Printable View
OK Rick, what other diseases do we have available for our enjoyment that are 99% fatal?
I really think you are overdoing the panic avoidance and "there are other things much worse" thing on this one.
It is the old good news bad news thing on this subject, only there is no "good news".
Here's the good news, you don't have Marburg or AIDS, the bad news is you have Ebola.
Eh, gives me something to do.
The woman got on a plane from Cleveland to TX knowing she had a 99° fever. The next day she's diagnosed. Kinda like the news reporter doctor that decided to skip out on her quarantine after traveling with an infected cameraman. "Sorry," she says.
This is how Boston thinks they are controlling Ebola (this is from the Boston Herald.)
Read the caption.
Do you think this guy is properly protected? Turns out the patient didn't have Ebola but what if he did?
Attachment 10329
Those are all reasonable considerations in that they are technically possible. It's also technically possible to be struck by a meteorite while cashing in a winning lottery ticket.
The ebolavirus viron is incredibly fragile, to oxidizers such as bleach and peroxides, to destructive dehydration by alcohols, to UV and probably a very high number of other EM spectra, and even to relatively mild heat. This makes it very difficult for it to survive in basically any but opaque and damp suspensions, such as fresh blood, wastes/effluence from an infected person or their corpses. The viral load of an infected person is not particularly high until the person is life threateningly ill. It is not a guarantee against transmission, but it is a statistical phenomenon which is coroberated by the observed modes of transmission in documented outbreaks, where those infected have almost universally been intimate caregivers, either of the living victims or the deceased.
I'm not going to even touch the issue of airborne transmission further unless it should actually occur. It's had a very, very long chain of opportunity to do so, as have so many other viral diseases for which this worry is often expressed and while it could happen, It's pointless to speculate about.
Worrying about things that might happen is why we prepare. A hurricane might hit my location directly, so I prepare. A whole host of things might happen that cause me to have a BOB. The problem with the EBOLA scare is conflicting information. It is relatively easy to weed out the "out there" stuff regarding this horrible disease, but even information that we are "supposed" to be able to trust is difficult to follow at best and down right BS at worst. Here's an example from the CDC director.Here are the actual responses he gave to a question....Quote:
Dr. Tom Frieden, director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said during a telephone press briefing Wednesday that you cannot get Ebola by sitting next to someone on a bus, but that infected or exposed persons should not ride public transportation because they could transmit the disease to someone else.
So what are we to believe?Quote:
“I think there are two different parts of that equation,” he continued. “The first is, if you’re a member of the traveling public and are healthy, should you be worried that you might have gotten it by sitting next to someone? And the answer is no.”
“Second, if you are sick and you may have Ebola, should you get on a bus? And the answer to that is also no. You might become ill, you might have a problem that exposes someone around you,” he said.
Like all things preparedness - prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Make smart decisions. Be aware of your surroundings. Stay informed.
That's what it is all about. No more, no less.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
Can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with it, here of all places.
to those in rural areas, just a thought many times in rural areas the local sports team will go to the big city
when they have sorts events, wrestling,basketball,volleyball, ect.... plenty chances there to bring something back.
then on sunday go to church.
most people in rural areas drive to larger towns 12,000 to 30,000 say to do the weekly shopping.
where im at many of these towns are fullup with illeagals from mexico and central america they work
in the food industry ya gotta love it. proccessing turkyies , the hog plants and so on. then theres the somalies
the hmoungs all of which the luthren churches brought over. you shop at wallmart so do they. i see
these people in wally world all the time coughing all over and what notnot dont cover thier faces . so that said are we really so
safe in the rural areas after all. something to think about. that,s all
The nurses in Texas more than likely only got the body liquids on their skin, and got the darn stuff! Again, peoples hands come in contact with their eyes, mouth, and noses all the time, and out in public deposit those germs on surfaces. Their is a huge mathematical possibility that it can spread.
And by the way it is far more likely than getting hit by a meteor a frappin volcano. The stuff is here, and our government does not keep us informed good enough to make sound decisions in my opinion. And it is spreading here, slowly for now but spreading.
And 1000's of new people flying in everyday. We here a WSF are probably better preapared than most, but how many million aren't?
I'm just saying that there are a lot of people trying to make us beleive that this stuff is hard to catch and I don't believe that for a minute. There are a couple of people here that need to volunteer for ebola duty to prove it is hard to contract!
The family of the guy who died in Dallas haven't come down with it, even after being shut in an apartment with contaminated bedding. But the nurses did.
The Dallas judge that rode with the family to a new quarantine site hasn't come down with it.
