Slashdot Mirror


NY Doctor Recently Back From West Africa Tests Positive For Ebola

An anonymous reader writes An emergency room doctor who recently returned to the city after treating Ebola patients in West Africa has tested positive for the virus, Mayor Bill de Blasio said. It's the first case in the city and the fourth in the nation. From the article: "The doctor, identified as Craig Spencer, 33, came back from treating Ebola patients in Guinea about 10 days ago, and developed a fever, nausea, pain and fatigue Wednesday night. The physician, employed at New York's Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, has been in isolation at Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan since Thursday morning, the official said."

372 comments

  1. Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I saw the news about the poor doctor in NYC. Yikes, before I draw any conclusions, do we have any pieces by Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak or diseases in general? I'd like to see what his insight is first. He's a frequent contributor.

    1. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by vux984 · · Score: 5, Funny

      do we have any pieces by Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak or diseases in general?

      Indeed, perhaps he could present us with 'A Modest Proposal' that came to him whilst reading the messages in his alphabits.

    2. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That "poor" doctor was an irresponsible ass. He was in an area know to have a huge ebola outbreak and flew back to the US in close proximity to others, rode around in cramped subways and dined at restaurants without getting checked out. And it's not like he's some clueless rube, he's a fucking doctor and he attempted to murder many people. I hope he dies.

    3. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We route every international traveller through a permanent burning man.
      By the time people got in, bought their ice and got out, the incubation period is over.
      [insert 40 line rant]
      I'm the best.
      --
      Bennett

    4. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let me quote the article for you:
      "He had been checking his temperature twice a day."
      "Doctors Without Borders confirmed that the physician recently returned from West Africa and was "engaged in regular health monitoring.""

      The dude, being a doctor and all, monitored his temperature and most likely checked himself in to the hospital once he developed symptoms.
      It has been stated time and time again, that it's virtually impossible to contract the disease from someone that exhibits no symptoms.

    5. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by RoLi · · Score: 0

      I have read that he returned from Libera earlier than planned and that he wore his protective suit on the plane.

      If that is true, then he probably already suspected an infection and did not want to be stranded in Libera with ebola. Better fly back to his 1st-world homeland where he can be treated effectively - just in case.

      As I said, I don't know whether it is true (and because of the sacred status of "doctors without borders" the truth may be hard to get), maybe somebody knows more?

    6. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by RoLi · · Score: 0, Troll

      Cote d'ivore, Senegal, Nigera, South Africa, Kenya and many more countries have already closed the border, cancelled all flights to the three most affected countries and/or implemented a 21-day quarantine for everybody coming from there.

      But the West, being fatally infected by political correctness, just keeps every wide open because to quote Obama, "we can't" shut out Western Africa. Why can't we? Can someone tell me why?

      Maybe Obama should listen to his Kenyan brethren who DID end all flights to Libera? Maybe "yes we can" is the best response here?

      The irresponsibility of the Western political class knows no bounds. They will literally put everybody at risk just to avoid being criticized at a dinner party.

    7. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we'd have to have ebola at Burning Man before he would comment about the situation. Then he could expound on how he thinks they should have handled it.

    8. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by rebelwarlock · · Score: 3, Funny

      Those are Cheerios.

    9. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by mreed911 · · Score: 0

      I'd expect no better from an AC, but according to all the press I've read, he was self-monitoring multiple times a day and self-reported at the earliest onset of symptoms. "Attempted to murder" is a little more than extreme, IMO, considering he did everything right.

    10. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by mreed911 · · Score: 2

      When he's asymptomatic he's not a transmission or infection risk. Given that he self-reported at the earliest onset of symptoms, I fail to see any recklessness.

    11. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Ron+Goodman · · Score: 2

      People don't care about the real risk, they'd rather get their panties in a bunch about some scenario they read about in a Tom Clancy novel.

    12. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oooOOOOOoooo.

    13. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by butchersong · · Score: 3, Informative

      I wish people wouldn't keep saying this. It is not virtually impossible to catch before someone becomes symptomatic. From what I gather it is only that the virual load of the individual is much much higher in later stages. The virus is still very more often than not for example detectable in sweat before symptoms set it. It's like telling someone that is allergic to bees not to worry about a few flying around in the bus with them because it's so unlikely they will be stung.. it is a perfectly reasonable concern no matter now many statistics you could cite about how often a bee encounter results in a sting.

    14. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So we are now living in a Lewis Carroll world: "I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."

      If indeed there was no risk to anyone until the good doctor decided he was beginning to show symptoms, then why is so much money (and other, more valuable than money, resources) being used to trace down all who might have had contact with him? It would seem that the authorities are not as confident about the risks of transmission during the silent incubation period as they would want the public to believe.

      --
      Will
    15. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All coordination and communication would need to happen over a distributed social network, because that's what is NEEDED, especially since it has never been tried before nor had any chance to take off

    16. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words when he developed symptoms he was not in quarantine like he should have been, but walking around NYC. When was the last time you had a nasty cold? Can you pinpoint the exact moment you became contagious?

      "It has been stated time and time again, that it's virtually impossible to contract the disease from someone that exhibits no symptoms."

      With a disease this nasty and deadly I would prefer nobody f-around and err severely on the side of caution.

    17. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for two days before his fever presented he was, reportedly, "feeling sluggish." It really was irresponsible of him to go out socializing under the circumstances. Another couple of days lying around watching TV? Oooh, what a hardship.

    18. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was "so responsible" that he had sex with his fiancee and three other people since being exposed to ebola? ... Fuck this doctor.

      That would be a bad idea.

    19. Re: Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No kidding... In the US, You have a better chance at fucking a kardashian sister or walking on the moon than doing from Ebola. Hell, even in West Africa, you've got a better chance at fucking a Kardashian.

    20. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Theres an expression "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense". This is especially true when dealing with small samples.

      Not finding evidence of transmission during that period doesn't mean we should stop looking. The cost of following up all contacts of the trivial number of people with ebola outside the core outbreak countries is trivial compared to what the cost would be if one of those people acted as the seed for a significant outbreak.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    21. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been stated time and time again, that it's virtually impossible to contract the disease from someone that exhibits no symptoms.

      wrong. After men have been 'cured', they can still transmit the disease via their semen for 3-4 months.

    22. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is because the CDC believes in the "pound of cure" method due to political correctness rather than the "ounce of prevention".

    23. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he had sex with 4 people after coming back to NYC?

    24. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Xylantiel · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sorry but you are wrong. Ebola is not transmissible until the patient is symptomatic. So, for example, NOBODY outside the hospital caught ebola from Eric Duncan. It has been more than 21 days since he went in. This is a done deal.

      And if we could detect the virus before symptoms set in, then we wouldn't need to monitor for symptoms, we could just test them and be done with it. DUH! Duncan's family in Dallas were "quarantined" because they couldn't bother to make themselves available for someone to take their temperature twice a day (talk about sad). And others have been quarantined because the public is freaked out, not for any medical reason. People being monitored shouldn't travel mostly because if they become symptomatic they may not be in a convenient place to get into quarantine from there.

    25. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "poor" doctor was an irresponsible ass. He was in an area know to have a huge ebola outbreak and flew back to the US in close proximity to others, rode around in cramped subways and dined at restaurants without getting checked out. And it's not like he's some clueless rube, he's a fucking doctor and he attempted to murder many people. I hope he dies.

      If the doctor is not of African descent he'll get the proper medicine unlike the guy in Dallas, TX.

    26. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody knows that for sure. That fact that he was handling people who he knew were infected should have been enough for him to keep himself quarantined until he knew, without doubt, that he himself was not infected.

    27. Re: Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have a better chance at fucking a kardashian sister

      Yeah, no thanks. I'd rather take my chances with ebola.

    28. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      I wish people wouldn't keep saying this. It is not virtually impossible to catch before someone becomes symptomatic. From what I gather it is only that the virual load of the individual is much much higher in later stages. The virus is still very more often than not for example detectable in sweat before symptoms set it. It's like telling someone that is allergic to bees not to worry about a few flying around in the bus with them because it's so unlikely they will be stung.. it is a perfectly reasonable concern no matter now many statistics you could cite about how often a bee encounter results in a sting.

      If this was true than hundreds of people would already be infected from both the Duncan man from liberia, and both his nurses.

    29. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Self monitoring and self reporting is not something that you should place trust in.

    30. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by blue9steel · · Score: 1, Troll

      Ebola is not transmissible until the patient is symptomatic.

      Not transmissible and very low probability of transmission are not the same thing.

    31. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      I'm not worried about people like the good doctor. I'm worried that the virus could become a problem in Central and/or South America. Since we have no real border between us and them, it's inevitable that tens of thousands of infected (and those fearing infection) people will stream across what was an international border into the United States.

      Watch for it.

    32. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Waaaayyyy too convenient that "about 10 days" after returning he start showing symptoms. And I'm supposed to believe he didn't know he'd been exposed.

    33. Re:Bennett Haselton on the Ebola outbreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the graduate in med school with the lowest grades still gets to be called "Doctor (Hipster)"

  2. Panic everyone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kent Brockman: Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?

    Professor: Yes I would, Kent.

  3. my thoughts by globaljustin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    IMHO, either Ebola is easier to transmit than we are being told _OR_ these Ebola doctors who get the disease are FSKING IDIOTS

    if it is so damn hard to get, how the hell do Doctors who should be the best at following procedure can get?

    i think people are just morons, no matter what degrees they have

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:my thoughts by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, doctors are idiots! Why the heck did he even go to Guinea in the first place? What was he thinking!? What a moron! If I ever get ebola, I won't want any doctors like him treating me! They are idiots!

      --
      Join the IParty!
    2. Re:my thoughts by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1, Informative

      IMHO, either Ebola is easier to transmit than we are being told _OR_ these Ebola doctors who get the disease are FSKING IDIOTS

      if it is so damn hard to get, how the hell do Doctors who should be the best at following procedure can get?

      i think people are just morons, no matter what degrees they have

      The only people telling you that Ebola is hard to transmit are the ones that want you to stay calm so that you are easier to control.

      Most viruses (even HIV) have low transmission rates (below 30%) when the virus is exposed into the body. Relative to other viruses, Ebola seems to have an exceptionally high transmission efficiency. So if you perform any protocol wrong, you will likely contract it.

    3. Re:my thoughts by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or maybe the limited resources in the area of the outbreak make it impossible to be 100% perfect in your procedures and you do the best you can in a difficult situation.

      The answer to stemming the tide of people taking Ebola elsewhere is to get it under control in Liberia/Sierra Leone/Ghana so there's no Ebola to take elsewhere. Until we do that the danger to other countries will continue regardless of what you do.

      Another thing, it's starting to look like if you discover and start treating it early and aggressively that you have a good chance of surviving Ebola. If L/SL/G had as good a medical system as the US I suspect the survival rate would be much better.

    4. Re:my thoughts by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ebola is impossible to catch unless you are directly exposed to someone who is symptomatic. That is why the people treating the victims wear the space suits. The reason those not directly exposed don't need to worry is that the virus dies within an hour or two of leaving the victim's body, I suppose when it dries out. The flu virus on the other hand can survive for days or weeks on a door handle or on dust particles in the air.

      I'm still trying to figure out what it has to do with politics.

    5. Re:my thoughts by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:my thoughts by MisterSquid · · Score: 1, Troll

      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.

      --
      blog
    7. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience with nurses/doctors, they don't follow protocol 100% because it's not always possible due to circumstances.

      As an example. One time I was hospitalized and the ambulance EMT's used a large transfusion-sized needle for an IV. After I was done at the hospital the nurse removed the needle thinking it was just normal sized. Well blood started literally spraying all over the place when she pulled it out. She did not have gloves on nor a face mask and as blood sprayed in her face she grabbed my arm with her bare hand and did the best she could. Fortunately I have never had any blood diseases and fortunately she didn't have any on her hands so we all made it out OK but imagine this in ebola conditions. They are not prepared.

    8. Re:my thoughts by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      Ebola is a gruesome disease, but it's only transmissible by contact with bodily fluids. That guy who coughed in his hand? Can't have transmitted it. That other one who farted? Nope. The one who touched you on the way out of the subway? Not enough either. You need to be in contact with someone who's symptomatic and whose bodily fluids come into close contact with you (often your hands, then you touching your eyes or something like that).

      The obvious issue is that doctors are constantly in contact with infected bodily fluids. The last stages of the disease put out a lot of blood and other fluids. You only need one brief moment of inattention to get it when in those exceptional circumstances. Yet, only 16 cases have been reported among Doctors Without Borders. That's in spite of the absolutely horrendous sanitation and facilities available there. I'd say that on the contrary, those people are doing a splendid job and should be commended for actually going out there and trying to stop the problem at the source with the very real risk of dying from doing so.

      Certainly beats sitting in one's basement calling them idiots.

    9. Re:my thoughts by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... get it under control in Liberia/Sierra Leone/Ghana ...

      Guinea, not Ghana. Ghana has been unaffected by the outbreak. It is as different as night and day from Guinea. Ghana has four times the GDP, a far higher literacy rate, functional institutions, and a democratic government that answers to the people.

    10. Re:my thoughts by jklovanc · · Score: 2

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

      Duncan was in the hospital from September 28 to October 8. That is ten days which would mean 8 shifts of 8 hours for a total 64 hours where the nurses may have had contact with Duncan. I would call that extended.

      The Ebola virus spreads through bodily fluids including saliva (aerosolized when sneezing) and sweat.

      If you are close to someone with late stage ebola, don't wear protective gear and are sneezed on it is your fault for being infected. One of the issues in East Africa is families trying to care for sick relatives when ther caregivers have no training or protective gear.

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

      Those bodily fluids would have to be encapsulated in something else, a vial for example, or they will dry up and the ebola will die in hours.

    11. Re:my thoughts by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *sigh*

      The guy in Texas who had Ebola transmitted it to exactly two people, both of which were caring for him while sick. He didn't transmit it to ANY of his family members. I'd say that's a good indicator that the virus really is very hard to catch.

      As far as your "idiot" theory goes, smart people screw up, and constant vigilance is hard, especially in an environment like in west Africa. At the moment, you're thinking with the fear generating part of your brain, not the thinking part of your brain. That's very bad, and causes more harm than good. Health officials are telling you it's hard to get because it IS hard to get. The average number of people that Ebola is transmitted to is about 2. That's a very low number. AIDS, which is also hard to catch is transmitted to an average of 4 people. Measles, which is very contagious is 18.

      http://www.npr.org/blogs/healt...

      So please stop with the conspiracy theory. It's a disease, not a government secret. You can't keep a tight lid the real facts about a disease that people study and publish papers about in medical journals.

      Also, consider there's thousands of health care workers in west Africa. There's been a handful of American healthcare workers who've caught the disease, but MANY OTHERS who haven't.

      --
      AccountKiller
    12. Re:my thoughts by ogdenk · · Score: 4, Funny

      functional institutions, and a democratic government that answers to the people.

      Are they accepting US immigrants?

    13. Re:my thoughts by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I didn't mean to troll. I meant to point out the absurdity of calling the doctor who knowingly risked his life to help Ebola patients a fsking idiot. By extension, any doctor who would get in a room with an Ebola patient is an idiot. Where would that leave us? Without competent doctors to treat us if we get a communicable disease. Regardless of whether he took the subway or went bowling when he got back, that man is a hero, equivalent to the 9/11 firefighters. He does not deserve to be called an idiot, and people who call him that deserve to be mocked, at minimum. But I guess mocking is trolling.

      --
      Join the IParty!
    14. Re: my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doctors are some of the worst for following isolation precautions guidelines. I've seen them rock into patient rooms without any ppe, not even gloves, examine the patient, handle their personal belongings, then walk over to the nursing station and write in the chart, fill out a req or two then get paged and blitz out to the next patient.
      I don't know why, but they are very relaxed about isolation procedures, on average.

    15. Re:my thoughts by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      The risk factor is non-zero regardless of what procedures are followed. Even if ebola is not generally transmissible by air it's not quite against the laws of nature for the virus to find itself in some liquid drop which just happens to follow the right air currents in the right time frame to get taken up in an orifice etc. Then there's the possiblity of tears and defects in protective equipment, etc. The fact he spent so much time near ebola patients may have turned a one in a million risk to a one in a thousand or one in a hundred and from there it was bad luck. Of course, he might have botched it, too, but realistically if someone is spending all of their time around carriers of the disease they should be considered at risk of contracting it whether they're being clever about it or not.

