Will Ebola become a big problem in the United States?

[MS256]

I think the guy on the right is checking his fantasy football scores.  And the guy second from the left appears to be writing a personal email (that's a gmail inbox, right?).  Shep needs to get control of his ipad command center.

See, this stuff can get scary pretty fast.  Don't you guys watch 24 and all those disaster movies where the generals put up screens showing how fast these sort of things spread?

I don't have a clue what your points could be on Shepard Smith. He is playing this thing down more than anyone else in the country on any news network (almost to the point of being annoying to me).

It was the biggest I knew of when I wrote it.  I don't think it's at all trivial either.  Imagine it's your daughter in place of my in-laws.

That's the same non-issue as the director of the CDC saying that we have to have commercial flights to get aid in and out.

We could easily transport U.S. citizens home and hopefully pick an airport where we could have qualified medical personnel to screen those special flights.

(Instead of somebody making $10 and hour that learned how to use a thermometer yesterday trying to do medical screening on the vast amount of commercial flights).

[phan52]

Really ? How could you possibly know what the risks are of it spreading ? And too only a dozen people or so ? We have yet to see, there could be a dozen people infected from this one incident. The only way too be sure it doesn't spread here is if it doesn't come here

But I can see your point, our health care system keeps the flu from spreading too only a few MILLION each year

Nigeria and Senegal, which don't have close to the healthcare system that we have in this country, had confirmed cases of Ebola back in July. They tracked the patients' recent past, found and isolated any possible spread and confirmed that all cases could be tracked back to one individual from Liberia. They are on the verge of declaring their countries Ebola free this week. Their only reluctance is the rampant spread in other nearby countries (Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea) that have deteriorated healthcare systems.

The WHO and the CDC know how Ebola spreads. They know how to isolate it and stop it. We are not going to have an Ebola breakout in this country.

[dsc123]

Really ? How could you possibly know what the risks are of it spreading ? And too only a dozen people or so ? We have yet to see, there could be a dozen people infected from this one incident. The only way too be sure it doesn't spread here is if it doesn't come here

But I can see your point, our health care system keeps the flu from spreading too only a few MILLION each year

Odd things to pick on, but since you ask, I have not seen any predictions that this is going to kill large parts of our population here in the US.  I imagine that if the CDC, WHO, and whoever else thought the risk of that happening was high, I would have heard about it.  Plus, our healthcare probably better than that in West Africa.  Based on that, I am comfortable saying that its not likely to kill off a significant portion of our population.

As to my use of a dozen, I was simply trying to distinguish between a few people getting the disease and some sort of widespread outbreak.  It was not meant to be an exact number.

Comparisons to the flu are ridiculous.

I don't have a clue what your points could be on Shepard Smith. He is playing this thing down more than anyone else in the country on any news network (almost to the point of being annoying to me).

That's the same non-issue as the director of the CDC saying that we have to have commercial flights to get aid in and out.

Just that he has a cool looking newsroom.  This isn't a two sided issue and just because I think David's smug comments and emojis about travel are off base doesn't mean I am on one side or the other.  If you read my post instead of assuming I am on the "other side" , you'd see that I think this ebola thing is a big deal and never claimed anyone in the media has blown it out of proportion.  I don't even watch network or cable news so I don't know what they've been doing with this story.  Like I said, all I know about Shep is that he has a newsroom full of giant ipads.  I think I saw that on Colbert.

[Slice of Life]

Really ? How could you possibly know what the risks are of it spreading ? And too only a dozen people or so ? We have yet to see, there could be a dozen people infected from this one incident. The only way too be sure it doesn't spread here is if it doesn't come here

But I can see your point, our health care system keeps the flu from spreading too only a few MILLION each year

The flu is so much easier to catch than Ebola.

[phan52]

The flu is so much easier to catch than Ebola.

Very true.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/06-october-2014/en/

[dsc123]

What is your point when you compare Ebola to the flu?  Just that its more contagious?  Is the implication that because its affects more people, it should be more of a concern than Ebola?  That can't be true because it doesn't have a 70% kill rate.  I really don't understand why people keep bringing that up.

[phan52]

What is your point when you compare Ebola to the flu?  Just that its more contagious?  Is the implication that because its affects more people, it should be more of a concern than Ebola?  That can't be true because it doesn't have a 70% kill rate.  I really don't understand why people keep bringing that up.

Ebola does not have a 70% kill rate when it is being treated.

