Will Ebola become a big problem in the United States?

[Dave2512]

In general I agree but the age and overall health factors into the chance of recovery for just about any infectious disease.  People with pre-existing conditions, babies and the elderly die more from the flu than healthy middle age adults.

Another factor is the time elapsed from becoming symptomatic and receiving treatment.  Duncan may have died because he was symptomatic for days before they diagnosed him as having Ebola and starting treatment.

Yes but they don't suffer different symptoms, which again is what Lihu said and that is what Phan52 is responding to. The difference is the quality of treatment and I assume how soon. Really not even worth debating because this much we know.

[Jeremie Boop]

Finally, some forward thinking . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/nyregion/new-york-state-offers-protections-for-medical-workers-joining-ebola-fight.html

New York officials announced on Thursday that they would offer employee protection and financial guarantees for health care workers joining the fight against the Ebola outbreak in three West African nations.

The announcement was an effort to alleviate concerns that the state’s mandatory quarantine policy could deter desperately needed workers from traveling overseas.

Under the new protections, modeled after the rights granted military reservists, workers could not suffer any pay cuts or demotions for serving in Africa, and the state would make up any lost income if they had to be quarantined when they returned....

. . . “The state would also provide necessary reimbursements, to health care workers and their employers, for any quarantines that are needed upon their return, to help protect public health and safety in New York,” the statement Thursday said.

Also on Thursday, the World Bank announced an additional $100 million to speed deployment of foreign health workers to Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone.

Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft, pledged $100 million this month to help increase the flow of foreign health workers, with much of the money going toward medical evacuation services in case workers were infected. Lack of evacuation financing had been a major obstacle to getting more workers to sign up.

So, they are still going to have mandatory quarantines but since they will basically be guaranteed financial support and keeping their jobs it's ok? Interesting because I thought I read they were already saying that a few days ago.

[newtogolf]

And nobody is disagreeing that they continue to learn more and more.  That is their job.  But we recognize that they exercise an abundance of caution in the face of what they don't know.  They don't say "we're not sure if you can get Ebola from a sneeze so we encourage everybody to stand next to a sneezing Ebola victim."  Using that logic and common sense, you can determine that if they do state something, such as "you can't get it from somebody that isn't exhibiting symptoms," then you know they've researched that.

The CDC is stating you can get Ebola from droplets of bodily fluids of infected people.

Consider this scenario which I don't think is too far fetched;

An infected persons fluids are on a surface that Mr. X touches and then happens to touch his hand to his eyes, nose or mouth and becomes infected with Ebola.  Mr. X is now infected and within 7-10 days begins to show symptoms but since he doesn't believe he was ever in contact with someone that has Ebola he assumes that it's the flu and goes about his normal routine.  Up until the point the fever becomes severe or he begins bleeding he's conducting life as normal, going to work, etc.  When he sees the blood he realizes something is really wrong and he heads to the hospital.

How many hundreds or thousands of people did Mr. X expose to Ebola during this time frame, how do you identify them, how do you warn them, how do you prevent them from going through the same process as Mr. X in thinking they can't have Ebola, it must be the flu?

The issue is containment.  As long as we're ultra vigilant in ensuring infected people aren't roaming the streets the risks remain minimal to zero but once we lose control it becomes exponentially harder to stop it.

[newtogolf]

Yes but they don't suffer different symptoms, which again is what Lihu said and that is what Phan52 is responding to. The difference is the quality of treatment and I assume how soon. Really not even worth debating because this much we know.

I agree, the symptoms as far as I've read are pretty consistent thus far in all of the infected.

[phan52]

So, they are still going to have mandatory quarantines but since they will basically be guaranteed financial support and keeping their jobs it's ok? Interesting because I thought I read they were already saying that a few days ago.

Nobody was saying that in an official capacity. Some people said it should be understood, but there was no "policy" in that regard. Now there is.

[Jeremie Boop]

Nobody was saying that in an official capacity. Some people said it should be understood, but there was no "policy" in that regard. Now there is.

