JurgenV wrote: yellowdingo wrote: LazarX wrote: If Nigeria, of all places, can contain this, we should manage. Nigeria is a commonwealth nation with socialized medicine. The usa is still struggling with equality of healthcare. It is much smaller and easier to manage. Socialism is not the answer every time I'm not sure an actual socialist health care system is required to deal with Ebola, but some organized government level of intervention is. Especially for those of you calling for quarantines and travel bans.
More generally, a purely free market health care system can't deal with epidemics. Infected people need to be treated and isolated, generally at significant expense, even if they can't pay, in order to keep them from passing the disease on to others.
Orfamay Quest wrote: yellowdingo wrote: nurse returning from working with ebola in sierra leone inconvenienced by compulsory quarantine once back in usa
If you think being imprisoned for three weeks for a disease you provably don't have is an "inconvenience,".... 'probably dont have' has a seventy five percent kill rate.
yellowdingo wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: yellowdingo wrote: nurse returning from working with ebola in sierra leone inconvenienced by compulsory quarantine once back in usa
If you think being imprisoned for three weeks for a disease you provably don't have is an "inconvenience,".... 'probably dont have' has a seventy five percent kill rate. So far the survival rate for those infected with Ebola in the US is 100%. So far the survival rate for those diagnosed in the US is 66.66%, with one case still in treatment and not counted. The survival rate for all cases treated in the US is 87.5%, again with the same single case still in treatment.
Regardless of the survival rate, the number infected by people who would have been quarantined under any reasonable plan is still 0. We're past the window for anyone to show symptoms from contact with Duncan, who was far sicker when admitted than any of the others, who were self-monitoring and went into isolation on schedule. If Duncan infected no one, the odds of the others doing so are minimal. Which is what the medical science predicted and what the protocols were written for.
So it's really "probably don't have" and with as much certainty as medical science can expect, "can't transmit".
thejeff wrote: JurgenV wrote: yellowdingo wrote: LazarX wrote: If Nigeria, of all places, can contain this, we should manage. Nigeria is a commonwealth nation with socialized medicine. The usa is still struggling with equality of healthcare. It is much smaller and easier to manage. Socialism is not the answer every time I'm not sure an actual socialist health care system is required to deal with Ebola, but some organized government level of intervention is. Especially for those of you calling for quarantines and travel bans.
More generally, a purely free market health care system can't deal with epidemics. Infected people need to be treated and isolated, generally at significant expense, even if they can't pay, in order to keep them from passing the disease on to others. I think that isolation is the biggest part. It needs to run it's course without another infection and then it is over
JurgenV wrote: thejeff wrote: JurgenV wrote: yellowdingo wrote: LazarX wrote: If Nigeria, of all places, can contain this, we should manage. Nigeria is a commonwealth nation with socialized medicine. The usa is still struggling with equality of healthcare. It is much smaller and easier to manage. Socialism is not the answer every time I'm not sure an actual socialist health care system is required to deal with Ebola, but some organized government level of intervention is. Especially for those of you calling for quarantines and travel bans.
More generally, a purely free market health care system can't deal with epidemics. Infected people need to be treated and isolated, generally at significant expense, even if they can't pay, in order to keep them from passing the disease on to others. I think that isolation is the biggest part. It needs to run it's course without another infection and then it is over And how do you do that without government force or government funded health care? What happens to the people who can't pay?
yellowdingo wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: yellowdingo wrote: nurse returning from working with ebola in sierra leone inconvenienced by compulsory quarantine once back in usa
If you think being imprisoned for three weeks for a disease you provably don't have is an "inconvenience,".... 'probably dont have' has a seventy five percent kill rate. Probably and provably are different words. They tested, and she is virus-free.
Orfamay Quest wrote: yellowdingo wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: yellowdingo wrote: nurse returning from working with ebola in sierra leone inconvenienced by compulsory quarantine once back in usa
If you think being imprisoned for three weeks for a disease you provably don't have is an "inconvenience,".... 'probably dont have' has a seventy five percent kill rate. Probably and provably are different words. They tested, and she is virus-free.
That's not exactly true. Unless they've developed something better, the test doesn't go that far. The standard one detects either anitbodies or virus in the blood, I can't remember which, but either way it requires a certain level to detect. You can be infected with the virus still multiplying, but still test negative. Once you're show up with a fever or other symptoms, they do the test to see if it's Ebola causing them, since it'll be detectable at that point.
Which is why they do the whole monitoring thing. If they had a test that worked early, they'd just use that rather than worrying about quarantining and self-monitoring and everything.
