Will Ebola become a big problem in the United States?

[saevel25]

Interesting.  My own doctor and 3 other close physician buddies all say that we're ill-prepared should Ebola get a foothold in the U.S.  Seems as if even the docs can't agree.  Given that, I'll continue to err on the side of caution.

They do however agree that most mainstream media is almost universally irresponsible.

It's also worth mentioning that by comparison, enterovirus has a very low mortality rate, whereas ebola is extremely high.

I'd agree with that. Just the clear lack of continuity in procedure was evident in Dallas. Then the people who don't think about what they are doing when they show symptoms. People need to, God forbid, be accountable for their own actions.

I do agree that the mainstream media is blowing everything out of proportion. That is when happens when fear is profitable. Why I don't pay attention to the news. There are not good stories anymore. Even good stories have negative spin to it.

[dsc123]

Given that, I'll continue to err on the side of caution.

What are you doing differently?

[newtogolf]

This is the last thing I'm going write about this topic unless we have a major epidemic, which I don't believe will happen and surely hope will not.  There are many here that think this is a political discussion that anyone who questions the handling of Ebola is anti-Obama, in my case this couldn't be further from the truth.  For disclosure purposes, I do think Obama has done a terrible job, but I also thought GW was a horrible POTUS too.  I'd be happiest if everyone in politics was fired and new people were elected but that's a fantasy that will never happen.

I was in DFW Airport the day after the news broke about Duncan.  I was supposed to fly home in the afternoon but because of poor weather in Chicago my flights were delayed and then eventually cancelled.  At this time, the government had decided not to release any details on what flight Duncan was on or what terminal he flew into at DFW so obviously everyone was on edge.  The problem was further compounded because of the weather and many people (myself included) were forced to sleep at the airport because all the local hotels had booked up.

I decided it would be a good idea to buy some anti-bacterial soap because at the time I didn't know much about Ebola or how it was spread so I figured it couldn't hurt.  I went to every shop in the terminal and they were all sold out except one who said she had some left in the back and got one for me.  We were talking about it being a hot seller and how it's a bit scary at which point she broke down crying.  She said no one knows where Duncan flew into, where he went, what he touched and they were all told they had to be at work or risk being fired that day.  Her hands were raw from washing and she hadn't eaten all day out of fear of touching something he touched or coughed on.  Fortunately, it turned out the terminal I was in wasn't the one Duncan flew into and she was worried over nothing.

At that point I realized that while many of us wouldn't really be at risk of Ebola all those people working in the airports and for airlines could be.  Without proper precautions and flight restrictions, a contagious person could have walked into any common area, coughed or sneezed on anyone or anything and placed innocent lives at risk.

No one I know ever expected a full blown Ebola epidemic here but there was and is the potential that Ebola infected people could fly into our airports and infect others.  I care about our citizens even those that work at airports and I think our government should do everything possible to ensure our citizens are protected regardless of what party they represent.

[dsc123]

This is the last thing I'm going write about this topic unless we have a major epidemic, which I don't believe will happen and surely hope will not.  There are many here that think this is a political discussion that anyone who questions the handling of Ebola is anti-Obama, in my case this couldn't be further from the truth.  For disclosure purposes, I do think Obama has done a terrible job, but I also thought GW was a horrible POTUS too.  I'd be happiest if everyone in politics was fired and new people were elected but that's a fantasy that will never happen.

Says the guy who has consistently dismissed anyone who says the government does not need to do more as pushing a liberal agenda....

[Gunther]

I don't understand the people here continuing to refer to folks who don't agree with them as afraid or panicked. I'm in Dallas, I know of no one who is afraid or panicked. The left wing media is fomenting this, it's not true. What 68% of Americans want is a measured approach that would temporarily disallow people coming in from those affected countries. There are quite a few countries, including countries on the African continent, who have already imposed this approach, to great affect. We've now had 2 folks bring the disease to our shores, there simply was no need for it to happen.

[trickyputt]