In my own opinion, what they should be setting up is remote reporting places so if someone is concerned they may have ebola, they go there instead of to the nearest emergency room. These can even be set up in some emergency rooms. It would be good if certain hospitals, not all hospitals, were designated as ebola treatment centers. Get the minimum up and running, with proper isolatioin units and trained staff before it becomes a serious issue. And if Ebola isn't the plague, there's always the next disease to come along.
Because the other part of this is the cost. Not only is a single ebola patient a drain on resources, if the public cannot be made to feel safe, they will avoid any hospital or other health care facility where a person with ebola has shown up. Hospital/clinic cost margins in the US depend on a steady stream of patients. Disrupt that for any reason and you may see faltering facilities and more needed government support. We could all end up paying for this in some way no matter what.
I'll take that as a finger point at me. If I had the skills I wouldn't hesitate to treat someone with an infectious disease in a controlled environment. Sadly, the two nurses treated Mr. Duncan in the ER before appropriate protocols were put in place. No doubt, that's when they contracted it. As for cost, you already are paying for it through taxes and have been for years. We fund the CDC. Here are some timely, unbiased articles. Enjoy. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...tic-contagion/ ...........space............. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...k-qa.html?_r=0Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildthang
I'm dealing with some access problems at the moment and I've logged in through an anonymous server. Unfortunately, it doesn't handle line breaks appropriately. That's why the above post looks the way it does.
That is a very fine suggestion Wildthang, but gust for kicks I'm going to try not rearranging my entire life to prove a point to a stranger on the internet.
To all: I'm not saying not to be concerned or prepared, just don't burn yourselves out first worrying over the least likely scenarios. Especially not until you have the initial bases covered. Worry, like material resources are generally renewable but finite.
If anyone cares to look at the New York Times link you'll see that 17 people have been treated in the West. I don't know how many health care workers that equates to but it has to be hundreds. I've seen reports that 70 health care workers were involved in Mr. Duncan's care in Dallas. Of those hundreds only three health care workers have been infected. Two nurses in Dallas and one nurse in Spain. Three other hospitals in the U.S. have treated Ebola patients and no one has tested positive in any of those hospitals. And those are folks performing invasive procedures such as intubation, dialysis, blood draws and cleaning up feces and vomit. That's a pretty low infection rate. I'm firmly on Canid's side. Paranoia doesn't help. Plan for infectious disease just as you would plan for any other event. Read objective articles and try to glean the facts as best you can. There have been conflicting statements and changing guidelines and protocols. This is a first time event for the U.S. medical community and, sadly, they are learning as they go.
I am not going to worry myself terribly over this issue, I just do not worry about things out of my control, and will react accordingly if it gets close to me and my family. It just seems to me to be more infectious than they are reporting. I honestly hope it dies out and goes away before reaching pandemic proportions!
I also do not beleive that our medical workers and hospitals are even remotely ready if it does go widespread! BUt I feel better now and will no longer worry about any of this until Canid and Rick tell me to get worried:smartass:
I hope so too, and I'm sorry to have been gruff. Please don't get me wrong on this point either; I'm sorta worried. For now though it's just that my worry is reserved mostly for those in the epidemic areas and those likely to face growing streams of refugees with no way to stop or screen them. Could you imagine the amount and manner of stuff that would hit the fan if this epidemic spread in some large scale to the more volatile and under-resourced areas in the Med?
For my part; sure, I bought some extra bleach last month and so forth, but I haven't started making face shields or aprons just yet.
Canid I can handle gruff, no problem buddy. But I have recently read articles from nurses and healthcare workers that state the only training they get for ebola decon was an e-mail. And most of them will tell you that their hospitals and nurses are nowhere near ready for an ebola epidemic, and they do not have the proper PPE to deal with it right now!
I hope the medical world gets these people ready and well equipped soon because if something like ebola comes areound that spreads airborne, we are all in deep poo!
I hope so too, in terms of treatment in particular, which would indeed be a drain in any widespread outbreak, and would be rendered by caregivers with mostly having only academic understanding of tropical hemorrhagic fevers which might effect patient outcome.
Safety protocols exist, can still be taught and reviewed, but more importantly can be readily derived from more general existing ones. There's nothing much to it for example that isn't covered by Universal Precautions, and for now we can draw from, though should never be foolish enough to rely entirely on exposure history through contact tracing and travel history. In the texas outbreak, these later were not applied, and the precautions misapplied.
I don't mind funding the CDC (at least up to the point where they study "gun violence" as a "disease").
I do mind funding corporate bailouts.
That's perfect right there.