She's certainly not contagious now. That's one thing the test does tell us. Funny thing is, she didn't even have a fever. The readings they got were just from her being flushed and angry from locked in a room in the airport for hours with everyone too scared to talk to her. She got to the hospital and the doctors were like "You don't have a fever, why are you here?"
Orfamay Quest wrote: yellowdingo wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: yellowdingo wrote: nurse returning from working with ebola in sierra leone inconvenienced by compulsory quarantine once back in usa
If you think being imprisoned for three weeks for a disease you provably don't have is an "inconvenience,".... 'probably dont have' has a seventy five percent kill rate. Probably and provably are different words. They tested, and she is virus-free.
And they had to test...because testing didnt happen in africa. Nor did any kind of quarantine exit.
yellowdingo wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: yellowdingo wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: yellowdingo wrote: nurse returning from working with ebola in sierra leone inconvenienced by compulsory quarantine once back in usa
If you think being imprisoned for three weeks for a disease you provably don't have is an "inconvenience,".... 'probably dont have' has a seventy five percent kill rate. Probably and provably are different words. They tested, and she is virus-free.
And they had to test...because testing didnt happen in africa. Nor did any kind of quarantine exit. No. There was no quarantine on exit. Which is good.
There was no test in Africa, because there is no test that proves you're not infected.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote: JurgenV wrote: thejeff wrote: JurgenV wrote: yellowdingo wrote: LazarX wrote: If Nigeria, of all places, can contain this, we should manage. Nigeria is a commonwealth nation with socialized medicine. The usa is still struggling with equality of healthcare. It is much smaller and easier to manage. Socialism is not the answer every time I'm not sure an actual socialist health care system is required to deal with Ebola, but some organized government level of intervention is. Especially for those of you calling for quarantines and travel bans.
More generally, a purely free market health care system can't deal with epidemics. Infected people need to be treated and isolated, generally at significant expense, even if they can't pay, in order to keep them from passing the disease on to others. I think that isolation is the biggest part. It needs to run it's course without another infection and then it is over And how do you do that without government force or government funded health care? What happens to the people who can't pay? the government pays for them anyway.
Yakman wrote: thejeff wrote: JurgenV wrote: thejeff wrote: JurgenV wrote: yellowdingo wrote: LazarX wrote: If Nigeria, of all places, can contain this, we should manage. Nigeria is a commonwealth nation with socialized medicine. The usa is still struggling with equality of healthcare. It is much smaller and easier to manage. Socialism is not the answer every time I'm not sure an actual socialist health care system is required to deal with Ebola, but some organized government level of intervention is. Especially for those of you calling for quarantines and travel bans.
More generally, a purely free market health care system can't deal with epidemics. Infected people need to be treated and isolated, generally at significant expense, even if they can't pay, in order to keep them from passing the disease on to others. I think that isolation is the biggest part. It needs to run it's course without another infection and then it is over And how do you do that without government force or government funded health care? What happens to the people who can't pay? the government pays for them anyway. Socialist!
That's the point. A purely free market health care system can't handle epidemics. It needs government intervention.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote: Scythia wrote: KestrelZ wrote: According to the CDC, 108 pediatric deaths occurred in the USA from 2013-2014 from influenza. This does not count adults that died from it.
I'm not trying to scar people, just trying to shed perspective on matters.
Ebola is a very painful and frightening virus, yet people should not panic and head for the doomsday shelters yet.
We DO need to strengthen efforts to assist Africa in their crisis. We also have to keep perspective in order to live a balanced life rather than survive by huddling in a bomb shelter.
Influenza figures are hard to get, but on average influenza kills around 20k people in the U.S. annually. The highest recorded year was 49k, the lowest around 2600.
As far as Africa, in 2012 malaria killed 500k. Or, looking at worldwide issues, also in 2012 1.6 million people worldwide died of aids/hiv related illness.
So yes, the ebola panic is due more to it being a scary foreign illness that the 24 hour news cycle can hype. If we can get functional medical infrastructure in place in the affected countries, we can stop the spread. Nigeria did it. Though frankly, Ebola is scary. Those others kill a lot more people right now, but they've been doing that for a long time and they're not going to spike.
Ebola's numbers are low, but it's potentially a fast moving disease with a very short doubling time (on the order of weeks at the moment). Unlike those others, it's still very localized and contained, which is why it's numbers are so low. If that changes and it absolutely will if we don't get on the ball in West Africa, it could easily be a top contender next year. The potential for those numbers to go up is huge.
And the more it spreads within Africa, the harder it will be to contain there. The US and other better off nations will probably do well, but it could easily become established in other poor parts of the world and at that stage it will be very hard to maintain any kind of quarantine.
