Ebola Patient in Atlanta Hospital

Edited for accuracy.

originally posted by: 00nunya00
a reply to: loam

Yikes. Where is this differing information on their webpage? Why do we have to go to the media, and not be able to just google "cdc alert level"? I've been researching on the net for 10+ years, why do they make this info so hard to find? :/ For instance, their own "travelers info page" is nothing but generic info and old info

All I have found so far is this: Health Alert Network Link

It seems the CDC has watch - levels (1-whatever) and also alert - levels (1-whatever). Still looking for a better summary.

Watch - Level 1, Practice Usual Precautions
Alert - Level 2, Practice Enhanced Precautions
Warning - Level 3, Avoid Nonessential Travel

wwwnc.cdc.gov...

The WHO has different ones too.

a reply to: loam

As you posted. Thanks!

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I still can't find the CDC definitions either. Frustrating. Shouldn't be that hard.

I already addressed it. Your point is invalid because Ebola isn't airborne.

a reply to: loam

a reply to: raymundoko

originally posted by: raymundoko
I already addressed it. Your point is invalid because Ebola isn't airborne.

Nice punt. But your original point was to rail against the use of the word "might".

originally posted by: raymundoko
I already addressed it. Your point is invalid because Ebola isn't airborne.

a reply to: loam

So, to be perfectly clear and 100% accurate, I could say that Ebola can be transmitted across an air-gap of approx 3 < 6 feet in diameter around an infected and symptomatic victim. Wouldn't you agree?

originally posted by: raymundoko
I already addressed it. Your point is invalid because Ebola isn't airborne.

a reply to: loam

[snipped]

Here's an on-topic link to discuss.. Tuskegee students stranded in Africa because of this outbreak. Reminds me of TB. Sigh.

Because there is no might with the CDC. Why do you all keep using the CDC as a source yet ignore where it says "Ebola is not airborne"...

The CDC does not think it "might" be airborne. The only people who think that are in this thread and a Canadian health site that states the study of pigs...the very doctor who completed that study does not agree with them coming to that view.


a reply to: loam

Interesting Reads:

2013_Preparedness_Report.pdf

CDC Social Media Best Practices

See how prepared your state is.

And still no chart.

No, it cant be passed across an air gap of 3-6 feet. It can be passed 3-6 feet if the persons bodily fluids come into contact with you via spitting, sneezing, coughing etc....why is that so difficult to grasp? It requires droplets to transfer. If you're less than 3 feet you should wear protective gear as all manner of their fluids could be ejected and unsettled.

a reply to: Krakatoa

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Interesting Read: 2013_Preparedness_Report.pdf

See how prepared your state is.

And still no chart.

Gravy. My state sucks in every way possible. :/ And we have an international airport and a bunch of yokels running it.

originally posted by: raymundoko
No, it cant be passed across an air gap of 3-6 feet. It can be passed 3-6 feet if the persons bodily fluids come into contact with you via spitting, sneezing, coughing etc....why is that so difficult to grasp? It requires droplets to transfer. If you're less than. 3 feed you should wear protective gear as all manner of their fluids could be ejected and unsettled.

a reply to: Krakatoa

So, droplets from an infected and symptomatic victim of Ebola can infect a recipient within a 3 to 6 foot radius around the victim. That is EXACTLY what I said. Now, you are being a bit pedantic over this entire thing. Please, lets keep the thread on-track and discuss the current state of the infection and where the cases (and potential cases) are located.

a reply to: loam

That video is old and I shouldn't have posted it. I just found it looking for the definitions.

Here's one from today though.

a reply to: 00nunya00

I read about those students in another article. It said they were supposed to return or that the program ended July 10th. What I don't get is why they stayed so long after? Travel restrictions weren't in place for almost another two weeks.

Strange story.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
... a GIII, with a range of 5,070 miles (4,410 nautical miles) with maximum fuel and reserves, but wen flying at its top cruise speed, it can fly 3,330 miles (2,900 nautical miles) nonstop.

It is Distance is 8107 kilometers or 5038 miles or 4378 nautical miles from Liberia to Atlanta.

So I guess it makes sense it had to stop to refuel in Maine?

However, the distance from Libera to Maine? That's 7079 kilometers or 4399 miles or 3822 nautical miles.

I was wondering about fuel capacity and mileage, thanks for the info. That leads to some interesting conclusions. They would only be saving 556 nautical miles on that leg of the trip. Based on the figures you gave for maximum fuel and reserves and them being very economical on mileage, you would still burn 86.9% of the fuel going to Maine. A bit of a headwind or a bit too heavy on the throttle and you might wind up in a rubber raft in the Atlantic with an Ebola patient.

Maybe Zaphod or some other pilot will chip in on whether it makes sense to go so low on fuel in either case, especially on a transcontinental flight over the Atlantic ocean and especially with an Ebola patient. I suspect there would have been another stop before that for fuel somewhere. And unless that was somewhere in the UK, Europe, Greenland, or Iceland, I don't see why they would go to Maine to refuel.

a reply to: ikonoklast

The future projections are terrifying.

Great job on the graphs. Puts everything into perspective.

No you said an air gap, implying an airborne pathogen. Did you simply mean a gap? If so I've already said that several times making you post pointless...

a reply to: Krakatoa