big deal out of spending a few days in her house. The real story is that the effects of fear and stigma are a constant presence for field workers and these effects actually hinder their work. Vigorously counteracting fears and superstitions are some of the building blocks of outbreak management and resource control. So no surprise that the case appears to go to court - because that's how Ebola is fought.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/29/health/us-ebola/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[Abe]

I think we should detain people without warrants just to make others feel better. Knowing that nurse was in a tent helped me go to sleep better, and isn't that worth it in the end?

Seriously, a more significant health hazard right now in the US is the enterovirus D68, which has killed several dozen children throughout the country. It is much more contagious and has a high morbidity rate (our PICU is full of intubated children right now). However, we are not quarantining healthcare workers taking care of those children and so far no pandemic! The reason Biohazard level 4 suites are used in the labs is because Ebola has no effective, easily accessible curative treatment. Not because it is especially contagious (even when the patient is symptomatic).

[Primm]

I know! Now we have hundreds of new yorkers exposed to and getting ebola from this doctor! Oh wait, that's not how ebola is transmitted you say?

From the CDC:

When an infection does occur in humans, the virus can be spread in several ways to others. Ebola is spread through direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes in, for example, the eyes, nose, or mouth) with
•blood or body fluids (including but not limited to urine, saliva, sweat, feces, vomit, breast milk, and semen) of a person who is sick with Ebola
•objects (like needles and syringes) that have been contaminated with the virus

So at every restaurant he ate at, someone is worried about the fact that they picked up his plates and eating utensils or used the bathroom after him. They probably won't catch anything though, so who really cares about a few lowly restaurant workers - they are not hero Ebola Doctors. So they incur a few medical bills for uneccesary medical visits to check up on possible Ebola symptoms, it doesn't really matter.

The bowling alley is shut down for disinfecting because no one knows which ball he sweated into, or what shoes he wore. It will probably go out of business, due to public fear. But who cares about that place. Dude needed to bowl.

Naturally, he had a few encounters with his fiancee (not sure even quarantine would stop that). At least he was monogamous, as far as we know, and didn't go pick up at the bar. But whatever. Who cares if he did? Why should anyone worry about that.

During outbreaks of Ebola, the disease can spread quickly within healthcare settings (such as a clinic or hospital).

He did not immediately return to work and come into contact with countless patients, staff members or medical equipment - a fact, I am sure, his workplace is thankful for. But who cares if he did, right? Nothing to be concerned with there! Placing limitations in this person would be a mockery of common sense.

Guys, I'm out. But I totally understand why New Yorkers are angry and why a "feverish" nurse got quarantined on her way back from West Africa. It doesn't really matter how low the risk of transmission is. Dealing with public comfort is a big part of disease management. It's too bad a couple of highly-publicized health care workers didn't take public concern seriously - all they had to do was stay home for a week after being exposed to Ebola, and there would be no outcry. Oh yeah - and someone sent that one guy home with antibiotics. That probably didn't help.

Re-read the bolded part. He wasn't sick with Ebola.

[PeteD01]

North Korea is taking the lead in global fight against Ebola!

Using the country's unlimited supply of paranoia, Dear Leader Kim Jong Un has issued the most comprehensive quarantine regulations on the planet:

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/31/north-koreas-reaction-to-ebola-makes-fears-of-a-zombie-apocalypse-look-rational/

[PeteD01]

District Court Chief Judge Charles LaVerdiere disagrees with Dear Leader Kim Jong Un and Maine State Public Health Authorities and rules that the State of Maine has failed to prove the necessity of enforced quarantine of the nurse Kaci Hickox.
Reactions from Pyongyang are eagerly awaited and experts expect missile launches shortly.


Edit:

From the ruling:

“We would not be here today unless Respondent generously, kindly and with compassion lent her skills to aid, comfort and care for individuals stricken with a terrible disease. We need to remember as we go through this matter that we owe her and all professionals who give of themselves in this way a debt of gratitude...
The court is fully aware of the misconceptions, misinformation, bad science and bad information being spread from shore to shore in our country with respect to Ebola... The Court is fully aware that people are acting out of fear and that this fear is not entirely rational. However, whether that fear is rational or not, it is present and it is real. She should guide herself accordingly.”

