Slashdot Mirror

I am a physician who also performs clinical research. You have a naive faith in the ability of the United States health care system to collected aggregated data like this. There are a few diseases and complications which are reportable to public heath services (these are state-level government agencies) and also some mandatory reporting that occurs to Federal agencies, but it is very limited. There are some voluntary reporting programs, for example the FDA Medwatch site allows reporting of drug complications, but only a tiny fraction of them get reported.

I don't know off the top of my head, but I suspect a few of the vaccine-preventable diseases are rare enough that they are reportable. Most of the other data (specifically any data on complications) is not something that anyone aggregates. See Estimating Seasonal Influenza-Associated Deaths in the United States: CDC Study Confirms Variability of Flu to see the trouble the CDC has getting something as simple as the number of people in the US who die from influenza.

You say, "government won't take responsibility for the (admittedly unlikely) consequences of a bad result." Please read up on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, through which the United States Federal Government provides no-fault compensation to people injured by vaccines. The program is funded by a tax on vaccines.

Also, we are not talking about "making sure a few children don't get sick". Without vaccines, annual United States deaths from vaccine-preventable illnesses would likely range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands (higher in epidemic years). See What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations? on the CDC web site for some data on historical death rates. The cost of treating people who came down with these infections would also lead to a massive spike in the cost of health care, which everyone would wind up paying for in the form of higher premiums, lower salaries (since employers would have to pay higher premiums), and higher taxes.

How about a contract that says the administrator of the vaccine is personally liable for any and all adverse reactions for the lifetime of the patient? I bet the medical community would stop pushing them so hard then.

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) The VICP is a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims. It was established as part of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, after a rash of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce vaccination rates.

Hmm, why would there be a rash of lawsuits?

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hc...

Severe problems (very rare) --but they still happen

Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses) Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including: Deafness Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness Permanent brain damage

These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine. --They say this because the symptoms are not instant. You would hope the reaction happens in the doctor's office. That way you can atleast get compensated for having to take care of a brain damaged child.

Yeah, so my healthy child gets severe brain damage after being vaccinated and it is not clear if the autoimmune response is due to jacking with an infant's non fully developed immune system.

Dr. Blaylock has some videos that may help explain. http://vaccine-injury.info/rus...

If you don't get the booster, you run the risk of getting the disease and dying.

Nice way to fall for the lies. Everything is just soo dangerous and trying to kill you. The terrorists are full of these diseases and we must let the TSA inject shit into everybody who walks down the sidewalk.

So you are saying, what, because some vaccines Are not permanent, why bother getting it?

According to the CDC's site: Even though children who haven't received DTaP vaccines are at least 8 times more likely to get pertussis than children who received all 5 recommended doses of DTaP, they are not the driving force behind the large scale outbreaks or epidemics. However, their parents are putting them at greater risk of getting a serious pertussis infection and then possibly spreading it to other family or community members. So it isn't the unvaccinated that are the problem.

In a study done by Oxford University for all pertussis outbreaks in San Rafael California between March and October 2010, 81% were completely up to date on their vaccinations, 8% were unvaccinated, and 11% were partially vaccinated. So people are hyping up the fear for something that isn't even the problem. If you want a prevention, then you need to focus on making a better vaccine, not forcing more people to take risks for something that is ineffective.

That is not how viruses work. If you are immunized the virus gets killed by your immune system and you do not become a "carrier".

And here we have a completely ignorant statement from someone who wants to tell me what to put into my body. Here are some links to the evidence that you do become an unknown carrier after getting the pertussis vaccine. Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model and Whooping Cough Study May Offer Clue on Surge

It is very difficult to find this information. However, it is (sort of) available... i don't know of an actual death rate from vaccines exactly. Even this is hard to find, but there is a federal program (the 'Vaccine Injury Compensation Program') which compensates victims who have been harmed by compulsory vaccinations, and a summary chart of claims, accepted claims, and payouts is here:

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecom...

I had found a different, more accessible document before, but can't really find it now. Similar information though. On the other hand, the statistics for the prevalence of diseases that have vaccines for them is much more available, at CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pu...

Influenza has the highest compensated total (932 in 8 years). Looking at DTaP might be a better comparison... ~75 million doses in 8 years with 105 compensated cases (including death, but other things too). Combined Diptheria/Tetanus/Pertussis together, the CDC chart only goes to 2011 (so missing a couple years) but it shows no D cases, ~150 or so T cases, and nearly 100,000 P cases over the 7 years in question, with total deaths in that time period: 0 for D, 9 for T, ~18 for P (and none in the last 4 years on the chart, so trend was definitely down).

Would help to have a trend line for the compensated cases too. In any case, the statistics show that as of ~2011, you had a better chance of not dying by not getting the vaccine, but the chance in either case was vanishingly small.

Of course, the issue here is a free rider syndrome - if everyone else gets the vaccine, I can get the benefits (reduced chance of catching a bad disease) while everyone else bears the risks (possible chance of side effects from the vaccine). But if enough people don't get the vaccine, then the numbers change quickly as more people catch the disease.

We vaccinated, but we waited until after age 2 to give their immune system time to build up. Seemed like the best balance.

