Slashdot Mirror


The CDC Is Carefully Controlling How Scared You Are About Ebola

HughPickens.com writes: Russell Berman reports in The Atlantic that the Obama administration is trying to navigate a tricky course: Can officials increase public vigilance about the deadly Ebola virus without inciting a panic? "Ebola is scary. It's a deadly disease. But we know how to stop it," says Dr. Thomas Frieden, the CDC director. speaking "calmly and clearly, sticking to an even pitch and avoiding the familiar political image of the whip-smart fast-talker." International groups wanted the U.S. to step in sooner to help fight the outbreak in west Africa, while more recently some Republicans have called on the administration to ban travel from the most affected countries.

Frieden and other officials say such a move would be counterproductive, citing lessons learned from the SARS outbreak a decade ago. "The SARS outbreak cost the world more than $40 billion, but it wasn't to control the outbreak," says Frieden. "Those were costs from unnecessary and ineffective travel restrictions and trade changes that could have been avoided." The government announced Wednesday that it was stepping up protective measures at five airports, where authorities will screen travelers from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea with targeted questions and fever checks, an action, officials acknowledge, that was taken not only to stop the spread of the disease but simply to make people feel safer. According to Berman, the message is this: Be afraid of Ebola. Just not too afraid.

31 of 478 comments (clear)

  1. Increased public vigilance?? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    WTF am I supposed to do? Look around for suspicious hemorrhaging people?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Increased public vigilance?? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Be aware of travelers to west central Africa in your life. Make competent decisions about whether you, yourself should go there. Go to your doctor for any suspicious illness if you have any reason to believe you're exposed at all.

      You know, nothing major.

    2. Re:Increased public vigilance?? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you work in an ER and someone comes in sweating and vomiting with a history of travel to Liberia... yes? Is that too much to ask? We just had medical professionals send someone home with classic Ebola symptoms and a history of travel in highly infected regions because of a total lack of vigilance.

    3. Re:Increased public vigilance?? by Stele · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was going to swing by West Central Africa on my way back from my vacation to Syria. Thanks for the warning!

    4. Re:Increased public vigilance?? by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, yes. Then if you see one call the public health authorities.

      Common sense? Sure, but you'd be surprised at the degree to which what you'd think was common sense flies out the window when people encounter the unexpected.

      In my experience what people do when confornted with the unexpected is take their cue from what other people around them are doing, and if that's nothing, they'll try to ignore whatever it is. I've even seen that happen with FIRE ALARMS. Instead of getting up and leaving, they look to see what other people are doing. And since those other people are doing the same thing, nobody is leaving. They're looking at each other, wondering whether that really IS a fire alarm. I once had to stick my head in the room on my way out and tell the people there that yes, it really is a fire alarm and they have to leave right away.

      If people have been recently primed then perhaps they're more likely to do something reasonable. Of course that sometimes means lots more false positives, but that's a tradeoff.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  2. Ebola threat by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The reason Ebola is spreading in Africa is because of poverty and customs. In some places the doctors have run out of gloves. With a disease like Ebola, that is not something you want. Secondly, in some places they have customs like washing the body of the deceased, then having the wife drink the water to prove she didn't try to kill him. Once again, that is not the kind of tradition you want to have if you're going to stop the spread of Ebola.

    Airborne Ebola would be a serious problem. What we have with the current epidemic is an education/sanitation problem, not a disease problem.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Ebola threat by umafuckit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      DId you hear about the nurse in Spain who got infected? An infected glove brushed her face. It doesn't take outlandish behavior (like corpse water drinking) for this disease to spread.

    2. Re:Ebola threat by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And, if she was wearing any sort of face mask and eye protection (like you are supposed to do), nothing untoward would have happened.

      Contact precautions aren't particularly hard, but they do require a significant degree of vigilance which is not a human being's strong point.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Ebola threat by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We do know how to put a stop to it, it's quite easy, all it takes is bio-containment level 4 procedures, that should be easy to slap together in every international airport, seaport, and border crossing to the US. Look, I'm not going to fear monger here, but the fact is that if significant numbers of infected individuals start traveling around the globe we will not be able to maintain containment for long, even with all the resources that ultra-rich 1st world countries have at their disposal. How many beds do you think there are in the entire US that can safely treat Ebola ? I'd be shocked if it's over 1,000 and if the situation in western Africa doesn't change we will very soon see Ebola victims numbering in the millions (by the CDC's own estimates, 1.4 million by the end of January).

      We need to stop pretending that Ebola is no easier to catch than HIV or other pathogens that are carried by the same bodily fluids, those diseases don't typically cause you to leak and eject the infected material all over yourself and the room you are in. A nurse in Spain got sick after possibly touching her face while removing her hazmat suit, when was the last time you heard about someone catching HIV the same way? This whole idea that Ebola is so hard to spread you'd have to be stupid to catch it needs to stop; it's wrong and it's dangerous and it leads to wonderful things like people not bothering to put on gloves and mask to go into a confirmed Ebola patient's apartment (thankfully that deputies tests have come back negative).

