Ebola Patient in Atlanta Hospital

a reply to: 00nunya00

I like your assessment of this thread. It kind of reminds me of the Fukushima Monster thread in the beginning. Everyone was so unsure of what was actually going on, everyone was posting any news for the sake of consolidating everything in one thread for data purposes. Not everything was dead on accurate, but we had it to reference if needed.

Ebola is as serious a situation as radiation let loose in our atmosphere and oceans. It's a whole new ball game to many of us. It's emotional too, because by nature as human beings...we are emotional creatures.

I like having a thread of what I know the members world wide have added new information, to log onto when I want to know what is going on. It gives me a sense of having a small handle on, a very emotional issue.

I run the gamut of feeling so sorry for those afflicted, to what would be my course of action, should it start to directly effect me. All in all, a good thing, as I don't need to be sticking my head in the sand and spending my time playing FB games when I should be making myself aware of the real world around me.

Des

a reply to: Destinyone

I'm pretty sure all the guys you see wearing black t-shirts came out of the black Dekalb county SUVs.

My brother was at Emory 3 days before the doctor arrived. I feel totally safe.

originally posted by: pandaexpressive
My brother was at Emory 3 days before the doctor arrived. I feel totally safe.

Welcome to ATS Panda. Yes, Emory has a great reputation. I hope all is well with your Brother.

Des

a reply to: kruphix

Last I checked, these two doctors got sick even with their hazmat suits on. So there goes your theory about not getting infected from a death ray. How did they get sick if they took precautions?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Seek_Truth

They all tested negative

nypost.com...

Mt. Sinai’s other six patients tested negative, CNN said. Another patient was isolated at Bellevue Hospital last week after arriving from a trip to West Africa with symptoms. He was screened at John F. Kennedy International Airport and taken to the hospital.
But his fever cleared up within a day — and it was determined that he had not caught Ebola.

For now, it hasn't been 21 days yet.

a reply to: Destinyone

No problem you have been doing a super job with this thread glad i could add 2 it

originally posted by: Diabolical
a reply to: kruphix

Last I checked, these two doctors got sick even with their hazmat suits on. So there goes your theory about not getting infected from a death ray. How did they get sick if they took precautions?

Accidents caused by poor conditions and stress from working in a 3rd world crap hole.

Unless you want to revert to old medieval superstitions.

a reply to: Diabolical

Perhaps their hubris got in the way and created an environment of complacency. So mistakes were made and now they find themselves infected when before I'm sure they had convinced themselves that nothing could possibly go wrong.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Diabolical
a reply to: kruphix

Last I checked, these two doctors got sick even with their hazmat suits on. So there goes your theory about not getting infected from a death ray. How did they get sick if they took precautions?

Accidents caused poor conditions and stress from working in a 3rd world crap hole.

Unless you want to revert to old medieval superstitions.

But these two specifically have no idea how they got it. They were both meticulous about precautions, and recall no accidents or breaches of protocol. No one is saying "they got possessed by ebola demons because God hates them", all we are saying is that there's a much larger percentage of trained medical workers getting infected than in the past. Over 100 is a big deal, that's about a rate of 8% of the total cases coming from doctors and nurses. That's significant, because if they never saw any tears in the suits (which is kind of silly anyways, if we are to believe you must have mucous-membrane contact with bodily fluid------a tiny tear in a leg or arm of the suit isn't going to let in very much fluid at all, and certainly not past their clothes which get taken off and washed when they take a shower after taking off the suit) and they cannot recall any breaches of protocol, then that means that either the virus is much easier to catch by contact with the outside of the suit (read: unsuited camera guys in ATL) or that it's lingering on hard disinfected surfaces longer, or God forbid, airborne. We've been over this a hundred times, we all understand how it's *supposed* to work, but the evidence says that's not actually the case.

a reply to: Diabolical

originally posted by: Diabolical
How did they get sick if they took precautions?

