Slashdot Mirror
After Dallas Ebola Diagnosis, CDC Raises Estimate of Patient's Possible Contacts
As reported by Bloomberg News, The Washington Post, and other outlets, the Liberian patient whose diagnosis of Ebola infection marks him as the first such case to have been first diagnosed within the United States may have had contact with more people than previously estimated, and 80 people in the Dallas area are now
believed to have come into contact with him. While Bloomberg reports that this larger group of potential contacts is "being monitored for symptoms," the Washington Post's slightly later story says that, in keeping with the best current knowledge about Ebola's spread,
"Dallas County Health and Human Services Director Zachary Thompson said that these [newly identified contacts] are not being watched or monitored and are not showing any symptoms of the illness. Only the immediate family members of the victim are being regularly monitored for Ebola symptoms; they've been ordered to stay at home and avoid contact with others."
H1N1 was also a "real virus", whatever that means. The media is equally blowing American risk of Ebola out of proportion like they did H1N1, which actually managed to infect a largish number of Americans.
There were 14,000 worldwide deaths from H1N1 2k9, 3,500 of which were in North America. This ebola breakout doesn't currently represent nearly that much risk to Americans, but it could be a lot worse if the epidemic continues to grow in western Africa.
Maybe blown out of proportion but Ebola is far more lethal virus than H1N1. Also, deaths were mostly people who were ill already or had other issues. Ebola doesn't discriminate. On the other hand, the dumb nurse/doctor who was told that the patient was in Liberia and had Ebola like symptoms and still sent the dude back home needs to get fired. Today. Now. Maybe he/she/it thought that Liberia was a town in Missouri.
... The 'cures' being worked are anti-retrovirals that inhibit the viral replication,.
Your spot on except its plain anti-virals; ebola is not a retrovirus
1. Ebola is normally infectious Only through bodily fluids. This puts health workers more at risk. 2. It is also very sensitive to light, especially ultraviolet rays from direct sunlight, This relates back to #1 and is one reason it doesn't spread well once it gets in the atmosphere. This is stuff I learned from when I worked at the Centers for Disease control.
How the fuck can the latter be stated with any kind of confidence in the same sentence as the former?
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
But "regretfully, that information was not fully communicated throughout the full team," said Dr. Mark Lester, executive vice president of Texas Health Resources. ... The CDC has been vigorously emphasizing the need for a travel history."
Duncan was sent home with painkillers and antibiotics, only to return in worse condition on September 28. That's when he was isolated.
"It was a mistake. They dropped the ball," Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said of the miscommunication at the hospital.
"You don't want to pile on them, but hopefully this will never happen again.
Gupta said this mishap doesn't make sense.
"A nurse did ask the question, and he did respond that he was in Liberia, and that wasn't transmitted to people who were in charge of his care," he said. "There's no excuse for this."
And one of Duncan's friends said he was the one who contacted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with concerns that the hospital wasn't moving quickly enough after Duncan's second hospital visit.
But the hospital said the patient's condition "did not warrant admission" last week.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/02/...
"Didn't warrant admission" AKA "He wasnt sick enough for anyone to care, and we were to stupid to realize just how dangerous the situation could be." Heads need to roll for this.
Saying that something is more lethal doesn't mean the same as saying it kills more people. What it means is that it is more "sufficient to cause death". So, while it's very true that more people have died from H1N1 than from EBOV, EBOV is still far more lethal.
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/est... says that between April 2009 and April 2010 there were 61M cases of H1N1 resulting in 12.5K deaths. WHO says that, so far, there are 7192 cases of EBOV in the West African outbreak, and 3286 deaths.
I'll let you do the math.
"Newspapers: A tiny little part of the internet, printed out yesterday, and delivered to your house"
The (1st) missionary doctor that contracted Ebola because he was treating people in Africa is from Texas. Although he's feeling much better now.
He's been giving blood so that serum can be made from it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The current ebola outbreak is a serious issue but it isn't what keeps epidemiologists awake at night.
Yes, this, however should Ebola ever mutate into an airborne variant, watch them freak out :)
You're talking the virus evolving (mutating) into a new variant.
This is Texas, evolution doesn't happen there.
'But "regretfully, that information was not fully communicated throughout the full team," '
My experience from working in ICU and ER years ago:
Can't know, but when I hear phrases like "full team", that's what I am reminded of. Very very unfortunate. Beyond all of the additional exposure, the guy didn't get the care he likely needed to have a chance at survival.
Maybe blown out of proportion but Ebola is far more lethal virus than H1N1.