    4. Re:Ebola threat by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We need to stop pretending that Ebola is no easier to catch than HIV or other pathogens that are carried by the same bodily fluids

      It spreads easier than AIDS, but not as easily as the flue. Because of the way it spreads, it's easy to contain. Look, I'm not the only one saying this here, the head of CDC said it too, if you had even read the summary. But MozeeToby on the internet is worried, so we should all freak out?

      The parent is right. Level 4 containment is exactly what the CDC mandates themselves in order to even study this virus or warehouse it. If it were "easy" to contain, you sure as hell wouldn't have those kinds of insanely expensive precautions being taken to store it in a jar.

      And I sure as hell hope you're not eating those "easy to contain" words 6 months from now.

      And the head of the CDC is like any other elected official. They are not there to start a panic during a crisis, so regardless of the seriousness of it, they are going to downplay it to a level just below widespread speculation and panic, even if the concerns are actually far greater.

    5. Re:Ebola threat by nabsltd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhh, she was in the process of undressing...

      Then, correct procedures weren't followed.

      For any truly infectious disease, proper procedure would have health care workers walk into a disinfectant shower (and possibly UV light) before removing protective clothes. Any disease that can survive that sort of thing is going to kill us all anyway.

      Then, order of removal is important. In general, headgear is removed first (preferably by another person), then outer gloves, then fasteners released and gear removed, then inner gloves. All this is followed by hand washing (at a minimum). This makes sure that easier paths to infection get as little possible contact from anything that might have had contact with the pathogen.

      The nurse screwed up by touching her face with her outer glove, and I suspect that disinfectant showers/UV were not done first.

    6. Re:Ebola threat by Znork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Easy to contain?

      Say you have a breakout and spread among the US population. The emergency room starts getting people with fever and stomach ache. What do you do? Put them in quarantine? Fine.

      Ok, now we've exhausted the 10 beds at the hospital that are usable for quarantine. We've still got 150 patients with symptoms in the emergency room. Put them all in the same room? Maybe only one or two have ebola. Can't put them in one room, then they'll all get ebola if a few had it. No rooms for individual isolation. Send them home? Violations of curfews will be common, police won't be itching to babysit every emergency room visitor. That won't contain it once we're reaching that number of cases.

      Now we know there's 150 patients with potential ebola. That will get us another 5000 patients with the symptoms in the emergency room. Quarantine them? No place. Send them home? And we go another round.

      There is no way western medicine has any chance at all to contain any sustained outbreak. It isn't a matter of knowing how to prevent spread, it's a matter of sheer numbers making those measures ineffective and the fact that potential patients will know that most hospitals can't do anything for more than a few patients with sepsis at a time which means that you're better off hydrating at home, hoping you don't actually have ebola and not risking getting exposed to other possible ebola infectees in an emergency room.

      To have a serious chance at containment after any significant breakout removes travel history as a useful major red-flag there will have to be really good treatment or a cure or the rational choice for any individual having the fairly common symptoms simply won't be to go to the hospital.

    7. Re:Ebola threat by Wdomburg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People with fevers sweat, they cough, they sneeze. Droplet transmission is a serious threat, especially in cramped conditions. No licking necessary. But then you throw children in the mix, and there will be licking and mouthing of potentially contaminated items. And sick kids that want to be held by mommy or daddy, and will sneeze directly in their face.

      Not saying that we have reason to panic now, but it is fatuous to dismiss the very real challenges of effective containment once the disease becomes endemic to a particular population.

    8. Re:Ebola threat by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uh, there are people who are more knowledgeable than you at CDC who have thought of these exact problems. Also, they aren't panicking like you are, which gives them a much greater chance of solving the problem.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. One quote *is* the story by ShaunC · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Ebola is scary. It's a deadly disease. But we know how to stop it."

    Full stop, that's it. Quit worrying. For better or for worse, the United States is not eastern Africa. We cannot and will not have a massive epidemic here. A coworker of mine died from H1N1 "swine flu" a few years back. RIP Dusty. Swine flu was a valid health concern, it was something to be alarmed about and take extraordinary precautions against. Ebola is not.

    Media's doing what media does, hyping and scaring to rake in eyeballs and sell their advertisements.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:One quote *is* the story by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry about your friend but ebola scares me ALOT more than the swine flu, h1n1, or sars.
      Shutting down airports for sars was probably a bit of an overkill. Yes, sars is contagious but
      it's also highly survivable. My guess is that your friend was already compromised in some
      way whether it was extremely old, extremely young, weak immune system, etc...
      Until we have an effective cure for ebola (80% survival rate or better), then it's much better
      to be overly cautious with ebola. Can you imagine what would happen if this made it to
      an elementary school where hundreds of kids are in close contact? Give me sars any day.

  4. The monitoring of passengers is a joke by sasparillascott · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Heard an expert on infectious diseases interviewed the other day and they said the temperature taking of passengers was a joke as Ebola victims don't show a temperature until many, many days after they've been infected (i.e. it would not have caught the guy who recently died in Dallas from Ebola because he didn't have a fever when he came in). It just gives the appearance the govt is in control somehow, when they really aren't.