    16. Re:my thoughts by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 5, Funny

      No. They are afraid of lowering their literacy rate.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    17. Re:my thoughts by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Those bodily fluids would have to be encapsulated in something else, a vial for example, or they will dry up and the ebola will die in hours.

      Then why is it so important to burn the bedsheets?

      Seems like they could just let them dry, then wash them with the rest of the linens. The ebola virus is dead, right?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    18. Re:my thoughts by ogdenk · · Score: 2

      LOL Well played.

    19. Re:my thoughts by hey! · · Score: 1

      That's because you use ridiculously vaguye language like "easy to transmit". You need to specify the conditions under which the potential transmission takes place. What peoiple don't realize is just how primitive conditions are in Africa, and what a difference it makes. These are countries where medical providers re-use latex gloves, sometimes even hypodermic needles. Granted, this guy was part a medical mission that probably had all the protective equipment, but you have to keep in mind that the primitive conditions that preceded them meant that there have been some TEN THOUSAND cases in the region.

      It's immensely labor intensive to take care of an Ebola patient, especially with the precautions required by close contact., but the overwhelming numbers introduces yet another deadly risk factor: fatigue.

      So yes, I suppose you could say the medical personnel who contracted Ebola are stupid because they made a mistake under pressure. But what about the rest of us? This epidemic should never have got big enough to pose a global concern. It was our choice to cut the CDC's emergency preparedness budget to a billion dollars below the FY 2002 mark.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    20. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people telling you that Ebola is hard to transmit are the ones that want you to stay calm so that you are easier to control.

      Or the people that know that widespread panic not only will kill more people in general but also spread Ebola more efficiently.

      What we don't want is for hospitals to be too bogged down with panicking crowds to be able to treat the real Ebola cases. We also don't want people to start shooting anyone with a cough to prevent Ebola from spreading.
      And what we definitely don't want is for retards to shoot people who actually are infected with Ebola since this doesn't actually prevent Ebola from spreading.

      Ideally we should tell inform people of the dangers of Ebola and deal with it calmly. The problem is that there will be assholes that think that they can be better off than anyone else by not acting calm and efficient and if they panic they will screw everyone else over by acting in a way that is more likely to spread Ebola.
      Those people makes it so that we are safer by everyone being ignorant and calm since informed and calm isn't an option.

    21. Re:my thoughts by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      IMHO, either Ebola is easier to transmit than we are being told _OR_ these Ebola doctors who get the disease are FSKING IDIOTS

      It's easy to transmit if there is Ebola-infected blood, shit and vomit everywhere; you know, as there often is when you are a doctor caring for people in the late stages of Ebola.

      It's not so easy to transmit outside of that situation. I highly recommend avoiding that situation if at all possible.

      i think people are just morons, no matter what degrees they have

      I think you may be suffering from Dunning-Kruger. You might want to get that looked at.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    22. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your diaper is stinking up the place.

    23. Re:my thoughts by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because bed sheets are soaked in virus laden excretions making them an extreme hazard and anyone handling them is at risk. Ebols is a hemorrhagic disease which means lots of fluids escaping especially in the later stages of the disease. Also when bed sheets are removed from the bed they are usually crumpled in a ball which creates areas that take a very long time to dry. It is much easier and safer to just burn them.

    24. Re:my thoughts by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Doctors and nurses treating Ebola patients are getting vastly more exposure time than your average American.

    25. Re:my thoughts by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      :^)

      It does sound like a nice place though.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    26. Re:my thoughts by quantaman · · Score: 1

      IMHO, either Ebola is easier to transmit than we are being told _OR_ these Ebola doctors who get the disease are FSKING IDIOTS

      It's neither.

      You still can't get it through the air, it has to be contact with the fluids of a sick person. But once you contact those fluids transmission is very easy.

      if it is so damn hard to get, how the hell do Doctors who should be the best at following procedure can get?

      i think people are just morons, no matter what degrees they have

      They got it by treating very sick people who were covered with highly contagious fluids. Unless you've never made an error in your work I'm not sure you can rightly call them morons/

      --
      I stole this Sig
    27. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been reading the reports about these nurses and doctors carefully. I've lost a lot of respect for these people.

      A monitored nurse from Texas, WITH a fever, is hand-waved onto an airliner by the CDC to visit family in another state and then goes acute. Another one is pulled up on a cruise ship well inside the 21 day monitoring period, fortunately resulting in nothing. Now this New York joker tells the CDC he has "self quarantined" and then turns up in a bowling alley.

      WTF? I know healthcare providers have been livin' la vida loca for a long time as their wages have ballooned out of all proportion with reason, but do we actually have to chain these Eloi to a pole to keep them from spreading this nasty jungle sick instead of foregoing their leisure travel? Please; if you've been involved with treating anyone with Ebola just hang out in your gated McMansion for a few weeks. You won't miss anything, and you shouldn't need someone from CDC to explain this to you FFS.

      And there is no panic. Stop your brow-beating about `panic,' whatever that's supposed to mean.

    28. Re:my thoughts by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 1

      The nurses were working dedicated 8 hour shifts inside of his room. They were handling bedpans and puke buckets full of infectious material.

    29. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I'd say that it means that people who leaking bodily fluids when they're are their worst are more of a danger to doctors and people who have to clean up after them than we realize, but only time and study will tell.

    30. Re:my thoughts by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not easy to catch for the average person. Hmm... how to draw a parallel that the average /. reader can understand...

      If your job is to solder tiny parts into electronics, getting burned by a soldering iron is quite easy if you're not careful. It's rather unlikely to impossible for the average person on the street to get a soldering burn.

      Likewise, if you're working with people who are infectious on a daily base and have to handle their highly contagious blood, urine, feces, saliva and other stuff the average person not only finds yucky but wouldn't want to get near if paid to do so, you can get infected easily if you're not careful, while for the average person who has zero if not less contact to either contagious people or their bodily substances the risk is far lower, if not nonexistent.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    31. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AIDS lasts for a very long time, you should be looking at transmission rate / time, not the total number of humans the disease transmitted to while contagious. AIDS is like 4 over four years, Ebola is like 2 over one week. Ebola wins hands down.

      It's a terrible disease. Families can't care for their loved ones that have it because catching it is a likely death sentence, especially compared to flu or similar which for some reason comparisons are always drawn to. I can't for the life of me understand why people keep switching between rates and quantities whenever it suits their position the most, they're lying to themselves as much as to everyone else.

    32. Re:my thoughts by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      ...provided you're in the presence of something or someone that can transmit it. Before you go full bore on panic mode, realize that we are talking about a low single digit cases in the US and that Ebola is, at least to our current knowledge, only contagious when symptoms are displayed.

      In other words, as long as you're not an idiot you should be fine. As for the rest, well, Darwin should be allowed to be right from time to time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    33. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >>I'm still trying to figure out what it has to do with politics.

      Obama has made it political, he has the farcical idea that just about anyone in the ebola-affected countries should be able to fly on an airliner to the United States, regardless if any of those airline passengers have been infected with ebola. Eric Duncan did just that and flew from Liberia to his destination in Texas, infecting at least two other people while in Texas. Meanwhile we continue to have more potential Duncans every day, those international flights are still running their daily schedules. Many more people in the US are at risk due to this very careless political decision.

    34. Re:my thoughts by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      'Seems to have'? That needs a [citation needed].

      And don't send idiots in to a highly infectious area. Give them a 2 minute test to ensure they can actually follow protocol without screwing up.

    35. Re:my thoughts by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Safety? I mean, duh, we're talking about a potentially lethal disease and bedsheets worth a few cents.

      Come back when they start burning the mattresses.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    36. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is hard to get when you do not work with patients decomposing alive into a fluid containing living virus. These doctors do exactly that. That is why the health systems in West Africa collapse. If it was more contagious the advance of epidemic would be faster which his not the case. This is true even if we contrary to what some people say we do not know everything about virus and illness.

    37. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not necessary to label the previous poster as a conspiracy theorist.

      For myself, if I had Measles I would not be very concerned and if I had AIDS, somebody in my trust would have likely screwed me up. I trust my dentist.

      I do wonder if the disease could mutate and thus become anything, including being very easy to transmit. I also do wonder about how easy is it to transmit now, regardless of our familiarity with AIDS and Measles. I do not panic over it.

      I would at least expect the workers, no matter how good they are in any respect to spend some quality time away from the masses when they are on the way back from treating infected people.

    38. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average number of people that Ebola is transmitted to is about 2. That's a very low number.
      Right, a low enough number for a contagion to spread easily to an exponentially growing number of persons, of whom ~70% die from said contagion. Hundreds of health care worker in West Africa have died of ebola now. It's very easy to catch, all you need is contact with body fluids from an infected person, and they tend to spew lots of it before dying (diarrhea, vomit, blood leaking from every orifice) and it can enter through a mucous membrane.
      Time for you to sober up.

    39. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Flu and measles are easy to transmit. A given person will likely transmit one of those diseases to one or two dozen people. A typical flu season in the US probably sees millions of people infected and over 30,000 dead!

      A given Ebola patient will transmit the disease to two people. The only people who've contracted the disease in the US were healthcare workers who didn't follow the protocol, not the hundreds of people who were indirectly exposed.

      Even in Africa, where they live in congested slums, handle dead bodies, have no hygiene, and fear hospitals, there have been only about 10,000 cases. Malaria has killed orders of magnitude more people in that time period.

      dom

    40. Re:my thoughts by riverat1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Has anyone who flew on an airliner with someone who subsequently came down with Ebola gotten sick from it yet? Not that I've heard of but it's possible I suppose. The two people who got sick from Thomas Eric Duncan were directly involved with caring for him at the hospital and obviously didn't follow the procedures well enough to keep from getting infected. But now that the 21 day period has passed none of the people he was living with in Dallas got infected. That has to say something about how hard it is to get infected. It looks to me like Obama is following sound scientific advise and it's working so far. It's possible there may be some others who get it but we know how to control it and with our medical system I just don't see Ebola as a significant threat to the US.

    41. Re:my thoughts by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Guinea, not Ghana.

      Oops, right. Thanks for the correction. I get those little African countries mixed up sometimes.

    42. Re:my thoughts by tsotha · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ebola is impossible to catch unless you are directly exposed to someone who is symptomatic.

      Technically, yes. As doctors define direct exposure that's true. However, doctors and normal people don't define it the same way. If I have Ebola and get bodily fluids on a doorknob, then you come along an hour later, touch the doorknob and then rub your eyes... you can become infected. That fits the CDC's definition of "direct exposure", because you've been directly exposed to my bodily fluids.

      So don't get complacent thinking as long as you don't actually touch an infected person you can't become infected.

    43. Re:my thoughts by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some types of mutation are fantastically unlikely - by one account, Ebola would have to mutate into a form that only weighs about 20% or even 10% of what it now does, change from a long, twisted rod to something more like a sphere, and switch the conditions it actually grows under from inside the bloodstream to in the alveolar structures of the lungs to become the sort of threat some people are worried about. There are big differences between viruses frequently mutating and that mutation leading to fast evolutionary selection, but I've tried to explain that on Slashdot too many times to keep hammering at that particular type of ignorance - some people just need to sit down and read a whole good college textbook on Evolution. It may be somewhat reasonable to worry that some mutation in the direction of drug resistance is likely, especially if we don't get this strain under control quickly, but some people are basically describing having a smallish frilled lizard sneak into the country on a piece of driftwood, and six months later, it's stomping buildings flat and breathing radioactive plasma on Mothra, and those same people are too busy spreading rumors to learn anything at all. As they panic at the drop of a hat, people who are actual experts (and not just armchair biology hackers like me) are getting very afraid to say anything at all, because when they give an honest answer that sholdn't cause panic, and might even be a bit reassuring, they expect to be misquoted as saying Ebola will make the Nemesis black hole wander into the inner solar system early and reverse all our magnetic poles, and Raptor riding Jesus will come back and eat our heads, so panic now and avoid the rush!!!

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    44. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the part of the media exposure that I don't like, some media outlets, at least here in Europe are spinning the "direct exposure" angle as if you'd have to bathe in the blood of the infected to get infected yourself. It's just so over the top that the common person's reaction seems to be to assume that they're downplaying the danger.

    45. Re:my thoughts by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      Does he LIVE with his family?

      I certainly don't. If I caught Ebola, it would be much more likely that anyone but my family will get it.

    46. Re:my thoughts by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Boo !

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    47. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheesh, you'd do better informing the gun control crowd, they're the ones who have been panicking.

    48. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > I'm still trying to figure out what it has to do with politics.
      It's because the guy we pay to watch our backs missed a 10th grade math problem back in June. When that blew up in his face the agency he's overseen for the past 6 years failed miserably at delivering timely and accurate information.

      I'm not even all that political. If you are even remotely political, and you're not seeing the politics in the issue, it's because you're blinded by bias.

    49. Re:my thoughts by tazan · · Score: 1

      I don't find the fact only 2 nurses got sick comforting. I'm no mathematician but if everyone who catches it spreads it to 2 people I predict we are in for a rough time.

    50. Re:my thoughts by peragrin · · Score: 1

      we are not even in single digit cases.

      330 million people in the usa. and the only fatality has been a non american whom the hospitals should never of let go home.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    51. Re:my thoughts by RoLi · · Score: 1

      Exactly my thoughts. We are constantly being told that it is very hard to transmit and then when it does happen to trained medical personell with years of experience we are told that they made some minute mistake in procedure and that's the reason. But an infected taking the subway? - No problem, it's "virtually impossible" to get infected.

    52. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO, either Ebola is easier to transmit than we are being told _OR_ these Ebola doctors who get the disease are FSKING IDIOTS

      if it is so damn hard to get, how the hell do Doctors who should be the best at following procedure can get?

      i think people are just morons, no matter what degrees they have

      Seriously! Insighful ??!?

      if it is so damn hard to get, how the hell do Doctors who should be the best at following procedure can get?
      it is easy to transmit in high risk zone such as treatment centers in an ebola striken country and specifically to those who care for patients with high viral load.
      I think you are a moron siting behind your computer judging those who take high risk to make you safer!

    53. Re:my thoughts by RoLi · · Score: 0

      I meant to point out the absurdity of calling the doctor who knowingly risked his life to help Ebola patients a fsking idiot.

      Why is that absurd? Knowingly and needlessly risking one's life is squarely in idiot-territory.

    54. Re:my thoughts by RoLi · · Score: 1

      The answer to stemming the tide of people taking Ebola elsewhere is to get it under control in Liberia/Sierra Leone/Ghana so there's no Ebola to take elsewhere.

      So your plan is to send dozens of thousands of people over there, go from village to village and test millions of people?

      And in the meantime keep all flights open, because cancelling flights would be such a terrible tragedy?

    55. Re:my thoughts by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Politicians ultimately run our countries and therefore utlimately decide the strategy we take against such things.

      Right now they are adopting a relatively light touch strategy, they are tracking known infected people and their contacts, setting up special precautions in hospitals and sending people to help treat the outbreak but they are not putting in place total travel bans or mandatory quarantines on people who have recently visited infected countries.

      If the epidemic spreads to the west on a significant scale then people will blame those who chose to implement that light touch strategy.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    56. Re:my thoughts by ray-auch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Some types of mutation are fantastically unlikely

      Yep, that's all true, but there are other options, possibly no less scary.

      This virus is well established in humans now in this outbreak, whereas before it was mostly a zoonosis (caught from animals). Mutations will now be being selected by their efficacy in prospering in us, not in the original host(s).

      Some scientists believe this is already happening, we know it is mutating and there is evidence that it is mutating to become more infectious, to us: http://www.businessinsider.in/...

      If it is true that viral loads are coming up earlier and higher than before, then it could be shedding before symptoms. Wouldn't be entirely surprising - containing it through hazmat-after-symptoms will probably select for strains that infect before symptoms. That would screw up all our containment measures rather well. Even if it just accelerates symptoms it could get a lot harder to contain - if first symptoms are a fever _and_ the infected is monitoring and gets themselves straight into care, further infection can be limited, but if first symptoms are fever and projectile vomiting you have much more of a problem.