I recognize that vaccinations save tens of thousands of lives every year: 100 deaths prevented from chicken pox; 400-500 deaths from measles; 1,000 from polio; over 15,000 from diphtheria. And let's not forget the millions of others who suffered from these diseases without dying. Without a doubt, vaccines have been one of the most brilliant inventions that have made an incredible positive improvement to the quality of life in our society.

But our body is our own. Period. We cannot cross this line. If someone conscientiously objects to a treatment, it is their natural right to decline it.

And if we violate this tenant even in the name of vaccinations, it can be violated any other way "for the greater good." And that's a very, very dangerous precedent to make.

I recognize that vaccinations save tens of thousands of lives every year: 100 deaths prevented from chicken pox; 400-500 deaths from measles; 1,000 from polio; over 15,000 from diphtheria. And let's not forget the millions of others who suffered from these diseases without dying. Without a doubt, vaccines have been one of the most brilliant inventions that have made an incredible positive improvement to the quality of life in our society.

But our body is our own. Period. We cannot cross this line. If someone conscientiously objects to a treatment, it is their natural right to decline it.

And if we violate this tenant even in the name of vaccinations, it can be violated any other way "for the greater good." And that's a very, very dangerous precedent to make.

I recognize that vaccinations save tens of thousands of lives every year: 100 deaths prevented from chicken pox; 400-500 deaths from measles; 1,000 from polio; over 15,000 from diphtheria. And let's not forget the millions of others who suffered from these diseases without dying. Without a doubt, vaccines have been one of the most brilliant inventions that have made an incredible positive improvement to the quality of life in our society.

But our body is our own. Period. We cannot cross this line. If someone conscientiously objects to a treatment, it is their natural right to decline it.

And if we violate this tenant even in the name of vaccinations, it can be violated any other way "for the greater good." And that's a very, very dangerous precedent to make.

Pubmed probably. However, the CDC has a handy list of side effects: Mild problems following inactivated flu vaccine:

• soreness, redness, or swelling where the shot was given
• hoarseness
• sore, red or itchy eyes
• cough
• fever
• aches
• headache
• itching
• fatigue

If these problems occur, they usually begin soon after the shot and last 1 or 2 days.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#flu

To some degree, I have all of those all the time, except for the "where the shot was given" part.

• soreness, redness, or swelling where the shot was given
• hoarseness
• sore, red or itchy eyes
• cough
• fever
• aches
• headache
• itching
• fatigue

If these problems occur, they usually begin soon after the shot and last 1 or 2 days.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#flu

the flu ranges between 3k and 49k every year, averaging >20k.

Because I have never personally known anyone to have died from the flu, I assumed it was one of those afflictions where mortality was in the hundreds and restricted to immuno-compromised or palliative individuals i.e. they were going to die of something anyway.

Your numbers surpised me so I looked it up. Looks like you weren't exaggerating.

The Flu vaccine is no more effective than random chance, but it's a huge money maker for the pharmaceutical industry.

Got any actual evidence for this claim? I see your unsupported assertion, and raise you a page of peer-reviewed studies.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/q...

How do totally made up numbers get modded +5 here?

Really, "There are estimates". There are actually studies. Check out the one that all the "battered men" sites quote: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf if you want the REAL numbers for violence against partners which are not close 50/50.

The article says 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men. And that is the number that have ever experienced physical violence by an intimate partner ever, even once, in their lifetimes, even if you immediately left the partner or hit back. (E.g. you qualify if your girl hit you with her fist and you then bashed her face in... or even if she hit you with the stick while you were bashing her face in.)

What is amazing is that the numbers are NOT 50/50.

Please link to the actual study. Your link is to a blog, which links to an opinion site dedicated to battered men which cites the original study.

Here is the original study for anyone interested in the method and actual conclusions: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

Here is the actual statistic from the article summary, which has a lot of other statistics.

About 1 in 4 women (24.3%) and 1 in 7 men (13.8%) have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner (e.g., hit with a fist or something hard, beaten, slammed against something) at some point in their lifetime

Age 55. I have never consumed alcohol. Never been at fault in an accident. I could not pass the standard field sobriety test ever -- I have a bad left leg that simply prevents it -- do not have much strength in that leg.

My inability to balance on one leg has nothing to do with my ability to drive.

Thanks, I'll gladly recite the alphabet forwards or backwards, let the cop shine a light in my eye, take a blood test, etc. walking the line heel to toe will always be a fail for me though I am perfectly fine as a driver.

If someone has a BAC of .2 but can still walk a line, he has no business on the road. Reactions and more importantly judgment is impaired, without any question -- at least according to the CDC.

"State House frustrating efforts of the Mayor of Freetown to curb Ebola"

"Exploring Safe and Dignified Burial Public Response"

"How Muslims Wash, Bury Their Dead"

"Taking Care of Someone with Suspected Ebola"

Did you actually do any research?

On the other hand, younger people are more likely to ... develop a debilitating mental illness ...

The likelihood of developing a mental illness increases with age

"According to a rigorous health survey conducted by the CDC in 2004, an estimated 25 percent of adults in the U.S. reported having a mental illness in the previous year. Lifetime prevalence rates of mental illness in the U.S. were around 50 percent when measured back in 2004. That means in a family of four, one of you likely has a mental illness.