This is the only source that I have found that provides an explanation:

It's believed both Brantly and Writebol, who worked with the aid organisation Samaritan's Purse, contracted Ebola from another health care worker at their hospital in Liberia, although the official Centres for Disease Control and Prevention case investigation is yet to be released.

Link.

Which raises an interesting point. Your precautions are only as good as the weakest link found among your colleagues.

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: Diabolical

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Seek_Truth

They all tested negative

nypost.com...

Mt. Sinai’s other six patients tested negative, CNN said. Another patient was isolated at Bellevue Hospital last week after arriving from a trip to West Africa with symptoms. He was screened at John F. Kennedy International Airport and taken to the hospital.
But his fever cleared up within a day — and it was determined that he had not caught Ebola.

For now, it hasn't been 21 days yet.

Do you want Ebola to break out in the States?

No.

A) They should have never brought the doctors here in the first place. Secluded Island with a level - 4 laboratory, or like one suggested on here, a carrier in the middle of the ocean.
B) They should have contained the situation when they first learned about, Incoming and Outgoing flights to and from that area. They failed to do so. Instead, they want to test them like lab rats, which they can do on their private island or carrier.
C) FEDS are now monitoring the Airports to prevent the outbreak, but no one shows signs for at least 15-21 days. Those who did recently catch the Ebola, may not even know they have it. So, posting the FEDS at the airports is kinda of a waste of resources and pointless. Not to mention exposing more people to the virus and creating a bigger risk of an outbreak. www.fox5vegas.com...
D) If it happens, it happens. Nothing you or I can do anything about anyway. I deal with sick people everyday. No, I'm not worried. If I don't catch Ebola, I'll catch something else. Nothing to worry about here.

a reply to: loam

So again, we either have to believe that the doc and nurse were too stupid to stay away from or identify the symptoms of someone with ebola, or that the other worker transmitted it with no symptoms, but either way, you don't have to have "up-close personal contact" with a victim to catch it. Pretty sure neither of them were kissing this worker or letting themselves get sneezed on. A handshake, sharing common surfaces? Okay, then why deny that it's just that easy to spread back here in the first-world?

a reply to: 00nunya00

Despite all of the protestations to the contrary, I think we all agree that this outbreak/epidemic is not like any of the previous ones. Is it airborne? I don't think so. But I do think its virulence has increased. Maybe it survives longer outside the host or something.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: 00nunya00

Despite all of the protestations to the contrary, I think we all agree that this outbreak/epidemic is not like any of the previous ones. Is it airborne? I don't think so. But I do think its virulence has increased. Maybe it survives longer outside the host or something.

I agree. Surviving longer, or being transmitted through fluids of a person *before* they show symptoms. We know it only takes one virus cell of ebola to infect; I think it's silly to keep insisting that a person has to already have reached critical mass to transmit it. Ebola only takes one, while almost every other virus takes at least 100 or more virus cells (some more common ones in the thousands). I think that's where they're relying on the "classical thinking" too much; ignoring that there is a possibility that excreted fluids of asymptomatic victims are totally safe.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: 00nunya00

Despite all of the protestations to the contrary, I think we all agree that this outbreak/epidemic is not like any of the previous ones. Is it airborne? I don't think so. But I do think its virulence has increased. Maybe it survives longer outside the host or something.

Yes, this outbreak is different...it is in more populated areas, hence more people getting sick.

Also, more people are surviving...which means they live to potentially infect other people after they are feeling better but are still infectious.

But no, I'm sorry, this isn't a doomsday pipe dream that some people are hoping for.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: 00nunya00

Despite all of the protestations to the contrary, I think we all agree that this outbreak/epidemic is not like any of the previous ones. Is it airborne? I don't think so. But I do think its virulence has increased. Maybe it survives longer outside the host or something.

I agree Loam. It's going to take all countries with flights to and from infected areas, taking this same action.

As long as open flights, with no real way to quickly test travelers, are still doing business as usual...it will get so out of control it will leave Countries asking..."how did this happen?".

British Airways has cancelled flights to Sierra Leone and Liberia, cutting off the only direct links between Britain and the Ebola-infected area of west Africa.