      All that said, scariest thing to me is that this is an African zoonosis that hasn't been out of Africa before except in the lab. We have no idea what hosts it may find in the non-African animal population, should it get the opportunity. If it finds an easy first-world reservoir host (maybe it likes our bats, or our foxes, or our rats) then it will become endemic, rapidly. Endemic ebola (in the absence of vaccine or cure) will be a game changer for 1st world medicine - think about every fever case to be isolated and treated using hazmat until tested negative (probably twice X days apart). Africa's health system, such as it is, is already feeling that pain - Ebola may well kill (already) more people via malaria than it does directly: http://www.reuters.com/article...

    57. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sound scientific advice" would be to NOT BRING SICK PEOPLE INTO THE COUNTRY.
      Ebola wasn't in America until the Obama administration imported it.

    58. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/qas.html

      virus in body fluids (such as blood) can survive up to several days at room temperature.

      Wrong, please stop spreading misinformation.

    59. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Prevention is bad. Always wait until a problem is entrenched and is costing tens of thousands of dollars per case.

    60. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go read the page linked above. It does not need to be encapsulated in a vial.

      virus in body fluids (such as blood) can survive up to several days at room temperature.

    61. Re:my thoughts by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that's what doctors and other healthcare workers do every day. They put their lives in danger by treating people with diseases that, if they aren't careful, they could catch. Firefighters also knowingly risk their lives to save people. They will go running into a burning building just to try to pull someone out.

      Risking your life to try to save someone else - when you are a trained professional - isn't idiot-territory. These aren't random people jumping into a raging river to save a drowning victim who wind up also drowning. These are people who take all available precautions, realize there is still a danger, and still try to save lives. These people are heroes.

      Now if some news reports are right and the doctor interacted with people after showing symptoms, I'd agree that THAT was an idiot move.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    62. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > By extension, any doctor who would get in a room with an Ebola patient is an idiot. Where would that leave us?

      zero U.S. cases

    63. Re:my thoughts by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Think of it this way then: Duncan was in the hospital for ten days. How many nurses and doctors looked after him during this time? How many family and friends and random strangers was he around before he went into the hospital? Out of all of these people, only two people contracted Ebola and that's because they were healthcare workers exposed to more of his secretions (and thus had a higher risk).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    64. Re:my thoughts by Biosci777 · · Score: 2

      I have a co-worker from Ghana; I asked him if he has family back in West Africa and if they are worried. He laughed and said that Ghana has a good health care system, much better than Liberia, for example, and they are not worried. I was amazed by the contrast with US citizens (us), who are fretting so much about the disease. Granted, Ghana's government is taking the disease very seriously and is handling it professionally... another contrast.

    65. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, doctors and normal people don't define [direct exposure] the same way.

      Equally worrying is the disconnect between the medical and common sense definition of "airborne".
      If/when someone contracts Ebola and Flu at he same time, the Ebola virons will be airborne by anyone's definition.

    66. Re:my thoughts by CaptainDork · · Score: 0

      Yes, Gov. Perry is an idiot.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    67. Re:my thoughts by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      The two people who got sick from Thomas Eric Duncan were directly involved with caring for him at the hospital and obviously didn't follow the procedures well enough to keep from getting infected. But now that the 21 day period has passed none of the people he was living with in Dallas got infected.

      It's the difference between being at home with a fever and diarrhea and being at the hospital bleeding out every pore of your body with explosive diarrhea unable to get up and use the toilet. Someone's gotta clean it up, not to put too fine a point on it.

    68. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doctors treating patients that are vomiting, shitting themselves, and bleeding all over the place have a much greater risk than anyone with casual contact. No mater how carefully protocols are followed, no one is perfect, especially when taking off the protective gear and disposing it, which is not easy.
      Your suggestion that the doctors are idiots for getting infected makes you appear the idiot.

    69. Re: my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever touched a wet doorknob, then rubbed the wet substance in your eye?
      I would consider that pretty direct.

    70. Re:my thoughts by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      > Knowingly and needlessly risking one's life is squarely in idiot-territory.

      No, your SENTENCE is squarely in idiot-territory.
      Heroism evolved for a very solid reason: it's a survival benefit. It probably originated with "if I save my child, my genes live longer than if I save myself" but it expanded into what we know because it's a good thing. It's the difference between self-interest and ENLIGHTENED self-interest.
      The more doctors offer to help in Liberia, the less people in Liberia get infected. The less people in Liberia get infected, the fewer potential people spreading it to other countries. The fewer people spreading it to other countries - the smaller the chance that somebody he loves will be affected (which has a very strong overlap with: people he has an evolutionary/genetic stake in).

      Humans are, and can be, a lot more than evolution but evolution generally REMOVES tendencies that are bad for survival, heroism exists in all human cultures and across all ages, sexes and classes for a reason: it's an evolved survival mechanism.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    71. Re: my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone sneezes in your face - that is direct exposure.
      If someone sneezes in an auditorium and someone 100 feet away gets infected - that is airborne.
      Both of these situations have very different public health implications. The failure of the public understanding this is a problem that needs to be corrected through education. Scientists and health professionals shod not change the technical meaning of the word just as pi should not be re-defined as 3.

    72. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ghana is not particularly small. It has a land area only just a bit smaller than Texas.

    73. Re:my thoughts by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      >This virus is well established in humans now in this outbreak, whereas before it was mostly a zoonosis (caught from animals). Mutations will now be being selected by their efficacy in prospering in us, not in the original host(s).

      Indeed, where you're wrong is thinking that's a BAD thing -that's exactly what we, as the humans, WANT.
      Almost every mild ailment we get from a virus today was once a plague far scarier than ebola.
      They are mild ailments now because we, and the virusses, have both been evolving toward that. A virus that kills it's host, kills itself too - it's bad for a virus to be lethal at all and no virus is lethal because it's evil, they are lethal because they are not evolved to us as hosts *ENOUGH* - so they end up causing lethal harm to their hosts which kills them too.
      In the medium to long term - the virusses whose hosts live longer, get spread to more people so they both outlive and outbreed the virusses whose hosts die sooner.
      In other words on a sufficient timeline evolution of viruses always selects for REDUCED lethality.
      If ebola is evolving for human hosts already, then it's likely to become progressively easier to survive with each generation and in due time, getting ebola will be ranked somewhere alongside catching the common cold.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    74. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are mischaracterizing what is being said about transmission efficiencies.

      Ebola is not infectious before symptoms are apparent. This should be obvious since so far no one in the US has contracted the disease except healthcare personnel dealing with bodily fluids.

      Ebola is not airborne. This is believed because of experiments with infected and non-infected primates in open cages located within a foot of each other: no non-infected animals got ebola from infected animals.

      Ebola is transmitted by bodily fluids and extreme care must be taken to keep these fluids out of your body because there is no cure for this deadly disease. Officials have said so, but you talk about how easy it is to contract when infected bodily fluids get into someone as if that contradicts what we're being told.

    75. Re:my thoughts by butchersong · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you're working day in and day out with ebola under chaotic often difficult to control conditions then you decide to travel home before say quarantining yourself for 2 weeks in your room before travel this is in my book very reckless. There is a difference between being well intentioned and being heroic. A person that carelessly knocks someone into traffic while chasing a purse snatcher is not a hero.

    76. Re:my thoughts by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Parent post has done an excellent job of summarizing the WHO and CDC statements about the ebola risk. Let me now take this to the next step and put it into terms that are more commonly used on slashdot, the streets, and just about everywhere else in the real world:

      If there is no one around you who has ebola, then you are not at risk of being infected. If there is someone around you who has ebola, then you should wear a space suit. If within the last couple of hours no one with ebola has been on the subway platform or the elevator or the taxi, or has handled the coins you are getting as change for your Starbucks frappacino, then you don't have to worry about getting infected.

      So it all comes down to simply making sure that you know the status and history of every person and object you come into contact with. Not such a big deal, eh?

      --
      Will
    77. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for pushing back against the derp.

      Right-wing blogs and fake-news have been pushing Ebola hysteria to try to make people frightened enough to vote for Republicans, and it seems to have worked on a lot of Slashdot users. The old crowd would have laughed off the fearmongers, but the quality of Slashdot user is not what it once was.

    78. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ive had to mark every one of your posts troll or flaimbait in this thread. you add nothing to the conversation. we are all dumber for having read your posts. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul

    79. Re:my thoughts by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      But it's not needless. It's very, very needed.

      Firefighters, doctors in west Africa: motherfuckin heroes.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    80. Re:my thoughts by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Eh, you're not contagious until you're symptomatic. During the week before he started showing symptoms he could have gone into Wendy's and spit on everybody's food for three days and they'd be fine. Well, not fine because they'd have some weird dude spitting on their food. But they wouldn't get Ebola.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    81. Re:my thoughts by _anomaly_ · · Score: 1

      These are people who take all available precautions, realize there is still a danger, and still try to save lives. These people are heroes.

      No doubt. I think some of the posters above need to look up altruism, and realize that some people in fact exhibit altruistic traits, to the benefit of everyone.

      --
      "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
    82. Re:my thoughts by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I work in a hospital and I did my Ebola training just this morning. It was a series of 10-15 slides I had to click through, and now I'm Ebola-proof.

      Of course, I'm an analyst who works in the administration building, so it's not likely I'll be treating any patients...

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    83. Re:my thoughts by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      IMHO, either Ebola is easier to transmit than we are being told _OR_ these Ebola doctors who get the disease are FSKING IDIOTS

      if it is so damn hard to get, how the hell do Doctors who should be the best at following procedure can get?

      i think people are just morons, no matter what degrees they have

      Because they are tending to patients who have the disease, are writing in agony while spewing vomit and blood from every orifice in their body. These people are braver and more selfless than just about anyone you or I have ever met. It's like asking how that Police officer could be so stupid that he got himself shot. Your question is more about your own myopic point of view than about these healthcare workers.

    84. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down, kid, when people say someone's "family" about a professional, they mean "partner and children", not "parents and grandparents". Yes, people do tend to live with their partner and children, that's kind of how families work.

    85. Re:my thoughts by Quakerjono · · Score: 1

      If Ebola infection post exposure were substantially higher than the suggested 30% rate, wouldn't we expect more infections than we're seeing? At the very least, someone who was exposed to Duncan prior to his medical isolation should have contracted it as it's hard to credit that he was in complete isolation from the moment he was symptomatic, through his original hospital visit, back to where he was staying, and then back to the hospital for diagnosis and admission. Again, at the very least, at some point the people he was staying with, who would have had the most intimate and longest contact with him, would have come into contact with his bodily fluids to some extent and at least one of them should have become infected. Further, 2 health providers of around 70 who where working with him have been diagnosed. These health workers most likely had a higher rate of contact with his bodily fluids while he was sloughing virus in high number. It seems the hospital provided questionable training on how to use protective gear correctly, so it would be reasonable to think other exposures due to inaccurate protection procedures would have occurred, even though we've so far only seen a 3% infection rate among the health care workers who were giving him care.

    86. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al Qaeda was not a significant threat to the US either, but I still can't take nail clippers through JFK, 13 years later.

      You have security theater in one case, you'd better have it in another.

      Of course, this may just be an argument against security theater in general :p

    87. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... get it under control in Liberia/Sierra Leone/Ghana ...

      Guinea, not Ghana. Ghana has been unaffected by the outbreak. It is as different as night and day from Guinea. Ghana has four times the GDP, a far higher literacy rate, functional institutions, and a democratic government that answers to the people.

      Oh, they speak the Kings english well, and trade away all of their resources internationally,
      with a great government theatre. These are the civilized Africans! Not those other ones!

    88. Re:my thoughts by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      How does the flu virus help the Ebola virus survive any longer than it otherwise would outside of the body?

    89. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You surely passed 1st grade math though right? Of all the people who have caught it (4 now, I believe) in the US, 2 cases have transmitted (from one person). That resolves to a 1/8 chance of catching Ebola, provided you come into direct contact with someone bearing symptoms. You have 0 chance otherwise.

    90. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, you realize that 330 million people haven't been exposed yet, right? That those "single digit cases" are all coming out of a pool of only dozens(?) that have gone overseas and come back with it?

      Changes the math quite a bit, don't you think?

    91. Re: my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I find interesting is that everyone assumes the only infection vector for a health care professional in ebola stricken Africa is direct patient contact. I think assumption that all these cases in Africa could only be from identified patient contact are probably overlooking all the other people there they come in contact with, while not wearing protective gear, and outside the protocols that are in place to keep them safe. We are talking about places with low levels of resources, education and other serious challenges of infrastructure. It does not take a Dr. breaking protocol with a patient, if the person who brings the Dr. dinner/laundry/supplies is infected. For example lets say the person who handles the protective suits catches ebola from a community member, unaware they have it, and hand the Dr. an infected mask to put on? Many of these are field hospitals, in challenging levels of heat with all that gear on. The staff all likely all sweaty, and have bodily fluids readily available for transmission. The same would be true for those that are working disposal of materials/bodies, but I would not be surprised to learn they rubbed shoulders with the Dr's and nurses in the mess tent after shift to eat. Imagine a grateful mother hugging a Dr. who saved the life of her child, unaware that her sweat was infected, and her fever not yet noticeable in the heat ...etc. So a lapse in protocol could come from almost any member of the team, including quickly trained local labor to handle waste, who then transmits it when they are outside of that role.

      My concern is that it is easy to focus on the main areas of risk, touching an infected patient, and then miss the fact the protocol might be fine for direct contact, but not for living in an Ebola camp.

    92. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You surely passed 1st grade math though right?

      What makes you think that? The fact that he has Internet access? ROFLMAPMP

    93. Re:my thoughts by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Morons, or the law of large numbers at work? There are 10's of thousands of doctors treating patients. Mistakes, unforeseen circumstances, or simply having to "make due" in a third-world country are part of real life. I don't think idiocy is required for the model's equation.

    94. Re:my thoughts by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      > Indeed, where you're wrong is thinking that's a BAD thing -that's exactly what we, as the humans, WANT.

      yes, to a point.

      Y Pestis was once much scarier than it is now, which is good news.
      Bad news is it killed 30-60% of population (in Europe at least) to get there.

      Might be interesting to try and work out what 30% population loss does to the world economy - might depend which 30%, if it's all the old people it might not be too bad, if it's all the medics (likely)... If it knocks us right back to subsistence farming, how many more would we lose to starvation in 1st world ?

    95. Re:my thoughts by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      That's because contrary to what some people are saying, Ebola isn't *that* transmissible.
      It takes extreme exposure (and thus extreme viral load) for the virus to overload immune response. This isn't HIV, it's not that your immune system can't knock these bastards out, it's just that it'll likely kill you before your immune system can really get into whole-body-lockdown gear in the case of a massive infection.

    96. Re:my thoughts by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Brilliant :)

    97. Re:my thoughts by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      One quibble,
      There is a difference between a ballistic sneeze droplet and an able-to-be-supported-by-simple-air-pressure-differences aerosol droplets.
      The latter shows no evidence of being able to successfully transmit Ebola. If it could, this epidemic would probably be over now with massive reductions in populations world-wide.
      It's one thing to have someone sneeze in your face and you get infected, and an entirely different one to have someone get infected on the other side of the plane simply because you breathed.

    98. Re:my thoughts by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Fair point, but Ebola has no chance of doing the same. You have to put the disease in context.

      If you want a worst-case scenario for Ebola in the US - this little history should suffice:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

      Disease fatality rate at the time: higher than Ebola.
      Disease spreading rate (and ease to catch): much higher.
      Patient zero spread-risk factor: orders of magnitude higher than anybody exposed to Ebola in the US.
      Higiene and care levels: far lower than today.
      Level of panic: comparably exaggerated.
      Quarantine protocols: major screwup.
      Medical knowledge: 100 years less of it.

      Total deathtoll: 53.

      So it's rather unlikely Ebola will get that much done. My point was that if it is evolving this rapidly, that is good for Liberia - the US risk factor will barely be affected on the basis that it's so close to zero that the change from this won't be statistically measurable.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    99. Re:my thoughts by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How does voting Republican protect from Ebola? Gullibility is not going to inoculate you.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    100. Re:my thoughts by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So you're advocating to confine the population of the US to the borders of the US?

