Will Ebola become a big problem in the United States?

[phan52]

Uhh, gentlemen that first doc lihu posted is from Oxford, and I am not referring to the small military based town near Anniston, Al. There is a link worth readin.

And it says in the conclusions:

Taken together, our results support the conventional assumptions and field observations that most EBOV transmission comes from direct contact with blood or bodily fluids of an infected patient during the acute phase of illness . The risk of casual contacts with the skin, such as shaking hands, is likely to be low.

Anyone know how common virus mutations are? From what I've gathered the DoD is being cautious because they are analyzing the possibility of the virus mutating to also be able to transmit through the air.

So even if it's settled science now, they are considering the chance that facts now may not be the facts tomorrow.

I'd be curious if there's precedent for a virus mutating enough to change its method of transmission.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-the-ebola-virus-will-go-airborne/

There’s almost no historical precedent for any virus to change its basic mode of transmission so radically. “We have so many problems with Ebola, let’s not make another one that, of course, is theoretically possible but is pretty way down on the list of likely issues," says infectious diseases expert William Schaffner of Vanderbilt University. "Everything that is happening now can easily be comprehensively explained by person-to-person spread via body contact. We don’t have to invoke anything else.”

[Lihu]

And it says in the conclusions:

Taken together, our results support the conventional assumptions and field observations that most EBOV transmission comes from direct contact with blood or bodily fluids of an infected patient during the acute phase of illness. The risk of casual contacts with the skin, such as shaking hands, is likely to be low.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-the-ebola-virus-will-go-airborne/

There’s almost no historical precedent for any virus to change its basic mode of transmission so radically. “We have so many problems with Ebola, let’s not make another one that, of course, is theoretically possible but is pretty way down on the list of likely issues," says infectious diseases expert William Schaffner of Vanderbilt University. "Everything that is happening now can easily be comprehensively explained by person-to-person spread via body contact. We don’t have to invoke anything else.”

It also states that they need to take more data to be more conclusive than "likely".

They also found that there is a much longer period of time where breast milk, semen and tear ducts still seem to be positive.

[phan52]

It also states that they need to take more data to be more conclusive than "likely".

They also found that there is a much longer period of time where breast milk, semen and tear ducts still seem to be positive.

And they have known that for a long time. The point is that you still need to have direct contact with the body fluids of a person who has been in an acute stage of the illness , not an un-symptomatic person bowling in Brooklyn.

As far as the virus mutating, yes, that will likely occur, but it is unlikely to modify in a way that changes its mode of infection.

[Lihu]

And they have known that for a long time. The point is that you still need to have direct contact with the body fluids of a person who has been in an acute stage of the illness, not an un-symptomatic person bowling in Brooklyn.

As far as the virus mutating, yes, that will likely occur, but it is unlikely to modify in a way that changes its mode of infection.

donotpaginate

Well, we certainly don't need this. The less people who have it, the less likely we'll see that. At least, that's the hope.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

As far as the virus mutating, yes, that will likely occur, but it is unlikely to modify in a way that changes its mode of infection.

Originally Posted by Lihu

Well, we certainly don't need this. The less people who have it, the less likely we'll see that. At least, that's the hope.

That cat is out of the bag. The outbreak is already the worst ever in West Africa and viruses have a habit of mutating to some degree. That is why we have to be careful how we treat potential healthcare workers who volunteer to try to stop the outbreak more quickly.

I saw a couple on TV last night, both doctors, who were preparing to go over there shortly. They got out of work to go for 28 days. When they heard that they may be quarantined for an additional 21 days upon their return, they balked and they may not go now because that was not part of their plans. They can't afford to take all of that time off.

The policies of our politicians need to be rooted in the science, not hair-on-fire polls.

[Lihu]

That cat is out of the bag. The outbreak is already the worst ever in West Africa and viruses have a habit of mutating to some degree. That is why we have to be careful how we treat potential healthcare workers who volunteer to try to stop the outbreak more quickly.

I saw a couple on TV last night, both doctors, who were preparing to go over there shortly. They got out of work to go for 28 days. When they heard that they may be quarantined for an additional 21 days upon their return, they balked and they may not go now because that was not part of their plans. They can't afford to take all of that time off.