This is the last thing I'm going write about this topic unless we have a major epidemic, which I don't believe will happen and surely hope will not.  There are many here that think this is a political discussion that anyone who questions the handling of Ebola is anti-Obama, in my case this couldn't be further from the truth.  For disclosure purposes, I do think Obama has done a terrible job, but I also thought GW was a horrible POTUS too.  I'd be happiest if everyone in politics was fired and new people were elected but that's a fantasy that will never happen. I was in DFW Airport the day after the news broke about Duncan.  I was supposed to fly home in the afternoon but because of poor weather in Chicago my flights were delayed and then eventually cancelled.  At this time, the government had decided not to release any details on what flight Duncan was on or what terminal he flew into at DFW so obviously everyone was on edge.  The problem was further compounded because of the weather and many people (myself included) were forced to sleep at the airport because all the local hotels had booked up. I decided it would be a good idea to buy some anti-bacterial soap because at the time I didn't know much about Ebola or how it was spread so I figured it couldn't hurt.  I went to every shop in the terminal and they were all sold out except one who said she had some left in the back and got one for me.  We were talking about it being a hot seller and how it's a bit scary at which point she broke down crying.  She said no one knows where Duncan flew into, where he went, what he touched and they were all told they had to be at work or risk being fired that day.  Her hands were raw from washing and she hadn't eaten all day out of fear of touching something he touched or coughed on.  Fortunately, it turned out the terminal I was in wasn't the one Duncan flew into and she was worried over nothing. At that point I realized that while many of us wouldn't really be at risk of Ebola all those people working in the airports and for airlines could be.  Without proper precautions and flight restrictions, a contagious person could have walked into any common area, coughed or sneezed on anyone or anything and placed innocent lives at risk. No one I know ever expected a full blown Ebola epidemic here but there was and is the potential that Ebola infected people could fly into our airports and infect others.  I care about our citizens even those that work at airports and I think our government should do everything possible to ensure our citizens are protected regardless of what party they represent.

I just think the clarity of your logic and observational skill is brilliantly illuminating and if the shiznet ever did hit the fan it is good to know that folks like you are out there shining that mental light so others might see their environment more clearly. Its the kind of thing that reduces fear, increases comfort and causes a quicker resolution to larger problems. I enjoy your posts.

[boogielicious]

I don't understand the people here continuing to refer to folks who don't agree with them as afraid or panicked. I'm in Dallas, I know of no one who is afraid or panicked. The left wing media is fomenting this, it's not true.

What 68% of Americans want is a measured approach that would temporarily disallow people coming in from those affected countries. There are quite a few countries, including countries on the African continent, who have already imposed this approach, to great affect. We've now had 2 folks bring the disease to our shores, there simply was no need for it to happen.

Never trust polls.  They are influenced heavily by misinformation.

I don't disagree on this approach.  It really should be the approach of the affected countries to begin with as you stated.  People should not be getting on planes in the first place if they are symptomatic.  But I doubt that these countries have the resources at their airports to do this.

[phan52]

Never trust polls.  They are influenced heavily by misinformation.

I don't disagree on this approach.  It really should be the approach of the affected countries to begin with as you stated.  People should not be getting on planes in the first place if they are symptomatic.  But I doubt that these countries have the resources at their airports to do this.

1. There have not been any direct flights from West Africa to the US in a very long time.

2. People are not getting on planes who are symptomatic. They DO have resources at the airports in West Africa to check temperatures and they give people who have been to infected areas strict instructions on self monitoring. They are also separated and checked at their destination, and again before they can board a plane to the US.

3. Outside of Mr. Duncan, everybody who has contracted Ebola in this country, or is being treated in this country, is a healthcare worker who has had direct contact with highly infectious patients. Mr. Duncan himself had direct contact with highly infectious patients and lied about it. It cost him his life.

4. Restricting travel from the countries most affected by Ebola is a bad idea. If they had restricted travel for Mr. Spencer (the patient in NY) it would have been a virtual death sentence. Here, he is getting the necessary supportive care and will almost certainly survive. While he did a poor job of quarantining himself, he DID turn himself in as soon as he was symptomatic and it is highly unlikely that anybody else in NYC was infected by Mr. Spencer.

5. The move by the Governors of NY and NJ to ask health workers coming into this country to self-quarantine is a good idea. Let them come here and monitor them. Restricting them from travel does two things: it almost guarantees that those infected will die over there, and it will keep others from travelling to infected areas to help if they know that they will not be allowed to come back.

6. Anybody who thinks this thing has not been politicized needs only to google the Congressional hearing yesterday by the House Oversight Committee. Shameful.

Update: the latest healthcare worker who has been quarantined in NJ is showing no symptoms and has tested negative for Ebola.

[David in FL]

What are you doing differently?

Personally? Nothing. I meant my continued support for flight restrictions.

[Abu3baid]

in the news today..

https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/federal-officials-dallas-nurse-free-ebola-150512381.html

Quote:

BETHESDA, Md. (AP) — A nurse who caught Ebola while caring for a Dallas patient who died of the disease walked out of a Washington-area hospital virus-free Friday and into open arms.

Nina Pham got a hug from President Barack Obama in the Oval Office at the White House. And outside the hospital where she had been since last week, she got hugs from the nation's infectious disease chief, who oversaw her care.

hugs all around

[phan52]

Gov. Christie: Our preference always is to quarantine people in their homes .

Really? Then why was the nurse kept in a tent outside a hospital in NJ against her will?

This is what happens when politicians have a panic attack based on polls instead of listening to experts.