      I think it should be easy to get global support for that idea...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    101. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is he a hero? From what I have dug up on Doc Hipster, it's not like he has an extensive background of work that shows that he knows what he is doing. At 33, he's pretty young for a Doc, so I bet this was more of a getaway/vacation of sorts after graduation before he had to get back in the real world.

    102. Re:my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've never had a wet fart?

      The problem is figuring when one is symptomatic. The early symptoms (fever, aches, etc) are things most of us brush off on a daily basis.

      Besides, that guy who coughs in his hand, then shakes the hand of someone who just papercut himself in the office (broken skin) is in deep doo-doo.

    103. Re:my thoughts by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 1
      Ah yes, who better to judge the hero status and medical knowledge of a volunteer for Doctors Without Borders than the flinty, steely eyed, and incisive Anonymous Coward on Slashdot? You are so insightful to realize the often underappreciated vacation value of treating Ebola patients. In fact, with the epidemic just ramping up, perhaps someone with an entrepeneurial flair like you could parlay the crisis into a money making enterpri$e. You could call it Ebola Tour$ for Citizens. Why should Docs have all the fun?

      Come to think of it, nice troll AC. You got me. I thought you were serious.

      --
      Join the IParty!
  4. Michael Savage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt there's much overlap between the Slashdot audience and Michael Savage listeners; but he nailed this story cold weeks ago. He warned us we weren't doing anything that makes sense. We need to hold all returnees in quarantine for 21 days, or just ban them outright until the country from which they return is ebola-free. It really is that simple.

    1. Re:Michael Savage by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      Common sense isn't very common. At least not in 21st Century America.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    2. Re: Michael Savage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So that they first travel to another country that's Ebola free first before coming here to get around that, thereby exposing even more people in dense transit centers? Yes that makes total sense

    3. Re: Michael Savage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about they don't be self-centered pricks and accept quarantine instead of risking infecting thousands of people. Getting around quarantines like that should be highly illegal. The guy was a doctor, he should have known better.

    4. Re: Michael Savage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already travel through 3rd countries. Returnee status isn't defined by the last airport you took off from. It's traced other ways.

    5. Re: Michael Savage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I read the article now. At least he was checking his temp every day and hadn't gone back to work. The 21 day quarantine for everyone else coming into the USA from effected areas starts Monday.

    6. Re: Michael Savage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a flight ban would be all airlines just temporarily suspend all flights to the three West African countries until the epidemic has subsided enough, only then the flights can continue. During the epidemic only military flights can fly into the affected countries, with tightly restricted passenger and cargo access. That way health care supplies etc. can be sent to the affected countries, and health care workers can fly between countries and back (after a 21 day waiting period) to whichever country they came from. Other travel restrictions may apply as well, but the sooner it's done the better, before the epidemic is completely out of control. The dimwits in this administration have it backwards.

    7. Re:Michael Savage by RoLi · · Score: 1

      Obama should have listened to his Kenyan brethren who cancelled all flights and implemented a 21-day quarantine period.

      Why can they do it and we can't?

    8. Re:Michael Savage by RoLi · · Score: 1

      Enforce a 21 day quarantine and you won't be getting any travellers from ebola countries. Instead you'll get travellers from the neighbouring countries

      Nope, because ALL neighboring countries have closed the borders.

      Why can a country that borders on Libera/SL/Guinea close the border while a country half away can't? Care to explain that one?

       

      or some convenient 3rd country where it's easy to switch flights. And no, there is no way to know who came from the ebola country.

      Well, quite a lot of countries are cancelling flights so it will get harder and harder for that. And in fact it is possible to know from where one came - and if the person has a Liberan passport it's a no-brainer.
      So some ebola-carrier would have to:
      - take a flight to some moronic country that still allows flights
      - fake a passport
      - then take another flight under a different name

      Seems quite unlikely. Also why should he take that hassle and not just stay in the first moronic country?

      But for the sake of argument: OK, we may not prevent all infections but only the vast majority. Perfect safety is always difficult to achieve. But inperfect safety is still better than no safety at all.

      So, why shouldn't we cancel all flights like Kenya and Nigera? Why shouldn't we implement a quarantine period like South Africa?

    9. Re: Michael Savage by david_bonn · · Score: 2

      No, a flight ban would be all airlines just temporarily suspend all flights to the three West African countries until the epidemic has subsided enough, only then the flights can continue. During the epidemic only military flights can fly into the affected countries, with tightly restricted passenger and cargo access. That way health care supplies etc. can be sent to the affected countries, and health care workers can fly between countries and back (after a 21 day waiting period) to whichever country they came from. Other travel restrictions may apply as well, but the sooner it's done the better, before the epidemic is completely out of control. The dimwits in this administration have it backwards.

      And who would enforce the ban? Last I checked the U.S. constitution doesn't give the government the power to ban foreign airlines from flying to a foreign country.

      From a practical standpoint, I'd point out that there really aren't that many military transport aircraft in the world, that a great many of them are American, and that they are blocked out literally months in advance. Would your 21-day waiting period also apply to aircrew? That will really bollix things up.

      I strongly suspect (but do not know for sure) that the 3000-odd US Military personnel on the way to that part of the world are depending on civilian air transport for much of their logistics. Certainly MSF and other NGOs do so. I also strongly suspect that going to a purely military transport system for Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea would greatly reduce the flow of emergency aid to these countries at precisely the time that their needs are so large.

      We should also be careful what we wish for. I am sure that if we institute some kind of silly travel ban from ebola-infected countries, a large number of countries around the world are going to enact a similar ban -- I say "similar" because the major difference is that they will also ban travel with the United States, home of the most ebola cases outside of Africa.

    10. Re:Michael Savage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there may be more overlap that I'd expect. The amount of baseless fear on display here would hint that a lot of users are under the influence of fear-mongering wingnut media, and hate-radio clowns like Savage are a huge part of that dysfunction.

    11. Re:Michael Savage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because other than our pants-shitting conservatives, we understand that a travel ban wouldn't help. The conservatives can't help it. They lack the critical thinking skills to reject the fear-mongering of xenophobic wingnut media.

    12. Re: Michael Savage by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      How about they don't be self-centered pricks and accept quarantine instead of risking infecting thousands of people. Getting around quarantines like that should be highly illegal. The guy was a doctor, he should have known better.

      Yeah, good luck with that. So many of the world's problems could be solved if only people would stop being self centered jerks! And then we could all link arms and sing Kumbaya!

      These cases of doctors/nurses traveling even after exposure are particularly egregious, but human history is literally a case study in self centered and thoughtless behavior, "screw you i got mine" mentality and other related, unpleasant human traits. Why can't we all just get along??

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
  5. What about the 10,000 african cases ? by x0ra · · Score: 0

    Where are the 10,000 news for all the African ebola cases... or even from the first case in Mali ?

    oh, yeah, that's true, we don't give a shit about them, unless they import the disease in "our" territory

    1. Re:What about the 10,000 african cases ? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      How about here. Another point is that Mali is next door to Guinea, where the outbreak this year is believed to have started. Is it really news that a disease crossed a border? Another case is the US is different because it is on a different continent and indicates that WHO is having difficulty containing the outbreak

    2. Re:What about the 10,000 african cases ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The news about the 10,000 ebola cases in Africa has been sterilized from the mainstream media in the US. Those who are in power, i.e. the Obama administration, don't want any negative news disrupting the mid-term elections, else they might think the citizenry would regard them as idiots. Notice how as soon as an ebola czar was appointed, the mainstream news changed to a different tune regarding ebola, but the number of infections keeps growing at about the same rate, doubling about every 30 days, yet the media stopped reporting on that. Mainstream media = Ministry of Truth. Make the news about ebola as sugar-coated as possible, even as more people travel from Africa to the US and more people.

  6. Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    1) stop going to africa
    2) wait for aids and ebola to depopulate the continent
    3) turn africa into a nature preserve

    1. Re: Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best solution I've heard to date.

    2. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greenpeace - is that you?

    3. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a population with no functional infrastructure. They are starving. You feed them, they are no longer hungry. Everyone feels better. But then members of the population have sex and they multiply. There is still no infrastructure.

      Have those that fed the population increased or decreased starvation in Africa?

      This is the history of aid to Africa in a nutshell.

  7. my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If its so hard to catch, then why the space suits?

    And because Ebola the virus has everything to do with USA politics, democrats are going to get steamrolled on this issue.

  8. Why dont they screen doctors before they come back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My friend works at Bellevue, my other friend took the 1 train (train the doctor took to go bowling last night while experiencing "sick symptoms") the same night he did and I take the 1 train every day to and friend work.

    There are people who live and are stuck in Africa who have a millions times more the reason to be concerned than I am, I understand this.
    What I don't agree with are the people who are using things like Malaria and HIV statistics to try and show how the media is playing up this issue.

    Both are less serious and more controllable diseases with much bigger sample sizes. As/if more Ebola cases arise, the contractions will increase exponentially and they'll stop comparing this to "more serious diseases".

    What I don't understand is why they are letting doctors who work on Ebola patients back into teh country without being screened?

    There are people arguing to shut down all travel from West Africa, even if that's too much in your opinion, at least screen these doctors.

    Customs: What was your reason for leaving the country?
    Doctor: I was treating patients with Ebola.
    Customs: Due to national security, we can not let you into the country until you've been tested and cleared.
    Doctor: But I have plans to go bowling in Brooklyn in about week!
    Customs: You're retarded.

    Chances are, the conversation wouldn't happen like that and the doctor would be understanding of the situation.
    So why aren't we just doing that to begin with?

  9. Re: New York by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this a game for you? Nobody laulaugh because it was in Texas, it's not a subject to joke on and you should feel great that someone in NY as the disease. Really, shame on you.

  10. Re:New York by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a good news. When people will see that there is only one or two transmission from this doctor, they will stop to panic.

  11. Proper risk management by guanxi · · Score: 2

    1) What is the likelihood of harm?
    2) If harm occurs, what is the cost?
    3) What is the cost of preventing harm, including the opportunity cost?

    And allocate resources accordingly. In this case:

    1) Extremely low. Approx. 3 people in the US have Ebola; all were in West Africa or treated someone already very ill. Nobody else in the US has been infected by these people (again, except someone providing health care to one of them). You are at much greater risk of heart disease, cancer, traffic accidents, hospital error, crime, and probably even lightening strikes and bee stings.

    2) The cost is very high, including a substantial risk of death.

    3) The cost is easily affordable for the US, but the opportunity cost is higher: The United States and the world have limited health care resources. For example, there's a good chance that many of the resources (doctors and money) would save many more lives and better protect US citizens by addressing heart disease (via prevention, treatment, or research) or controlling the outbreak in W. Africa than by responding to public panic.

    I think you'll find that many experts in these fields will say that the panic is the greatest risk, greater than the disease.

    1. Re:Proper risk management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I vote for panic? Honestly it's more entertaining in the news than people I don't know not dying of heart disease.

    2. Re:Proper risk management by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Whereas in countries actually physically affected by WWII they had things like the "KEEP CALM" posters. Yes, panic is a massive problem. People aren't rational. As long as people are not rational, and news media makes money from hyping dangers, panic will stay a large issue.

      Grow up, read some history, familiarise yourself with basic epidemiology and public health management, and then maybe you'll stop making a fool of yourself. Wishful thinking, I know.

    3. Re:Proper risk management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is hubris. The largest risk to us isn't an outbreak, it's the risk of Ebolavirus finding a natural reservoir here in The Americas.

      We have enough challenges as it is, we shouldn't be looking to needlessly add to the risk by inviting another hemorrhagic fever to come stay for a while.

      We should be playing it safe, because a lot is on the line.

    4. Re:Proper risk management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of reading up on history, the Keep Calm and Carry On posters were never used in WWII. They were printed, held in reserve, then recycled as paper resources became scarce. Maybe you should take your own advice first.

    5. Re:Proper risk management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong about something though. They WANT you to be afraid of it. If you are thinking about ebola, you are not thinking about other things. And when you are afraid, you will agree with countermeasures. Has the whole terrorist story thought us nothing?

      In my own country it seems not to be very much in the news (apart from the occasional report from the US, or that we are giving money to fight it or something). But every major news outlet in the US seems to feature it on a daily basis. Even when *nothing* new happened.

      Someone wants a controlled "panic".

    6. Re:Proper risk management by RoLi · · Score: 1

      How is suspending flights to Liberia a "high opportunity cost"?

      Is the economy going to turn down because somebody cannot get to Monrovia?

      Gosh, you people are surely crazy.

    7. Re:Proper risk management by Ken+D · · Score: 1

      This.

      Since at least August the CDC has been spouting the line "We know how to control Ebola" yet months later we were caught with our CDC protocols around our ankles. So far that mistake appears not to have snowballed in the US.

      Meanwhile, no signs of progress controlling Ebola in Africa, despite repeated claims by many that "we know how to control Ebola".

      Ebola just keeps on keeping on, doubling and re-doubling and re-doubling. Getting harder and harder to control, if that's even possible at this point.

      Meanwhile we get stories like the "extraordinary success", the "spectacular success" in Nigeria... about how Ebola was stopped after one air traveler imported Ebola and only eight people died and twenty secondary infections. Yay team! A few more successes like that and we'll really have Ebola on the run.

      But seriously if every existing case of Ebola ONLY led to 8 more deaths and 20 more infections before the outbreak was controlled that would be (at this point) a spectacular success. That's not going to happen... those numbers aren't small. The real numbers are going to be bigger, and that's only if the global community gets their act together and stops merely pissing on the fire.

    8. Re:Proper risk management by guanxi · · Score: 1

      Since at least August the CDC has been spouting the line "We know how to control Ebola" yet months later we were caught with our CDC protocols around our ankles. So far that mistake appears not to have snowballed in the US.

      The evidence says it is not a risk in the US and that the protocols, while not perfect, worked. The 3 people in the US infected no others (except a health care worker). Consider that the health care worker worked in a hospital, closely interacting with all their co-workers, and was out in public, etc. -- and nobody else got infected.

      You are starting with a predetermined conclusion, that Ebola is a great threat to the country, and calling all the evidence and expertise wrong.

      In the world of public health, people unfortunately die. We don't provide enough resources to treat all preventable deaths. Is it better to spend $1 million preventing 1 death from Ebola than to spend it preventing 10 from heart disease (or probably even more from Malaria or TB)?

      Let's save as many people as possible, and not let more needlessly die because we are too afraid to think straight.

    9. Re:Proper risk management by guanxi · · Score: 1

      How is suspending flights to Liberia a "high opportunity cost"?

      Is the economy going to turn down because somebody cannot get to Monrovia?

      My understanding is that it wouldn't protect us, so it would be a needless distraction, a waste of limited leadership attention, and false comfort.

      Instead of making decisions from fear and sensationalist news broadcasts, let's study what really works and do that. This field has been studied very carefully for a long time, so let's see what the people who study it have to say.

    10. Re:Proper risk management by Ken+D · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:Proper risk management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way to actually solve the crisis is to stop the Ebola outbreak in Africa. Therefore it's *imperative* that as many healthcare workers as possible are allowed to volunteer and thus travel to/from Africa, with as little hassle to them as possible. If you put draconian restrictions on people who do this work, there is a risk of volunteers deciding not to do it, and causing the outbreak in Africa to grow out of control. A million people infected in Africa would be a way, way bigger threat to the US than the trickle of one infected individual arriving in the US at a time - at some "tipping point" the epidemic could simply not be contained on the African continent and it would come here in crowds (via Europe and Asia) because we can not stop all global travel without shutting down our economy.

    12. Re:Proper risk management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What panic? I mean really WHAT PANIC? There is no rioting in the street. People aren't hoarding or fleeing. People are expressing concerns. That is not panic. Painting the crazy face on a strawman is utterly contemptable given that the populace is rather calm. Only opinions are expressed. Here's mine: the government is risking an Ebola outbreak by not doing more than what Nigeria has done. Rather than take on the cost and responsibility of a 21 day quarantine the government is risking a disease outbreak that would happen in a country with vastly more human exchanges and long distance transport than Liberia or Nigeria. Health care workers will of course make better decisions than a general member of the populace. What about a fast food worker that has no particular reason to think his mild fever is Ebola and needs the paycheck? The US is not Liberia but that is not all positive. The vastly greater rate of transactions between people in the US should also be seen as a factor. I have no confidence that US health policy in this event is the result of unencumbered deliberation by only technical workers. It appears to be a political decision and a gamble more characteristic of our financial sector. I don't see an epidemiologist arranging for some internet shill to characterize criticism as panic. The financial guys? You bet.

