Slashdot Mirror
Ebola Forecast: Scientists Release Updated Projections and Tracking Maps
An anonymous reader writes Scientists of the Northeastern University, in collaboration with European scientists, developed a modeling approach aimed at assessing the progression of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa and its international spread under the assumption that the outbreak continues to evolve at the current pace. They also considered the impact of travel restrictions, and concluded that such restrictions may delay by only a few weeks the risk that the outbreak extends to new countries. Instead, travel bans could hamper the delivery of medical supplies and the deployment of specialized personnel to manage the epidemic. In the group's page, there's also an updated assessment of the probability of Ebola virus disease case importation in countries across the world, which was also invoked during the Congressional Ebola debate. The group also released a map with real-time tracking of conversations about Ebola on Twitter. Policy makers and first responders are the main target audience of the tool, which is able to show a series of potential warnings and events (mostly unconfirmed) related to Ebola spreading and case importation.
Travel restrictions are epidemiology 101, but politics gets in the way...
You are aware that experts at both the CDC and the World Health Organization are saying that is likely to make the outbreak worse, and they both recommend against travel restrictions?
So here we have every top medical organization, vs one random slashdot poster. Hmm. Dunning-Kruger much?
If our President initially came out, armed with scientific facts and results of studies like this one as the rationale for not imposing a travel ban, it would have gone over much better with the American people.
Instead, we've witnessed nothing but a "FUD campaign" - with a strong sense that nobody in charge really knows what the h*ll they're doing with this stuff. First, the hospital in Texas got blamed for screwing up and not following procedures. Then it was revealed they never received any official procedure in the first place for dealing with ebola.
There's conflicting information about how contagious the ebola virus is ... with claims that you can't get it without direct contact with the infected person's bodily fluids, but medical workers wearing hazmat suits while going near the people. (If people are supposed to believe their chances of getting the virus while on an airplane with an infected person are "pretty unlikely" -- then how is it we have concerns about hospital workers catching it, even after wearing protective suits and everything else? I don't think people are convinced you can have this BOTH ways at the same time.)
And sure ... people also recall the H1N1 "swine flu" situation and how that panned out in reality.
IMO, the travel ban would just be good common sense to impose -- while setting up some exceptions for medical staff legitimately traveling to/from the high risk areas for the purpose of aid. I *love* how the government makes it out to be an "all or nothing" proposition -- where we simply can't impose the ban without risking inability to provide medical assistance over there. Seriously?! You can't come up with scenarios allowing SELECTIVE travel for appropriate people and some extra steps they're required to go through upon re-entering the US?
One of the nurse's is supposed to be quaratined and instead is out for a bike ride http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...
Do you mean the person who doesn't have any symptoms and has tested negative to ebola at least once? That person?
Are you suggesting that people should be quarantined regardless of the science? If so that sounds awfully like a knee-jerk reaction with echoes of police state detainment for no reason at all.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
You mean the same experts who gave the OK for Amber Vinson to fly knowing she was exposed and had a fever? Or the doctor who returned from Guinea who admitted he wasn't feeling good but decided to ride the subway multiple times, go bowling and eat out? Or the nurse who also returned from Guinea and refuses to err on the side of caution and quarantine herself? Everybody knows it is super easy to pinpoint the exact moment you become contagious and only then take preventative measures. Yes, these people know everything and we can trust them completely.
I was under the impression that travel bans would just impact ordinary civilian and commercial craft, not military air vehicles or airplanes which are designated specifically for transporting medical supplies to an area where they are so vitally needed. So why would such travel restrictions still cause delays in treating the outbreak, exactly?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
She has tested negative multiple times, has no symptoms, and the CDC has cleared her to go home.
"Testing negative" and "no symptoms" is essentially meaningless in this context. The virus may not be detectable in the blood, and the person may be asymptomatic, for a long time.
Frequent, early testing is useful for early diagnosis if she contracts the disease. But the fact that she has tested negative doesn't say anything about whether or not she needs to be quarantined.
Those who oppose any form of quarantine keep invoking "science" for their support, but then they also keep bringing up the fact that this nurse "tested negative" to validate their views. Makes me think that they don't really understand the "science" as well as they think they do.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Do you mean the person who doesn't have any symptoms and has tested negative to ebola at least once? That person?
That doesn't mean anything. You can test negative, and be asymptomatic, for a long time while still carrying the disease.
The position of actual scientists that oppose quarantines doesn't rely on whether somebody tested negative for ebola. It's based on whether somebody who is infected is likely to infect others when they become contagious.
Are you suggesting that people should be quarantined regardless of the science?
If you don't understand the science, why do you expect those you disagree with to understand it?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Why is it that people in africa cannot follow science or these top expert's advice? Why is it that all 3 people mentioned above bt the GP have demonstrated that they cannot follow the science? Why is it that with everyone being an expert and the science already settled, is the outbreak still happening and people who know better are getting infected?
Here is the problem which is the same problem that happens in engineering, software development, sports, and quit a bit of other things in life as we know it. What works on paper, what works in theory, does not always work in practice. There are a number of reasons for this, a lot of them may not even be in your control. We just had a rocket explode on launch and i'm certain that everyone involved thought they did everything correctly, everything was right- until it was obvious it wasn't.
Almost- if not every state that requires a drivers license also requires the use of a seat belt for at least the driver when operating a car. Cars are completely safe and damage is rare when the rules are followed yet people mess it up all the time.
The experts can say anything they want. The mortality rate with Ebola is sky high compare to getting cancer and dieing from smoking yet we banchildren from doing it and restrict where people can smoke. Doing the bare minimum with Ebola is not rational considering the risks results in death more often than not. Statistically, you are less likely to die from a gunshot if a gun is shot around you than you are if you get Ebola. Quarentine is akin to wearing seatbelts, to laws against discharging firearms in certain areas, to smoking in certain areas, to wearing helmets while operating motorcycles.
I don't get it. Why does a travel restrictions have to be an all-or-nothing proposition?
It's real bloody simple. Let medical staff, military, and those working directly to address the Ebola epidemic travel. Those that wish to travel for leisure or other business related reason, banned from doing so. Exceptions are if you wish to return home to Africa to be with your family, but knowing full well you can't leave until after the epidemic subsides.
Anything wrong with the proposed solution above?
Life is not for the lazy.
until after the election. The Administration is trying to keep a lid on it, but watch out after the election
You do realise that the major part of the international effort has been civilian organisations like MSF? How do you think MSF get staff, supplies and equipment into and out of the affected zone? On regular scheduled airlines of course, they don't have their own fleet of planes.
Watch this Heartland Institute video