4:23PM BST 05 Aug 2014

British Airways has cancelled flights to Sierra Leone and Liberia, cutting off the only direct links between Britain and the Ebola-infected area of west Africa.

The airline, which operates a direct flight four times a week from London to Sierra Leone and on to Liberia, suspended the flight “due to the deteriorating public health situation both countries”.

It follows warnings at the weekend from the World Health Organisation that the outbreak, which has killed nearly 900 people since February, was spreading faster than it could be controlled. Health officials are believed to be particularly concerned about Liberia, where staff are understood have fled hospitals in some areas because of fears that they themselves could become infected. www.telegraph.co.uk...

For info on Airlines flying to and from.

What airlines go to West Africa?

Delta Air Lines flies to Dakar, Senegal; Accra, Ghana; and Lagos, Nigeria. The airline also flies to Monrovia, Liberia, but for unrelated business reasons previously announced it will cancel that service at the end of September. Delta is letting passengers with flights to the region in the next two weeks push back travel until the end of the month. United Airlines also flies to Lagos, but has not issued any travel waiver. American Airlines does not fly to Africa.

European carriers such as Air France-KLM, British Airways and Lufthansa all fly to Western Africa from their hubs in Paris, Amsterdam, London and Frankfurt.

Lufthansa notes that "there is no risk of getting infected by the Ebola virus via air circulation during flight." Crews on Brussels Airlines flights have access to special thermoscans to check passengers' temperature, if they feel it's necessary. And British Airways has briefed all crew members flying to the region about the "causes and symptoms of Ebola." The only airline, so far, to cancel any flights is the Middle East airline Emirates. It has suspended its service to Conakry, Guinea, until further notice. It is still flying to Dakar. www.thespec.com...

Do we not see how easily this can get out of control? Add to that, the rush to get out by people living in the infected areas.

Don't get me started on private charter jets, with NO control on who or what is on them.

Des

a reply to: kruphix

originally posted by: kruphix
But no, I'm sorry, this isn't a doomsday pipe dream that some people are hoping for.

I find this statement irritating.

There is nothing wrong with interest or concern. I'm not aware of anyone 'hoping' for Ebola doomsday.

Moreover, as I said in other threads, what I see is a constant reassurance that there is little or nothing to fear.

If anything, an absence of fear may very well be the precise reason this crisis has become the problem it is now.

Doctors Without Borders (MSF) issued warnings as far back as March 1 that the Ebola outbreaks in Guinea were reaching epidemic proportions but at the time the World Health Organization (WHO) refuted MSF claims that they were dealing with a serious outbreak. As of March, MSF had recorded 122 Ebola infections in Guinea, 80 of those resulted in death including 11 healthcare workers. WHO had refrained from calling the Ebola cases in Guinea “epidemic” because they seemingly did not want to cause alarm. WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl said at a March news conference in Geneva:

“We must be careful with how words are used… for now what we see are sporadic cases, we cannot call it an epidemic.”

Meanwhile, the general director of MSF Switzerland, Bruno Jochum disagreed with the WHO’s statements and reiterated his organization’s concern of the Ebola outbreak in March citing what MSF had observed early on in Guinea was different from past outbreaks.

“The situation deserves our full attention and should be taken very seriously by the number of cases in different parts of the country in such a short period of time.”

WHO has now reversed its opinion and is now reporting the outbreak is out of control. At a recent meeting, Margaret Chan of the World Health Organization announced a $100 million plan to combat the epidemic and was quoted as saying:

“This outbreak is moving faster than our efforts to control it. If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences can be catastrophic in terms of lost lives but also severe socioeconomic disruption and a high risk of spread to other countries.”

Source.

Maybe the World Health Organization could have used a little fear back in March.

Just sayin'

a reply to: Diabolical

...
......
.........

Using one of the patients as an example, they were in Cape Verde 2+ weeks ago. That is 14 days at minimum. That is more than enough time for Ebola to show up in a blood test. Please stop with the "doom porn wishful thinking".