Ebola Patient in Atlanta Hospital

a reply to: loam

They're going to keep making incendiary statements like that as long as we keep reacting. They get off on the reaction (as stupidly immature as that is). Textbook definition of trolling. Report the post, eat the cookie, and ignore. I know, it's hard not to respond, I haven't been perfect about it myself, but they never come back with any sort of logical argument, just more insults and trolling. If enough of us report those posts, the mods will finally start deleting them and issuing bans.

originally posted by: raymundoko
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".

Please read the thread, or at least some literature on the disease. It has an incubation of UP TO 21 days, and patients who have been sick and showing symptoms for 3+ days have tested negative. No, it's not in Cape Verde yet that we know. This patient was playing it safe. But the blood tests have proven to fail with known ebola cases WITH SYMPTOMS. Do try to keep up if you're going to debate the issue.

originally posted by: raymundoko
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".

Not doom pouring anyone. That's one person. What about the other people on the flights leaving that area? Just because that person doesn't have it, doesn't mean someone else doesn't have it. And who knows, one might be a silent carrier as well.

a reply to: loam

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

No, the WHO should not make their decisions based on fear, they should base their decisions on facts and logic.

The fact is, back in March, this outbreak wasn't a widespread problem. Other Ebola outbreaks have flared up and burnt out quickly...no need to fear another outbreak.

There is still no reason to fear anything, but at this point the WHO does see that this outbreak is spreading which is why they are now stepping up efforts to contain it.

Fear should never be a factor in decision making...but I'm actually not surprised that you would think we should all be scared since all you have been trying to push is fear and over reaction.

a reply to: Zebra501

Maybe.

Might be Emory PD.

a reply to: kruphix

Loam has been an excellent resource of timely news updates, scientific research literature, and level-headed reactions. Please read the thread.

a reply to: kruphix

originally posted by: kruphix
Fear should never be a factor in decision making...but I'm actually not surprised that you would think we should all be scared since all you have been trying to push is fear and over reaction.

Neither should politics.

And who said I'm pushing fear? I'm pushing for vigilance, FACTUAL disclosure and transparency. It seems to me you are pushing for ignorance and blind trust in what you are being told.

a reply to: 00nunya00

Very concise and helpful post to a baffling situation. This variant seems to have a whole new set of "rules."

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: loam
The fact is, back in March, this outbreak wasn't a widespread problem. Other Ebola outbreaks have flared up and burnt out quickly...no need to fear another outbreak.

A problem isn't a problem until it's a problem. The WHO chose to ignore this outbreak because it didn't fit their cookie cutter definition of an outbreak to be concerned with. That's a problem. You have professionals pretending to know everything about something they don't know everything about. Past outbreaks should absolutely be a factor in how things get handled. But past outbreaks should not be the sole factor in how things get handled. It's not like a virus has ever been known to mutate and change...

originally posted by: drwill
a reply to: 00nunya00

Very concise and helpful post to a baffling situation. This variant seems to have a whole new set of "rules."

What "variant"?

This isn't a new strain, they have already identified the strain and it isn't new.

So please tell me, why would the same strain have a new set of rules?

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: drwill
a reply to: 00nunya00

Very concise and helpful post to a baffling situation. This variant seems to have a whole new set of "rules."

What "variant"?

This isn't a new strain, they have already identified the strain and it isn't new.

So please tell me, why would the same strain have a new set of rules?

READ the thread. All you ever bring to the table is confrontational redundant questions. You ask the same crap over and over like someone who has no capacity to retain information.

Read the thread. Stop sounding like an angry posting parrot.

Des

a reply to: kruphix

I find it rich you choose to defend the WHO's assessment of the problem, when MSF (the actual people on the front lines dealing with the problem) were warning the outbreaks in Guinea were reaching epidemic proportions.

For a person who claims to be motivated by facts and logic, you seem to have an odd way of cherry-picking which ones you find relevant.

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: drwill
a reply to: 00nunya00

Very concise and helpful post to a baffling situation. This variant seems to have a whole new set of "rules."

What "variant"?

This isn't a new strain, they have already identified the strain and it isn't new.

So please tell me, why would the same strain have a new set of rules?