However, mental illness is greatly weighted toward our senior years, when things start looking pretty bleak.

On the other hand, younger people are more likely to ... develop a debilitating substance addiction ...

use of illegal drugs is increasing in the 50+ group. In other words, the older you are, the higher the risk.

On the other hand, younger people are more likely to ... commit suicide ...

The first peak in suicide rates is 15-24 years old. Given that you're not hiring high school or junior college students, we can ignore this group. Suicide rates drop for the next age cohort, and then increase with age. Specifically, suicide rates are highest for women aged 45-54, and for men aged 75 and older.

Also, men are 4x more likely to successfully commit suicide, so to continue your line of thought, maybe employers should only hire women :-)

That's because you can be unsafe and not crash. You are defining "unsafe" as someone who has crashed. Not as someone driving poorly and unsafely.

No, to me "unsafe" means elevated risk of harm from an activity beyond the expectations for that activity. So one important way to study what is unsafe is to look at what sort of groups or behaviors are involved in harmful consequences.

You have very high expectations for risk from automobile accidents, but why should the rest of us share your expectations?

I'll present a US-centric case and examine mortality rates (since those are well documented). If the only way we could die was by accidents or injuries (including suicides and homicides), then we would have an average life expectancy (once you get past the dangerous years of childhood) of almost 1700 years (due to a 60 deaths per 100,000 people in the US). That increases to roughly 2500 years, if we exclude intentional causes of death (40 deaths per 100,000 people). Of this, motor vehicle deaths make up 10.8 deaths per 100,000 people. So if we could eliminate that as a cause of death we'd increase human life expectancy by a considerable amount 300 years for the former case and 800 for the latter.

But we don't live in that sort of world where it makes sense to go hardcore on reducing highway deaths. Instead we live in a world where the US has a death rate of 800 per 100,000 people and even complete elimination of highway deaths won't have much effect on our lifespan since most deaths are due to illnesses that come upon us when we get older.

Second, there is this unwarranted assertion that we can make self-driving vehicles substantially safer than any human driver. You present no argument for this other than to assert that the best of human drivers are "unsafe". However, if that were true, then you would expect that the most unsafe drivers, the drunk drivers and those who who can't maintain a valid driver's license would have a far smaller share of the highway deaths than they actually do. Everyone should be contributing significantly, not just the very worst.

That's because you can be unsafe and not crash. You are defining "unsafe" as someone who has crashed. Not as someone driving poorly and unsafely.

No, to me "unsafe" means elevated risk of harm from an activity beyond the expectations for that activity. So one important way to study what is unsafe is to look at what sort of groups or behaviors are involved in harmful consequences.

You have very high expectations for risk from automobile accidents, but why should the rest of us share your expectations?

I'll present a US-centric case and examine mortality rates (since those are well documented). If the only way we could die was by accidents or injuries (including suicides and homicides), then we would have an average life expectancy (once you get past the dangerous years of childhood) of almost 1700 years (due to a 60 deaths per 100,000 people in the US). That increases to roughly 2500 years, if we exclude intentional causes of death (40 deaths per 100,000 people). Of this, motor vehicle deaths make up 10.8 deaths per 100,000 people. So if we could eliminate that as a cause of death we'd increase human life expectancy by a considerable amount 300 years for the former case and 800 for the latter.

But we don't live in that sort of world where it makes sense to go hardcore on reducing highway deaths. Instead we live in a world where the US has a death rate of 800 per 100,000 people and even complete elimination of highway deaths won't have much effect on our lifespan since most deaths are due to illnesses that come upon us when we get older.

Second, there is this unwarranted assertion that we can make self-driving vehicles substantially safer than any human driver. You present no argument for this other than to assert that the best of human drivers are "unsafe". However, if that were true, then you would expect that the most unsafe drivers, the drunk drivers and those who who can't maintain a valid driver's license would have a far smaller share of the highway deaths than they actually do. Everyone should be contributing significantly, not just the very worst.

You seem to live under the illusion that it's possible to live your life unaffected by the choices of others.

I don't know about the AC, but I'm under the illusion that people don't have the right to do something that will potentially cause harm to those around them. Since the 1964 Surgeon Generalâ(TM)s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke.

You are not forced to breathe anything. If a smoker is near you, you are free to move away.

Ah, so it's my responsibility to react to someone else's harmful action. If I start swinging my fists for personal enjoyment while standing next to you, you aren't forced to be punched. You are free to move away. Sucks for you if you lose your place in line, have mobility issues that make it difficult to move away, etc.

If you think something someone else is doing is harmful to you, and you have the ability, I think moving away is a valid choice. Your health is your responsibility. But at the same time, we are all interconnected. Our decisions and actions affect other people all the time; sometimes for good and sometimes for ill. If a chemical company is dumping in your back yard, you should get them to stop. But if someone is smoking next to you in line, it's really not hurting you.

You seem to live under the illusion that it's possible to live your life unaffected by the choices of others.

I don't know about the AC, but I'm under the illusion that people don't have the right to do something that will potentially cause harm to those around them.

Since the 1964 Surgeon Generalâ(TM)s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke.

You are not forced to breathe anything. If a smoker is near you, you are free to move away.