    13. Re:Proper risk management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Assuming anyone is correct and that Ebola really has a shelf life of a few hours outside of the body, then that's fine. I'm sure the cold and flu were there at one point in their evolution. Then again, viruses are not exactly living beings, so it's not like Ebola dies of dehydration or hunger, either. Cold and flu particles just wonder around until they reach an open nostril.

  12. not yet panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like the other guy said ....
    Let us know when (in the USA) the number of people killed by Ebola is greater than the number of people killed by cows.
    Until then we can hold off on the panic.

  13. Not their daddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are plenty of grownups in those countries. They can look after themselves. I'll take care of my family.

  14. Comparably Easy to Catch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They keep saying it is hard to transmit, since it is not airborne like influenza. But really. Just a drop of infected blood or vomit or sweat on your skin can kill you.

  15. Asking for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putting any human being previously *surrounded* by Ebola victims at their most contagious - regardless of being a Doctor or not - in a *hospital* without waiting 1.3x of the known incubation period is just... asking for it.

  16. Re: New York by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Is it time to put up a wall to quarantine texass? They've wanted a wall for some time. Should texass be allowed to infect good American blue states?

    Red state texass let an Ebola patient out on the streets with some tums or antibiotics....

    Epic healthcare failure." - muhutdafuga

    http://blogs.westword.com/late...

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  17. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you bothered to RTFA (I know, the horror), you'd have seen that he was not symptomatic during his subway rides. Ebola is not contagious when it is asymptomatic. As soon as he began feeling ill, he isolated himself. When the symptoms worsened beyond that of a common cold, he contacted the authorities. The probability of him having infected anyone is close to nil.

  18. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    Medical Screener: So I see you've been treating people infected with the Ebola virus
    Dr. Ebola; Yup
    Medical Screener: Are you infected?
    Dr. Ebola: Nope
    Medical Screener: Ok, ok enjoy your subway ride back to Manhattan.

    If this is how we're going to manage this outbreak, we are completely screwed.
    And it's likely already too late. That Dr took a few subway rides and likely infected at least a couple dozen people in the process.
    Thats more than enough to start a substantial outbreak of panic around the US and likely the entire planet.

    FTFY

  19. Re: New York by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, if you want to get specific about it, that was when good ol' Texas medicine was shown to be less than effective at preventing additional infections.

  20. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 0

    I did read the article on the NYT. However I was not aware that it's not contagious until symptoms set in. But still -- you completely passed up my my point which was WHY THE FUCK AREN'T WE ENFORCING MANDATORY QUARANTINE UNTIL THE WINDOW PASSES? I know-- the horror of using common sense and not simply using the "honor system" when dealing with a Biosafety Level 4 contagion is simply outlandish.

  21. Re: New York by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I laulaugh all the time. I love laulaughing.

  22. Jesus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you AC , don't encourage him !

  23. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by aviators99 · · Score: 1

    Strictly speaking, he was not asymptomatic when he took the subway rides. He was not yet febrile, but "felt run down".

  24. Re: New York by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They were following CDC guidelines which apparently were contradictory and incomplete.

    Basically what everyone is realizing is that the CDC is fucking clueless and everyone has to just use their own best judgement on the matter.

    Beyond which... basic quarantine procedures would deal with this problem.

    Nigeria is doing that and they're basically free from infection despite being right next to effected countries.

    The US used to have such policies in the old days. Ellis Island had extensive quarantine facilities for example.

    In this case we have a full blown Ebola outbreak and the fucking retarded administration wants to keep open transport because they're afraid it would look like discrimination. Let me be clear, if the damn outbreak were in the middle of Sweden, I'd still want quarantine procedures. This has nothing at all to do with race but rather everything to do with a very scary virus that isn't playing around.

    Now am I actually worried about a mass outbreak in the US? No. I find that unlikely. However, this virus has a 50-70% mortality rate and there is no vaccine.

    This is not something you take lightly. You pay this sort of virus the respect it deserves and enact BASIC quarantine procedures. Rudimentary.

    Nothing fancy. You come back from one of these countries, your passport gets checked, they see the stamp, they have a blood sample taken or whatever is needed. Then depending on the relevance, you might need to wait for that to come back clean.

    Sound inconvenient? It is a fucking plague. Tough shit.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  25. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If that was your point, then next time try to make it clear by using the words "enforcing", "mandatory", "quarantine", "until", "window" and "passes" in your post the first time.

  26. Responses: for New York etc by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 0, Troll

    Before returning to US, medical personnel should have 1-2 days isolated rest and repeat PCR screening. Restricted social activities and monitoring for 21 days after last African contact.

    1. The FDA is hindering rapid PCR test kits. Issue temporary permits, buy 10-20 provisional PCR kits for 5 airports and upgrade every 1-2 quarters. F--- the FDA.
    2. Stage and slow the return of West African visitors to social exposures.
    3. Flush anybody questionable with 2-5 days of IV vitamin C 80,000 mg tid, 50,000 iu vitamin D3 per day, selenium and zinc. These kill viruses.
    4. Allow protection for unknowns, like some earlier contagious exposure before gross symptoms
    5. Do better allowance in design for superspreader incidents.

    1. Re:Responses: for New York etc by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      3. Flush anybody questionable with 2-5 days of IV vitamin C 80,000 mg tid, 50,000 iu vitamin D3 per day, selenium and zinc. These kill viruses.

      Hahaha. :D

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Responses: for New York etc by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      But then Big Pharma doesn't profit. Therefore, it won't happen. A better idea IMO: dose *yourself* with appropriate amounts of these nutrients (I'd say much more than the current RDA, which is useless, but still less than you suggested, only because that much C would be prohibitively expensive and that much D could be toxic over long periods of time; 1-5g of C and 4800IU of D should suffice in a person not already sick). On top of a proper diet including lots of green leafy veggies, fresh fruits, and as little other sugar or high-glycemic carbs as possible. And start now. Odds are you will be much more resistant to any viral infection, and will defeat it much more easily should it happen anyway.

    3. Re:Responses: for New York etc by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What a great xkcd

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Responses: for New York etc by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Even if that worked, high doses of vitamin C can cause bleeding. Hmmm... maybe it was the gun after all.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Responses: for New York etc by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The high dose vitamin C is to kill the virus and stop the hemorrhagic episodes, poor Future Darwin Awardees.

  27. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

    They are screening and putting every returning health care professional on a health watch. The issue is that the incubation period for ebola can be up to 21 days. The doctor in question arrived at John F. Kennedy Airport on October 17 with no symptoms. Symptoms did not show up until this morning when the doctor followed protocol and was hospitalized. The virus may not even have shown up in his blood on October 17. Remember that infection tests look for antibodies not the virus itself. If the virus had not attacked yet there would be no anybodies.

  28. if you know this... by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    thanks for the response...

    my point is, that if YOU know this then the people who make the procedures must also...and therefore there already be adaptations/improvements to procedures OR if that can't happen then quarrantine

    if we know the threat exists, that's enough information to mitigate it in SOME way

    that's the problem here IMHO...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  29. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    That Dr took a few subway rides and likely infected at least a couple dozen people in the process.

    Lets wait the 21 days before making outlandish claims.

  30. cover all the angles by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    i guess you can say i was going for "doing an idiotic thing" not "inherently an idiot"

    maybe "being an idiot" or "made an idiotic mistake"

    idk...but this isn't a cup of hot green tea here...the whole idea is they're supposed to cover all the angles!

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  31. in favor of "space suits" by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    i'm all for an abundance of caution...let them wear the HAZMAT stuff....

    what kills me is that I've worked with hazardous materials in a construction setting, and there's always a trade-off between being bulky safety equipment and time

    but...there is sort of a line you don't cross...like hard hats...some job sites are "Hard Hat Only" as soon as you enter the property...which is a bit silly...but you're an idiot if you are guiding a crane placing I-beams and don't have your Hard Hat on

    see what I mean?

    i just don't see why competent people can't get this right

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:in favor of "space suits" by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Becaues the average I-beam is more easy to spot than the average virus. It's trivial to know whether you're protected from an I-Beam (is that hard hat on? Yes? You are), but not whether you're protected against viral matter (is your hazmat suit tight? You sure? Are you?)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:in favor of "space suits" by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      what about my post makes you think i'm advocating using hard hats to fight Ebola?

      do you know what an analogy is?

      my comments about using hard hats were an analogy, to make about point about lines you simply do not sensibly cross

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    3. Re:in favor of "space suits" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ebola-contaminated body fluids, like the kind patients lose in volume in the late stages, are horrifyingly infectious. You must follow procedure to prevent them from getting you, perfectly, every single time.

      Humans suck at procedures that must be followed to the letter every single time.

    4. Re:in favor of "space suits" by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Afaict in the core countries of the epedemic the problem is a lack of resources. Ideally you would use a new protective suit each time to minimise the risk of material transferring from outside to inside and you would work very slowly and carefully to make sure you didn't puncture the protective suit (remember medical treatment almost inevitablly involves sharp objects coming into contact with patients bodilly fluids but when you are short of time and materials you can't do that and still treat all your patients.

      In cases like texas the problem seems to be that there is a delay between the infected patient showing up and the hospital realising what they are dealing with and how seriously they need to take things.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    5. Re:in favor of "space suits" by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      By the way, a hard hat does not protect against an I-beam that weighs several tons. If a cable breaks and the beam drops on your head, that plastic cap isn't going to save your life.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    6. Re:in favor of "space suits" by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      umm, the hard hat protects you from the idiot who left his tape measure on the I beam you're guiding.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    7. Re:in favor of "space suits" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A hard hat wont save you from a beam. It will help if a nut, bold, or wrench falls on your head.

      I was an Ironwork out of Local 40 (NYC) for 12 yrs.

      Already mod-ed people so I have to comment as an AC

    8. Re:in favor of "space suits" by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Afaict in the core countries of the epedemic the problem is a lack of resources. Ideally you would use a new protective suit each time to minimise the risk of material transferring from outside to inside and you would work very slowly and carefully to make sure you didn't puncture the protective suit

      And how many medical professionals in the US are actually trained to do so? How many hazmat suits are actually available? How many beds? How many isolation wings? More generally: how big does an outbreak have to be in the US before it's not containable?

      It's a valid question that no one seems to want to talk about. Even with relatively unlimited resources, first world countries are still vulnerable if the outbreak grows above a certain size. Keep in mind you don't need one hazmat suit per doctor, you need 1 per doctor per 2 hours of on shift time. The same is true for a lot of equipment.

    9. Re:in favor of "space suits" by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      no but it and the rest of your PPE will protect you from

      1 tools and such left on the beam
      2 the guy slide tackling you to get you out of the way of a dropping ibeam
      3 management that decides to muck about on the work site

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    10. Re:in favor of "space suits" by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Very true. However places where beams might drop on you are also places where somebody's hammer, spanner, or bucket of bolts might drop on you. A hard hat makes a lot sense in those places.

      --
      Will
    11. Re:in favor of "space suits" by mrzaph0d · · Score: 1

      3 management that decides to muck about on the work site

      Can i get a hard hat for the office?

      --
      this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
    12. Re:in favor of "space suits" by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      The makeshift ebola suits currently in use are epic fail. Persons highly trained in their use have come down with ebola. Probably because the protocols for getting in and out of the suits are so difficult that the protocols themselves are broken, they simply do not work.

      Paul Allen-- bless him!-- has just donated $100 million to the ebola effort. But more significantly, he is spearheading the development of a medevac system that will handle medical personnel in Africa who may have been exposed to ebola.

      What we need is someone of Paul Allen's stature to design and deploy an effective ebola suit. This would probably be a spacesuit that would protect its occupant from an environment so hostile to life that any ebola on its surface would not survive. It would be used in conjunction with that hostile environment. For example, a suit that would allow a health worker to stand in a bonfire for 15 minutes, or walk through a deadly chemical fog chamber. It needs to be built and used in such a way that getting into and out of it can be done easily, while assuring that any ebola virus on its surface is 100% destroyed.

      There is no government agency or institution that could take this on. This is on the scale of a Manhattan Project-- except much worse since we don't have years to do the work. We need something useable in months. So we need someone with the resources and know-how to develop this new technology on a fast track. Burt Rutan. Bill Gates. Maybe Warren Buffett. Someone of that caliber.

      I hope someone is stepping up to take this on. Developing an effective ebola suit would be a magnificent legacy. It would put one in company with medical greats like Pasteur, Lister, Fleming, and Salk.

      --
      Will
    13. Re:in favor of "space suits" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about his post makes you think he thought you were advocating using hard hats to fight Ebola? He's taken your analogy and showed you where the differences lie, specifically in response to your question/statement, "i just don't see why competent people can't get this right". They can't get this right because it's HARD to get right, UNLIKE the simple matter of putting a hat on. Wow, explaining 3rd-grade reading comprehension on Slashdot, does it get any more fun?

    14. Re:in favor of "space suits" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can send people into *space* and know with certainty that their suits are secure and will protect them, so why should they be any more lax about protective suits for a highly contagious, deadly disease?

    15. Re:in favor of "space suits" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, don't send people in to treat patients. We should be using robots for that.

    16. Re:in favor of "space suits" by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      Afaict in the core countries of the epedemic the problem is a lack of resources. Ideally you would use a new protective suit each time to minimise the risk of material transferring from outside to inside and you would work very slowly and carefully to make sure you didn't puncture the protective suit

      And how many medical professionals in the US are actually trained to do so? How many hazmat suits are actually available? How many beds? How many isolation wings? More generally: how big does an outbreak have to be in the US before it's not containable?

      It's a valid question that no one seems to want to talk about. Even with relatively unlimited resources, first world countries are still vulnerable if the outbreak grows above a certain size. Keep in mind you don't need one hazmat suit per doctor, you need 1 per doctor per 2 hours of on shift time. The same is true for a lot of equipment.

      How many do we actually need? Ebola was technically gone in the US until this doctor returned to the country. So we're down to 1 infection from the peak of 3. Oh no! It's eradicated from Nigeria and Papa Guinea is very close. Only Liberia remains.

    17. Re:in favor of "space suits" by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      100000 airplanes. the US can get shit done if it really gets behind it.

    18. Re:in favor of "space suits" by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Nobody likes being made to look like a fool on the internet, but I know a lot of people who handle it a lot classier than you.

    19. Re:in favor of "space suits" by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Depends entirely on the inertial reference frames of you and the interacting I-beam.
      Hard-hat is protective of somewhere around 99.9999999999999999999999% of human-head to I-beam inertial interactions.

    20. Re:in favor of "space suits" by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Oh, I know that. It just seems silly that the focus is on the i-beam, and not the things that the hat can actually protect against.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    21. Re:in favor of "space suits" by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      By the way, a hard hat does not protect against an I-beam that weighs several tons. If a cable breaks and the beam drops on your head, that plastic cap isn't going to save your life.

      Yes, but you sure as hell won't be worrying about ebola after that.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    22. Re:in favor of "space suits" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      3 management that decides to muck about on the work site

      I thought that's what dropping the beam was for.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:in favor of "space suits" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Trust me, you do not want your doc to handle you with the gloves astronauts wear in space. There are more merciful ways to euthanize a person.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:in favor of "space suits" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quiet kid, the adults are talking.

    25. Re:in favor of "space suits" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Astronauts work with far more complex equipment than doctors do.

  32. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So "being symptomatic" is a binary flag that controls virus secretion?

    You are an idiot.