In other words, stopping... Ebola is a serious disease, but it's not one to go Zombie-level panic over. While the disease can be infectious, you really do have to be in an extreme circumstance to actually catch it. Ebola has been killing people in Africa for decades, and for along time we couldn't have cared less because it was ONLY killing"brown people" in tribal areas. It's taken this long for it to have reached the stage where folks are now getting worried behind their white picket fences, and of course it means everyone panics now that they find that skin color and distance isn't the absolute preventative that they thought it was. It doesn't mean however that it's time for hysterics. You are far more likely to catch AIDS than ebola.
LazarX wrote: thejeff wrote: Though frankly, Ebola is scary. Those others kill a lot more people right now, but they've been doing that for a long time and they're not going to spike.
Ebola's numbers are low, but it's potentially a fast moving disease with a very short doubling time (on the order of weeks at the moment). Unlike those others, it's still very localized and contained, which is why it's numbers are so low. If that changes and it absolutely will if we don't get on the ball in West Africa, it could easily be a top contender next year. The potential for those numbers to go up is huge.
And the more it spreads within Africa, the harder it will be to contain there. The US and other better off nations will probably do well, but it could easily become established in other poor parts of the world and at that stage it will be very hard to maintain any kind of quarantine.
Ebola is a serious disease, but it's not one to go Zombie-level panic over. While the disease can be infectious, you really do have to be in an extreme circumstance to actually catch it. Ebola has been killing people in Africa for decades, and for along time we couldn't have cared less because it was ONLY killing"brown people" in tribal areas. It's taken this long for it to have reached the stage where folks are now getting worried behind their white picket fences, and of course it means everyone panics now that they find that skin color and distance isn't the absolute preventative that they thought it was. It doesn't mean however that it's time for hysterics. You are far more likely to catch AIDS than ebola. It's been killing people in Africa for decades, but in small isolated incidents. This outbreak is unprecedented. The infrastructure in the affected nations is overwhelmed. The international aid has been insufficient. Getting on top of this in West Africa quickly is hugely important.
I certainly agree that in Europe and the US, the threat is minimal. Attention and resources should be focused on dealing with the outbreak in West Africa.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote: It's been killing people in Africa for decades, but in small isolated incidents. This outbreak is unprecedented. The infrastructure in the affected nations is overwhelmed. The international aid has been insufficient. Getting on top of this in West Africa quickly is hugely important.
I certainly agree that in Europe and the US, the threat is minimal. Attention and resources should be focused on dealing with the outbreak in West Africa...
And stuffing a sock in Donald Trump's mouth, who apparently has found something other than the birther issue to raise an impeachment drive over.
yellowdingo wrote:
I think we need a volunteer to infect so we can test their poop for ebola in the non symptom period.
Considering that a component of feces is dead blood cells, it wouldn't be likely to tell you anything that a blood test wouldn't already reveal.
yellowdingo wrote:
I think we need a volunteer to infect so we can test their poop for ebola in the non symptom period.
Well, if you're trying to tell if the feces are a dangerous transmission route in the pre-symptomatic period, the first step would be seeing if they are when the patient first shows signs. Test a sample from new patients. If the feces don't show the virus at that point, there's no need to look earlier.
Two volunteers. Eckselent.
yellowdingo wrote: Two volunteers. Eckselent. Funny story, a few years ago I read about medical trials of a vaccine they were trying to develop for Ebola. They were having very little luck getting volunteers. I called the next day to volunteer, but the trial was being conducted in Maryland, which I couldn't get to with any regularity, and they were unable/unwilling to come here or coordinate with a local doctor or facility.
So I already tried to volunteer for Ebola research once before.
Well, one thing that they did in Nigeria that they didn't in Liberia (or couldn't enforce in Liberia) was a quarantine when they got a handle on it from what I understand.
Marvelous what a simple quarantine before it gets out of hand does...20 vs. tens of thousands...perhaps millions.
And let's see, US which should have a harder time getting ANY cases then closer nations who have quarantines up...got a case in there which actually infected others BEFORE more vulnerable nations, even African nations almost next door to the epidemic.
AMAZING what a quarantine does and stopping those from the infected from coming over does.
We actually don't know a LOT about this strain of Ebola to tell the truth. It seems to be LESS fatal than other strains previously (but still remarkably high). We have guesses on how long the incubation is based on other strains, but that is only an average, not a definite.
It could be a shorter time frame (from the cases we've seen in Western nations) than others observed previously, but truthfully, we don't know for certain.
In fact, the only thing we know is to treat it is to try to get a balance between liquids in giving them enough so that they stay hydrated, but not too much to give the disease an opening.
