Ebola Comes To USA

[One Drop]

Yes I am. It was the first one I pulled up relating to what is recorded fact...no spin necessary. Feel free to peruse these slightly less morally reprehensible sources:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5958502
Link Removed
http://www.myfoxny.com/story/26744552/plane-cleaners-strike-at-1-nyc-airport-terminal
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/10/09/plane-cabin-cleaners-strike-at-laguardia-airport/

I've no argument, just pointing something out. I've seen RT linked here many times and I'm not sure many are aware of how agenda driven they are, and how controlled the Russian media has become again under Putin.

I'm glad you linked those articles, though.

Beside the Fox one that has very little information, the other two leave me with a few central facts.

One is that the cleaners had planned the strike before the Ebola scare, and that the Union linked the scare to the walkout afterwards (justifiably IMO, and I'm pro-union in spite if their excesses and faults).

Two is that they are not involved in the new screening process as most Ebola risk passengers don't fly through there.

Three is that the head of the CDC said Ebola is only infectious through contact with bodily fluids

Four, no one has caught the disease on American soil.

So really, the article is nothing more than an attempt to find something newsworthy that has the word Ebola in it.

This is how media works. Everyone is worried and wants information (rightfully) but instead of informative research based items they simply pull feeds from the news agencies and rewrite their articles as segments to attract the most customers. Ebola sells in spite of very little actually happening outside of parts of Africa.

 

[petrus61]

I've no argument, just pointing something out. I've seen RT linked here many times and I'm not sure many are aware of how agenda driven they are, and how controlled the Russian media has become again under Putin.

I'm glad you linked those articles, though.

Beside the Fox one that has very little information, the other two leave me with a few central facts.

One is that the cleaners had planned the strike before the Ebola scare, and that the Union linked the scare to the walkout afterwards (justifiably IMO, and I'm pro-union in spite if their excesses and faults).

Two is that they are not involved in the new screening process as most Ebola risk passengers don't fly through there.

Three is that the head of the CDC said Ebola is only infectious through contact with bodily fluids

Four, no one has caught the disease on American soil.

So really, the article is nothing more than an attempt to find something newsworthy that has the word Ebola in it.

This is how media works. Everyone is worried and wants information (rightfully) but instead of informative research based items they simply pull feeds from the news agencies and rewrite their articles as segments to attract the most customers. Ebola sells in spite of very little actually happening outside of parts of Africa.

No offense, but it seems like you're grabbing at straws. In an ideal world, there wouldn't be a media driven frenzy adding to the confusion and ignorance of every disaster that befalls mankind, but that isn't the world we live in. Would you suggest that any and all reporting on Ebola
should be limited to...what? Just because a fact is used as a tool to sell papers and get ratings doesn't make it any less true. If you're an objective and informed human being, then you already know what a vast setup everything is (if you have half a brain) and know there'll have to be some sifting of facts.

 

[skychief]

One is that the cleaners had planned the strike before the Ebola scare, and that the Union linked the scare to the walkout afterwards (justifiably IMO, and I'm pro-union in spite if their excesses and faults).

Two is that they are not involved in the new screening process as most Ebola risk passengers don't fly through there.

Three is that the head of the CDC said Ebola is only infectious through contact with bodily fluids

Four, no one has caught the disease on American soil.

So really, the article is nothing more than an attempt to find something newsworthy that has the word Ebola in it.

false. Frieden just announced that one of the health care persons who had initial contact with Duncan (patient 0) has tested positive for Ebola last night.

Invalid Link Removed

second; Frieden is in way over his head. Worse, he has information that should be disclosed to the public but they keep close to their vest. "We knew a second case could be a reality" But they didnt have the presence of mind to let us know? REAALLY?

The head of the CDC (Frieden) is not trusted by the American people. Hes not telling the truth; he tells us what he's been told to tell us. He is not to be trusted. He's a puppet, and not a very convincing one. Judging by his press release that just aired, I think he's starting to realise the severity of the situation.

Yet, even after this news, there was no mention on flight restrictions from Ebola-torn West Africa.

Instead, here's his proposal:

Take healthy, unvaccinated people, send them to the hot zone, and let them return to the US, but ask them to do a voluntary 21-day 'wait-and-see' period.

Yah that makes perfect sense to me!

god help us.

edit: added WP link

 

[skychief]

Heres a passage from the WP article:

The CDC did not consider (this) person to be “high risk,” Varga said. The person treated Duncan, the Ebola patient, after his second visit to the ER, on Sept. 28. The health worker was “following full CDC precautions,” including wearing a gown, gloves, a mask and a protective face shield.

So even following the bodily-fluid transfer protocols, the health worker STILL managed to contract the virus.

So is it a possibility that Ebola can be spread by other means (other that sticking your hand in an infected person's feces or drinking their vomit)?

Hmmmm....

 

[ddnidd1]

Heres a passage from the WP article:

The CDC did not consider (this) person to be “high risk,” Varga said. The person treated Duncan, the Ebola patient, after his second visit to the ER, on Sept. 28. The health worker was “following full CDC precautions,” including wearing a gown, gloves, a mask and a protective face shield.