Ah, so it's my responsibility to react to someone else's harmful action. If I start swinging my fists for personal enjoyment while standing next to you, you aren't forced to be punched. You are free to move away. Sucks for you if you lose your place in line, have mobility issues that make it difficult to move away, etc.

Take another look at what you have quoted from the CDC and factor in what you should know about USDA meat inspection and common kitchen practices in the USA. While the rate of transmission of toxo through improperly prepared meats is undoubtedly very high in some parts of the world, the incidence of that happening in the USA is extremely low.

Again, you're engaging in wishful thinking and pulling stuff out of your ass:

Pathogen: Toxoplasma gondii

Proportion foodborne: 50% based on published studies

That's what the CDC says, not me. So the CDC claims it's 50% for food alone, whereas you previously claimed that household cats are 99% - since you claimed that the food and everything else is the remaining "one percent" - and now you're saying that everything except for cats is "extremely low". That's one serious discrepancy right there.

Using kitchen utensils on raw meat and then using the same unwashed utensils on cooked meat is considered gross and is only likely to be practiced by persons who ignore risks. Such as (anecdotally) some persons whose behavior has been altered by toxo parasites.

So you're saying that people who already got infected by toxoplasmosis...are at a greater risk of getting infected by toxoplasmosis? Brilliant logic! But not very useful.

If the household has that odor of stale cat piss, then that is pretty suggestive of a toxic toxo environment.

I don't know what is it with you and your fascination with stale cat piss, but cat odor is usually indicative of cats, just like cat odor is indicative of dogs.

As to the brochure that Cornell University has had published in its name: I see in the last paragraph that funding for the Cornell Feline Health Center is by donations from the American Association of Feline Practitioners and various unnamed cat fanciers.

And they apparently used the CDC numbers, just like everyone else...well, almost. ;-p

A Toxoplasma infection occurs by:

• - Eating undercooked, contaminated meat (especially pork, lamb, and venison).

  - Accidental ingestion of undercooked, contaminated meat after handling it and not washing hands thoroughly (Toxoplasma cannot be absorbed through intact skin).

  - Eating food that was contaminated by knives, utensils, cutting boards and other foods that have had contact with raw, contaminated meat.

  - Drinking water contaminated with Toxoplasma gondii.

  - Accidentally swallowing the parasite through contact with cat feces that contain Toxoplasma. This might happen by

  1) cleaning a cat's litter box when the cat has shed Toxoplasma in its feces

  2) touching or ingesting anything that has come into contact with cat feces that contain Toxoplasma

  3) accidentally ingesting contaminated soil (e.g., not washing hands after gardening or eating unwashed fruits or vegetables from a garden)

  - Mother-to-child (congenital) transmission.

  - Receiving an infected organ transplant or infected blood via transfusion, though this is rare.

Notice that not only is there just a single item that poses increased danger to cat owners, but unlike all the other items, it's explicitly time-constrained. Anything else in the list can happen at any time, to anyone.

Or, as Cornell people say:

In the United States, people are much more likely to become infected through eating raw meat and unwashed fruits and vegetables than from handling cat feces.

(Emphasis mine.)

Is there some hidden need that is driving your arguments?

That is incorrect. Get some actual information.
http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/t...

And cats might be the path way to a cure from AIDS(HIV)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

That doesn't explain the high prevalence of toxo antibodies in some human populations. CDC estimates about 20% of the USA population has been affected by toxo at some time in their life. Toxo is a very prevalent parasite, suggesting that its modes of transmission are a lot more effective than parent post implies.

There is anecdotal evidence that women who choose to live with multiple cats are often polyamorous or blatantly promiscuous, take risks with social norms that lead to frequent loss of jobs, and are exceptionally tolerant of the stench of cat piss. Rats that have been infected with toxo have been shown to become more daring than the average rat, and to be attracted to the odor of cat piss.

That's not what the parent said, and that's not what the link says. The parent says:

the odds of dying just from riding a motorcycle are roughly 1 in 800

It doesn't say anything about "riding a motorcycle for a year," it just says "riding a motorcycle." I was just pointing out the absurdity of that statement, in case anybody thought that it was correct.

Furthermore, if you look at the underlying link, it says the odds of dying from heart disease are 1 in 6, and from cancer are 1 in 7. If those are annual mortality rates, just those 2 alone would imply that 30% of the US population dies each year (about 90 million deaths). In fact, there are less than 3 million deaths in the US each year. So clearly the 1 in 800 odds of dying in a motorcycle accident *does not* refer to the odds of a motorcycle rider dying in one year.

I'm not arguing that riding motorcycles is safe; I'm arguing that medhelp.org does a poor job presenting and explaining its statistics.

The other problem I have with the AC's post is that he describes a bad cold, not a case of the flue, which lasts at least 72 hours...

Per the CDC you're infectious a day before the symptoms hit, and remain infectious for 5-7 days after that.

So if you really have the flue, you should stay home a couple days longer even if you're feeling better after 3...

The quarantine is not onerous and Ebola is extremely dangerous.

You keep claiming that such a quarantine is against the US Constitution even though both state and federal governments have the necessary authority. It's worth noting that quarantine actually is defined as isolation of people who are exposed to disease but aren't yet sick:

Quarantine separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick.

while

Isolation separates sick people with a contagious disease from people who are not sick.