  33. The virus is exponential. by opensourcespace · · Score: 1

    If you have the virus in your body fluid and you project your body fluid then you can transmit the disease. Farts, Coughs, Sneeze, tears, blood etc. But the disease is exponential you have far far far more of it right after you die then before. Likewise far far far more of it when you are showing symptoms but you can spread it before its just much less likely So normal contact is safe early but can be deadly later on. There also seems to be a immune system lottery with some people being more able to fight it off than others. The problem with NYC is that one person just one who is highly contagious in the subway and thousands could catch it. One crazy homeless person who gets it and no one notices and goes to die by way of subway and its everywhere. Africa just doesn't have the density of NYC

  34. hard hat by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    well that's real talk...i can understand "circumstances" i suppose...it is still a dumb mistake IMHO

    as i was saying above in another comment, I've worked with hazardous construction materials...nothing like Ebola obv...but we had to wear protective gear and it got annoying

    ex: Hard Hat...some jobs require hard hats everywhere, even outdoors in the open air...it's not crazy to cheat a bit in that area...however, only an idiot would go into an area with heavy work being done above them w/o the hard hat...in fact, other workers would stop you as soon as they saw you b/c an injury on site wastes a ton of time

    there's strict rules and then common sense and the the line you don't cross...what I'm saying is, given that he was a *doctor* and *knew he was handling Ebola* it seems weird that he'd do something that would put him near that line

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  35. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we enforce a mandatory quarantine until "the window pass", the window will pass when most of West Africa is dead. I'm sure you don't care about those people there.

  36. When is it time to get serious about quarantine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The healthcare workers going over there *know* the risks they are taking. We should *not* be letting any of them back into the country until a 30-day quarantine, whether healthcare worker or not. It's not fair, it'll cause some to be tempted to break the rules, but there is still no reasons to pretend this disease isn't that contagious and treat it like the plague it is! If this becomes an apocolyptic pandemic due to political correctness, people will be a lot less likely to get this fair of treatment.

  37. Obola by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1, Funny

    In this case we have a full blown Ebola outbreak and the fucking retarded administration wants to keep open transport because they're afraid it would look like discrimination.

    What you're describing is Obola.

    1. Re:Obola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >What you're describing is Obola.

      That's what the terrified wingnuts are saying. Of course they're just fear-driven former conservatives that caught teabola from far-right-wing media and blogs.

    2. Re:Obola by sexconker · · Score: 1

      >What you're describing is Obola.

      That's what the terrified wingnuts are saying. Of course they're just fear-driven former conservatives that caught teabola from far-right-wing media and blogs.

      They may be terrified, fear-driven, conservatives (active of former), affiliated with or supportive of the tea party movement, or follow right-wing media or blogs.
      But they are absolutely right about Obama doing NOTHING to stop Ebola from coming to the US. Obama and his administration have been bending over backwards to lie to us and let it fucking happen. Obola is real.

    3. Re:Obola by Dahan · · Score: 1

      Hey sexconker, it's been another week, so time for a reminder that the number of Ebola cases in the US hasn't skyrocketed. Both Dallas nurses are out of the hospital. The only infected person in the US is this doctor, who didn't catch it from someone in the US.

    4. Re:Obola by sexconker · · Score: 1

      We've quadrupled the number of confirmed cases.
      We've had tens of thousands exposed.
      We cannot track the exposed people.
      We've had people break quarantines (medical professionals, no less).
      We have many people under "observation" but not an actual quarantine.
      We're still letting people fly in willy-nilly, to the point that individual states are enacting their own quarantine procedures because the federal government isn't doing shit.
      We have businesses being shut down because infected people visited them.

      Please continue assuring yourself that it's not an issue.

    5. Re:Obola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specifically who are you including in this quadrupling of cases? Moreover, specifically where did Dahan indicate that there was no issue?

    6. Re:Obola by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The issue is less about ebola, which I agree is not a real threat to the US, and more an ongoing symptom of misplaced priorities amongst civic officials and politicians.

      You have to see this in the context of the last few years. We've had a series of institutional failures at several different federal departments and bureaus. While some of these issues are blown out of proportion for political gain it would be incorrect that there have not been some serious mistakes. And these issues compound. There are cover ups as there always are cover ups. But the thing is that most of them happen well after the issue is revealed. Which means we're all aware something happened but the administration won't talk about it.

      Which leads to the Streisand effect. Every time they refuse to talk about things or disclose information it leaves everyone to ASSUME what actually happened. This is very dangerous. And it is obvious that those that are already distrustful of the administration are going to assume really dark things when they're given mostly redacted information and told they won't get more.

      Consider 9/11 truthers for example. These people were basically the same thing on the left. What happened with them is that the government wasn't being especially forthcoming about certain pieces of information and so they had to fill in the blanks with their own guesses and assumptions. Already having a negative impression of the president and his politics they filled it in with an intentional plot to kill americans to create a police state or something.

      So lets not make the mistake of thinking this is exclusively on one side of the line or the other here. This is a recurring response to government censorship and ass covering. You do that, and your opponents do not know what you did. But they don't trust you. So they fill in the blanks often as not with their worst fears.

      Is Obama dealing with the Ebola situation properly?

      1. Some basic quarantine procedures or at the very least a formal medical exam for people returning from those parts of the world is reasonable. Refusing to do that is going to make people crazy. And that crosses political lines by the way. This is freaking out a lot of liberals.

      2. Appointing a political operative as the head of the CDC has terrible optics. I question whether it was a good idea administratively but politically this move has backfired horribly. This really just plays into the narrative that Obama only cares about how he looks and doesn't actually care about his job or his responsibilities.

      3. Effectively giving license to the notion that opposition to his policies on this issue are explained by racism is frankly crude and beneath the dignity of his office.

      And so on... He's not handling it well. Even his own party supporters are calling him on it. And of course, if his own supporters are calling him on it... you can only imagine how far his opponents will go on the issue.

      Throwing away all criticism on the issue as being the misguided mutterings of ignorant people is counter productive and ignorant.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  38. your thoughts ... by golodh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    @Globaljustin

    IMHO your "opinion" is very very humble indeed and belongs in the category of "uneducated careless speculation with a sensationalist bent".

    It may have escaped your notice, but doctors who help out in West-African hospitals come into close contact with a constant stream of very ill people who are in the stadium where they really are contagious, every day for months at a stretch.

    Their protective clothing prevents transmission in the vast majority (say 99,9%) of cases (something you can tell by the fact that we still have doctors left treating Ebola patients). The real danger comes when you take off your protective suit. That has to be done carefully so as not to touch the splatters of blood, muckus, tears, sweat etcetera that very ill patients secrete and if possible it has to be decontaminated first.

    Now I'm sure your "humble" and uneducated opinion never has been schooled in elementary probability so you wouldn't understand things like P(contagion_after_100_days) = 1 - [P(no_contagion_after_1_day)]^100, but try it this way.

    Playing the lottery every day makes it unlikely that you won't win a single prize.

    And so it is with medical personnel who treat Ebola patient for months. They run a risk.

    So it's no conspiracy (I can feel your incredulity and disappointment) and no case of "fsking idiots" (a term which I'd like to reserve for you personally).

    It's easy to shout your (thoroughly humble) head off about stuff you don't understand, but it's not helping anybody and it stands in the way of a rational attitude towards Ebola.

    P.S. there is absolutely nothing "insightful" about your post. On the other hand it's revealing. Revealing of a mindset that couples a penchant for conspiracy theories with a complete lack of understanding of risk and a disdain for plain ordinary everyday scientific commonsense that seems to have whizzed over your (so very humble) head.

  39. Re: New York by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next let's penalize blue states for allowing illegal aliens to pour in with respiratory infections.

  40. How Contagious? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    The ebola outbreak started on March. In 5 months there have been 10,000 cases in countries known for their low health care and sanitation standards. Considering that in many places the population is very crowded and many cases of infection do not get reported until the symptoms get very bad I bet that every person in infected areas would have been in close proximity with at least one ebola infected person. If ebola was as contagious as some people think don't you think a lot more than 0.045% of the population of those countries would be infected by now?

    What may be a source of the concern is all the pictures of people in suits carrying body bags. This skews perception as those people are in contact with a corpse that has ebola laden excretions all over it. When an ebola victim has just died that is when they are the most contagious.

    1. Re:How Contagious? by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      I think population density and mobility is what has people more concerned. Yes, a lot of the places in the Ebola outbreak have poor sanitation and a moderate population density. However, a much lower percantage of those populations travel for a living, and they do not have the dense population centers like we have in the US.

      That and the massive uptick of apocalypse/disease movies. People get so invested in it that the idea of being prepared for a disaster becomes part of their identity. Kinda like that one dude who predicted the second coming a few years ago. They can't revoke their assertions because that would be writing off part of their self.

  41. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I care about them. I care about my immediate family more. If that makes me a terrible human, so be it.

  42. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by quantaman · · Score: 1

    My friend works at Bellevue, my other friend took the 1 train (train the doctor took to go bowling last night while experiencing "sick symptoms") the same night he did and I take the 1 train every day to and friend work.

    It's bad in Africa because they have terrible heathcare. Instead of seeking medical care people get care from friends and family who don't know what they're doing, thus they become infected themselves and the disease spreads.

    This guy having spread the disease on the train is possible, but very unlikely.

    There are people arguing to shut down all travel from West Africa, even if that's too much in your opinion, at least screen these doctors.

    They are screened but the virus has an incubation period.

    There are people arguing to shut down all travel from West Africa, even if that's too much in your opinion, at least screen these doctors.

    Customs: What was your reason for leaving the country?
    Doctor: I was treating patients with Ebola.
    Customs: Due to national security, we can not let you into the country until you've been tested and cleared.
    Doctor: But I have plans to go bowling in Brooklyn in about week!
    Customs: You're retarded.

    A travel ban is a terrible idea, people will still travel from West Africa but they'll do it from other countries so we won't know to track them. A 3 week quarantine (outlast the incubation period) isn't much different due to its huge burden.

    There is one good idea though, remember that saying about terrorists, "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here". Well that's exactly the right approach for Ebola. If you want to protect the US from Ebola then you need to send US medical personnel and other resources to West Africa to help fight the outbreak. The risk to the US isn't a random few travellers from a handful of countries in West Africa. It's the disease continuing to flourish in West Africa and eventually popping up in India, China, and South America.

    Whatever the ability of the US to handle a few lone cases it would be much worse for Brazil or Mexico. And whatever you think of the difficulty of keeping sick Africans out of the US it's far harder to keep out sick Mexicans.

    If you want to stay safe then make it easy for US doctors to help in West Africa.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  43. The government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Is the irresponsible asses. Anybody coming from these regions should be put in at minimum a 2 week quarantine, and ideally a month, just to be sure.

    It's not like that's a huge concession for helping people and it ensures, especially for practicing doctors, that they won't be accidentally spreading this to patients.

    For fuck's sake this is a perfect example of which TSA/DHS/CDC etc should be trying to profile and protect us from. If *NOT* then they really *ARE* useless and the money might as well be spent as 'welfare', since that's basically all those jobs act as.

    Well that and feature creep with all those VIPR teams.

  44. Pretty sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's wannabe yuppie Texas imports that are causing most of the retardism in Texas. It started with the oil barons and it's gotten worse since. Most of the ACTUAL Texans I've known, with 3 generations or more of continuous living there are generally educated to a college level, and prior to the 90s or so were pretty counterculture. (The old joke about a Texas sheriff knowing somebody was suspicious if there wasn't an open container in the vehicle used to be true! Thanks MADD for ruining Texan cultural heritage!)

    That said it really seems to be the baby boomers instigating it, with the 70s-90s kids now too incompetent/lazy/impotent to clean up the mess.

    1. Re:Pretty sure... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Gov. Perry just blew your thesis.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  45. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did read the article on the NYT. However I was not aware that it's not contagious until symptoms set in.

    But still -- you completely passed up my my point which was WHY THE FUCK AREN'T WE ENFORCING MANDATORY QUARANTINE UNTIL THE WINDOW PASSES?

    I know-- the horror of using common sense and not simply using the "honor system" when dealing with a Biosafety Level 4 contagion is simply outlandish.

    as multiple experts have said, if you have too much inconvenience on people (eg mandatory 3 week quarantine - the average person does not want to be without an income for 3 weeks) then people will start lying during questionning.

    Mandatory quarantine of everyone who has visited Africa in the previous 3 weeks before arrival?? How much do you think that will cost, when just under 100% people all those people don't have ebola? How many people per week do you think this will affect?

    And as has also been mentioned multiple times, it is only transmitted by fresh bodily fluids of an infected person. This is why, so far, only caregivers of sick people have caught it. I don't think there are any reported cases of it being transmitted just by sitting next to someone on a bus/plane/train.

  46. Michael Savage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enforce a 21 day quarantine and you won't be getting any travellers from ebola countries. Instead you'll get travellers from the neighbouring countries, or some convenient 3rd country where it's easy to switch flights. And no, there is no way to know who came from the ebola country.

  47. Re: New York by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 5, Funny

    However, this virus has a 50-70% mortality rate and there is no vaccine.

    Does that mean it has a 30% - 50% immortality rate? Hmm....

  48. panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cue panic!

    1. Re:panic by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

      Frank Hebert - Dune

  49. African Infrastructure by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    Only investment in African infrastructure will stem infections coming from there. Saved lives are the only payoff though, so doubtful the 1% will be willing to go for that.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  50. Just shoot him now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then burn the body. Lets stop pretending we can care for such people without introducing more harm.

    1. Re:Just shoot him now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we are at it, can we also shoot the illegal aliens and all the mexican'ts coming here? I saw shoot a few hundred on the spot, no questions asked, and I am sure that will for sure put a dent in those alien numbers. Also, just so we are clear, I want to say very clearly that illegal immigration is also like Ebolo in a way. They come here, "infect" this great country of ours, with their "native" culture and fish heads, and crazy "festivals" and non-english speaking people should not be allowed to fly. see this

  51. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by u38cg · · Score: 1

    Mind numbing stupidity is right. I do wish people (like you) who know nothing about Ebola would shut up.

    --
    [FUCK BETA]
  52. Robots doing dangerous work by myid · · Score: 1

    I hope robot companies are doing R&D on how their robots, instead of Ebola care-givers, could do dangerous work.

    Gizmodo has an article on robots fighting Ebola. The article lists ways that robots could be used, including removing biowaste, and delivering supplies to people who are healthy but cut off.

  53. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    That Dr took a few subway rides and likely infected at least a couple dozen people in the process. Thats more than enough to start a substantial outbreak around the US and likely the entire planet.

    I don't know what's worse, that you think this is how Ebola works, or that someone modded you up for your clueless opinion.

  54. which idiot is letting these people fly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which idiot is letting these people fly...

    1. Re:which idiot is letting these people fly... by RoLi · · Score: 2

      Well, Nigera, Kenya, South Africa, and many more countries have cancelled all flights. But Obama said that he "can't" do that. Why he can't do that he didn't say though.

    2. Re:which idiot is letting these people fly... by Freedom+Bug · · Score: 1

      He won't do it because it would be stupid.

      Right now if they ask you at the airport if you've been to Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea, people have no incentive to lie, so don't. If you make that illegal, it won't stop them from flying out of somewhere else, it will just make them lie to the immigration officials, making the problem worse, not better.

    3. Re:which idiot is letting these people fly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think people aren't lying right now about where they've been, you clearly haven't been paying attention. You know nothing of the individual's incentives. Washington Compost:

      Dallas County Prosecutor Considering Criminal Charges Against Ebola Patient in Texas

    4. Re:which idiot is letting these people fly... by Yosho · · Score: 2

      But Obama said that he "can't" do that. Why he can't do that he didn't say though.

      Well, it's probably because he's not a dictator with unlimited power and can't shut down companies with a wave of his hand.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    5. Re:which idiot is letting these people fly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS. Read the Nigerian case. People will lie regardless of Western actions. There will be West Africans who know they have been exposed who will lie to screening personnel. Just like Nigeria. We are playing with a virus which is only handled in Bio-Safety Level 4 facilities. The highest containment level possible and yet the educated West is suddenly saying it is no big deal. Open borders are no problem. Complete and utter rubbish. The protocols for this have been in place for decades and now the West is failing to follow them.

    6. Re:which idiot is letting these people fly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Nigera, Kenya, South Africa, and many more countries have cancelled all flights. But Obama said that he "can't" do that. Why he can't do that he didn't say though.

      Give me a list of all the direct flights from infected African countries to the US. Go ahead, I'll wait. Here this might help: http://travelocity.com/

    7. Re:which idiot is letting these people fly... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I suggest sending Air Force One to Liberia, with Obama aboard. Wonder what tune he'd be whistling then...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  55. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    One thing that seems very relevant, but never discussed: Why comes first, symptoms, or contagiousness?