The policies of our politicians need to be rooted in the science, not hair-on-fire polls.

Yeah, I suppose this is why there is such a strong debate.

Quarantine does not have to be like a prison cell. We could provide a nice private apartment with all the amenities and advanced communications facilities they need to live reasonably well.

[MS256]

Yeah, I suppose this is why there is such a strong debate.

Quarantine does not have to be like a prison cell. We could provide a nice private apartment with all the amenities and advanced communications facilities they need to live reasonably well.

I wish they would do something fairly nice like that for the soldiers that come back (since they've already said they were going to be quarantined).

Maybe lease out a nice resort on an island somewhere with all of the shrimp and lobster they want.

Edit: Which reminds me. I'm not getting why private citizens should be regarded any differently regarding quarantine than our military is. Right or wrong if it's necessary for one group it should be necessary for all groups.

[David in FL]

Edit: Which reminds me. I'm not getting why private citizens should be regarded any differently regarding quarantine than our military is. Right or wrong if it's necessary for one group it should be necessary for all groups.

Yep. So the question becomes, is the mandatory quarantine of returning service members based on "science", or "hair on fire polls"?

[phan52]

I wish they would do something fairly nice like that for the soldiers that come back (since they've already said they were going to be quarantined). Maybe lease out a nice resort on an island somewhere with all of the shrimp and lobster they want. Edit: Which reminds me. I'm not getting why private citizens should be regarded any differently regarding quarantine than our military is. Right or wrong if it's necessary for one group it should be necessary for all groups.

Actually, it is not necessary for the military, as they have not had any contact with symptomatic Ebola patients. Quarantine is not necessarily disrupting their life as they have to follow orders regardless, but the fact that they are being quarantined has nothing to do with the science. In fact, they are far less vulnerable than the healthcare workers, due to their zero contact. But hey, they were in West Africa breathing that Ebola air, so . . .

[David in FL]

Actually, it is not necessary for the military, as they have not had any contact with symptomatic Ebola patients . Quarantine is not necessarily disrupting their life as they have to follow orders regardless, but the fact that they are being quarantined has nothing to do with the science. In fact, they are far less vulnerable than the healthcare workers, due to their zero contact. But hey, they were in West Africa breathing that Ebola air, so . . .

So is the Commander in Chief is reacting out of panic? I'm sure that those military families will be happy to hear that since they "have to follow orders anyway", there's no disruption to their lives. Hell, they're in the military, they're not even supposed to have lives anyway.....right? :-\

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

Actually, it is not necessary for the military, as they have not had any contact with symptomatic Ebola patients. Quarantine is not necessarily disrupting their life as they have to follow orders regardless, but the fact that they are being quarantined has nothing to do with the science. In fact, they are far less vulnerable than the healthcare workers, due to their zero contact. But hey, they were in West Africa breathing that Ebola air, so . . .

Originally Posted by David in FL

So is the Commander in Chief is reacting out of panic?

I'm sure that those military families will be happy to hear that since they "have to follow orders anyway", there's no disruption to their lives. Hell, they're in the military, they're not even supposed to have lives anyway.....right?

Whoever made that decision, I would say yes. They are reacting to people with their hair-on-fire about Ebola.

Give me one reason why somebody who has not had any contact with a person who is symptomatic with Ebola should be quarantined? A scientific reason based on fact, not "better safe than sorry" or some other bumper sticker claptrap.

As far as "following orders", the military, as you know, has to do just that, whether it is going home or being quarantined. It is the same thing with them going over to Liberia to assist in building facilities. They are not volunteering for that duty, like healthcare workers who are willingly giving of their time and expertise, they have to go because those are the orders.

[David in FL]

Whoever made that decision, I would say yes. They are reacting to people with their hair-on-fire about Ebola.

Give me one reason why somebody who has not had any contact with a person with Ebola should be quarantined? A scientific reason based on fact, not "better safe than sorry" or some other bumper sticker claptrap.

So.....why did the Commander in Chief, the guy that's allegedly been so pragmatic and thoughtful so far, order (or at least approve on recommendation) the mandatory quarantine for military personnel in this case?   Why the inconsistency in policy when the federal government certainly has the authority to mandate quarantine for non-military too?