I was pretty sure either the Gov or Mayor had said it before today but it may not have been in official paperwork. Question still stands though, the mandatory quarantine is acceptable because of this policy then?

[Dave2512]

The CDC is stating you can get Ebola from droplets of bodily fluids of infected people.

Consider this scenario which I don't think is too far fetched;

An infected persons fluids are on a surface that Mr. X touches and then happens to touch his hand to his eyes, nose or mouth and becomes infected with Ebola.  Mr. X is now infected and within 7-10 days begins to show symptoms but since he doesn't believe he was ever in contact with someone that has Ebola he assumes that it's the flu and goes about his normal routine.  Up until the point the fever becomes severe or he begins bleeding he's conducting life as normal, going to work, etc.  When he sees the blood he realizes something is really wrong and he heads to the hospital.

How many hundreds or thousands of people did Mr. X expose to Ebola during this time frame, how do you identify them, how do you warn them, how do you prevent them from going through the same process as Mr. X in thinking they can't have Ebola, it must be the flu?

The issue is containment.  As long as we're ultra vigilant in ensuring infected people aren't roaming the streets the risks remain minimal to zero but once we lose control it becomes exponentially harder to stop it.

Which is why I think they need to take it a step further and publish risk stats for different types of exposures like they do with STD's. That way they quantify theoretical risks so when people read it they have the info to prevent minds from wandering. If you saw that the CDC says there is a possibility of infection from droplets on contaminated surfaces but the instance of infection is 10 in 20000 compared to 5 in 1000 from direct contact with infected person  you understand that few infections occur from that type of exposure.

[phan52]

I was pretty sure either the Gov or Mayor had said it before today but it may not have been in official paperwork. Question still stands though, the mandatory quarantine is acceptable because of this policy then?

Acceptable? That is up to the healthcare workers and still may be an impediment. We'll see.

Necessary?  No.

[newtogolf]

Which is why I think they need to take it a step further and publish risk stats for different types of exposures like they do with STD's. That way they quantify theoretical risks so when people read it they have the info to prevent minds from wandering. If you saw that the CDC says there is a possibility of infection from droplets on contaminated surfaces but the instance of infection is 10 in 20000 compared to 5 in 1000 from direct contact with infected person  you understand that few infections occur from that type of exposure.

I agree that should be done at a minimum so we at least know what our risks are if they aren't going to ban flights or enforce quarantines.

[Golfingdad]

The CDC is stating you can get Ebola from droplets of bodily fluids of infected people.

Yes, but they previously said that you could, and now they're basically still saying the same thing, but are also acknowledging that they have no evidence yet of that.  The way you worded your statement made it sound like the revision to their policies was saying that "we previously said you could NOT get it from a sneeze and now we say that you can" when in fact, something actually closer to the opposite (but not the opposite) is true.

Consider this scenario which I don't think is too far fetched;

An infected persons fluids are on a surface that Mr. X touches and then happens to touch his hand to his eyes, nose or mouth and becomes infected with Ebola.  Mr. X is now infected and within 7-10 days begins to show symptoms but since he doesn't believe he was ever in contact with someone that has Ebola he assumes that it's the flu and goes about his normal routine.  Up until the point the fever becomes severe or he begins bleeding he's conducting life as normal, going to work, etc.  When he sees the blood he realizes something is really wrong and he heads to the hospital.

How many hundreds or thousands of people did Mr. X expose to Ebola during this time frame, how do you identify them, how do you warn them, how do you prevent them from going through the same process as Mr. X in thinking they can't have Ebola, it must be the flu?

The issue is containment.  As long as we're ultra vigilant in ensuring infected people aren't roaming the streets the risks remain minimal to zero but once we lose control it becomes exponentially harder to stop it.

I would agree whole-heartedly.  I love the movie Outbreak and although entirely fictitous, it does show fairly easily just how far and how quickly one person can spread a disease.  Of course, "Motaba" was an airborne disease so it went A LOT faster than Ebola, but it nevertheless illustrates the point.  They can spread exponentially.