So even following the bodily-fluid transfer protocols, the health worker STILL managed to contract the virus.

So is it a possibility that Ebola can be spread by other means (other that sticking your hand in an infected person's feces or drinking their vomit)?

Hmmmm....

As has been Widely reported, the suspicion now is that the worker was careless when Removing the protective gear and managed to infect herself by touching the exposed surface of the gear that had been in contact with Duncan.

Thereby violating the approved procedure.

 

[David Jayne]

So even following the bodily-fluid transfer protocols, the health worker STILL managed to contract the virus.

So is it a possibility that Ebola can be spread by other means (other that sticking your hand in an infected person's feces or drinking their vomit)?

Hmmmm....

I would say that the health care worker almost certainly made some error in procedure.

 

[petrus61]

The means of transmission is irrelevant at this point as far as I'm concerned. If the people who are entrusted the most to be handling this correctly can't even get it right, god help us. If someone with even less presence of mind than Mr. Duncan who hasn't shown symptoms until after the paltry airport screening manages to potentially infect another 100 people, where do we go from there? Does it really matter that the health care worker contracted it due to faulty procedure at this point? I don't like hitting the panic button blindly either, but it's very sad to see the government and airline industry taking such a lackadaisical "wait and see" approach when more can obviously be done. Again, it comes down to money and greed over common sense. There needs to be a dedicated departure/entry/quarantine point for those possibly infected or aiding in the epidemic, and ONLY for those crucial to doing so to help contain the spread there. Why piggyback a public hub when so much is at stake?

It boggles the mind that ANYONE or any flight coming from the affected countries are even permitted on US soil until full containment is achieved. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking the government is looking out for our best interests before the flight industries either. The money at stake is the only reason we're seeing this farce play out. Politics and greed always triumph over common sense until it's too late.

Even worse, the health care worker wasn't one of the 48 being monitored. How many people did he/she possibly expose?

 

[ddnidd1]

The means of transmission is irrelevant at this point as far as I'm concerned. If the people who are entrusted the most to be handling this correctly can't even get it right, god help us. If someone with even less presence of mind than Mr. Duncan who hasn't shown symptoms until after the paltry airport screening manages to potentially infect another 100 people, where do we go from there? Does it really matter that the health care worker contracted it due to faulty procedure at this point? I don't like hitting the panic button blindly either, but it's very sad to see the government and airline industry taking such a lackadaisical "wait and see" approach when more can obviously be done. Again, it comes down to money and greed over common sense. There needs to be a dedicated departure/entry/quarantine point for those possibly infected or aiding in the epidemic, and ONLY for those crucial to doing so to help contain the spread there. Why piggyback a public hub when so much is at stake?

It boggles the mind that ANYONE or any flight coming from the affected countries are even permitted on US soil until full containment is achieved. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking the government is looking out for our best interests before the flight industries either. The money at stake is the only reason we're seeing this farce play out. Politics and greed always triumph over common sense until it's too late.

Even worse, the health care worker wasn't one of the 48 being monitored. How many people did he/she possibly expose?

The most important thing is to PANIC !

 

[petrus61]

The most important thing is to PANIC !

No need to panic. Just have a more sensible approach than waving a thermometer across someone's head wearing a paper smock and hoping for the best as you shuffle them through a public airport. I really don't see how proposing that more be done automatically equates to panicking at this point and I have yet to hear anyone do so in this thread.

 

[ErebusBass]

No need to panic. Just have a more sensible approach than waving a thermometer across someone's head wearing a paper smock and hoping for the best as you shuffle them through a public airport. I really don't see how proposing that more be done automatically equates to panicking at this point and I have yet to hear anyone do so in this thread.

What is the more sensible approach? Should we completely destroy the economies of three countries because one person got sick?

 

[skychief]

What is the more sensible approach? Should we completely destroy the economies of three countries because one person got sick?

I think what hes saying is neither politics nor economic impact on the airlines (or the affected region) should be considered in the ations taken relating to the containment of this disease.

It needs a defined plan that may or may not include quarantine of infected persons wanting to leave the hot zone.

It needs to be closely followed by all carriers engaging in flights out of these 3 West African countries.

If just one infected person sneaks under the radar (as did T. Duncan), then the containment phase is compromised, and that just pushes out the date where eradication of the disease would be possible.

 

[petrus61]

What is the more sensible approach? Should we completely destroy the economies of three countries because one person got sick?

Two people, now potentially many more. I seriously want to know from all the people that think more restricted air travel is an overreaction, at which point will you consider ebola a viable threat to the average citizen? If now is not the time to take increased measures, then when? I really want to know. What is the threshold of your concern and what scenario will escalate your "observe and respond" attitude into genuine concern for your safety? Is when 50 domestic cases pop up? 100? 300?I'm not being a wise ass here. Without reminding me that our healthcare system wouldn't possibly let that happen, I really want to know.

