Will Ebola become a big problem in the United States?

[Lihu]

Because if he lied about that how do we know what else he lied about, such as he wasn't symptomatic when he was traveling around NY?

Maybe you'd be happy to be hanging out with him while he was infected with Ebola, I wouldn't.  If there is any risk I could have been exposed to Ebola, I deserve to know about it, especially from a doctor.

Right, this is just a small part of "Do no harm" which every doctor takes an oath to fulfill.

[Golfingdad]

Because if he lied about that how do we know what else he lied about

Oh brother.

The other day, I told my daughter that her special cereal bowl was dirty even though it wasn't because I didn't want to have to deal with her and her brother fighting over it.  Better make sure that I haven't been committing tax fraud or cheating on my wife for the last few years, cuz WHO KNOWS?!?!?!

Maybe you'd be happy to be hanging out with him while he was infected with Ebola, I wouldn't.  If there is any risk I could have been exposed to Ebola, I deserve to know about it, especially from a doctor.

What about the phrase "is not transmitted by asymptomatic people" is unclear to you?  If he wasn't symptomatic, then there wasn't a risk you could have been exposed.

You're making a big leap in assuming that a doctor who cares enough about total strangers in Africa to voluntarily risk his life to help them would be likely to go out of his way to endanger a bunch of his fellow Americans.

The more likely scenario here is that he knew (and to this point has been proven correct) that as long as he wasn't symptomatic he wasn't a danger to anybody.

[Dave2512]

The more likely scenario here is that he knew (and to this point has been proven correct) that as long as he wasn't symptomatic he wasn't a danger to anybody.

Not sure why this is so tough to understand.

[newtogolf]

Oh brother.

The other day, I told my daughter that her special cereal bowl was dirty even though it wasn't because I didn't want to have to deal with her and her brother fighting over it.  Better make sure that I haven't been committing tax fraud or cheating on my wife for the last few years, cuz WHO KNOWS?!?!?!

What about the phrase "is not transmitted by asymptomatic people" is unclear to you?  If he wasn't symptomatic, then there wasn't a risk you could have been exposed.

You're making a big leap in assuming that a doctor who cares enough about total strangers in Africa to voluntarily risk his life to help them would be likely to go out of his way to endanger a bunch of his fellow Americans.

The more likely scenario here is that he knew (and to this point has been proven correct) that as long as he wasn't symptomatic he wasn't a danger to anybody.

I'm amazed at the cavalier attitude you have with a doctor lying about where he traveled while infected with Ebola yet in numerous threads on here you've stated that golfers in tournaments or posting their scores for handicap should follow the all the ROG and not lie about their score.

So if you're sick with Ebola and don't think you're contagious it's okay to lie to officials if they ask where you've traveled, but it's never okay to lie about your score during a golf tournament,  I got it.

[Ernest Jones]

Skimming through this thread makes me think I should really invest in a Kool-aid stand. I could make a fortune on here.

[Lihu]

What about the phrase "is not transmitted by asymptomatic people" is unclear to you?  If he wasn't symptomatic, then there wasn't a risk you could have been exposed.

I think the real issue is that we do not understand this disease well enough to really know for sure that this is the case.

Scientists probably based this hypothesis upon observations of a few cases, but don't really know this well enough as fact. There might still be an outside chance that someone having this illness does not show or feel any of the signs and is symptomatic depending upon how their bodies initially react to the disease.

This is the unfortunate reality of science, we are only human, and we can only base any theories upon limited observations. We don't really know enough about Ebola to draw any absolute conclusions as the one quoted.

I still don't understand why it's such a big deal for someone who went way out of his way to go to Africa and help people with Ebola, then not make sure he is clear of any infection by waiting 10 or 21 days. Simple.

The fact that more states, like CA, are forcing quarantines, is a sign that people in our government are making sensible decisions to prevent an outbreak of the disease such as in Africa.

[jamo]

Honest question to the people who've been saying that we don't understand the disease and need to know more about Ebola: What do we not know, what would you like to find out, and what would you hope to change (in terms of public policy)?

[Dave2512]

I think the real issue is that we do not understand this disease well enough to really know for sure that this is the case.

