outbreak

[Steve James]

and treated in level 4 containment facilities.

Umm, What does containment have to do with treatment? It's clearly possible to lock someone away and "let the disease take its course."

Btw, the Spanish nurse has tested ebola-free, as has the nurse on board "SS Ebola," and the family who shared the apartment with Duncan will finish their 21-day quarantine tomorrow. No level 4 containment facility was required --though their landlord refused to perform any repairs on their apartment. Let's see what happens when the kids go back to school and the folks go back to work, shop, play.

And the figures for the death rate obviously include those who are untreated. There aren't any untreated ebola patients in the US, but plenty who have come in contact. The death rate here, now, is very low; and the virus has not taken a single American. Of course, when one American does die, people will say "See, and they said there was no risk."

[windwalker]

he CDC guidance was expected as early as Saturday, but its release has been pushed back while it continues to go through review by experts and government officials.
Health officials had previously allowed hospitals some flexibility to use available covering when dealing with suspected Ebola patients. The new guidelines are expected to set a firmer standard: calling for full-body suits and hoods that protect worker's necks, setting rigorous rules for removal of equipment and disinfection of hands, and calling for a "site manager" to supervise the putting on and taking off of equipment.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/386c255 ... 6a783d1c24

Well, "all" is just not true, is it? The first two or three ebola patients in the US were diagnosed in Africa and were brought home for treatment. They've all survived. However, I was talking about patients who have been diagnosed and treated in the US. If I added the three others that you mentioned, the death rate for ebola in the US falls to 16% (1/6). That's the likelihood that if you contract the ebola virus in the US that you will die.

and treated in level 4 containment facilities.

The disease has a high risk of death, killing between 25% and 90% of those infected with the virus (average is 50%)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease

what started this thread, was the inept leadership provided by those who call themselves experts. Its widely known what actions have to be taken and type of suites worn by those in the affected areas. The contention that somehow our health care system would be able to handle it, proved to be false when called into action by an unscripted case.

either the virus merits level 4 bio containment or it does not, apparently it does.
Understanding this, should have been the guidelines used. Instead it seems they relied on assumptions with no planning, no training, no formal protocols.
not even basic actions plans that they seem to now be putting into place.

"We're disappointed that the recommendations are still not available," association president Pamela Cipriano said. "Having a lag in official direction from the CDC doesn't instill the greatest confidence in their ability to rapidly respond."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireSt ... g-26304441

the public understandable feels mislead, and confused after being giving assurances that "with our strong medical system" what was seen wouldnt happen.
It did, and will continue to do so until they get out in front of this.
The head of the CDC, has been taken out of the C3 loop
a good start, lets hope things improve.

regarding travel restrictions. with out planing any type of restriction used tends to be very clumsy
and not really specific. The US public, rightly expects the gov. to do what ever it takes to insure the safety
of it. I would have expected some type of quarantine prior to re entry or entry into the US from the affected areas.
The US Military, will probably enact something like this for returning units, troops.
we did this all the time for returning equipment from overseas areas, they went through a processes and where inspected
before being allowed to be shipped back to the US.

[Steve James]

Well, I'll recap myself. From the beginning I've said that I fear the effects of the panic more than the disease. I am much more likely to be affected by the irrational fears (something like the TSA) than I am by the ebola virus.

"The American people" are free to be paranoid. I think more cases here will mean that the cures will be developed faster; every cloud has a silver lining, I guess. But --knock on wood-- I'll be around to see the state of the ebola virus in the US in 21 days from now. I would say "28 Days" but .... you know what I mean.

[Steve James]

Nigeria -- Africa's most populous country -- was declared Ebola-free on Monday as European Union foreign ministers thrashed out measures to help halt the spread of the deadly disease.

The World Health Organization said Nigeria's was a "spectacular success story that shows to the world that Ebola can be contained" as the country, where eight people died from the outbreak, defeated the disease.