[PeteD01]

CNN:

"Maine Gov. Paul LePage said venturing away from her house jeopardizes Hickox's safety.
"The reason there's a police car there when she does that is to protect her, more than anybody. 'Cause the last thing I want is for her to get hurt," he said. "But at the same token, her behavior is really riling a lot of people up, and I can only do what I can do. And we're trying to protect her, but she's not acting as smart as she probably should.""

Very funny! AFAIK the state troopers left from the nurse's home after the ruling - just when she would need more protection because she is now allowed to move about freely. Very funny indeed, coming from a guy who is in part reponsible for getting people riled up.

[FIRE_HELP!]

I have a serious question (not sarcasm)

If one does not show any symptoms at all now, but an hour later has a fever, at what point does he become infectious?

[BaldingStoic]

Great to see Kaci Hickox have her day in court!  Was laughing yesterday as she went out for her bike ride with the cops standing useless by  clueless on how to respond.  Let's have medical protocols and best-practices decided by scientists (WHO and CDC) rather than fear-mongering politicians. 

[PeteD01]

I have a serious question (not sarcasm)

If one does not show any symptoms at all now, but an hour later has a fever, at what point does he become infectious?

A person infected with Ebola but asymptomatic and only having fever is not infectious unless body fluids are exchanged. The reason for the extremely low risk these individuals pose to the public is twofold: 1) their virus count is still low and (much more importantly) 2) they are not yet producing highly infectious body fluids such as vomit, diarrhea and blood.
These characteristics of the Ebola infection are the basis of current CDC guidelines for transmission control

[CommonCents]

I have a serious question (not sarcasm)

If one does not show any symptoms at all now, but an hour later has a fever, at what point does he become infectious?

A person infected with Ebola but asymptomatic and only having fever is not infectious unless body fluids are exchanged. The reason for the extremely low risk these individuals pose to the public is twofold: 1) their virus count is still low and (much more importantly) 2) they are not yet producing highly infectious body fluids such as vomit, diarrhea and blood.
These characteristics of the Ebola infection are the basis of current CDC guidelines for transmission control

I don't think that really answers the question.  The question is when is a person infectious, not when is a person actually infecting someone (which as you note, requires transmission via a bodily fluid).  Essentially if someone can under no circumstances whatsoever transmit the disease until they run a fever, ok, but then, if they are taking the temperature once a day as recommended by CDC, at what point is there a chance - however miniscule - that they can transmit the disease?  Is it at running a temperature, which could have been up to 23 hrs ago?  Or is it after X days of a temperature?  Or some other measure.

(And as a side note, based on information I've been reading, I'm willing to consider that I may want to modify my initial perspective.  But people coming on here and acting like folks are entirely dumb, using sarcasm, hyperbole and insults doesn't actually encourage me to rethink my position and keep an open mind.  At least for me, respectful discourse is the way to change my opinion.  So if you're posting the hyperbole, please remember that pyramid of responses that Arebelspy and other mods post occasionally and consider whether it's truly necessary or if in your desire to blow off steam that you might actually be swaying people *away* from your position based on your presentation.) 

[FIRE_HELP!]

I have a serious question (not sarcasm)

If one does not show any symptoms at all now, but an hour later has a fever, at what point does he become infectious?

A person infected with Ebola but asymptomatic and only having fever is not infectious unless body fluids are exchanged. The reason for the extremely low risk these individuals pose to the public is twofold: 1) their virus count is still low and (much more importantly) 2) they are not yet producing highly infectious body fluids such as vomit, diarrhea and blood.
These characteristics of the Ebola infection are the basis of current CDC guidelines for transmission control

I don't think that really answers the question.  The question is when is a person infectious, not when is a person actually infecting someone (which as you note, requires transmission via a bodily fluid).  Essentially if someone can under no circumstances whatsoever transmit the disease until they run a fever, ok, but then, if they are taking the temperature once a day as recommended by CDC, at what point is there a chance - however miniscule - that they can transmit the disease?  Is it at running a temperature, which could have been up to 23 hrs ago?  Or is it after X days of a temperature?  Or some other measure.

