• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Ebola Comes To USA

Not shocking when a health care system is profit driven.

Pfizer et al have no motivation to study Ebola from the last African outbreak but socialized medical systems like Canada's have been. You're welcome.

Unfortunately, greed seems to have been driving the response to the crisis from the outset. The CDC directors reasoning for not banning flights as of yet is laughable ("Charter flights are too slow????") and I suspect has much more to do with keeping the flight industries/lobbiyists pockets lined up until the last possible minute, than doing what countries like Ghana have done. Ghana stands to lose much more economically than the US, yet they had the common sense to ban all movements from the affected counties. I heard a report this morning that covered why the price of chocolate as a commodity is rising and will continue to rise in the coming months. Since their borders are officially closed to the affected countries, Liberians who make up the greatest portion of Coco bean pickers on Ghana farms can't get over the border to pick the fruit. This is obviously having a tremendous impact on both the farmers and workers.

If Ebola makes it into Ghana, the farmers will scatter to the winds, driving the prices up even further and having an even bigger impact on their economy. If Ghana is willing to take the hit at great cost to them in order to prevent the spread, why is the US dragging it's feet on restrictions? It seems to defy logic.
 
Seems they are now shifting the blame to to health care workers themselves. They did possibly something to "compromise" their own safety.

I think we are going to see nurses and others "opting out" of helping with the care of these patients. I can't say I blame them.
Interesting to consider this. Perhaps some special 'incentives' could be offered to the nurses for agreeing to care for Ebola patients. Kind of like a hazardous-duty pay.
 
It was based on a book called "The Hot Zone" about a real life incident near DC where a monkey containment facility became a playground for a Marburg virus. The scary part about it was that the virus managed to mutate & spread airborne but thankfully this also prevented it from spreading to humans.

Actually at this point it's pretty much been determined that the Ebola Reston virus wasn't actually airborne.
 
I suspect has much more to do with keeping the flight industries/lobbiyists pockets lined up until the last possible minute,.
I don't thinks so. If you check the flight routes of all the USA commercial airlines there are less than a handful of direct flights between northern African countries and the US. In other words, placing flight restrictions would have a minimum fiscal impact on US airlines as there are very few flights. Also, think of the airline flight crews. Air France employees petitioned the management to cease travel to the affected countries. I would bet that American flight crews would also be relieved not to have to fly there too. Just sayin.
 
Go to the library or bookstore and get a textbook on the subject. The bottom line in any emergency is not to panic. Panic only makes things worse and more difficult to overcome. :thumbsup:

The trouble with Ebola is the information contained in textbooks will certainly be outdated. The strain of Ebola today is different that the Ebola in 2003. Its smarter, deadlier, much more verulent, and poses a very real health threat to entire world. Its changing as we speak. A vaccine for the disease could be months away or it might never come at all.

But until it (a vaccine) comes, the world needs to put on our thinking caps and start making some sensible decisions regarding the containment of Ebola. So far we really haven't seen any (except for the African countries which have imposed strict travel restrictions for travelers in the hot zone).



I agree, the bottom line in any emergency is not to panic. :thumbsup:
 
I don't thinks so. If you check the flight routes of all the USA commercial airlines there are less than a handful of direct flights between northern African countries and the US. In other words, placing flight restrictions would have a minimum fiscal impact on US airlines as there are very few flights. Also, think of the airline flight crews. Air France employees petitioned the management to cease travel to the affected countries. I would bet that American flight crews would also be relieved not to have to fly there too. Just sayin.

Then what is the holdup? The biggest repeated argument against further restricting air travel, aside from getting aid workers in and out, is the financial impact this would have on the affected countries, including their airline industry. Closing ANY flights due to a contagion will have a negative effect on the industry as a whole, because it's an admission that the problem is beyond the controls already in place. It goes beyond incoming flights from the countries in question in the airlines point of view, IMO.
 
The trouble with Ebola is the information contained in textbooks will certainly be outdated. The strain of Ebola today is different that the Ebola in 2003. Its smarter, deadlier, much more verulent, and poses a very real health threat to entire world. Its changing as we speak. A vaccine for the disease could be months away or it might never come at all.

But until it (a vaccine) comes, the world needs to put on our thinking caps and start making some sensible decisions regarding the containment of Ebola. So far we really haven't seen any (except for the African countries which have imposed strict travel restrictions for travelers in the hot zone).



I agree, the bottom line in any emergency is not to panic. :thumbsup:

Read about what Nigeria did, it's fascinating and a blueprint for other countries.

The virus isn't changing daily. You've been given some great resources, don't ignore them all because one option doesn't suit.
 
Read about what Nigeria did, it's fascinating and a blueprint for other countries.

The virus isn't changing daily. You've been given some great resources, don't ignore them all because one option doesn't suit.

This is why I stated the virus is changing daily. I should have stated its mutating daily.

"Ebola is an RNA virus, which means every time it copies itself, it makes one or two mutations. Many of those mutations mean nothing, but some of them might be able to change the way the virus behaves inside the human body."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/12/health/ebola-airborne/

And I will definitely read up on the strategy Nigeria used to deal with the Ebola threat!
 
... Ghana stands to lose much more economically than the US, yet they had the common sense to ban all movements from the affected counties.... If Ghana is willing to take the hit at great cost to them in order to prevent the spread, why is the US dragging it's feet on restrictions? It seems to defy logic.

I think with regards to Ghana, the losses incurred with imposing travel restrictions would be largely economic.

With the US, I think the losses would be considered more political in nature. (wink-wink)

And that's as far as I can comment without violating TB guidelines.

edit: FWIW, over 2 thirds of the US public believes that travel restrictions for travel from the affected region should be implemented. As time passes, that number will increase.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Stewie26
It has privacy and legal implications that will require some serious consideration.

Right now this is a public health issue, in the coming weeks I feel it will become a public health threat. If it is not contained shortly thereafter, it will become a public health emergency; when that happens, privacy and legal considerations will go out the window.
 
Last edited:
The trouble with Ebola is the information contained in textbooks will certainly be outdated.

Unlikely if published in the last 10 years.

The strain of Ebola today is different that the Ebola in 2003.

We've known about several (~5) major Ebola virus variants for a long time. The current outbreak appears to be a variant of Ebola Zaire.


Its smarter,

Umm... no.


deadlier, much more verulent,

Nope.

The case fatality rate in the current Ebola outbreak is ~70%. Past Ebola Zaire outbreaks have had case fatality rates ranging from 80%-90%. This outbreak is actually on the LOW end of Ebola outbreaks in terms of fatality rate.

The first outbreak of Ebola Zaire (1976 in Yambuku, Congo) had a case fatality rate of 88%.

Of the 18 recorded Ebola Zaire outbreaks before the current one - only 4 had LOWER case fatality rates.




and poses a very real health threat to entire world.

Absolutely... as do a couple dozen other infectious diseases. Like the flu... which killed 50-100 million people (3-5% of the entire world population) in 1918. Unlike the norm of killing juvenile or old patients; the 1918 flu predominantly killed previously healthy young adults (see: cytokine storm).