And at the federal level authority for this is derived from the Commerce Clause which actually is a valid use of the Commerce Clause. States have even broader legal justification for use of quarantines. Note that at the above link, "viral hemorrhagic fevers" such as Ebola are explicitly one of the diseases that has been authorized for quarantine.

Moving on, not only do we have a valid legal and medical basis for quarantining medical workers who return from treating Ebola patients, we have the US Government quarantining US soldiers even though they could have done the same thing that was alleged to have been done for the nurses (and may well have), namely, test for the presence of Ebola and note the absence of symptoms.

Wong: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/ge...

Average life expectancy has actually been going down recently, at least in the US.

Incorrect, it's at a record high.

Computer technology was a huge paradigm shift and saw massive growth during the 1970-2000 time period but has now stalled.

**All** tech experiences massive growth in its early years. Locomotives, airplanes, cars, electrical use etc. Then physics exerts controls. And computer tech has by no means stalled.

there are predictions now that human population will max out at 9 billion before starting to plateau or decrease

This is because when a society advances, there is no need or desire for eight or ten children. Also, they no longer have to watch six or seven die. Nothing negative going on at all.

We landed on the moon in 1969 and have made little progress in space colonization since then... If we wanted to develop another heavy-lift rocket we'd have to engineer it from pretty much scratch (as we are in fact doing).

The moon landing wasn't about colonization and our explorations (further and deeper with each year) are preliminary work towards that. No slow down, just a shift of gears from meat. We no longer need the Saturn because our payloads aren't anywhere as large as they used to be. We're not developing new rockets from scratch because we forgot, we're doing it because the old tech is obsolete and being replaced by new tech.

The progress of technology isn't a monotonic upwards curve. It has ups and downs. A lot of indications are that we are now in one of the 'down' periods.

Down in this sense means no advances or even the forgetting of things. Name one field where this is occurring to any significance.

The CDC says that about 600,000 people die of heart disease each year. Also, about 3,000 people or so died in 9/11, right? so 400,000 smoking-related deaths are 4/3*1000 ~ 1,333 times more, not 32,000 times more. But other than the fact that nimbius is mixing up his figurin his arithmetic, the point is still valid: Terrorist attacks are still, and will remain in the foreseeable future, an insignificant threat to the safety and well-being of Americans - but the government will not think on investing anywhere near that kind of money in, say, preventative health care.

Consider the possibility that women just aren't interested.

Yes, but why? It might lead to some insights about ourselves and the field itself.

Could it be something biological, as politically incorrect as that might be? Autism for example, is much more prevalent in males than females: "ASD is almost 5 times more common among boys (1 in 42) than among girls (1 in 189)." [3rd bullet point from top]

So it seems like there are brain differences between males and females, when viewed as a group. And the brain creates personality.

If the reason is purely sociological, we can fix that and open the field to women. If the reason is in fact biological, we can stop trying to hammer square pegs into round holes.

Such a parochial worldview. Ebola is a global problem and threat, which is why the CDC has been talking about controlling Ebola *in Africa* since at least July. So far the evidence is that it is just hot air with no substance. For example see: http://www.cdc.gov/media/relea...
A July briefing on the situation in Africa containing such gems as: " CDC along with others are surging to begin to turn the tide. It's not going to be quick. It's not going to be easy. But we know what to do. " and " In fact, any advanced hospital in the U.S., any hospital with an intensive care unit has the capacity to isolate patients. There is nothing particularly special about the isolation of an Ebola patient other than it's really important to do it right. "

Yes, nothing special, 100% routine.

There is a huge difference between being in a room with someone with early stages of ebola for a few minutes and working in a hospital. Here are some factors when working in a hospital with ebola patients; 1. Much longer contact periods. Many health workers in Africa work 18 hour days. 2. Much closer contact. Health workers touch ebola patients much more often than the general public. 3. Contact later in the disease progression. Ebola is transmitted by bodily fluids. As the disease progresses more bodily fluids are secreted, it is a hemorrhagic disease, and more pathogen is present in the excretions.

If one works long hours and their suit is covered in ebola laden fluids it is quite probable that a small mistake can cause infection. Even the fatigue factor may cause errors in protocol.

The nurses in Texas who contracted Ebola from Duncan, do you believe that they had "prolonged" contact with him?

The Ebola virus spreads through bodily fluids including saliva (aerosolized when sneezing) and sweat. I think it is easier to spread than is currently believed, especially because fluids are more readily spread than is understood even by health experts.

Also, the Ebola virus apparently can live outside the body for several days if encapsulated in body fluids.

Anyone can verify these facts about about Ebola on the US CDC FAQ about Ebola.

I wish they'd focus more on things like MRSA and KPC which kills far more people in this country and are far more deadly. These diseases are easily spread and there is no cure for them. While not trying to diminish the cause to fight Ebola, frankly there are a lot of things far deadlier in this country that people should be worried about.

The cases in Texas I think can be squarely blamed on incompetence from the Dallas hospital.

In the case of KPC, Congress has basically put their head in the sand and handtied the CDC and FDA from effectively studying and fighting it, thanks to the livestock lobbies Frontline has a good episode on this. It doesn't help that congress has cut the budget of the CDC significantly over the last decade and played politics to make it difficult to study and fight the causes.