(And as a side note, based on information I've been reading, I'm willing to consider that I may want to modify my initial perspective.  But people coming on here and acting like folks are entirely dumb, using sarcasm, hyperbole and insults doesn't actually encourage me to rethink my position and keep an open mind.  At least for me, respectful discourse is the way to change my opinion.  So if you're posting the hyperbole, please remember that pyramid of responses that Arebelspy and other mods post occasionally and consider whether it's truly necessary or if in your desire to blow off steam that you might actually be swaying people *away* from your position based on your presentation.)

CommonCents' comment above is kind of what I was wondering - if an Ebola carrier becomes contagious as soon as fever hits and someone is only monitoring temperature once a day, then he could theoretically be contagious for many hours, during which a simple sneeze could transmit the virus to another unsuspecting person.

[PeteD01]

I have a serious question (not sarcasm)

If one does not show any symptoms at all now, but an hour later has a fever, at what point does he become infectious?

A person infected with Ebola but asymptomatic and only having fever is not infectious unless body fluids are exchanged. The reason for the extremely low risk these individuals pose to the public is twofold: 1) their virus count is still low and (much more importantly) 2) they are not yet producing highly infectious body fluids such as vomit, diarrhea and blood.
These characteristics of the Ebola infection are the basis of current CDC guidelines for transmission control

I don't think that really answers the question.  The question is when is a person infectious, not when is a person actually infecting someone (which as you note, requires transmission via a bodily fluid).  Essentially if someone can under no circumstances whatsoever transmit the disease until they run a fever, ok, but then, if they are taking the temperature once a day as recommended by CDC, at what point is there a chance - however miniscule - that they can transmit the disease?  Is it at running a temperature, which could have been up to 23 hrs ago?  Or is it after X days of a temperature?  Or some other measure.

(And as a side note, based on information I've been reading, I'm willing to consider that I may want to modify my initial perspective.  But people coming on here and acting like folks are entirely dumb, using sarcasm, hyperbole and insults doesn't actually encourage me to rethink my position and keep an open mind.  At least for me, respectful discourse is the way to change my opinion.  So if you're posting the hyperbole, please remember that pyramid of responses that Arebelspy and other mods post occasionally and consider whether it's truly necessary or if in your desire to blow off steam that you might actually be swaying people *away* from your position based on your presentation.)

CommonCents' comment above is kind of what I was wondering - if an Ebola carrier becomes contagious as soon as fever hits and someone is only monitoring temperature once a day, then he could theoretically be contagious for many hours, during which a simple sneeze could transmit the virus to another unsuspecting person.

A asymptomatic person with Ebola and a low grade fever cannot transmit Ebola through a simple sneeze. There is no airborne transmission at this stage of the disease.
There is airborne transmission in the later stages of disease but they involve projectile vomiting and aerosolization of highly contagious body fluid which the asymptomatic individual with Ebola simply does not produce.

[PeteD01]

I have a serious question (not sarcasm)

If one does not show any symptoms at all now, but an hour later has a fever, at what point does he become infectious?

I'm going to answer this question again to make it clearer:

There is no such thing as not being infectious one minute and being infectious in the next.
Theoretically, a person with Ebola but no symptoms except for a fever is infectious if you inject yourself with their fresh blood.
That risk is not a real world risk and applies as well to HIV and other fatal infections and to many of the bacteria in the environment.
The key distinction to be made is between contagiousness and modes of transmission and infectivity.
Ebola in the asymptomatic patient, even without a fever yet, is most certainly still an infectious disease in the absolute sense but at the same time the infectivity of the Ebola agent in the asymptomatic but febrile carrier is essentially zero when no body fluids are exchanged. And a few hours delay between onset of fever and the measurement do not change that at all.
The infectivity of the Ebola agent at different stages of the disease and its modes of transmission are well known and form the basis of epidemiological management.

[PeteD01]

(And as a side note, based on information I've been reading, I'm willing to consider that I may want to modify my initial perspective.  But people coming on here and acting like folks are entirely dumb, using sarcasm, hyperbole and insults doesn't actually encourage me to rethink my position and keep an open mind.  At least for me, respectful discourse is the way to change my opinion.  So if you're posting the hyperbole, please remember that pyramid of responses that Arebelspy and other mods post occasionally and consider whether it's truly necessary or if in your desire to blow off steam that you might actually be swaying people *away* from your position based on your presentation.)

