(10-15-2014 09:48 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 04:01 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Complete side note, but an interesting fact nonetheless. Every confirmed Ebola case that started outside of West Africa the person contracted it from a person who was on the verge of death, or already dead.

We're about to have another American survive infection, and so far, none of those that ended up surviving the disease gave it to someone else. Is that because Emery and the Nebraska hospital treating the cases are far better equipped than the Dallas hospital, or is that a result of the virus being most contagious at the moment of death?

That's a sample size of three? I think it stands to reason that the worse the symptoms, the higher the level of viral infection, and therefore the more infectious it would be. But not because of the sample of three. It's probably more infectious because of the level of fluids (feces, bile, blood) flying across the room moreso than because of the amount of virus per cubic litre of fluids.

Still, it answer questions about when the virus is the most dangerous. At this stage, we're looking for any help we can get in fighting this thing.

Speaking from Dallas, and I work 8 miles from Ground Zero, this is not under control.

The exposures are spreading exponentially. That is not the same as actual infections, but it's very, very scary.

I still want to know who was responsible for not closing down the flights from Africa. My family is at risk because of some fu..... government pinhead in Washington.

(10-15-2014 07:30 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I kind of wonder if Ebola could actually spread further (not necessarily quicker but greater distances) here in the US than Western Africa. It's not like people in those countries are upwardly mobile so most are probably confined to their own village or small town. But here obviously we have cases like a nurse flying from Dallas to Cleveland just like that. In many senses, it might be easier to contain Ebola in a third world country than the USA - with the main exception to that being (we hope) superior medical procedures here.

You'd think education level would count for something, but apparently that is not working in favor of the US.

Population density and mobility do not work in the favor of the US.

I still believe that the Duncan-generated Ebola infections will run their course limited to health care workers, possibly Duncan's relatives, and possibly a boyfriend or husband or two (that is something that really should not have happened). And, Texas Health Care will be in a world of hurt once the legal process runs its course.

Six months down the road... I have no idea. This could get very very bad.

(10-15-2014 07:30 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I kind of wonder if Ebola could actually spread further (not necessarily quicker but greater distances) here in the US than Western Africa. It's not like people in those countries are upwardly mobile so most are probably confined to their own village or small town. But here obviously we have cases like a nurse flying from Dallas to Cleveland just like that. In many senses, it might be easier to contain Ebola in a third world country than the USA - with the main exception to that being (we hope) superior medical procedures here.

I don't know. If we're still operating off the theory that the virus is most dangerous when its load is highest, it would seem to be harder to spread for two reasons: 1: No American who is throwing up and sick as a dog is going to seriously hop on a plane. 2: Most Americans will seek medical care rather than try and ride the thing out at home exposing family members to the virus.

(10-15-2014 09:54 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Speaking from Dallas, and I work 8 miles from Ground Zero, this is not under control.

The number of exposures are spreading exponentially. That is not the same as actual infections, but it's very, very scary.

With basically two points of reference (Duncan and Vinson), it's maybe a stretch to say that exposures are growing exponentially. I'd say it's infuriating, but I'm not scared - at least not of the short term problem. The longer term - 6+ months - that's pretty freaking scary, but it's no different here in Dallas than it is in Peoria.

FYI,

How Nigeria Stopped Ebola - Business Insider

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-niger...la-2014-10 Wrote:Nigeria's Patient Zero
The first person to bring Ebola to Nigeria was Patrick Sawyer, who left a hospital in Liberia against the wishes of the medical staff and flew to Nigeria, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Once he arrived, it became obvious that he was ill when he passed out in the Lagos airport, and he was taken to a hospital in the densely packed city of 20 million.

Sawyer reportedly told hospital staff that he hadn't been exposed to Ebola, so he was treated for malaria. When he didn't respond to treatment, doctors suspected Ebola, and Sawyer tested positive. 

Hospital staff recognized the potential for spreading of the virus, and they refused to let him leave, according to The Independent. He died five days after he arrived, but several people who cared for Sawyer while he was sick contracted Ebola.

Containment
Once the country's first Ebola case was confirmed, Port Health Services in Nigeria started a process called contact tracing to limit the spread of the disease and created an emergency operations center to coordinate and oversee the national response.

The group worked with the airport and airlines, triaged any potential cases, and decontaminated the airport as well as areas inhabited by people who might have come into contact with the virus, according to the CDC. Entry and exit screening was also established at ports in Nigeria.

Health officials used a variety of resources, including phone records and flight manifests, to track down nearly 900 people who might have been exposed to the virus via Sawyer or the people he infected. That group was monitored for symptoms for 21 days. Those under observation were required to check in with officials twice a day to provide health updates, according to The Independent.

If someone was showing symptoms or failed to provide an update, that person was checked on.

As soon as people developed symptoms suggestive of Ebola, they were isolated in Ebola treatment facilities. Without waiting to see whether a "suspected" case tested positive, Nigeria's contact tracing team tracked down everyone who had had contact with that patient since the onset of symptoms.

During this contact tracing process, officials made a staggering 18,500 face-to-face visits.

Aside from the contact tracing, Nigeria ensured a highly organized, methodical, and informed response to the outbreak, which was crucial. Officials who were part of the emergency operations center had access to the proper resources, and some had experience containing other viral diseases like polio.

Nigeria is about 5 days from being declared Ebola Free.

