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."

Comments

Blindfolded, but can't see anything wrong...

[Shoten]

are not being watched or monitored and are not showing any symptoms of the illness

How the fuck can the latter be stated with any kind of confidence in the same sentence as the former?

Re:Do some research first please?

[TheTerseOne]

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.

Re:Influenza is a serious risk

[CaptnZilog]

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.

Re:I feel like we are living in an 'outbreak' movi

[Geste]

'But "regretfully, that information was not fully communicated throughout the full team," '

My experience from working in ICU and ER years ago:

• Nurse to Intern: "This guy has been in Liberia"
• Nurse to Intern: "This guy has been in Liberia!"
• Nurse to Intern: "This guy has been in Liberia!!"
• Intern to Resident: "This guy has a fever."
• Charge Nurse to Orderly: "Hey, can you put that guy in a chair so we can free up exam room four?"
• Resident to Intern: "What do you suggest?"
• Intern: "Ummmm, fluids and antibiotics?"
• Resident: "Check."

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.

Re:Do some research first please?

[Jarik C-Bol]

"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.