[Jeremie Boop]

Gov. Christie: Our preference always is to quarantine people in their homes.

Really? Then why was the nurse kept in a tent outside a hospital in NJ against her will?

This is what happens when politicians have a panic attack based on polls instead of listening to experts.

I don't understand how a quarantine in their home is necessarily the best practice unless they live alone. Anyone who has been in contact with Ebola should be in isolation for the quarantine time period. It should be as comfortable as possible, of course, but to quarantine them with other people around doesn't make much sense if you are looking to contain any possible outbreak. I'm far from panicked on this whole deal.

[MS256]

I don't understand how a quarantine in their home is necessarily the best practice unless they live alone. Anyone who has been in contact with Ebola should be in isolation for the quarantine time period. It should be as comfortable as possible, of course, but to quarantine them with other people around doesn't make much sense if you are looking to contain any possible outbreak. I'm far from panicked on this whole deal.

Yeah, as I've said before, I would want to be quarantined if I was returning from there (and especially if I had been working with Ebola patients). I care enough about my family to not want to take even the slightest chance with their safety.

Chances are very slim that my home is going to be hit by a tornado but that didn't stop me from buying a few picks and shovels and digging a storm shelter. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if a family member was killed by a tornado because I was too lazy to dig a shelter, and I wouldn't be able to live with myself (even if I recovered) if I gave a family member Ebola because I didn't want the inconvenience of a quarantine.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Gov. Christie: Our preference always is to quarantine people in their homes.

Really? Then why was the nurse kept in a tent outside a hospital in NJ against her will?

This is what happens when politicians have a panic attack based on polls instead of listening to experts.

Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop

I don't understand how a quarantine in their home is necessarily the best practice unless they live alone. Anyone who has been in contact with Ebola should be in isolation for the quarantine time period. It should be as comfortable as possible, of course, but to quarantine them with other people around doesn't make much sense if you are looking to contain any possible outbreak. I'm far from panicked on this whole deal.

Is it possible that a self-quarantined, un-symptomatic person can pass it on? I guess, anything is possible. Is it probable? No, it isn't, primarily because it hasn't happened yet. I think the fact that Mr. Duncan's immediate family did not contract the disease before he want to the hospital the second time and was EXTREMELY symptomatic is illustrative of how difficult it is to pass on the virus.

Self-quarantine is recommended by the experts, along with twice daily monitoring. They would not recommend this if they thought it was an unsafe practice. I would prefer to look at it as a practical matter as well.  Somebody who has been exposed to Ebola in any sense (especially a healthcare worker) and is self-quarantined would be sure to turn to proper medical authorities (as all of the infected healthcare workers have done) if they became symptomatic. The incentive to do so is pretty obvious, considering the consequences.

I have watched this thread evolve, and it is amazing to me that people allow uninformed opinions to shape their own positions. They point to "failings" by orgs like the CDC to discredit the experts, but I don't see the failings. Two people have contracted Ebola in this country! TWO, in a country of over 300 million, which led to more stringent supportive care policies to protect the healthcare workers who are most vulnerable. The rampant spread of the disease in West Africa is due to the fact that less than 20% of the people who have contracted the disease are being treated with supportive care or by people who use the proper protocols. The place to stop it is there, and the only way to do so is to make it possible for more and more healthcare workers to get there AND back. Threatening them with onerous quarantine policies is not the way to incentivize more of them to go.

The original decision in NY/NJ was made by  politicians based on hysteria, not science. It is never a good idea to have hysteria decide public policy.

[Jeremie Boop]

Is it possible that a self-quarantined, un-symptomatic person can pass it on? I guess, anything is possible. Is it probable? No, it isn't, primarily because it hasn't happened yet. I think the fact that Mr. Duncan's immediate family did not contract the disease before he want to the hospital the second time and was EXTREMELY symptomatic is illustrative of how difficult it is to pass on the virus.

Self-quarantine is recommended by the experts, along with twice daily monitoring. They would not recommend this if they thought it was an unsafe practice. I would prefer to look at it as a practical matter as well.  Somebody who has been exposed to Ebola in any sense (especially a healthcare worker) and is self-quarantined would be sure to turn to proper medical authorities (as all of the infected healthcare workers have done) if they became symptomatic. The incentive to do so is pretty obvious, considering the consequences.

I have watched this thread evolve, and it is amazing to me that people allow uninformed opinions to shape their own positions. They point to "failings" by orgs like the CDC to discredit the experts, but I don't see the failings. Two people have contracted Ebola in this country! TWO, in a country of over 300 million, which led to more stringent supportive care policies to protect the healthcare workers who are most vulnerable. The rampant spread of the disease in West Africa is due to the fact that less than 20% of the people who have contracted the disease are being treated with supportive care or by people who use the proper protocols. The place to stop it is there, and the only way to do so is to make it possible for more and more healthcare workers to get there AND back. Threatening them with onerous quarantine policies is not the way to incentivize more of them to go.