In fact, there are ONLY guesses on how it is transmitted at this point, believing it to be transmitted the same way that previous strains were transmitted. It makes sense, but it could be more infectious (or my guess from how many have actually gotten it in the US, previous strains would have gotten more sick from the exposure of certain individuals already) less infectious than previous strains.
GreyWolfLord wrote: Well, one thing that they did in Nigeria that they didn't in Liberia (or couldn't enforce in Liberia) was a quarantine when they got a handle on it from what I understand.
Marvelous what a simple quarantine before it gets out of hand does...20 vs. tens of thousands...perhaps millions.
And let's see, US which should have a harder time getting ANY cases then closer nations who have quarantines up...got a case in there which actually infected others BEFORE more vulnerable nations, even African nations almost next door to the epidemic.
AMAZING what a quarantine does and stopping those from the infected from coming over does.
We actually don't know a LOT about this strain of Ebola to tell the truth. It seems to be LESS fatal than other strains previously (but still remarkably high). We have guesses on how long the incubation is based on other strains, but that is only an average, not a definite.
It could be a shorter time frame (from the cases we've seen in Western nations) than others observed previously, but truthfully, we don't know for certain.
In fact, the only thing we know is to treat it is to try to get a balance between liquids in giving them enough so that they stay hydrated, but not too much to give the disease an opening.
In fact, there are ONLY guesses on how it is transmitted at this point, believing it to be transmitted the same way that previous strains were transmitted. It makes sense, but it could be more infectious (or my guess from how many have actually gotten it in the US, previous strains would have gotten more sick from the exposure of certain individuals already) less infectious than previous strains.
Admittedly it's a different strain, so you could throw away everything we know about Ebola and start over. OTOH, there's nothing in the experience here in the US or in Nigeria or, although it's harder to track, in Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea that shows major changes in transmission or anything else than previous outbreaks.
Everyone agrees that quarantining anyone who comes down with Ebola is key to stopping an outbreak. The current debate is over quarantining, rather than simply monitoring, people who might have been exposed but are not symptomatic. Along with idea that we need to be monitoring not only those exposed to sick Ebola patients, but those who've had extremely casual contact with people who later developed Ebola.
Monitor the returning volunteers and everyone else coming in from areas where Ebola is not under control.
Monitor those who have treated Ebola patients here in the US (or elsewhere).
Monitor those who have contact with a sick Ebola patient, like Duncan or anyone else who might come down with it and not be brought into isolation. Hopefully there will be no more such cases.
Monitor those who've had very close contact with in the day or so before they showed symptoms - family and the like.
Don't monitor everyone who passed someone on the street who later came down with Ebola or who shopped in the same store or some of the other panic inducing nonsense we've seen.
thejeff wrote: Don't monitor everyone who passed someone on the street who later came down with Ebola or who shopped in the same store or some of the other panic inducing nonsense we've seen. Such as the school in Ohio where classes were cancelled and 600 students sent home because one teacher had flown in the same plane as one of the Dallas nurses that later developed symptoms. Not the same flight, just the same plane on a later flight.
Link to story
Meh. Free day off from school. No biggie.
More people have been married to Kim Kardashian than have contracted ebola in the U.S. Yet we have idiots acting like this is the bubonic plague, only more contagious and more lethal.
Grey Lensman wrote: More people have been married to Kim Kardashian than have contracted ebola in the U.S. Yet we have idiots acting like this is the bubonic plague, only more contagious and more lethal. We should quarantine anyone who has come into contact with Kim Kardashian.
You don't know what immigration visas are, do you, YD?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Its dingo. Things mean what he wants them to.
Or whatever the King of the Mangos tells him they mean.
Whichever.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
We actually don't know a LOT about this strain of Ebola to tell the truth. It seems to be LESS fatal than other strains previously (but still remarkably high).
Ebola lethality in past outbreaks has likely been far higher than is optimal from the disease's standpoint - a virus that is both fairly difficult to transmit and quickly lethal to its hosts causes survival problems for itself. It's not entirely surprising that a more successful outbreak has involved somewhat lower lethality.
Coriat wrote: GreyWolfLord wrote:
We actually don't know a LOT about this strain of Ebola to tell the truth. It seems to be LESS fatal than other strains previously (but still remarkably high).
Ebola lethality in past outbreaks has likely been far higher than is optimal from the disease's standpoint - a virus that is both fairly difficult to transmit and quickly lethal to its hosts causes survival problems for itself. It's not entirely surprising that a more successful outbreak has involved somewhat lower lethality. Lethality also depends heavily on treatment. The fatality rate for cases treated in the US is 1 in 9 at the moment.