Rational people are unlikely to ignore science and are unlikely to be swayed by emotions. This site likely has more rational people than the average website. Rational people have one weaknes: they often have a hard time to realize how incredibly irrational other people are and once they have figured out something they simply move on to the next thing and leave others in the dust. Unfortunately, rational people are needed to keep things like Ebola in perspective.
The sarcasm and ridicule you have detected is simply a way to keep my own and others attention on the subject by keeping it entertaining.
And the politicians engaging in fearmongering deserve every single bit of ridicule that can be heaped upon them. It is even in their own interest to reconsider their approach because at the end of the day they will have to do the only job they actually have to perform well in times of epidemics: calming the public's fears. You see, they are not going to succeed with the nonsense they are proposing because the courts won't let them.
In any case, pouring oil into the fire and trying to score political points is nothing but failed leadership and it is going to come back to bite them.

[ncornilsen]

Every few years we need a health scare, right?  We were over due.

Has Ebola gotten to Madagascar yet?  someone should tell them to shut down thier shipyards. I hadn't played Pandemic 2 in years, but this ebola thing made me think of it, so I've played a few rounds.

[God or Mammon?]

http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2014/10/woman_visiting_from_liberia_ho.html

lots of Oregonians on this blog/forum

I think part of the problem with Ebola is that treating a single patient basically causes a hospital's ICU unit to be completely incapacitated - US hospitals simply are not ready to handle more than one or two instances at a time

[Lyssa]

I really don't care how "low risk" asymptomatic or "not really fully but nearly asymptomatic" or "asymptomatic when the flight started but not so much now..." patients are.

When I see two handful of sick persons causing a handful of infections in first world countries despite being placed in the few available appropriate treatment units and with the possibility to plan and prepare in advance I really don't want to know how well a few dozen unexpected cases would be handled. From what I observe I am concluding that one infected family would have a major hospital at the end of its rope.

And what would happen should a really contagious disease arrive at our doorsteps/airports?

Want to know what happens to civil liberties then? During the last (imported) outbreak of smallpox in the 60ties in Germany the doors of a hospital were nailed shut from the outside after a quarantined patient tried to release himself/flee/insert wording of choice here. And this was with despite more than 95% of the population having been vaccinated.

For the record: I got my flue shot. And thousands of people dying of the flue each year are further proof for the point I'm trying to make: We're not so smart or capable after all.

[frugalnacho]

I really don't care how "low risk" asymptomatic or "not really fully but nearly asymptomatic" or "asymptomatic when the flight started but not so much now..." patients are.

When I see two handful of sick persons causing a handful of infections in first world countries despite being placed in the few available appropriate treatment units and with the possibility to plan and prepare in advance I really don't want to know how well a few dozen unexpected cases would be handled. From what I observe I am concluding that one infected family would have a major hospital at the end of its rope.

And what would happen should a really contagious disease arrive at our doorsteps/airports?

Want to know what happens to civil liberties then? During the last (imported) outbreak of smallpox in the 60ties in Germany the doors of a hospital were nailed shut from the outside after a quarantined patient tried to release himself/flee/insert wording of choice here. And this was with despite more than 95% of the population having been vaccinated.

For the record: I got my flue shot. And thousands of people dying of the flue each year are further proof for the point I'm trying to make: We're not so smart or capable after all.

Translation: I don't care what the facts are or what the science says, I let fear rule my decision making process.

[zhelud]

Well, I've got a MMM-topical question on this topic- what do people do for income when they are in quarantine? As we all know, a lot of people are in jobs with no paid time off at all, and many of them have little savings. I have been wondering what that poor Liberian man's family in Dallas did while they were in quarantine- I recall that two of them were nursing assistants, jobs that usually don't have much in way of pay and benefits. It's easy for politicians to demand that people who have had contact with a suspected Ebola case go quarantine themselves at home, but what do you do if that person can't pay his rent because he's lost his job?

I also wonder who will pick up the tab for hospitals to isolate uninsured Ebola patients, if it turns out to be necessary to take care of more than a few.  (I bet that the real reason Gov Christie relented on Nurse Hickox's hospital confinement was that the hospital was going to charge the state a ton of money for that tent.)