Variants of H1N1 have killed tens of millions of people. You should probably spend 30 seconds researching the issue before spouting off nonsense publicly.
And you should probably spend 30 seconds before you choose to deliberately mislead people or else spout off out of ignorance on the subject.
1) The fact that other H1N1 strains have killed millions of people has little bearing on how lethal the particular, modern-day H1N1 strain they were referring to happens to be. "H1N1" is merely a subtype expressed using a classification technique that makes it easier to refer to flu strains, but we've had numerous H1N1-subtype strains over the years, some quite lethal, some not so much, and as the link I just shared indicates, many of the strains we're familiar with have gone extinct, even though the subtype that it belonged to still exists. Your implication is clearly that "H1N1" has killed millions of people, and it has...in much the same way that "white person" has killed millions of people. You can't just leave it at that; you have to be more specific, and once you are, you realize that the particular H1N1 strain they're talking about in this thread (the 2009 strain) wasn't actually that lethal in comparison to Ebola.
2) You're clearly confused about what "lethal" means. Something is "more lethal" if it is more capable of causing death, not because it has actually caused more deaths, and it's a fact that Ebola is significantly more lethal than even the 1918 Spanish Flu, which is widely regarded as being one of the worst (50-90% mortality rate for Ebola vs. 10-20% mortality rate for Spanish Flu). Surely if you're on Slashdot you've heard about the LD50 for various substances and whatnot? The "L" stands for "lethal". It doesn't mean that that substance has killed more people than another substance. It just means that it is capable of doing so.
Also, deaths were mostly people who were ill already or had other issues.
Again, demonstrably not true in previous H1N1 pandemics.
Again, you're linking to an entirely different strain that just happens to belong to the same subtype as a modern-day strain. The reason people panic about H1N1 strains today is because we know that because they belong to the same subtype, they are potentially very similar to the dangerous strains we've seen in the past and thus could very easily mutate into something that is as deadly as those strains...but that does not mean that they are dangerous strains like the Spanish Flu, nor that they are as lethal as it, nor that they exhibit the same characteristics as it, nor that your links to the Spanish Flu are in any way relevant or indicative of the 2009 H1N1 strain's traits. Pointing out that the Spanish Flu was indiscriminate in whom it killed in no way takes away from his claim that the 2009 H1N1 strain's deaths were primarily those who "were already ill or had other issues."
Even so, in a cursory search, I couldn't find any evidence to support his claim either.
Actually, I'd look to fire somebody higher-up. Communication issues like these are cultural and systemic -- organizational problems. I feel it is always a bit too easy to punish the front line folks without holding responsible higher-ups to any account.
"if it goes airborne"
Just the other day, I thought to myself "How many viruses have we ever seen mutate to become airborne?"
So I checked. Now, its a little tough to google right now, because the top million or so results are news articles screaming that ebola will go airborne and kill us all, but I did manage to find some solid articles on the subject stemming from a more scientific standpoint, and a less "WE ALL GONNA DIE" clickbait standpoint.
What I learned is this:
In the 100 or so years we have been really studying viruses, we have seen a virus mutate and change its infection vector exactly ZERO times.
As it turns out, viruses are pretty specialized at what they do. Some, like the influenza virus, have nailed down the trait of surviving for long periods in aerosolized droplets of mucus that are so small that local air currents are more powerful than gravity, and have adapted to surviving in lung tissue very well. (airborne)
Others, like say, ebola, are adapted to surviving in the liver and blood, and can survive for a bit of time outside the body, in much larger volumes of bodily fluids. (not airborne) The ebola virus does build up in the lung tissue the way influenza does, nor does it have the specialized structures that allow it to move into the mucosal secretions of the lungs, the way influenza does. (all of which are needed to be a successful airborne virus)
Another thing influenza has going for it is that multiple variants of influenza can infect a single cell, and spawn forth a new variant of influenza. Apparently, this is not something ebola is capable of *at all* meaning it mutates at a much slower rate than influenza.
The net takeaway from all this is, while the chances of ebola mutating and becoming airborne are non zero, the actual odds of its occurrence are vanishingly small.
Long story short, viruses come in a lot of forms, and people are expecting the behavior of one to match up with the behavior of another, when in reality they are entirely different creatures. One article I read likened it to saying Cars fly, and Airplanes drive on the ground, where Ebola is a car, and Influenza is an Airplane. While the statement is not entirely false, because cars can fly short distances in special circumstances, and planes do taxi to the terminal, your not going to fly your Volkswagen to Paris from NY, and your not going to drive a boing 747 from Detroit to Houston on the highway. Specialized structures for specific purposes.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.