    If a person isn't contagious until well after showing symptoms, I can kind of see the current lax screening as being reasonable.

    But otherwise, it seems inexcusable.

  56. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  57. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  58. Re: New York by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can find more about what Nigeria has done here:

    http://www.latimes.com/world/a...

    Nothing they did was especially innovative. Their response was textbook. You quarantine anyone infected, you question anyone infected about everyone they've come in contact with, you investigate all of those people, and you do not take the virus lightly.

    None of this is new. It is basic.

    The people saying we can't have screening or quarantine procedures for political reasons don't seem to grasp that viruses don't care about your politics. It is like when Achilles says to Hector "there are no pacts between lions and men"...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    The virus will show no pity, no hesitation, and no remorse. It exists to eat and spread.

    Just as we have procedures for dealing with forest fires or other natural phenomenon. You don't let politics dictate how you deal with them. There is a correct way and an incorrect way. If you choose the incorrect path because it is politically more correct, then that natural phenomenon will exploit your arrogance and do what it does.

    Again, I'm not worried about an outbreak in the US. I am however concerned about the glaring and obvious incompetence of the government. I am routinely shocked by how stupid they are on so many issues.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  59. They Misspelled "Vectors" by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    CNN Reports: "A Vectors Without Borders physician back from West Africa tests positive for Ebola at a New York hospital."

  60. Proper risk management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lightning kills around 25 people per year in the US. Bees killed about 50 last year. Traffic kills 30000 per year. Violent crime around 20000. Ebola is still far behind, lets hope it stays there.

  61. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    Chances are, the conversation wouldn't happen like that

    Mainly because the USA has signed treaties that make it illegal to refuse entry to a citizen.

    That, and when you make a self-report of risk be a metric for spreading the risk, you increase the risk and the amount of lying. But you don't help anyone. So your plan fails for many reasons.

  62. Protocol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Proficiency Testing needs to be more like 2 days.
    I asked a Doctor what he thought about CDC's first effort on protocol, and found the doctor thought the protocol was rather complicated.

    The newly issued requirements may be even more so, but acknowledge that fact by requiring a person to be present who's sole responsibility is to make sure the protective equipment is put on and taken off correctly.

  63. Re: New York by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

    Sound inconvenient? It is a fucking plague. Tough shit.

    Completely agree. Common sense is the only consistent solution to most of Humanity's problems. Unfortunately, we all know how 'commonly' it can be found in the wild.

    --
    ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  64. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by RoLi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Chances are, the conversation wouldn't happen like that

    Mainly because the USA has signed treaties that make it illegal to refuse entry to a citizen.

    That, and when you make a self-report of risk be a metric for spreading the risk, you increase the risk and the amount of lying. But you don't help anyone. So your plan fails for many reasons.

    Wait a minute. The USA ignores treaties left and right and constantly bombs and invades countries because they want to leave the US-dollar as reserve currency. They torture and hold people without trial. They pay millions to destabilize Syria, Ukraine and dozens of other countries.

    But they can't refuse entry because of some treaty with Libera?

    Since when did the USA care about any treaty?

  65. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by RoLi · · Score: 1

    In fact South Africa did implement such a window.

    But you are right, we are screwed. Politicians care a lot more about political correctness than deadly viruses. They (and their mindless TV-educated zombies like "Nemyst") will tell us how it's "unlikely" that it will become a problem and that not a single flight to Liberia must be cancelled, because ... well just because we "can't leave West Africa". What happened to "yes we can"?

  66. This asshole by phinnvr6 · · Score: 1

    This asshole should be shot in Times Square for this idiocy. Knowingly going to a place where he could contract the virus then BRINGING IT BACK TO NEW YORK CITY? He goes bowling in Willamsburg like there is nothing to worry about when he's within the gestation period?! What is the #1 way to prevent the spread of a virus? Anyone would say isolation. Why are we even allowing flights to/from these countries? Who ever is in charge of these government agencies should be forced to resign. This idiot should burn.

  67. Re: New York by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 1

    Fauci said he wasn’t sure how nurse Nina Pham became infected, but it was “likely” because “she was not completely covered.” Fauci also announced revised guidance for health care workers treating Ebola patients, which will include using protective gear "with no skin showing," Fauci said those caring for an Ebola patient in Dallas were left vulnerable because some of their skin was exposed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is working on revisions to safety protocols.

  68. Re: New York by phinnvr6 · · Score: 1

    I read Hot Zone maybe 10 years ago. IIRC Ebola Zier was around 90% mortality rate, and Ebola Sudan was around 50%. Maybe that changed over the years but either way you're probably going to die if you get it.

  69. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by bouldin · · Score: 1

    I just wonder how long it will be until the virus "discovers" a carrier..
    Someone who is immune enough to not show symptoms, but can still carry the virus enough to infect others.

    See typhoid Mary.

  70. my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably because the final stages of Ebola involves your internal organs melting and being vomited everywhere.

  71. OK, not annoyed about the Liberian guy any more by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...after all, he was just an ignorant shlub that brought Ebola here.

    This dipshit however was a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL, coming back from TREATING PEOPLE WITH EBOLA who 'felt like crap' for several days (enough so that he was taking his temp regularly) and couldn't apparently be trusted to quarantine himself out of basic precautionary concern. Nope, he had to maintain his urbanite/hipster lifestyle - jogging, taxis, bowling, etc.

    Doc: "DO NO HARM" applies just as much to the millions of people around you, as to your actual patient.

    Here's a general tip: if you're working directly with Ebola patients, how about you just say "hey, friends, I just got back from West Africa; I feel fine, but just to be careful I'm not spreading a highly communicable deadly disease, I'm going to hang out at home alone for a few weeks, just to be safe."
    I'm going to guess your friends and colleagues will appreciate your concern.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:OK, not annoyed about the Liberian guy any more by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      'felt like crap' for several days (enough so that he was taking his temp regularly)

      Actually, he was supposed to be taking his temperature regularly even if he felt fine. That was part of the protocol for coming back from an Ebola outbreak.

    2. Re:OK, not annoyed about the Liberian guy any more by swillden · · Score: 1

      just to be careful I'm not spreading a highly communicable deadly disease

      Ebola is not highly communicable. It's more communicable than, say, HIV, but it's still pretty low on the communicability scale, and even lower if you're asymptomatic.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:OK, not annoyed about the Liberian guy any more by vpness · · Score: 1

      if we could mod this post to a score of 10, we should. The lack of common sense of the 'professionals' which is just mind boggling.

    4. Re:OK, not annoyed about the Liberian guy any more by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Doc: "DO NO HARM" applies just as much to the millions of people around you, as to your actual patient.

      As far as we can tell, he did absolutely zero harm to the millions around him. Some people are panicking anyway.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:OK, not annoyed about the Liberian guy any more by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Measles is considered pretty communicable, at a rate of 1.2.

      Ebola is a 1.7.

      --
      -Styopa
    6. Re:OK, not annoyed about the Liberian guy any more by swillden · · Score: 1

      Cite? I've never heard of, nor have I been able to find, any numeric rating scale for communicability, much less documentation of those two numbers for those two diseases.

      Assuming the measure exists, and that those numbers are accurate, I strongly suspect that the scale measures difficulty of transmission, and that lower numbers indicate more communicable diseases. Measles is spread via aerosol transmission, Ebola is not.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:OK, not annoyed about the Liberian guy any more by swillden · · Score: 1

      Measles is considered pretty communicable, at a rate of 1.2.

      Ebola is a 1.7.

      I did manage to find some metrics for disease transmission. There are a variety, but the primary one is R0, the "basic reproduction number". Measles is one of the most communicable diseases, with an R0 of between 12 and 18. Ebola is one of the least communicable diseases, with an R0 between 1 and 2.

      Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

      It's Wikipdedia, but contains links to its sources, which are WHO and CDC for the measles number and an international research study published in September for Ebola. The latter suggests that if just half of the Ebola cases could be avoided, the R0 would drop below 1, causing the disease to die out. That means Ebola is so hard to transmit that it's just barely able to continue.

      In contrast, Measles is so communicative that it's expected that 90% of the people who come into contact with an infected person will get it.

      You're so wrong and so backwards here, it's not even funny.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  72. Continuing transmission to healthcare workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The continuing transmission of Ebola to healthcare workers, who have supposedly taken prescribed precautions, is truly alarming. For all the banal references by the CDC to 'protocol', it doesn't seem effective. How can anyone returning from the hot zone in West Africa not be quarantined for 30 days? The Obama Administration is needlessly putting America at risk.

  73. Tell me again... by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 2

    Why it's wrong that we don't require a mandatory 21 day quarantine for anyone travelling from these countries if we truly want to stop the virus from ever getting a hold?

    Top it off - this guy went bowling while starting to show symptoms (thus, contagious). Who is going to replace and pay for EVERY bowling ball? What about decontamination of the facility? If I were the owner, I'd be pretty pissed off.

    1. Re:Tell me again... by yarbo · · Score: 1

      I have a close friend who works for Doctors Without Borders. She doesn't get a lot of vacation. If she had a 3 week quarantine (where would they quarantine her?), her friends and family would see her far less often. Her vacations mid-mission would have to be spent in the country she was working in.

      I'm sorry the owner of the bowling alley will need a few cans of lysol because we didn't have ebola camps for humanitarian doctors.

    2. Re:Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why it's wrong that we don't require a mandatory 21 day quarantine for anyone travelling from these countries if we truly want to stop the virus from ever getting a hold?

      Not sure about it being wrong, but certainly unreasonable and non-effective in containing a disease in the modern world. Picture this, we stop everyone from countries A, B, and C from coming into the country. But someone from country C travels to France to visit his Grandmother for 5 days, and then flies to the U.S. We allow in people from France, so this individual gets past the quarantine. With an incubation period of up to 21 days, this person may not have any symptoms for another 2 weeks. It is just not feasible to try and prevent all entry, especially for those that may have no reason at all to expect they were exposed.

      Now Doctor's specifically helping treat Ebola patients I would expect a systematic approach could be reached. After all I am sure the Doctors without Borders and other such groups must obtain approvals to go into these areas and treat patients, and protocols that must be followed to do so... so what is another 21 days worth of being quarantined in a U.S. facility for them on their return to ensure that they are not infected? That seems reasonable to me. But this would be a very small number of people for which we know exposure risk existed, it is not for everyone. It is just not feasible to quarantine everyone from those countries affected.

      And in case a troll misunderstands, I hold these Doctor's in very high esteem and truly believe they would be ok to take the extra precaution.

    3. Re:Tell me again... by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

      Sorry about your close friend and her "vacation" time. Tell me again about the "Do No Harm" portion of a doctor's oath? Putting the public welfare at risk has to be weighed against someone who elects to travel to an affected area. We already have seen that medical "professionals" can not be trusted to detect possible signs of the disease or self-quarantine when it comes to their personal convenience. And, we have seen that many medical facilities do not have proper protocols and capabilities in place to handle such a threat. While I think the DWOB program is great in its mission, it is also a voluntary effort. Placing oneself at risk as well and limiting their "vacations" is a personal decision and not one that outweighs public safety upon their return to their host country. At home quarantine for those who worked with affected patients, provided needs are met, is suitable. Others travelling from affected regions can be checked for symptoms and quarantined only if they start to develop symptoms. For those caught in the newly implemented policy, my sympathies, but they need to understand why it is considered a necessity and their needs considered on a case-by-case basis. For those travelling after the quarantine is known to be in effect, they need to plan better.

      They quarantine dogs for 21 days for this disease - even put them down "just in case" because dogs "might" be carriers. Not suggesting we put anyone down, but if we have to wait 21 days for animals in quarantine because of the incubation period, why can't we expect the same of humans?

      And, BTW, you can be the one to clean the facility and all the bowling balls, subway cars and whatever else an infected person has come in contact with since you think a few cans of Lysol will do. Sweat, last I checked, is a bodily fluid. Since this tends to be on the fingers of bowlers, it requires a bit more than just a few cans of Lysol to adequately sterilize those bowling bowls.

    4. Re:Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just look at their passport...

      This is mind-numbingly simple. Why is everyone trying to make it seem like a complex issue? No seriously, answer me. Why are you trying to confuse a simple situation?

    5. Re:Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to. Ebola is really unstable without cells to replicate in. You could literally do nothing but wipe them down with normal alcohol wipes and people would be fine.

    6. Re:Tell me again... by yarbo · · Score: 1

      The proper abbreviation for Doctors without Borders is MSF (Medicines san Frontiers). They have employees who get paid! It is not a volunteer organization! The burnout rate is already high. If you told all of their workers that their vacation would be spent in house arrest for the entirety of their break between missions, there'd be far fewer workers. Protip: significantly reducing the amount of workers willing to treat infectious diseases is not a good way to reduce outbreak of infectious diseases.

      Lysol would be plenty for disinfecting a bowling alley. Similar surfaces were found to disinfect themselves after a few hours in the dark!

      Sagripanti, J-L., Rom, A.M., Holland, L.E. (2010) Persistence in darkness of virulent alphaviruses, Ebola virus, and Lass virus deposited on solid surfaces. Arch Virol. 155: 2035-9.

      My friend is a logistician, not a medical doctor. AFAIK, there is no oath for logisticians.

      I have seen no evidence of any health workers ignoring symptoms. The doctor in the parent article followed all the MSF guidelines.

  74. Mandatory Quarantine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So maybe it just makes too much sense for a Doctor to understand, or maybe we couldn't possibly inconvenience the prima-donna's too much, but how about something sensible like a 7-14 day mandatory quarantine and then testing for folks that want to visit there before we let them get on a plane and fly back into the our country and expose others?

  75. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Infected people typically don't become contagious until they develop symptoms.

    http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ebola-virus/basics/causes/con-20031241

    Typically you are not contagious before symptoms. Typically.

  76. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is not contagious until the patient is symptomatic. The question is, when is "symptomatic"? It seams from Duncan's case and the nurses in Dallas that usually (or always) the symptoms precede infectiousness. It also sounds like the doctor in NYC was checking himself twice a day and when his temperature went up he called authorities.

    This thread is full of ridiculous ides like doorknob-ebola which from my limited reading seems absolutely not possible. Like man viruses, ebola does not live long outside the body -- that's why it's not transmitted through food/air/water.

  77. Good catch ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    That's true of the iPhone 6+, as well.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re: Good catch ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Designed in Cupertino.
      Could/Should have been built here too.

  78. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mandatory quarantine of everyone who has visited Africa in the previous 3 weeks before arrival?

    No: Mandatory quarantine of every healthcare worker who helped with Ebola patients. How many people would that really be? It would cover 100% of the cases brought into the US thus far.

  79. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing that seems very relevant, but never discussed: Why comes first, symptoms, or contagiousness?

    If a person isn't contagious until well after showing symptoms, I can kind of see the current lax screening as being reasonable.

    But otherwise, it seems inexcusable.

    Have you even tried to find out the answer to this? Every news report I have seen says that an ebola patient is not contagious until they have symptoms.

  80. Ebola = The Walking Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AKA - Zombie Apocalypse. Is it time to panic yet?

  81. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing that seems very relevant, but never discussed: Why comes first, symptoms, or contagiousness?

    If a person isn't contagious until well after showing symptoms, I can kind of see the current lax screening as being reasonable.

    But otherwise, it seems inexcusable.

    The incubation period, or the time interval from infection to onset of symptoms, is from 2 to 21 days. The patients become contagious once they begin to show symptoms. They are not contagious during the incubation period.

    source

  82. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by nine-times · · Score: 1

    he was not symptomatic during his subway rides.

    I don't know about that. The reports that I've read have admitted that he was feeling ill in the days beforehand, but that he didn't have a fever. At least, he says he didn't have a fever, and he says he was taking his temperature twice a day, as he was supposed to. So I guess it depends on whether you want to take his word for it-- referring to the guy who knew he might have Ebola, was feeling sick, and still decided to go bowling.

    If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on, "He wasn't checking his temperature and doesn't really know when the fever started."

  83. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never discussed? Only in the US media, I imagine. Because it doesn't fit the narrative.

    Symptoms come first. (It's sort of vaguely possible that it could be present in the semen of an asymptomatic person I think).