WHO: The case fatality rate was lower when only hospitalized patients were considered, supporting evidence that getting patients to good, supportive health care quickly makes a difference.

And that is in the countries that are severely affected by the outbreak and the healthcare systems suck. It should be even better here.

[jusanothajoe]

What is your point when you compare Ebola to the flu?  Just that its more contagious?  Is the implication that because its affects more people, it should be more of a concern than Ebola?  That can't be true because it doesn't have a 70% kill rate.  I really don't understand why people keep bringing that up.

My point is how can you say that ebola could be contained with ease but we cant contain the flu now ? with a flu shot readily available ?

[dsc123]

Ebola does not have a 70% kill rate when it is being treated.

WHO: The case fatality rate was lower when only hospitalized patients were considered, supporting evidence that getting patients to good, supportive health care quickly makes a difference.

And that is in the countries that are severely affected by the outbreak and the healthcare systems suck. It should be even better here.

Ok, but you really didn't answer my question, what is your point about the flu?  Assuming your point is still that its more dangerous or at least contagious than ebola, what is the fatality rate for ebola when treated?  The lady in spain died, the guy in dallas died, and we don't yet know the fates of the two nurses.  wasn't there some doctor that survived?  So that's like 66% so far?

According to the CDC, the flu has a fatality rate of 0.00005%.  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/flu.htm  So if the fatality rate when treated was only 1%, its roughly 20,000 times more deadly than the flu.

[jusanothajoe]

You have all changed my mind, I am now pro drug and pro Ebola.

[dsc123]

My point is how can you say that ebola could be contained with ease but we cant contain the flu now ? with a flu shot readily available ?

Ok, so both sides are making points about the flu that I don't understand.  You seem to say that because we can't contain the flu, we can't expect to contain ebola.  And others say the flu is more contagious than ebola and we don't worry about the flu so we shouldn't worry about ebola.  But your point isn't any more logical than theirs, I think.  Here's why:

I will get the flu shot for the first time ever this year.  And only because I have 1 year old children at home.  Why don't I usually get the shot?  Because its not a big deal to get the flu.  I'm a relatively healthy 30 year old male.  I might miss a day or two of work.  However, if the flu had a fatality rate of 70% (or probably even 0.001%), I'd probably get the shot.  In other words, the flu spreads in large part because people aren't concerned about it.  The same does not go for ebola.

What am I missing?

[jusanothajoe]

Ok, so both sides are making points about the flu that I don't understand.  You seem to say that because we can't contain the flu, we can't expect to contain ebola.  And others say the flu is more contagious than ebola and we don't worry about the flu so we shouldn't worry about ebola.  But your point isn't any more logical than theirs, I think.  Here's why:

I will get the flu shot for the first time ever this year.  And only because I have 1 year old children at home.  Why don't I usually get the shot?  Because its not a big deal to get the flu.  I'm a relatively healthy 30 year old male.  I might miss a day or two of work.  However, if the flu had a fatality rate of 70% (or probably even 0.001%), I'd probably get the shot.  In other words, the flu spreads in large part because people aren't concerned about it.  The same does not go for ebola.

What am I missing?

You make a good point here.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

Ebola does not have a 70% kill rate when it is being treated.

WHO: The case fatality rate was lower when only hospitalized patients were considered, supporting evidence that getting patients to good, supportive health care quickly makes a difference.

And that is in the countries that are severely affected by the outbreak and the healthcare systems suck. It should be even better here.

Originally Posted by dsc123

Ok, but you really didn't answer my question, what is your point about the flu?  Assuming your point is still that its more dangerous or at least contagious than ebola, what is the fatality rate for ebola when treated?  The lady in spain died, the guy in dallas died, and we don't yet know the fates of the two nurses.  wasn't there some doctor that survived?  So that's like 66% so far?

According to the CDC, the flu has a fatality rate of 0.00005%.  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/flu.htm  So if the fatality rate when treated was only 1%, its roughly 20,000 times more deadly than the flu.

Duncan contracted Ebola in Liberia. He clearly got shoddy treatment from the start and it was pretty late when he was finally isolated. It didn't help that he was a non-resident in Texas without healthcare, but that is a whole other debate and what happened to him is not indicative of how Ebola will be treated in this country. Also, the fatality rate in this country does not include the person in Spain. As far as I can see, two American healthcare workers were brought here from Liberia and they both have recovered. A third American who contracted it in Liberia, an NBC cameraman, is apparently recovering in Nebraska. I will be surprised if either of the two nurses die considering when their symptoms were caught and, as of now, the fatality rate is pretty much zero in America until further notice.