Scientists probably based this hypothesis upon observations of a few cases, but don't really know this well enough as fact. There might still be an outside chance that someone having this illness does not show or feel any of the signs and is symptomatic depending upon how their bodies initially react to the disease.

This is the unfortunate reality of science, we are only human, and we can only base any theories upon limited observations. We don't really know enough about Ebola to draw any absolute conclusions as the one quoted.

I still don't understand why it's such a big deal for someone who went way out of his way to go to Africa and help people with Ebola, then not make sure he is clear of any infection by waiting 10 or 21 days. Simple.

The fact that more states, like CA, are forcing quarantines, is a sign that people in our government are making sensible decisions to prevent an outbreak of the disease such as in Africa.

But none of that matters unless you swap body fluids with an infected person. The route of transmission is understood at this point.

[Lihu]

Honest question to the people who've been saying that we don't understand the disease and need to know more about Ebola: What do we not know, what would you like to find out, and what would you hope to change (in terms of public policy)?

Excellent questions, but should not just be limited to those who actually think we do not know enough about the disease.

[Golfingdad]

I'm amazed at the cavalier attitude you have with a doctor lying about where he traveled while infected with Ebola yet in numerous threads on here you've stated that golfers in tournaments or posting their scores for handicap should follow the all the ROG and not lie about their score.

So if you're sick with Ebola and don't think you're contagious it's okay to lie to officials if they ask where you've traveled, but it's never okay to lie about your score during a golf tournament,  I got it.

Going to ignore the snark and just point out that I'm actually not a rules nazi when it comes to posting scores for handicap.  I'm on the opposite side of that debate so even within the confines of your ridiculous analogy, I'm consistent.

I think the real issue is that we do not understand this disease well enough to really know for sure that this is the case.

Scientists probably based this hypothesis upon observations of a few cases, but don't really know this well enough as fact. There might still be an outside chance that someone having this illness does not show or feel any of the signs and is symptomatic depending upon how their bodies initially react to the disease.

This is the unfortunate reality of science, we are only human, and we can only base any theories upon limited observations. We don't really know enough about Ebola to draw any absolute conclusions as the one quoted.

I still don't understand why it's such a big deal for someone who went way out of his way to go to Africa and help people with Ebola, then not make sure he is clear of any infection by waiting 10 or 21 days. Simple.

The fact that more states, like CA, are forcing quarantines, is a sign that people in our government are making sensible decisions to prevent an outbreak of the disease such as in Africa.

When you say "we," if you're talking about the general public (myself included) then I would agree.  But to the National and International Organizations who deal with these diseases, there is nothing new about Ebola.  It's been around for almost 40 years.  It's just never been in our country so we're only now going bonkers over it.

By the way, I believe your last sentence should read "The fact that more states, like CA, are forcing quarantines, is a sign that people in our government are making sensible decisions to placate people and their irrational fears of an outbreak of the disease such as in Africa."

---

In searching google to find out how long this disease has been around I also came across this little stat:  As of last week there have been 12,008 suspected cases resulting in 5,078 reported deaths during the current outbreak.  Outside of Africa, there have been 18 cases of Ebola infection and 4 deaths.

[MS256]

Honest question to the people who've been saying that we don't understand the disease and need to know more about Ebola: What do we not know, what would you like to find out, and what would you hope to change (in terms of public policy)?

Even health officials and President Obama have mentioned adjusting policies as we learn more. How in the world would anybody know what we do not know (about anything)?

But none of that matters unless you swap body fluids with an infected person. The route of transmission is understood at this point.

Nobody can yet say for sure at which point after showing symptoms a person could spread Ebola and/or the possibility of spreading it through such as sneeze droplets. Heck even the CDC admits to less clarity than people in this thread.

http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/cdc-admits-droplets-from-a-sneeze-could-spread-ebola/

[Ernest Jones]

there is nothing new about Ebola.  It's been around for almost 40 years.

QFT.

Looks like I won't be selling any of my kool-aid to @Golfingdad

[Lihu]

Going to ignore the snark and just point out that I'm actually not a rules nazi when it comes to posting scores for handicap.  I'm on the opposite side of that debate so even within the confines of your ridiculous analogy, I'm consistent.