This outbreak is a "variant" of other past outbreaks. It is different because it has not died out quickly like other outbreaks of the same strain. No one said it's a new strain. Calm down.

a reply to: 00nunya00

Actually:

Novel Zaire Ebola Sub-Clade In Guinea and Sierra Leone

The Infectious Disease Initiative at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, which is part of the Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium, has released 84 complete or nearly complete Ebola sequences (at Genbank – EBOV_1 – EBOV_84 with accession numbers KM233035 – KM233118) from Sierra Leone patient collections between June 2 and June 12, 2014. These sequences follow the release of 14 Sierra Leone sequences by the same group sequencing samples collected on June 1.

Thus, they have made public 98 sequences from collections in the first 12 days in June, 2014. They are commended for the rapid release of these important sequences, which are closely related to three full sets of sequences from three Guinea cases collected in March, 2014 from two distinct locations, Gueckedou (Gueckedou-C05 and Gueckedou-C07) and Kissidougou (Kissidougou-C15).

All 101 sequences form a Zaire sub-clade which signals clonal expansion due to human to human transmission following a single introduction. These 101 sequences are easily distinguished from all other Zaire sub-clades, which have been associated with the largest number of reported Ebola outbreaks, including the previously most deadly outbreak in Yambuku, Zaire in 1976 (280 deaths in 318 cases), which was followed by the second most deadly outbreak, which was 19 years later in Kikwit, Zaire in 1995 (245 deaths in 317cases). The current outbreak, which is again 19 years later but in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, has already produced more reported deaths (672 deaths in 1201 cases) than the two earlier outbreaks combined and comments made in yesterday’s US CDC Ebola telebriefing suggests there is no end in sight.

...

The June Sierra Leone sequences have evidence of some drift from the March sequences from Guinea. A prior Zaire sub-clade, which was found in apes and a chimpanzee and was associated with an outbreak in Gabon in 2002 had strong evidence of recombination, which raises concerns of more evolution in the current sub-clade, which has produced a record number of reported Ebola cases and deaths.

I fear these people are being brought here to be used as guinea pigs..

The cdc does not run south Africa's only level 4 containment center.

Contact Us:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Rd
Atlanta, GA 30333
800-CDC-INFO
(800-232-4636)
TTY: (888) 232-6348

www.cdc.gov...

So they brought the poor sap all the way over to ATLANTA for a science project
for the lovely scientist the center THEY control..

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: Destinyone

fine u made me change my avatar agin,,,

moon spells,,moon,,,

OHHHH, I LOVE IT! I just commented in another thread for some one to que up The Blue Oyster Cult,

Don't Fear the Reaper. I get goose bumps when I hear the beginning of that song.

a reply to: starfoxxx

Actually, today they were very clear that the primary purpose for bringing Brantly and Writebol was for the research opportunity. Otherwise the supportive care they would get here is the SAME they would have gotten over there.

originally posted by: Destinyone

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: drwill
a reply to: 00nunya00

Very concise and helpful post to a baffling situation. This variant seems to have a whole new set of "rules."

What "variant"?

This isn't a new strain, they have already identified the strain and it isn't new.

So please tell me, why would the same strain have a new set of rules?

READ the thread. All you ever bring to the table is confrontational redundant questions. You ask the same crap over and over like someone who has no capacity to retain information.

Read the thread. Stop sounding like an angry posting parrot.

Des

Excuse me?

You are angry at me because I asked someone about what "variant" he is talking about? You know why you are angry, it's because you know that people talking about "variants" are full of crap...but it makes the entire thread look bad if you would call them out on their BS.

So since you seemed like you wanted to defend that post, how about you tell me...what "variant" are you guys talking about?

originally posted by: 00nunya00

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: drwill
a reply to: 00nunya00

Very concise and helpful post to a baffling situation. This variant seems to have a whole new set of "rules."

What "variant"?

This isn't a new strain, they have already identified the strain and it isn't new.

So please tell me, why would the same strain have a new set of rules?

This outbreak is a "variant" of other past outbreaks. It is different because it has not died out quickly like other outbreaks of the same strain. No one said it's a new strain. Calm down.

Ummmm...what?

So this Ebola virus is a variant of other viruses...but it isn't a new strain???

This is the type of misinformation this thread has produced.