Also remember that the fatality rate for an ongoing epidemic will skew low, since they're reported as deaths/cases, but some currently infected will likely die. Given that the rate of infection is still increasing, a fairly high percentage of the infected cases are still sick.
Orfamay Quest wrote: You don't know what immigration visas are, do you, YD? I know they are for people moving to alanddownunda. Visas are also for tourists. Not necessarily just folks changing citizenship because their own ship is a plague ship.
So when is the theory going to be launched that it's a US government weapons project with a testing ground in Africa? Ages ago, right?
Sissyl wrote: So when is the theory going to be launched that it's a US government weapons project with a testing ground in Africa? Ages ago, right? Given the victims of this told the usa to get stuffed and sold their minerals to china just prior to outbreak, inevitably so. And I quote the presidential war manual: there is no such thing as a coincidence.
Sissyl wrote: So when is the theory going to be launched that it's a US government weapons project with a testing ground in Africa? Ages ago, right? Yes. And such theories have been hampering efforts on the ground in West Africa. Keeping people from trusting MSF and the other groups.
As a weapon Ebola fails. It isn't contagious until symptoms show up, and it isn't airborne. The only thing it causes in a country with a decent medical system is fear.
MSF is pretty much there to manage the orderly mass extinction of the African people unless far greater resources and personnel are focussed on ending this crisis. That wil cost around a thousand dollars per victim. Or: a billion dollars by mid January.
Ebola fails in an INDUSTRIALIZED country as a weapon. See? And you know, fear is ALWAYS useful to get the sheeple to give the government more power.
It's not surprising that the US has this reputation, after all it has done to deserve it, wouldn't you say? I suppose it's a cost factored into government decisions by now... but trust is a rare commodity in politics. As someone says: Once they stop trusting you, it doesn't matter what you do. And yet we get moronic policies that compound the problem all the time. Wasn't it pretty recently that the vaccination groups cried foul about government intrusion ruining their credibility?
Local city council has stockpiled fourty million dollars in rates. I've suggested the state government take it off them and spend it on a six megawatt wind turbine and an ebola laboratory to be deployed by Christmas. I figure they need a facility where they can harvest antibodies from survivors: a 'pharm' if you will. :)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
yellowdingo wrote: nurse goes cycling...demands lift of quarantine
Actually the judge has lifted the quarantine. She must comply with monitoring, but does not need to avoid the public or maintain a 3' distance from others. Nor of course remain in her home.
Medical science prevails over political fear.
yellowdingo wrote: china sends elite military to africa
Makes everyone else look bad.
I wouldn't say that, but it's good they're doing it. Help is needed.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
IF America had a secret plan to use disease to wipe out Africa all it would need to do is stop funding malaria treatment research, it's a far more effective killer.
scientists admit the dont know anything about ebola
ebola protocols used in africa might be bad science and ebola carriers might be spreading it before immume system crashes but no need to quarantine health workers...
yellowdingo wrote: scientists admit the dont know anything about ebola
ebola protocols used in africa might be bad science and ebola carriers might be spreading it before immume system crashes but no need to quarantine health workers...
Yellowdingo admits he doesn't know anything about science.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Orfamay Quest wrote: yellowdingo wrote: scientists admit the dont know anything about ebola
ebola protocols used in africa might be bad science and ebola carriers might be spreading it before immume system crashes but no need to quarantine health workers...
Yellowdingo admits he doesn't know anything about science. I could tell you ebola is a string entanglement preventing us from following a particular path through space time but it sounds better if the witchdoctor says its the evil eye from the neighbour. Lets put it to a vote: evil eye or string theory?
Orfamay Quest wrote: yellowdingo wrote: scientists admit the dont know anything about ebola
ebola protocols used in africa might be bad science and ebola carriers might be spreading it before immume system crashes but no need to quarantine health workers...
Yellowdingo admits he doesn't know anything about science. All the things brought up in that article are what many of my friends in medical research have been saying for months.
A buddy of mine is a cellular immunologist and literally laughs out loud whenever she hears someone say "it can only be transmitted by patients who are displaying symptoms," and holds a great deal of contempt for the idea that fluid/fluid transfer is the only possible transmission vector.
The idea that bleach or hand sanitizer actually makes things worse? I don't know about that. But I could see it from a psychological point of view. Where people assume their hands are clean because they used bleach, and then go and eat a sandwich or pick their nose; when they should have been wearing gloves.
You know, I have ebola cereal for breakfast almost every morning and I feel fine. I must be immune. Hooray!
|