As it is, the CDC had to cut back on their research on Ebola due to the budget cuts and the delays in the worldwide community for fighting and funding the fighting of Ebola aren't helping matters either. If the Dallas hospital wasn't so incompetent, there's a good chance Thomas might have survived and nobody else would have become infected.

With HIV you basically need to inject infected blood. Single exposures through other pathways are very unlikely to infect you and outside of risk groups it simply doesn't transmit that fast: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policie...

Over the contagious lifespan of Ebola it's far more likely to spread, it isn't dependent on highly intimate contact and infection risk cannot be mitigated or made negligible without significant protective equipment. Most humans can go through the day without having sex with even one casual stranger, but it's a bit harder to ensure you're not touched by anyone or touch anything they've touched.

HIV kills more people than Ebola... for the moment. But if, at any time, as many humans have Ebola as have HIV today and we don't have an effective treatment then we would be months away from the death of at least half of all humans alive from Ebola alone and probably another couple of billions from socio economic disasters. Not as smart as HIV because that would probably be the end of Ebola for many centuries, but that's not very comforting.

Ebola on dried on surfaces such as doorknobs and countertops can survive for several hours; however, virus in body fluids (such as blood) can survive up to several days at room temperature.

Ebola has been detected in blood and many body fluids. Body fluids include saliva, mucus, vomit, feces, sweat, tears, breast milk, urine, and semen.

Emphasis added.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/t...

Yes, you absolutely can get it that way.
From the CDC:
"blood or body fluids (including but not limited to urine, saliva, sweat, feces, vomit, breast milk, and semen) of a person who is sick with Ebola
objects (like needles and syringes) that have been contaminated with the virus
infected animals
Ebola is not spread through the air or by water, or in general, by food. However, in Africa, Ebola may be spread as a result of handling bushmeat (wild animals hunted for food) and contact with infected bats. There is no evidence that mosquitos or other insects can transmit Ebola virus. Only mammals (for example, humans, bats, monkeys, and apes) have shown the ability to become infected with and spread Ebola virus"

The problem in Africa is any fold. People lying and saying the people their to help are causing it. People spreading rumors that the people their to help are harvesting organs, The tradition of kissing the dead, the habit of not going to the doctor. Africans being target by peddlers of SCAMSs(Supplement, Complementary, Alternative Medicines). All of that is possible with exceedingly high levels of illiteracy, and a high belief in woo.

The Flu will still kill more people in Africa this year that Ebola. Keep that in mind.

Really?!? 300,000 people are going to die of the flu in africa this year?!?

From the CDC's estimate of Ebola cases located here, taking the LOW count and assuming a 60% mortality rate (also low).

This is a huge problem for Africa. A much much more serious issue than the flu. It just isn't (too) much of a concern for western society as we have much better access to modern medical facilities and much more money to throw at the problem.

So far we have a small handful of US infections - mostly related to one guy who brought it in the country and the healthcare workers who didn't follow appropriate protocols while working with him. (Some of that blame might lie on the CDC and the hospital's management - not all of it on the nurses.)

Contrast this with the 5% - 20% of people in the US who get the flu every year and the 200,000 who are hospitalized with flu-related complications. (Source)

Can we please stop comparing Ebola to the flu?

For starters, Ebola apparently has a 70% mortality rate. Additionally, Ebola kills people who are otherwise perfectly healthy. The flu does not.

The flu is a health concern, yes, but widespread infection of Ebola is a nightmare that would make (in Sierra Leone, "makes") most years' flu seasons look like a sneezing fit.

So far we have a small handful of US infections - mostly related to one guy who brought it in the country and the healthcare workers who didn't follow appropriate protocols while working with him. (Some of that blame might lie on the CDC and the hospital's management - not all of it on the nurses.)

Contrast this with the 5% - 20% of people in the US who get the flu every year and the 200,000 who are hospitalized with flu-related complications. (Source) If you are panicked about Ebola then you should be running down the street screaming about the flu. (Hopefully running down the street to get your flu shot.)

This isn't to say that Ebola isn't serious. Anyone who has traveled to the countries affected and gets a fever should be treated with extreme care. Anyone who was around someone like this should be suspected of having contracted Ebola and should watch for the symptoms. Be wary if you are in these situations, but otherwise it isn't panic-time despite the continuous "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE"-style reporting the media is giving Ebola.

What would you rather they do? And are you really convinced that press conferences is all they do? You are repeating talking points and making an ass of yourself.

The CDC has published procedures on how to deal with Ebola. They can't individually contact every Doctor, Nurse, and any other position likely to be in contact with an infected person, to give them information that has been available for years.

Should they be beating the drum of self-quarantine? That's not the obvious step here. So I'm really wondering what could be done now.

http://www.cdc.gov/media/relea...

Start there. It's a biased source. But they are obviously doing nothing but giving press conferences.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policie...

Nope decontamination sprays are not part of removing PPE gear, according to the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/pdfs/pp...

"Human infections caused by Ebola-Reston virus in the US in 1990"
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd...

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

Yeah. Pigs and monkeys. And in the US and Philippines. Enjoy your day!