The original decision in NY/NJ was made by  politicians based on hysteria, not science. It is never a good idea to have hysteria decide public policy.

I'd rather take any possibility out of the equation if I can when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm not saying we should be shutting down our borders and/or locking people up in some plastic bubble somewhere. I don't see how it's unreasonable to think that a quarantine for a potentially deadly virus be done in an isolated environment which is as comfortable as possible for the person in question. If I were exposed I would expect that same treatment, as would most people I know. You are making this sound like it's a punishment, which certainly seems strange way to view a simple precautionary measure.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

Is it possible that a self-quarantined, un-symptomatic person can pass it on? I guess, anything is possible. Is it probable? No, it isn't, primarily because it hasn't happened yet. I think the fact that Mr. Duncan's immediate family did not contract the disease before he want to the hospital the second time and was EXTREMELY symptomatic is illustrative of how difficult it is to pass on the virus.

Self-quarantine is recommended by the experts, along with twice daily monitoring. They would not recommend this if they thought it was an unsafe practice. I would prefer to look at it as a practical matter as well.  Somebody who has been exposed to Ebola in any sense (especially a healthcare worker) and is self-quarantined would be sure to turn to proper medical authorities (as all of the infected healthcare workers have done) if they became symptomatic. The incentive to do so is pretty obvious, considering the consequences.

I have watched this thread evolve, and it is amazing to me that people allow uninformed opinions to shape their own positions. They point to "failings" by orgs like the CDC to discredit the experts, but I don't see the failings. Two people have contracted Ebola in this country! TWO, in a country of over 300 million, which led to more stringent supportive care policies to protect the healthcare workers who are most vulnerable. The rampant spread of the disease in West Africa is due to the fact that less than 20% of the people who have contracted the disease are being treated with supportive care or by people who use the proper protocols. The place to stop it is there, and the only way to do so is to make it possible for more and more healthcare workers to get there AND back. Threatening them with onerous quarantine policies is not the way to incentivize more of them to go.

The original decision in NY/NJ was made by  politicians based on hysteria, not science. It is never a good idea to have hysteria decide public policy

.

Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop

I'd rather take any possibility out of the equation if I can when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm not saying we should be shutting down our borders and/or locking people up in some plastic bubble somewhere. I don't see how it's unreasonable to think that a quarantine for a potentially deadly virus be done in an isolated environment which is as comfortable as possible for the person in question. If I were exposed I would expect that same treatment, as would most people I know. You are making this sound like it's a punishment, which certainly seems strange way to view a simple precautionary measure.

Possible vs. probable. "Is it possible" makes for over-reaction. "Is it probable" makes for wise decisions based on reality.

And you and I have a different definition of a "simple precautionary measure". That is what the current recommendation by the medical authorities is. What NY/NJ came up with is not "simple" by any means. It IS punishment, particularly to the courageous people who go overseas to try and stop the virus at the source. If they knew that they would be isolated from their home and their family (even while being un-symptomatic) for a minimum of 21 days upon their return, they may think twice about making the commitment. It is unnecessary, based on the science.

[Jeremie Boop]

Possible vs. probable. "Is it possible" makes for over-reaction. "Is it probable" makes for wise decisions based on reality. And you and I have a different definition of a "simple precautionary measure". That is what the current recommendation by the medical authorities is. What NY/NJ came up with is not "simple" by any means. It IS punishment, particularly to the courageous people who go overseas to try and stop the virus at the source. If they knew that they would be isolated from their home and their family (even while being un-symptomatic) for a minimum of 21 days upon their return, they may think twice about making the commitment. It is unnecessary, based on the science.

You seem to lump anyone with a different opinion as over reacting. We have different ideas, that's for sure.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

Possible vs. probable. "Is it possible" makes for over-reaction. "Is it probable" makes for wise decisions based on reality.

And you and I have a different definition of a "simple precautionary measure". That is what the current recommendation by the medical authorities is. What NY/NJ came up with is not "simple" by any means. It IS punishment, particularly to the courageous people who go overseas to try and stop the virus at the source. If they knew that they would be isolated from their home and their family (even while being un-symptomatic) for a minimum of 21 days upon their return, they may think twice about making the commitment. It is unnecessary, based on the science.

Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop

You seem to lump anyone with a different opinion as over reacting. We have different ideas, that's for sure.

No, I am talking about the specific situation that occurred in the last couple of days with regard to the two recent incidents (Dr. Spencer and Ms. Hickox), and the resulting over-reaction by the Governors of NY and NJ. The fact that they let the nurse go home makes it pretty obvious that they realize that they over-reacted.