When you say "we," if you're talking about the general public (myself included) then I would agree.  But to the National and International Organizations who deal with these diseases, there is nothing new about Ebola.  It's been around for almost 40 years.  It's just never been in our country so we're only now going bonkers over it.

By the way, I believe your last sentence should read "The fact that more states, like CA, are forcing quarantines, is a sign that people in our government are making sensible decisions to placate people and their irrational fears of an outbreak of the disease such as in Africa."

In searching google to find out how long this disease has been around I also came across this little stat:  As of last week there have been 12,008 suspected cases resulting in 5,078 reported deaths during the current outbreak.  Outside of Africa, there have been 18 cases of Ebola infection and 4 deaths.

I'm not sure I understand what the amount of time a virus has been around has to do with our understanding of the disease?

[newtogolf]

From NY Times; http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/ask-well-can-you-get-ebola-from-a-toilet-seat/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Can I get Ebola from a toilet seat?

In general, the disease risk of toilet seats is overrated, but you probably can get Ebola from a toilet seat.

The risk is not so much the seat itself as the whole bathroom. But not just any bathroom. The risk would come from a bathroom that an Ebola victim in an infectious phase has recently used.

The field hospitals run by Doctors Without Borders in Africa are laid out so that patients who definitely have Ebola never share toilet facilities with staff members or with patients who are only “possible” cases.

Ebola victims often lose control of their bowels and excrete copious amounts of diarrhea. They also vomit heavily. Those liquids are highly infectious. Touching them and then touching one’s eye or mouth or inside the nose could transmit the disease. Urine also carries some risk, but viral loads in urine are not nearly as high as those in vomit and feces.

For workers in Ebola field hospitals, one of the riskiest acts is touching their boots or shoe covers. The Doctors Without Borders disrobing protocol calls from them to slosh their feet in a bath of chlorinated water and then remove their boots with a bootjack, so as to never touch them with their hands.

In modern buildings, toilets that flush loudly and powerfully are a risk in themselves. The flushing create a mist of droplets that splash onto the face and hands or may contaminate stall surfaces.

[Dave2512]

Nobody can yet say for sure at which point after showing symptoms a person could spread Ebola and/or the possibility of spreading it through such as sneeze droplets. Heck even the CDC admits to less clarity than people in this thread.

http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/cdc-admits-droplets-from-a-sneeze-could-spread-ebola/

The CDC is ultra conservative with regard to transmission of any diseases they monitor. They still list oral sex as an HIV risk despite years of case study where there hasn't been even one documented oral HIV infection. They toss around things like theoretical risk when trying to define risk.

[Lihu]

The CDC is ultra conservative with regard to transmission of any diseases they monitor. They still list oral sex as an HIV risk despite years of case study where there hasn't been even one documented oral HIV infection. They toss around things like theoretical risk when trying to define risk.

They have to be, because we're not. Apparently, not all doctors are not immune to carelessness either.

[Dave2512]

They have to be, because we're not. Apparently, not all doctors are not immune to carelessness, either.

Nah carelessness and making choices based on understanding actual risks aren't the same thing. Using the oral HIV risk as an example how many people use condoms for that. My guess is not many. Knowledge is power.

[Lihu]

Nah carelessness and making choices based on understanding actual risks aren't the same thing. Using the oral HIV risk as an example how many people use condoms for that. My guess is not many. Knowledge is power.

I was referring to Ebola and other diseases that can be transmitted through casual contact, not HIV.

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/196/Supplement_2/S142.full

Although Ebola virus (EBOV) is transmitted by unprotected physical contact with infected persons, few data exist on which specific bodily fluids are infected or on the risk of fomite transmission. Therefore, we tested various clinical specimens from 26 laboratory-confirmed cases of Ebola hemorrhagic fever, as well as environmental specimens collected from an isolation ward, for the presence of EBOV. Virus was detected by culture and/or reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction in 16 of 54 clinical specimens (including saliva, stool, semen, breast milk, tears, nasal blood, and a skin swab) and in 2 of 33 environmental specimens.We conclude that EBOV is shed in a wide variety of bodily fluids during the acute period of illness but that the risk of transmission from fomites in an isolation ward and from convalescent patients is low when currently recommended infection control guidelines for the viral hemorrhagic fevers are followed.