In another piece of good news in the battle against Ebola, test results show that a Spanish nurse who was the first to have contracted the virus outside Africa has been apparently cleared of her infection.

But the fight was far from over against the outbreak which has claimed more than 4,500 lives, most of them in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29685127

Yes, yes, I know. It can start up again. But, Nigeria hasn't had a new case in 42 days. That's better than the US.

[Michael]

Does Nigeria have the infrastructure to know if they have or have not had a new case? Let me answer that for you: NO.

[Steve James]

Nigeria doesn't self declare. The WHO does; so, it's they who make the decision. Do you have the infrastructure to say they're wrong? Do you have any way at all of knowing whether they were ever right or wrong?

But, let's say that they're wrong --about a country of 120+ million people. Will they be right about Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea? How will they know then? What would be your standard? Let me answer for you: No clue.

The quarantine is also over for most of the health care workers who were on duty during Duncan's time at the hospital (in Dallas, not in a level 4 biohazard containment facility). The people whom he stayed with have also been cleared.

[windwalker]

Nigeria -- Africa's most populous country -- was declared Ebola-free on Monday as European Union foreign ministers thrashed out measures to help halt the spread of the deadly disease.

The World Health Organization said Nigeria's was a "spectacular success story that shows to the world that Ebola can be contained" as the country, where eight people died from the outbreak, defeated the disease.

In another piece of good news in the battle against Ebola, test results show that a Spanish nurse who was the first to have contracted the virus outside Africa has been apparently cleared of her infection.

But the fight was far from over against the outbreak which has claimed more than 4,500 lives, most of them in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29685127

Yes, yes, I know. It can start up again. But, Nigeria hasn't had a new case in 42 days. That's better than the US.

this indeed is good news.

also shows why the guy at the head of the CDC should be canned, along with the guy at the texas hosp, making big bucks not
to make mistakes....oh almost forgot "hes sorry"

It also serves to remind people, that a lot can be learned from those on the front lines dealing with it.
they understood what needed to be done and did it.

The cooperation between the central government in Nigeria and the opposition-led administration in Lagos state contrasts with the United States, where bickering between Republican and Democrat lawmakers over Ebola has eroded public trust.

Alex Okoh, Nigeria's director of Port health services, said the lesson the United States and other countries can learn from Nigeria is to "put aside the political barriers and focus on the issues at hand".

http://news.yahoo.com/nigeria-declared- ... iness.html

yep, the "issues at hand" of course they didnt have "the strength of our med system " to fall back on.
hopefully our leadership will get it...

[Steve James]

also shows why the guy at the head of the CDC should be canned, along with the guy at the texas hosp, making big bucks not
to make mistakes

That Nigeria is ebola free shows that the head of the CDC should be canned? I dunno. Seems like it shows a lot more than that, especially about the disease. I'm not sure if Nigeria has lots of level 4 biohazard isolation facilities. That alone says something about the concerns here, where almost all those directly exposed are being released from quarantine.

yep, the "issues at hand" of course they didnt have "the strength of our med system " to fall back on.
hopefully our leadership will get it...

Hmm, get what? Should we have Nigerian ebola experts come here to help out? Oops, I forgot; one of things suggested is blocking flights from the "affected areas."

[Michael]

But, let's say that they're wrong --about a country of 120+ million people. Will they be right about Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea? How will they know then? What would be your standard? Let me answer for you: No clue.

You're really in crusader mode, Steve. How does this answer the fact that Nigeria hasn't got an infrastructure for reporting ebola or deaths? How can the WHO know if Nigeria does not? Hype can go both ways.

[Steve James]

How does this answer the fact that Nigeria hasn't got an infrastructure for reporting ebola or deaths? How can the WHO know if Nigeria does not?

Number one: you can't possibly know the status of Nigeria's infrastructure. Secondly, it's the WHO who reported the number of infections and deaths in the first place. Therefore, it is they who report that the region/nation is clear. It is true that they (i.e., no one) can know of infections and deaths in remote areas that are out of contact with urban centers. However, there have been (according to the WHO) no reported infections in the last 42 days (2x as long as the length of incubation for the disease).