Where we disagree is the point at which Mr. X is actually able to "release infected fluids."  If he doesn't have his fever yet, as in the case of the NY doctor, then he can't release those fluids, therefore the scenario is VERY far fetched.

[Jeremie Boop]

Acceptable? That is up to the healthcare workers and still may be an impediment. We'll see.

Necessary?  No.

Alright, just the way you said "finally some forward thinking" made it seem like the "new" policy of job/financial security while in quarantine made it OK. Basically all that which you quoted was about money in regards to the situation.

Not trying to sound cynical here, but I wish that people would put that kind of money towards more things that we need help in our own country.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Acceptable? That is up to the healthcare workers and still may be an impediment. We'll see.

Necessary?  No.

Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop

Alright, just the way you said "finally some forward thinking" made it seem like the "new" policy of job/financial security while in quarantine made it OK. Basically all that which you quoted was about money in regards to the situation.

Not trying to sound cynical here, but I wish that people would put that kind of money towards more things that we need help in our own country.

It all DOES help our own country. If they stop Ebola as the source it helps ALL countries. Kudos to Paul Allen.

[Jeremie Boop]

It all DOES help our own country. If they stop Ebola as the source it helps ALL countries. Kudos to Paul Allen.

Really? Gee, I've gotten the distinct impression that it's basically not a threat at all to us from many posts here.

[Golfingdad]

It all DOES help our own country. If they stop Ebola as the source it helps ALL countries. Kudos to Paul Allen.

Right.

Alright, just the way you said "finally some forward thinking" made it seem like the "new" policy of job/financial security while in quarantine made it OK. Basically all that which you quoted was about money in regards to the situation.

Not trying to sound cynical here, but I wish that people would put that kind of money towards more things that we need help in our own country.

I wouldn't call it cynical, but it's a little "grandstand-ish" because people DO put that kind of money towards things we need help with here.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

It all DOES help our own country. If they stop Ebola as the source it helps ALL countries. Kudos to Paul Allen.

Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop

Really? Gee, I've gotten the distinct impression that it's basically not a threat at all to us from many posts here.

Wow, nice spin. But hey, feel free to interpret things in any way to make you happy.

[Dave2512]

I agree that should be done at a minimum so we at least know what our risks are if they aren't going to ban flights or enforce quarantines.

Yes but more valuable IMO is understanding the risks would probably alleviate concern and people wouldn't feel so strongly about those things given the very few US Ebola cases. You have a better chance to win the lottery than contracting Ebola on US soil if you aren't treating someone infected. Even the 12000 or whatever cases in Africa is a very small portion of the population in a country inept at fighting disease. Here it's been a sensational news story but IMO the alarm was greater than the number of cases US justified, in a few months something else will supplant Ebola as the new buzz topic. I'd feel differently if we had more cases but it just hasn't happened. I think they made a mistake politicizing it. Just drove a wedge between people already divided for no good reason.

[phan52]

Common sense solutions.

Less than a day after restricting the movements of a nurse who treated Ebola victims in West Africa, a judge in Maine has lifted the measures, rejecting arguments by the State of Maine that a quarantine was necessary to protect the public.

Within an hour of the decision, state troopers who had been parked outside the nurse’s house for days had left.

The order, signed on Friday by Judge Charles C. LaVerdiere, the chief judge for the Maine District Courts who serves in Kennebec and Somerset counties, said the nurse, Kaci Hickox, “currently does not show symptoms of Ebola and is therefore not infectious.”

The order requires Ms. Hickox to submit to daily monitoring for symptoms, to coordinate her travel with state health officials, and to notify them immediately if symptoms appear. Ms. Hickox has agreed to follow the requirements.

[Lihu]

Organizations adding or subtracting symptoms doesn't mean the symptoms will be different for people in different areas, which is what Lihu said. Ebola is Ebola.

The CDC poster said the symptoms "can" show up. Most of the ones other that bruising can be from a common flu. So, depending upon the health of an individual, they might or might not show some of the symptoms that make it unique to Ebola.