    Definitely can't trust the government is saying regarding the disease if/once it gets established in the U.S., as preventing panic is the highest priority. The disease expert did say the industry and Feds were working night and day to get a blood test created and available and said they were probably a month or so away from that (if things continued moving along).

    1. Re:The monitoring of passengers is a joke by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ebola victims don't show a temperature until many, many days after they've been infected

      But people aren't contagious until after they show symptoms, e.g. fever. Taking people's temperature is a perfectly valid measure.

      Maybe you should get some facts to go along with your strong opinions.

    2. Re:The monitoring of passengers is a joke by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The SARS outbreak cost the world more than $40 billion, but it wasn't to control the outbreak," says Frieden. "Those were costs from unnecessary and ineffective travel restrictions and trade changes that could have been avoided."

      This isn't SARS. The death toll is already 5x that of SARS.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:The monitoring of passengers is a joke by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they're contagious when they get off the plane, you're in a buttload of hurt. Now you have to find everyone else who was on the plane and monitor them for symptoms, because some are now infected too.

      The only way this can possibly work is to prevent them from boarding the plane.

  5. Be Afraid! Very Afraid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ebola is worse than the government says and this Ebola epidemic is all Obama's fault. If we only elected Romney and stuck with libertarian principles of government this Ebola outbreak would have never started to begin with.

  6. I should be pretty safe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally, my strategy of spending all my time alone at my computer, having no close contact with other people is starting to pay off.

    Once everyone else has died off from ebola, the geeks, nerds, and dorks shall inherit the earth.

  7. Magic Doesn't Help by hedgemage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People are the same the world over.
    In many communities where Ebola is running rampant, superstition, and a belief in shamanistic or animistic magic are helping spread the disease and prevent proper care.
    And here in the US, I've seen a well-shared Facebook link to a 'natural health' site that tells you how you can get Ebola from ATM keypads and doorknobs, but you can protect yourself via essential oils and the immune system boosting properties of silver! No need for autism creating vaccines!
    I'm so glad I don't live in a place where people think magic potions and mystic talismans will ward off disease!

  8. Re:wont take long till singularity by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Funny

    After the Singularity, we'll get computer viruses and bad OS updates.

  9. Re:Disease spread is fractal by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The aid workers who picked it up despite taking precautions will sure be comforted by your sentiment.

    Even in modern hospitals, disease outbreaks happen despite precautions.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  10. Re:wont take long till singularity by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Funny

    yes

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  11. Re:Only in Africa? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The situation in the American South is totally different though, right?

    Nice rhetorical scoring, but, yes, it *is* totally different. Comparing the poverty, lack of trust in government workers and dysfunctional healthcare system in the US South to those factors in Africa is like comparing the neighborhood pool to Lake Erie.

  12. Re:HAZMAT Theater Coming To The Airport Nearest Yo by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a simple way of dealing with that. Don't be a racist nut job. Have actual valid reasons for your positions and keep the outrage to a reasonable level.

    Coming from a person of color, far too often accusations of racism are used to silence legitimate dissent and debate.

    Having valid reason and articulable concerns will not be enough to protect anyone from charges of racism.

    We shouldn't be allowing anyone to enter this country if they have been to a country with an outbreak of any hemorrhagic disease in the past 90 days. For now, that means certain west African nations. The people in Zambia are every bit as black as the ones in Liberia and THEY aren't letting Liberians in.

    Obama himself isn't a lefty, he's a moderate right politician. It's just the racism that blinds so many right wing nutjobs to what Obama is actually doing.

    Depends on your politics. If you're an anti-war lefty, there's not much difference between Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush or Reagan.
    If you're a small government righty, again, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan aren't much different.

    Me, I'm a fiscal moderate and a social conservative. There are lightyears between Obama and Bush, from my perspective.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  13. Re:Easy question by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can officials increase public vigilance about the deadly Ebola virus without inciting a panic?

    No.

    Some officials have a vested interest in intentionally inciting a panic. The fox is already guarding the henhouse, the REAL question is: How much of a panic will officials incite while increasing public vigilance.

    Most officials will always have a vested interested in lying about it, regardless.
    If Ebola is a big threat, they can prepare themselves while keeping the public blissfully unaware, helping to ensure their survival.
    If Ebola is not a big threat, they can whip up a managed amount of fear in order to secure more funding, feel powerful, have fun dicking around with their toys, etc.

  14. He didn't deny them in the hospital. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

    [Hospital sent home the ebola patient in Dallas, though he had classic ebola symptoms and had traveled to Liberia.]

    Yep, especially when they deny all of the screening questions.. That's helpful.

    He denied the screening questions at the airport. ('Let's see. If I answer yes you won't let me fly and will throw me in with everybody else who answered yes. Of COURSE I didn't have contact with Ebola!)

    He DIDN'T deny the questions at the hospital. They knew he'd been to Liberia recently. But their bureaucracy didn't get that info to the person who made the release decision.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:He didn't deny them in the hospital. by pkinetics · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Oh never mind link to news article

      RTFM - in a computerized system, the nurses enter some information about the patient, but that information is not relayed back to the screen that the doctor sees.

      Brilliant.

      That also explains why we have to repeat to the doctor(s) everything we just repeated to all the attending nurses.