And your argument is based on your own premise that Nigeria cannot know, from which you conclude that the WHO cannot know. My point was that the status was reported. Sure, you don't have to believe the report. But, you can't know any different. If the WHO reported that the virus had spread, would the argument still be that neither Nigeria nor the WHO could know. How do you, or I, even "know" that ebola exists at all? Your argument works both ways. All I did was post the report.

[Michael]

Number one: you can't possibly know the status of Nigeria's infrastructure.

Why not? In fact, it is well known that they do not have an infrastructure for reporting and documenting deaths in many parts of the country, as is true for almost all the nations in Africa, South Africa being the exception. Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Liberia simply don't have the ability to keep track of these statistics with any accuracy resembling that of so-called developed nations, such as Geneva, Switzerland.

And your argument is based on your own premise that Nigeria cannot know, from which you conclude that the WHO cannot know. My point was that the status was reported.

My argument? It's a comment about the context of the report. The implications of this are open to interpretation. One of those implications is that although it appears we are dealing with a significant outbreak, ebola is continuously present and there are also continuous problems with other treatable infectious diseases throughout Africa, a point I made earlier in the thread that I think also gives context. IMO, this tempers the hype or panic about the current situation.

If the WHO reported that the virus had spread, would the argument still be that neither Nigeria nor the WHO could know. How do you, or I, even "know" that ebola exists at all? Your argument works both ways.

I agree with this. Ebola exists, but the way the information is reported is based on fundamental assumptions from lack of actual statistics and presented in this case, as in most others, with a panic-inducing spin. How much the WHO might be responsible for the spin is debatable, but they're in the best position to make these reports.

[Steve James]

The context of the report is that it comes from the people who are reporting. How does one refute the reports of those reporters? Are there other reports? The WHO will report to the United Nations on the health situation in the member nations.

I can't confirm the factuality of the report. I can't confirm how many people have caught ebola at all. I would not deny the reports because I can't confirm them. That's all I'm saying. Btw, Nigeria is a member of OPEC and has lots of money. Now, the way that wealth is distributed is another thing. But, in general, people have no clue about conditions in Africa, which is a continent 3x the size of the US.

At best, the argument can be made that there have been no cases that "we" know of for more than 42 days. That means that, afawk, no new patients are receiving treatment. Those who contracted the disease 42 days ago and are not being treated ... well, either they recovered or they didn't. They haven't spread the virus. There may be people still under treatment --I don't know. However, your argument has to take into account that neither Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea have been declared ebola free. If it is just a matter of self-reporting, why would they not make the same claim? Then all the aid, facilities and health care workers could just go home, or to another problem area. Of course, that wouldn't be productive afa ridding those countries of the virus, would it?

[emptycloud]

observe closely..

The ebola story is slowly fading from the mainstream news. In a few weeks it will have evaporated.

Richard

[windwalker]

U.S. health officials say they'll step up efforts to watch for Ebola even more by requiring travelers from affected countries to be actively monitored for three weeks. That means even people with no symptoms, such as fever, must check in with health authorities daily.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola- ... es-n231586

under new management things should have happened, been in place, at the start,
are happening now.

[Steve James]

under new management things should have happened, been in place, at the start,
are happening now.

At the start? You mean when ebola was discovered or at what specific point? Yes, if they monitor everyone coming from an affected area for three weeks, that will catch those who have been infected. Of course, if they are contagious at that point, they've affected everyone on the plane (train, boat, car). That's why O'Reilly ( and some people) recommended banning flights from those regions completely.

How many more people have become infected? They've been screening passengers from those regions for a while now. Have they reported a single infected person yet? Otoh, how many people in the US have gotten infected and survived?

I'm sure that announcing more measures will make some people feel better. Whether it will have any effect on the "spread" or "outbreak" of ebola here, we'll have to see.