    So far ebola hasn't ever been successfully isolated in simple sweat alone, as far as I've read. It is blood/faeces/vomit/semen of a symptomatic person.

  84. These Presbyterians by Bardez · · Score: 1

    I gotta ask, what is it with these Presbyterians who keep getting people infected with ebola?

    Disclaimer: Christian, raised Presbyterian

    --
    Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.
  85. Re: New York by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thats actually a damn good idea. we should penalize them for allowing illegal invaders to stay, and even more if they bring crime or disease.

  86. Re: New York by Scottingham · · Score: 1

    Viruses don't eat, and are not alive. They exist ONLY to reproduce, using our cells' machinery to do it. Other than that, you're spot on.

  87. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by Xyrus · · Score: 1

    What I don't agree with are the people who are using things like Malaria and HIV statistics to try and show how the media is playing up this issue.

    You may not agree with it, but that is exactly what they are doing.

    Both are less serious and more controllable diseases with much bigger sample sizes.

    I don't even....

    As/if more Ebola cases arise, the contractions will increase exponentially and they'll stop comparing this to "more serious diseases".

    Not happening, at least not in countries with reasonable sanitary practices. Ebola is difficult to catch, and it has a high mortality rate. These two factors prevent it from becoming the next big pandemic. To wit, the guy who was first diagnosed in the US was in Dallas, a city of 1.5 million people. Out of those 1.5 million people, he infected two, and they were the nurses who were directly caring for him.

    Yes Ebola is lethal, but so is EEE and yet I don't see you in a panic about EEE (and that's spread by mosquitos). You're far more likely to get EEE than Ebola (along with a whole host of other diseases). You're more likely to die falling out of your chair while reading this than die from Ebola.

    What I don't understand is why they are letting doctors who work on Ebola patients back into teh country without being screened?

    There are people arguing to shut down all travel from West Africa, even if that's too much in your opinion, at least screen these doctors.

    Customs: What was your reason for leaving the country?
    Doctor: I was treating patients with Ebola.
    Customs: Due to national security, we can not let you into the country until you've been tested and cleared.
    Doctor: But I have plans to go bowling in Brooklyn in about week!
    Customs: You're retarded.

    Chances are, the conversation wouldn't happen like that and the doctor would be understanding of the situation.
    So why aren't we just doing that to begin with?

    Because it would be ineffective. As has been mentioned numerous times, it's easy enough to lie and/or take a circuitous/non-documented route. Screening for possible Ebola victims would be about as effective as screening for terrorists: UST (Useless Security Theater).

    --
    ~X~
  88. Re: New York by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    They make use of the cell's own metabolic processes to reproduce which is their own bizarre form of eating. The cell is consumed in the process even if it consumes itself. Are they alive when they're outside an infected cell? Perhaps not... but then how alive is a frozen ice fish? When they enter a cell and start rewriting its DNA... it hard to not see the the will of the organism.

    Beyond that, they do evolve.

    I think it is problematic to classify strange forms of life as not being alive at all. Viruses are very different from all other known forms of life. But I think that is because they have everything extraneous stripped away from them.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  89. not the best at following procedure by Chirs · · Score: 1

    You made an incorrect assumption.

    Most North American medical staff are *not* up to speed on proper procedures for this sort of thing, nor is the standard protective gear sufficient. That's why the CDC is going to be going around giving training at hospitals.

    I heard that the MSF recommended procedures for removing the protective gear involves nine separate hand washings.

  90. Mandatory Quarantine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone travelling into these ebola stricken countries who come in close contact with anyone should be forced to be quarantined before leaving. An official release should be issued upon clearing 25 day ebola screening allowing travel from those countries. I don't give a good gosh darn if you are Jimmy Carter or Melvin Spenard. Get quarantined.

  91. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by Zalbik · · Score: 1

    as multiple experts have said, if you have too much inconvenience on people (eg mandatory 3 week quarantine - the average person does not want to be without an income for 3 weeks) then people will start lying during questionning.

    Also, medical personnel will be much less likely to want to travel to Africa to help out with the disease if the know they face a 3 week quarantine on return. As well, this limits the number of personnel available to help out.

    Our best chance at fighting this disease is fighting it in Africa before it spreads. As such travel bans / quarantines on those heading to Africa to help out are very counter-productive.

  92. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by Zalbik · · Score: 1

    No: Mandatory quarantine of every healthcare worker who helped with Ebola patients. How many people would that really be? It would cover 100% of the cases brought into the US thus far.

    If by 100% you mean 0%. The first case was brought in by Thomas Eric Duncan...he was not a healthcare worker, but had been visiting family.

    Two nurses contracted the disease after direct exposure to Thomas Eric Duncan. Quarantine would have done nothing for them; better protocols for handling ebola patients should have been followed.

    The doctor in new york contracted the disease while in Africa after direct exposure.

    Quarantine would not have prevented ANY of these infections.

  93. Altriusm? Try Idiotism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not altruistic. Doctors without Borders, missionaries, etc. are a bunch of idiots. Any "doctor" attempting to aid Ebola patients without having the ability to work in the proper hazard suit should be stripped of their degree.
    I take it you've never been on an airplane?
    Cabin loses air pressure. You are about to die from lack of oxygen. Do you
    A: Attempt to help the person next to you before putting on your own mask and risk collapsing on them and hindering their ability to put on their own mask.
    B: Put on your own mask first.
    These morons who want fame should be put in prison. If they had any desire to actually help the Ebola patients they would work in a lab towards the vaccine effort.

  94. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by Zalbik · · Score: 1

    So "being symptomatic" is a binary flag that controls virus secretion?

    Given that it is a hemorrhagic disease, yes. It is pretty close to a binary flag that controls virus secretion.

    You are an idiot.

  95. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by Zalbik · · Score: 1

    Possibly...but just out of curiosity, how often are you directly exposed to the bodily secretions of other people, regardless of whether they are symptomatic or not?

    Do people sneeze directly in your face that often?

    It's not a matter of "how much of the virus" the person carries....it is a matter of exposure to bodily fluids. Symptomatic people are a higher risk for spreading the disease as the symptoms involve the nasty discharge of numerous fluids.

  96. Re: New York by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

    You are wrong. They were not following guidelines, though it is unclear that the appropriate guidelines were communicated well. (i.e. the people handling Duncan were clearly not properly trained).

    Blaming the CDC when some Dallas hospital doesn't care enough about their staff to train them properly is stupid. And the CDC has changed policy. Active cases are now being transported to appropriate facilities instead of trusting that random regional hospitals know how to train their staff properly. (you make your own conclusions about mid-level health care from that.)

    And that the administration is worried about political correctness is a complete strawman. They have said quite clearly that the problem with a travel ban or quarantine would be that it would make fighting the outbreak more difficult rather than better. The best chance here is to get the resources into west africa and stop the outbreak there. Travel bans and quarantines on non-symptomatic people only pointlessly waste resources to make you feel good about your ignorance.

  97. Fucking Hell People!! How hard is this?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3 rules.
    1. If you are there, you stay there.
    2. If you go there, you stay there.
    3. If you try to leave (without being in closely monitored, single person isolated - think bubble boy - quarantine for a minimum of 30 days) we kill you with fire.

    Bloody hell... How many lives are the political correctness police going to cost us before we (the world at large) actually have the will to do what is necessary to protect billions of people from a few thousand infected.

    This is not hard. There is no hard problem here ... Only lack of will.
    -habit

  98. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    WHY THE FUCK AREN'T WE ENFORCING MANDATORY QUARANTINE UNTIL THE WINDOW PASSES?

    Do you think someone got infected?

    Also, Slashdot thinks I am yelling because I quoted your post in caps. It didnn't let me post.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  99. Re: New York by mea_culpa · · Score: 1

    Now am I actually worried about a mass outbreak in the US? No. I find that unlikely. However, this virus has a 50-70% mortality rate and there is no vaccine.

    This is not something you take lightly. You pay this sort of virus the respect it deserves and enact BASIC quarantine procedures. Rudimentary.

    It is obvious that there is no leadership. It is all political posturing now. It is very disconcerting watching the head of the CDC be so careful about keeping political talking points while conveying real information about preventing the spread of this virus is secondary.

    Any sane person still working for the CDC can't possibly enjoy it anymore. I'd guess the best and brightest have moved to better pastures long ago. It isn't just the CDC either. I'd bet every other 3-4 letter agency is experiencing something similar. This worries me more than the actual virus.

  100. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    From the WHO site;

    Sudden onset of fever, intense weakness, muscle pain, headache and sore throat are typical signs and symptoms. This is followed by vomiting, diarrhoea, rash, impaired kidney and liver function, and in some cases, both internal and external bleeding.

    The closest thing the doctor has before he quarantined himself was "feeling a bit fatigued". I doubt very much if he was infectious before his fever hit.

  101. 2 of 75 people who touched Duncan became infected by peter303 · · Score: 1

    So this supports both sides of the article. First its hard to get infected in the early fever stages. Even Ducan's bedmate did not become infected. On the other hand two medical workers who thought they were taking precautions got infected when Ducan's disease had progressed further.

  102. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why hasn't all countries (especially this one) closed the freaking boarders to Africa yet???

    It just doesn't make sense to me.

  103. Re: New York by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    However, this virus has a 50-70% mortality rate and there is no vaccine.

    Actually, if I'm not mistaken Ebola seems to have about a 12.5% mortality rate in the US, currently, and very likely to decline since the 1 death was the single one not treated with the vaccine you claim does not exist.

  104. Re: New York by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    He's consistently full of shit. Ignore him.

  105. Hipster Joke about Ebola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard a funny joke about Ebola the other day.

    I'd repeat it here, but you probably won't get it.

  106. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think they now. With typical viral diseases, subjects are mildly contagious for a day or two before the start of the symptoms.

  107. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As such travel bans / quarantines on those heading to Africa to help out are very counter-productive.

    What kind of science is this comment based on? At first, it may seem counter-productive to some, but when ebola spreads as a result of mind-numbing stupidity to countries half way around the globe, one can see that a mandatory isolation or quarantine is the only choice that can ensure the world with the highest degree of confidence that this won't turn into the worst case scenario, a pandemic exponentially killing millions of people.

    Does anyone out there who still loves mankind and who may be in a position to enforce the common sense that has been missing since day one understand this? The need for medical supplies, suits, protective gear, food, vaccines, drugs and waste disposal is much greater than the need for additional personnel as everyone who is helping will need to initially learn proven safe procedures for care and that doesn't mean there is neccessarily need for outside help. These countries have plenty of people willing and able to help. There should be safe zones and lots of security layers in force.

    What is this Spencer up to? He should never have gone to Africa in the first place. He certainly should not have been riding public transportation and lollygagging about NYC upon returning freely from Western Africa. What an absolutely moronic and potentially murderous thing to do. You cannot possibly stop the spread of this deadly virus without isolating the infected victims from the healthy population. I want to hear someone declare in no uncertain terms that this will not happen again or life on this planet has just gone to hell and those who could have stopped this, but did nothing will forever have this planet's population's blood on their hands.

  108. to paraphrase Kyle Reese by OutOnARock · · Score: 1


    Listen....and understand....

    that ebola virus is out there....
    it can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with, it doesn't understand pity, or remorse, or fear.
    and it absolutely will not stop

    ever

    until you are dead......

  109. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we quarantine for 21 days. Is this difficult to understand?

  110. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Baloney. There are always health provisions in visa arrangements. No one's hands are tied. Nor do you rely on self report. If there is a passport stamp from Liberia or other problematic country we should require a 21 day quarantine. If there is no stamp then no entry and assumed infectious person for the purpose of deportation(21 day hold). There are longstanding conventions for dealing with infectious disease between countries. The US is just deciding to ignore the options and is taking the lax route. There is no money in responsible health policy so why should a corporatist regime care? the gov is gambling.

  111. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So? Seriously, the risks are high enough that a 21 day quarantine would be reasonable. After all, it wouldn't need to be a very strict quarantine. E.g. visitors should be no problem, as long as there's no physical contact.

  112. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
    Are you really that dumb, or are you trolling?

    Cuba was essentially banned from travel destinations for Americans. If you had a passport stamp from Cuba, then you were presumed a criminal, during the embargo. So, Cuba "retaliated" by stopping stamping US passports.

    So how'd that work out for filtering based on passport stamps?

    Also, it's estimated that 1% to 5% of Americans have multiple citizenships. So go to Libera on your "foreign" passport, and back in the US on the "clean" passport.

    There are always health provisions in visa arrangements.

    Baloney. Visas are agreements to go to a non-citizen country, you don't need a visa to go to the US on a US passport. So "arrangements" for health couldn't be made in a visa. Period. The US can prevent citizens from leaving, but not from re-entering.

    The closest legal thing the US can do is to quarantine those who are suspicious. Quarantine all doctors for 30 days upon arrival, as well as any black-looking people. Right?

  113. "no you're the fool" by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    really..."look like a fool"

    i said safety equipment can be bulky and annoying, and cheating in some areas is understandable, but there is a line you do not cross that everyone in the site understands

    so...

    what about that makes me "look like a fool"

    be specific...it will help if you cite my original comment

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  114. Quarantine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to sound prejudice, but knowing that there is a crisis happening why wouldn't they quarantine anyone coming from Africa first to make sure they are safe to be released into the country?

    It seems like a no brainer really.

  115. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by Reziac · · Score: 1

    And if an individual's immune response is slow or poor, there may not BE any antibodies until too late for the test to catch.

    The obvious solution is a 4 week quarantine (to make sure every case is discovered -- a few may incubate beyond the usual) everyone who's been in West Africa.

    This isn't "denying a citizen entry"; it's delaying it due to sheer common sense.

    Better, tho, would be to quarantine the affected parts of West Africa as best we can; let people in, but don't let them back out. Because what we're doing now is pretty much guaranteeing ebola's spread.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  116. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    Which is exactly what was has been talked about and dismissed as being an over reaction.

    The main problem with the 28 day quarantine is that fewer people would be willing to help if they knew that they would have to not work for 28 days after they got back. This would decrease the number of available health workers and extend the epidemic.

    Better, tho, would be to quarantine the affected parts of West Africa

    Unless you can station soldiers along ever border of these countries all you are going to do is cause people to flee and spread the disease further.

    The main thing we need to do is prevent panic. Both your suggestions will contribute to that panic. Your plan is basically wall them off and let them die. That is a bad plan.

  117. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by Reziac · · Score: 1

    If the choices boil down to "wall them off and let them die" or "spread the epidemic far and wide" -- yeah, I know which one I'd choose.

    So far it appears that the more treatment is attempted, the worse it gets, because the caregivers are at such risk, and some will need treatment in turn... rinse and repeat until there are no caregivers left.

    Quarantine may not be kind to the victims, but spreading it around so everyone can share isn't kind to anyone.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  118. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    In the entire world in the past seven months of the outbreak there has been exactly three cases of someone being infected by someone returning from the infected area. All of those cases were nurses who had close contact with a patient just before they died. All other cases outside the infected area have been people who were infected in the infection zone because the came in close contact with someone dying from the disease.

    Read some facts about ebola before you spread disinformation and panic.The measures you propose are an overreaction.

  119. Re: New York by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, most everyone's judgement in the health profession seems to be lacking rather than overly cautious as (if anyone should) they should be.

  120. Re:Mind Numbing Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly the problem with that. A healthier person, even Doc Hipster, might not show the symptoms quite as soon or in the severity that Granny would at point X in time after initial infection.

  121. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by Reziac · · Score: 1
    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  122. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    That is a prediction from one doctor and may or may not come true. It is not based on any factual happening.

  123. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Considering that he discovered the virus and has established expertise, I'm inclined to give his opinion a lot more weight, including where he thinks it could go.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  124. Re:Why dont they screen doctors before they come b by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    His specialty is microbiology and not epidemiology. He is qualified to find the virus but not necessarily how the virus will spread. His work with Ebola was almost 40 years ago. Most of his recent work has been HIV/AIDS.
    From the article;

    "In Africa, there are many Chinese working there. So that could be a risk for China in general, and I assume that one day [an outbreak of Ebola in China] will happen," said Piot, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

    The word "assume" can be translated to "I have no evidence that it will happen but I will say it anyway".