THIS is what frosts me. You don't need a Class A Hazmat suit. You do need to understand - and strictly follow - Standard Precautions. The 'nice' thing about a Class A or B suit is that you can be a bit sloppy and get away with it. But it's not like Ebola jumps out and bites you.

But all of this 'Hazmat theatre' is going to get everybody thinking the only way to prevent infection from Ebola is to seal yourself off from the world. Now, I'm not saying that that's necessarily a bad idea. For one thing, you could finally get through the TSA checks in less than a hour, but it certainly is overkill (although that might be a poor choice of words).

After your return to the United States

If you were exposed to Ebola during your trip, call your doctor even if you do not have symptoms. Your doctor should evaluate your exposure level and symptoms if you have them and consult with public health authorities to determine whether actions, such as medical evaluation and testing for Ebola, monitoring, or travel restrictions are needed.

Pay attention to your health after you return, even if you were not exposed to Ebola during your trip.

        Monitor your health for 21 days if you were in an area with an Ebola outbreak.
                Take your temperature every morning and evening.
                Watch for other Ebola symptoms: severe headache, muscle pain, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, or unexplained bleeding or bruising.
                If your temperature is above 101.5F (38.6C) and you have any other Ebola symptoms, seek medical care immediately.
                        Tell the doctor about your recent travel and your symptoms before you go to the doctor’s office or hospital. Advance notice will help the doctor care for you and protect other people who may be in the doctor’s office or hospital.
                        Limit your contact with other people when you travel to the doctor; avoid public transportation.
                        Do not travel anywhere except to the doctor’s office or hospital.
        During the time that you are monitoring your health, you can continue your normal activities, including work. If you get symptoms of Ebola, it is important to stay apart from other people and to call your doctor right away.

Whether he lied or not, some accounts say that he believed the woman he aided had malaria, not Ebola. And the woman's family themselves may have lied to the people aiding them.

Ultimately, the biggest breakdown occured with the hospital, which was told twice that he had just traveled from Liberia on the first visit, and has since admitted this information was available to all providers. This has caused the tilt to the other extreme, with even the most innocuous cases of fever, adominal distress, and similar, with no travel or other history that would point to Ebola, being handled as such "out of an abundance of caution".

Keep in mind that viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHFs) are nothing new in the US. what happens in the United States with other fatal VHFs, that, like Ebola, are only spread via direct contact with bodily fluids and can be easily addressed in first world nations:

Hanta: http://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/...

Marburg: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

Lassa: http://www.cdc.gov/media/relea...

Hanta is especially on point, as the US typically has dozens of cases -- and dozens of deaths -- each year, all of which are rapidly contained. The cases of "imported" VHFs, like has occurred with Marburg and Lassa, result in identification, isolation, and either the recovery or death of that person -- and that's the end of it.

Also, Ebola is NOT airborne. Ebola researchers will AT MOST say things like:

Peters, whose CDC team studied cases from 27 households that emerged during a 1995 Ebola outbreak in Democratic Republic of Congo, said that while most could be attributed to contact with infected late-stage patients or their bodily fluids, "some" infections may have occurred via "aerosol transmission."

"Those monkeys were dying in a pattern that was certainly suggestive of coughing and sneezing â" some sort of aerosol movement."

"May". "Suggestive". "Some sort".

Even if we change all of these statements to absolute certainty, it still does not translate to, "Ebola is airborne," in the meaning of "airborne" in the context of disease transmission.

Airborne transmission occurs when a droplet nuclei containing a virus (or bacteria) is small enough (10 μm) occurs when droplets of saliva or mucous (or even blood) containing the virus are projected during a sneeze or cough and and projected directly onto someone's eyes, mouth, or mucous membranes. This kind of transmission is usually within 3', and is NOT considered "airborne" transmission.

"Droplet" transmission can certainly occur with Ebola -- or any disease that spreads via bodily fluids and is present in saliva or mucous. VHFs are not airborne diseases, and a study of one strain where monkeys in adjacent cages sneezed on each other and passed the disease does not make it "airborne".

Being able to get something from having someone sneeze or cough droplets onto you and airborne transmission are very different things.

The quickest way to have a threat of possible airborne transmission of Ebola via mutation would be to not aid Africa in this fight, and let Africa fend for itself, creating an environment where the cases could skyrocket into the millions (due to Africa's infrastructure and inability to deal with the onslaught), thereby increasing the statistical likelihood of the feared airborne mutation -- which, if a foothold were to be gotten in the West as an airborne disease, would truly be a catastrophe worthy of fear and panic.

In reading much of the news coverage, online commentary, and this thread, this article struck me as very relevant:

http://www.nationaljournal

Whether he lied or not, some accounts say that he believed the woman he aided had malaria, not Ebola. And the woman's family themselves may have lied to the people aiding them.

Ultimately, the biggest breakdown occured with the hospital, which was told twice that he had just traveled from Liberia on the first visit, and has since admitted this information was available to all providers. This has caused the tilt to the other extreme, with even the most innocuous cases of fever, adominal distress, and similar, with no travel or other history that would point to Ebola, being handled as such "out of an abundance of caution".

Keep in mind that viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHFs) are nothing new in the US. what happens in the United States with other fatal VHFs, that, like Ebola, are only spread via direct contact with bodily fluids and can be easily addressed in first world nations:

Hanta: http://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/...