 

[ErebusBass]

Two people, now potentially many more. I seriously want to know from all the people that think more restricted air travel is an overreaction, at which point will you consider ebola a viable threat to the average citizen? If now is not the time to take increased measures, then when? I really want to know. What is the threshold of your concern and what scenario will escalate your "observe and respond" attitude into genuine concern for your safety? Is when 50 domestic cases pop up? 100? 300?I'm not being a wise ass here. Without reminding me that our healthcare system wouldn't possibly let that happen, I really want to know.

It was not two people. It was one person that contracted the virus here. One person brought it here and got one other person sick.

 

[Imaginary Pony]

It was not two people. It was one person that contracted the virus here. One person brought it here and got one other person sick.

It would be interesting to see if you intend to answer the question.

 

[ErebusBass]

It would be interesting to see if you intend to answer the question.

42 would be an acceptable number.

 

[ddnidd1]

No need to panic. Just have a more sensible approach than waving a thermometer across someone's head wearing a paper smock and hoping for the best as you shuffle them through a public airport. I really don't see how proposing that more be done automatically equates to panicking at this point and I have yet to hear anyone do so in this thread.

It's all relative. You have no Reasonable response to the potential situation than to Over React. The threat of Ebola as a disease is absolutely Serious, but its characteristics are known - unless you choose not to believe the scientists rather than the scholarly TB members quoting 'sources'..

However, regardless of any shortcomings in the identification/diagnosis of potential exposures of individuals entering the country, there is no Realistic/Practical approach to Absolutely Isolating/Identifying potential carriers entering the US. Its not Realistic to Ban everyone who's been to the affected areas.

There are myriad diseases that threaten us such as, one example, types of TB which are essentially immune to all powerful antibiotics, etc. There's a strain that you can contract in the office or the grocery store - and it can definitely kill you.

TB has killed millions over the years and this particular strain is cannot be controlled by antibiotics.

Worry about this one - its the guy in line at the grocery checkout, with the slight cough, who's just punched the keys at the ATM/Credit pad at the Checkout ahead of you.

Yeah, you die of TB, but it Never its the news. You're death is not news.

 

[petrus61]

It's all relative. You have no Reasonable response to the potential situation than to Over React. The threat of Ebola as a disease is absolutely Serious, but its characteristics are known - unless you choose not to believe the scientists rather than the scholarly TB members quoting 'sources'..

However, regardless of any shortcomings in the identification/diagnosis of potential exposures of individuals entering the country, there is no Realistic/Practical approach to Absolutely Isolating/Identifying potential carriers entering the US. Its not Realistic to Ban everyone who's been to the affected areas.

There are myriad diseases that threaten us such as, one example, types of TB which are essentially immune to all powerful antibiotics, etc. There's a strain that you can contract in the office or the grocery store - and it can definitely kill you.

TB has killed millions over the years and this particular strain is cannot be controlled by antibiotics.

Worry about this one - its the guy in line at the grocery checkout, with the slight cough, who's just punched the keys at the ATM/Credit pad at the Checkout ahead of you.

Yeah, you die of TB, but it Never its the news. You're death is not news.

I never said to ban all people from the affected countries. I said that there needs to be much tighter and dedicated ports of entry and departure for potential carriers. I keep hearing that it isn't practical, but neither is a taxed health care system where basic protocol can't even be adhered to at the outset. Care to answer the question I posed?

 

[Downunderwonder]

The P.T.B. are adamant the nurse tending Mr. Duncan messed up the containment measures. What concerns me is the possibility it's contractable by small amounts of aerosol aerosol exposure when stars align.

 

[skychief]

The P.T.B. are adamant the nurse tending Mr. Duncan messed up the containment measures. What concerns me is the possibility it's contractable by small amounts of aerosol aerosol exposure when stars align.

No alignment of stars necessary, really. If you're sitting on a bus next to an Ebola symptomatic person and he coughs on/near you, guess what? That little scrape on your arm you got while trimming the grevillea bushes caught a couple droplets of the cough.

Congratulations. You are now infected. In a few days you are going to feel like $h!+.

No stellar alignment. Just plain, old, ordinary happenstance.

 

[One Drop]

No alignment of stars necessary, really. If you're sitting on a bus next to an Ebola symptomatic person and he coughs on/near you, guess what? That little scrape on your arm you got while trimming the grevillea bushes caught a couple droplets of the cough.

Congratulations. You are now infected. In a few days you are going to feel like $h!+.

No stellar alignment. Just plain, old, ordinary happenstance.

Fever is the first symptom, which resembles flu symptoms.

The patient only becomes infectious once the different symptoms of Ebola become apparent, namely vomiting or diarrhea, which are severe.

No one displaying those systems will be sitting next to you on a bus.

And that rant a few posts back doesn't do much for your credibility.

No matter how many times it's repeated, claiming the possibility of it being transmitted by aerosol does not make it true.

Someone keeps asking where the paranoia is?