As far as "following orders", the military, as you know, has to do just that, whether it is going home or being quarantined. It is the same thing with them going over to Liberia to assist in building facilities. They are not volunteering for that duty, like healthcare workers who are willingly giving of their time and expertise, they have to go because those are the orders.

Last I checked, every person in the military had volunteered.  The fact that once in, they need to follow orders (no different than any of the rest of us that have jobs working for someone other than ourselves) doesn't make a quarantine any less disrupting.....

[MS256]

Whoever made that decision, I would say yes. They are reacting to people with their hair-on-fire about Ebola.

Give me one reason why somebody who has not had any contact with a person who is symptomatic with Ebola should be quarantined? A scientific reason based on fact, not "better safe than sorry" or some other bumper sticker claptrap.

As far as "following orders", the military, as you know, has to do just that, whether it is going home or being quarantined. It is the same thing with them going over to Liberia to assist in building facilities. They are not volunteering for that duty, like healthcare workers who are willingly giving of their time and expertise, they have to go because those are the orders.

Not a chance in the world I would make a separate quarantine policy just for the military. Basically just because I could and they have to follow orders?

The way I see it either a quarantine is necessary or it's not necessary period.

Those soldiers like to get home to their families every bit as much as civilians do.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Whoever made that decision, I would say yes. They are reacting to people with their hair-on-fire about Ebola.

Give me one reason why somebody who has not had any contact with a person who is symptomatic with Ebola should be quarantined? A scientific reason based on fact, not "better safe than sorry" or some other bumper sticker claptrap.

As far as "following orders", the military, as you know, has to do just that, whether it is going home or being quarantined. It is the same thing with them going over to Liberia to assist in building facilities. They are not volunteering for that duty, like healthcare workers who are willingly giving of their time and expertise, they have to go because those are the orders.

Originally Posted by MS256

Not a chance in the world I would make a separate quarantine policy just for the military. Basically just because I could and they have to follow orders?

The way I see it either a quarantine is necessary or it's not necessary period.

Those soldiers like to get home to their families every bit as much as civilians do.

Neither would I. I didn't say it was the right decision, in fact, it makes no sense when you consider the ridiculously remote odds that they may have been infected with Ebola. The quarantine is totally unnecessary for the military, but I have less of a problem with it than I do with civilians who are not symptomatic and trying to get on with their lives.

The silliness continues. Ms. Hickox left her house for a bike ride this morning and was followed by a phalanx of local police and media. I hope they kept their distance.

[newtogolf]

Here is the newest poster that the CDC released on Ebola.  It shows that while it's not currently airborne you can get it from someone sneezing or coughing and the droplets landing on a surface that you touch, such as a handrail on an escalator.

[MS256]

The quarantine is totally unnecessary for the military, but I have less of a problem with it than I do with civilians who are not symptomatic and trying to get on with their lives.

Right there is where you and I are on separate planets.

Members of my family that are still in the military enjoy getting on with their lives just as much as anybody else. They sacrifice time away from their young kids by choice out of a duty to their country but are no less happy to get home to their wives and kids.

[David in FL]

but I have less of a problem with it than I do with civilians who are not symptomatic and trying to get on with their lives.

Wow.  Just wow......

Right there is where you and I are on separate planets.

Members of my family that are still in the military enjoy getting on with their lives just as much as anybody else. They sacrifice time away from their young kids by choice out of a duty to their country but are no less happy to get home to their wives and kids.

Exactly.

Here is the newest poster that the CDC released on Ebola.  It shows that while it's not currently airborne you can get it from someone sneezing or coughing and the droplets landing on a surface that you touch, such as a handrail on an escalator.

If I remember correctly, the CDC has also defined anyone who is within 3 feet of an infected individual as being in "direct contact" with them....

[Golfingdad]

Here is the newest poster that the CDC released on Ebola.  It shows that while it's not currently airborne you can get it from someone sneezing or coughing and the droplets landing on a surface that you touch, such as a handrail on an escalator. [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/108425/] [/URL]

Seems reasonable ... But that "someone" still has to be an infected person who is showing symptoms.