Marburg: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

Lassa: http://www.cdc.gov/media/relea...

Hanta is especially on point, as the US typically has dozens of cases -- and dozens of deaths -- each year, all of which are rapidly contained. The cases of "imported" VHFs, like has occurred with Marburg and Lassa, result in identification, isolation, and either the recovery or death of that person -- and that's the end of it.

Also, Ebola is NOT airborne. Ebola researchers will AT MOST say things like:

Peters, whose CDC team studied cases from 27 households that emerged during a 1995 Ebola outbreak in Democratic Republic of Congo, said that while most could be attributed to contact with infected late-stage patients or their bodily fluids, "some" infections may have occurred via "aerosol transmission."

"Those monkeys were dying in a pattern that was certainly suggestive of coughing and sneezing â" some sort of aerosol movement."

"May". "Suggestive". "Some sort".

Even if we change all of these statements to absolute certainty, it still does not translate to, "Ebola is airborne," in the meaning of "airborne" in the context of disease transmission.

Airborne transmission occurs when a droplet nuclei containing a virus (or bacteria) is small enough (10 μm) occurs when droplets of saliva or mucous (or even blood) containing the virus are projected during a sneeze or cough and and projected directly onto someone's eyes, mouth, or mucous membranes. This kind of transmission is usually within 3', and is NOT considered "airborne" transmission.

"Droplet" transmission can certainly occur with Ebola -- or any disease that spreads via bodily fluids and is present in saliva or mucous. VHFs are not airborne diseases, and a study of one strain where monkeys in adjacent cages sneezed on each other and passed the disease does not make it "airborne".

Being able to get something from having someone sneeze or cough droplets onto you and airborne transmission are very different things.

The quickest way to have a threat of possible airborne transmission of Ebola via mutation would be to not aid Africa in this fight, and let Africa fend for itself, creating an environment where the cases could skyrocket into the millions (due to Africa's infrastructure and inability to deal with the onslaught), thereby increasing the statistical likelihood of the feared airborne mutation -- which, if a foothold were to be gotten in the West as an airborne disease, would truly be a catastrophe worthy of fear and panic.

In reading much of the news coverage, online commentary, and this thread, this article struck me as very relevant:

http://www.nationaljournal

Whether he lied or not, some accounts say that he believed the woman he aided had malaria, not Ebola. And the woman's family themselves may have lied to the people aiding them.

Ultimately, the biggest breakdown occured with the hospital, which was told twice that he had just traveled from Liberia on the first visit, and has since admitted this information was available to all providers. This has caused the tilt to the other extreme, with even the most innocuous cases of fever, adominal distress, and similar, with no travel or other history that would point to Ebola, being handled as such "out of an abundance of caution".

Keep in mind that viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHFs) are nothing new in the US. what happens in the United States with other fatal VHFs, that, like Ebola, are only spread via direct contact with bodily fluids and can be easily addressed in first world nations:

Hanta: http://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/...

Marburg: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

Lassa: http://www.cdc.gov/media/relea...

Hanta is especially on point, as the US typically has dozens of cases -- and dozens of deaths -- each year, all of which are rapidly contained. The cases of "imported" VHFs, like has occurred with Marburg and Lassa, result in identification, isolation, and either the recovery or death of that person -- and that's the end of it.

Also, Ebola is NOT airborne. Ebola researchers will AT MOST say things like:

Peters, whose CDC team studied cases from 27 households that emerged during a 1995 Ebola outbreak in Democratic Republic of Congo, said that while most could be attributed to contact with infected late-stage patients or their bodily fluids, "some" infections may have occurred via "aerosol transmission."

"Those monkeys were dying in a pattern that was certainly suggestive of coughing and sneezing â" some sort of aerosol movement."

"May". "Suggestive". "Some sort".

Even if we change all of these statements to absolute certainty, it still does not translate to, "Ebola is airborne," in the meaning of "airborne" in the context of disease transmission.

Airborne transmission occurs when a droplet nuclei containing a virus (or bacteria) is small enough (10 μm) occurs when droplets of saliva or mucous (or even blood) containing the virus are projected during a sneeze or cough and and projected directly onto someone's eyes, mouth, or mucous membranes. This kind of transmission is usually within 3', and is NOT considered "airborne" transmission.

"Droplet" transmission can certainly occur with Ebola -- or any disease that spreads via bodily fluids and is present in saliva or mucous. VHFs are not airborne diseases, and a study of one strain where monkeys in adjacent cages sneezed on each other and passed the disease does not make it "airborne".

Being able to get something from having someone sneeze or cough droplets onto you and airborne transmission are very different things.

The quickest way to have a threat of possible airborne transmission of Ebola via mutation would be to not aid Africa in this fight, and let Africa fend for itself, creating an environment where the cases could skyrocket into the millions (due to Africa's infrastructure and inability to deal with the onslaught), thereby increasing the statistical likelihood of the feared airborne mutation -- which, if a foothold were to be gotten in the West as an airborne disease, would truly be a catastrophe worthy of fear and panic.

In reading much of the news coverage, online commentary, and this thread, this article struck me as very relevant:

http://www.nationaljournal