My only point about the flu is to the people who want us the alter our life because of Ebola. If that is the case, shouldn't flu shots be mandatory if 24,000 Americans a year are dying of it? Just sayin'...

[dsc123]

Duncan contracted Ebola in Liberia. He clearly got shoddy treatment from the start and it was pretty late when he was finally isolated. It didn't help that he was a non-resident in Texas without healthcare, but that is a whole other debate and what happened to him is not indicative of how Ebola will be treated in this country. Also, the fatality rate in this country does not include the person in Spain. As far as I can see, two American healthcare workers were brought here from Liberia and they both have recovered. A third American who contracted it in Liberia, an NBC cameraman, is apparently recovering in Nebraska. I will be surprised if either of the two nurses die considering when their symptoms were caught and, as of now, the fatality rate is pretty much zero in America until further notice.

My only point about the flu is to the people who want us the alter our life because of Ebola. If that is the case, shouldn't flu shots be mandatory if 24,000 Americans a year are dying of it? Just sayin'...

You can't exclude Duncan because he contracted it in Liberia even though he was treated in the US, but then include the Americans who contracted it in Liberia and then came here and recovered.  I would think that anyone who was treated here should count, but if you disagree, then nobody should count except for the two nurses--an unknown.  So I guess we'll see.  I certainly hope you're right.

What is the life altering stuff you're against?  The travel restrictions?  I'd agree with that if we think screening can be effective.  I'm not sure how else people are changing their lives, but that's not to say you're wrong.  What else is happening that you think is unnecessary?

[CarlSpackler]

[MS256]

Hahahaha! ROFLOL!

[phan52]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Duncan contracted Ebola in Liberia. He clearly got shoddy treatment from the start and it was pretty late when he was finally isolated. It didn't help that he was a non-resident in Texas without healthcare, but that is a whole other debate and what happened to him is not indicative of how Ebola will be treated in this country. Also, the fatality rate in this country does not include the person in Spain. As far as I can see, two American healthcare workers were brought here from Liberia and they both have recovered. A third American who contracted it in Liberia, an NBC cameraman, is apparently recovering in Nebraska. I will be surprised if either of the two nurses die considering when their symptoms were caught and, as of now, the fatality rate is pretty much zero in America until further notice.

Originally Posted by dsc123

You can't exclude Duncan because he contracted it in Liberia even though he was treated in the US, but then include the Americans who contracted it in Liberia and then came here and recovered.  I would think that anyone who was treated here should count, but if you disagree, then nobody should count except for the two nurses--an unknown.  So I guess we'll see.  I certainly hope you're right.

As I said, I don't think what happened to Duncan is in any way indicative of how we will treat Ebola in this country. JMO.

Quote:

What is the life altering stuff you're against?  The travel restrictions?  I'd agree with that if we think screening can be effective.  I'm not sure how else people are changing their lives, but that's not to say you're wrong.  What else is happening that you think is unnecessary?

Primarily the travel restrictions. I know that if a friend or family member happened to be in Liberia for whatever reason and they restricted them from travelling back to the US, I would be very concerned. I trust the experts that the screening can be effective. Perfect? probably not but, on those flights, anybody who is symptomatic will not be allowed on the planes. And BTW, there have been no flights directly from West Africa to the US for some time. We would have to restrict flights from all over Europe to cover all the people who are coming here from West Africa. My brother is in France right now and I am sure that there are still flights from West Africa to Paris. Should he not be allowed to come home this week?

That nurse who flew to Cleveland was stupid to get on a plane so soon after treating Duncan, as obviously there was no screening for that flight. But I will be shocked if anybody on either plane to or from contracts Ebola. It is not an airborne virus and it would have been very difficult for her to pass it on, especially at the stage she was. But she still should have known better. She was in a self monitoring stage.

[dsc123]

Well here's an example of PANIC for you:

Quote:

Still, many are now concerned about exposure . A flight crew is on paid leave . Schools in Ohio and Texas have shut down. Students who were on the flight have been asked to stay home . At least one person has put himself in isolation.

The flight crew makes sense.  I also think it makes sense for anyone who was in contact with the nurse to stay at home for a couple weeks.  But closing schools?