Nigeria is also one of maybe two countries responsible for the continued existence of polio (muslim clerics spread fear about the polio vaccine being a western plot to sterilize their women, thus allowing it to linger on). It is ironic that that experience may have helped them fight Ebola.

So tell me why they keep sterilizing airplanes, ambulances, removing furniture and clothing and incinerating it if the virus can't survive or be transmitted like that?

And I just read a student in a Tarrant co school has now been put in quarantine along with his parents for 21 days as the parent was on the flight nurse 2 was on. So if we should not be worried about become infected why all the precautions? Either we know this is bad and are taking theses precautions but not being upfront wth the public or we really don't know for sure and are taking precautions just in case. That's how I see this thing and I don't care what the cdc says.

Imagine getting that call from the CDC or the airline letting you know that the person you were squeezed in next to on your recent flight was infected with Ebola and was symptomatic while sitting next to you in coach.

"I remember she was sweating and touched her hand to her brow and then touched the chair arm between us. I then touched that same arm and remember taking my glasses off to rub my eyes because i was tired."

in that scenario, 99.9% of Americans would be scared to death.

(10-15-2014 10:02 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:54 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Speaking from Dallas, and I work 8 miles from Ground Zero, this is not under control.

The number of exposures are spreading exponentially. That is not the same as actual infections, but it's very, very scary.

With basically two points of reference (Duncan and Vinson), it's maybe a stretch to say that exposures are growing exponentially. I'd say it's infuriating, but I'm not scared - at least not of the short term problem. The longer term - 6+ months - that's pretty freaking scary, but it's no different here in Dallas than it is in Peoria.

Ebola lady flew on a plane from Cleveland to Dallas while she had a fever. All 120+ on that plane were exposed. Then the families of those 120+ people were exposed. And the plane went on five other flights before it was decontaminated. The number of exposures is increasing quickly.

That doesn't mean all will become infected. But all run a risk of infection.

All these half-measures are not going to cut it. It's just like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

How about enforcing a blockade of Africa? No one gets out until this thing runs its course.

(10-15-2014 10:27 PM)DFWMINER Wrote:  So tell me why they keep sterilizing airplanes, ambulances, removing furniture and clothing and incinerating it if the virus can't survive or be transmitted like that?

And I just read a student in a Tarrant co school has now been put in quarantine along with his parents for 21 days as the parent was on the flight nurse 2 was on. So if we should not be worried about become infected why all the precautions? Either we know this is bad and are taking theses precautions but not being upfront wth the public or we really don't know for sure and are taking precautions just in case. That's how I see this thing and I don't care what the cdc says.

First off, the cost of keeping a few people in home quarantine is trivial compared to the cost of treating even one patient in the hospital.

Look at it this way - it is not possible for the virus to spread if there is no contact with either an infected person or an infected surface. Within three weeks, you will know if someone is infected or not. During that three week period, the only people that could possibly be infected will not have contact with anyone else (you obviously don't allow them to get on planes, cruise ships, etc). If anyone does then come down with Ebola, you start a new cycle of decontamination and you have fewer people to isolate because you've not done something stupid and allowed one of that first group to get on a ******* airplane.

The only people that could possibly come down with Ebola after following through with this would be the healthcare workers and decontamination crews (and this presumes that those workers are similarly quarantined and you don't also ******* allow them to have contact with other non-Ebola patients.

By doing all of that, you can logically see that you should be able to limit the outbreak as long as you have a reasonable chance of preventing healthcare workers from getting infected.

(10-15-2014 11:24 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:02 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:54 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Speaking from Dallas, and I work 8 miles from Ground Zero, this is not under control.

The number of exposures are spreading exponentially. That is not the same as actual infections, but it's very, very scary.

With basically two points of reference (Duncan and Vinson), it's maybe a stretch to say that exposures are growing exponentially. I'd say it's infuriating, but I'm not scared - at least not of the short term problem. The longer term - 6+ months - that's pretty freaking scary, but it's no different here in Dallas than it is in Peoria.

Ebola lady flew on a plane from Cleveland to Dallas while she had a fever. All 120+ on that plane were exposed. Then the families of those 120+ people were exposed. And the plane went on five other flights before it was decontaminated. The number of exposures is increasing quickly.

That doesn't mean all will become infected. But all run a risk of infection.

All should be quarantined out of caution (see above). It's very unlikely that any will become infected, as best I understand how Ebola gets transmitted. If she'd been vomiting, etc, that's a different ballgame, but the response should be more or less the same - isolation and decontamination.

(10-15-2014 11:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  All these half-measures are not going to cut it. It's just like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

How about enforcing a blockade of Africa? No one gets out until this thing runs its course.

You're talking about something that would be an enormous cost ... especially compared to something that would be a lot more effective in trying to stop the outbreak in its tracks. The blockade of a continent or a substantial part of one would probably lead to millions of deaths, from Ebola, not to mention other causes.

Ebola could be transmitted by airborne particles, according to this link. I got this link from the Memphistigers.org board.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...ble-by-Air

I feel better knowing Obama skipped two days of fundraising to "monitor" the situation.

He isn't doing anything, like stopping flights from Africa, but he's aware there is something going on.

(10-16-2014 05:36 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I feel better knowing Obama skipped two days of fundraising to "monitor" the situation.

He isn't doing anything, like stopping flights from Africa, but he's aware there is something going on.

More likely the folks He was going to fundraise for cancelled His visit after seeing the recent poll numbers.