Ebola Patient in Atlanta Hospital

a reply to: raymundoko

Please take your personal argument to private message. BOTH of you: ganging up, doom porn, and panic parties have nothing to do with the thread. Please stay on the topic: the spread of ebola. We can all disagree about certain facts and definitions, but if this sub-subject cannot be let go of, it belongs in its own thread. I'm sure no one has any issue with discussing it in a different thread and allowing this one to continue on with the more general reporting of news and updates and research we have found.

Let's all put on our big-girl panties and start acting like we have a modicum of maturity. There is no reason to continue the personal insults, bickering, and one-upmanship that's plagued the last 20 pages. If your information is sound, there is no reason to resort to personal insults and baiting language. Unless you're just here to fight. Fighting is not what this thread is about.

That is all.

FDA says diagnostic test developed by the Department of Defense to detect Ebola has been authorized for use in helping to contain outbreak of the virus - @Reuters

a reply to: raymundoko

1) Yes, that is not airborne transmission though...that requires close contact.

I KNOW! But now you're saying close contact, which has been my point all along. A symptomatic person coughing and sneezing on a packed 6 train in grand central station at rush hour could unwittingly infect countless people through "close contact".

Containment is being better handled now.

Really? Care to link a source for that opinions. I've linked several articles with credible doctors on the ground who say there is no strategy for containment, and the current outbreak is "spinning out of control".

If you don't think the media has been blowing this out of proportion then you haven't been reading.

I have been reading, and comprehending, and I'm not saying it's not on the news, but the tone has been to downplay fear, which goes against the usual media MO. I find that strange, as nothing pushes papers like a good crisis.

originally posted by: LrdRedhawk
FDA says diagnostic test developed by the Department of Defense to detect Ebola has been authorized for use in helping to contain outbreak of the virus - @Reuters

Sweet, got a link? I hope this one is more fail-safe than the other two. A 99% accurate test is what we really need to alleviate fears of mistakes.

a reply to: 00nunya00

No link yet. It was just Tweeted by Reuters.

Final Warning....

Members who choose to discuss other members, to belittle others, to bicker, to bait others may find themselves temporarily post banned.
It is NOT fair to those who read and post to ATS to have to have this serious topic derailed.

You are responsible for your own posts.

There were three warnings yesterday about derailing the topic.
They seem to be ignored.
Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review

Community Announcement re: Decorum

Do NOT reply to this post......

a reply to: loam

No, that isn't the "might camp". Again, that is droplet, not airborne. The CDC is very clear that it is not an airborne disease and direct quotes and links to their page have been directly linked by me earlier in the thread.

originally posted by: LrdRedhawk
a reply to: 00nunya00

No link yet. It was just Tweeted by Reuters.

Yay Yahoo! lol

Link

Looks like there's not a lot of info on it yet, including fail-safe rates, but it's a start:

(Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday said a diagnostic test developed by the Department of Defense to detect Ebola has been authorized for use in helping to contain the world's worst outbreak of the deadly virus.

The DoD EZ1 Real-time RT-PCR Assay, an in vitro diagnostic that has not yet been approved, was authorized for use in laboratories designated by the Department of Defense to help respond to the ongoing Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the FDA said. It is intended for use by U.S. Defense personnel with signs and symptoms of Ebola or who are at risk for exposure to the virus, or who may have been exposed to it, the agency said. It may also be used to test aid workers and responders as needed.

Can anyone explain how this is different than the existing PCR test? I'm fascinated and hopeful. Must be different than the existing ones, right?

ETA: oooooh, juicy paper here, much more info. Can anyone weight in on it?

Link


Edit again: dang, it's pretty generic too, just an FDA source. :/

a reply to: 00nunya00

Sure. I like how they had all this in their back pockets until they brought it here.

All of a sudden there's a test, secret serum, and potential vaccine and lots of emergency use authorizations. You know. Just in case. When all of a sudden there might be markets for them in countries where they can afford them.

www.fda.gov...

a reply to: 00nunya00

www.fda.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The Real Time test has actually been around a while. I think since 2004? It has been perfected over the years but I think it still takes a few hours to give a negative/positive. Unless this is some complete update to the test.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Hah, I just posted the same information. But yes, it does indeed seem that we've had a much better arsenal locally than doctors in Africa have had. I wouldn't chalk it up to anything sinister as much as the bureaucratic red tape that the FDA forces the medical industry to jump through. Our system is quite inefficient in that regard.

a reply to: Destinyone

Thanks!

a reply to: raymundoko

OMG shut up about posting the same information. When other people say it it's to help others find it. When you say it it's all you say and it's for your ego. See the difference there? You're like a damn broken record and officially on my manual ignore now too with that other annoying one.

a reply to: DirtyD

I do understand the difference. Flu is airborne and can survive on it's own floating through the air. Ebola cannot. But if a sick person sneezes, expelled droplets of mucous and saliva could contain the virus, and potentially infection another human without direct contact. Do we agree on this?

Yes, if a person with Ebola who already has symptoms (fever, vomiting, diarrhea) and sneezes directly into your face...yes...there is a good chance you may get infected. But I would call that being in pretty close contact with the person.

However, why would you have your face in front of someone who has a fever that is vomiting and pooping all over the place?

Remember, they aren't contagious until AFTER they are showing symptoms...which come on hard and fast. The subway scenario that has been talked about in this thread is so extremely unlikely that the only reason to talk about it is to try to spread fear.

They guy at the hospital transfer that was 10 feet away from the patient (who was inside a hazmat suit) has ZERO chance of catching Ebola...same goes for the camera crew about 15 feet away.

This is where all this airborne crap came about in this thread...people saying that those people could now be infected because people here are claiming that Ebola can somehow escape a hazmat suit, go airborne outside in winds and infect people up to 15 feet away. People in this thread were freaking out about them and saying they should be quarantined...it was just unchecked paranoia and fear...which is why myself and others started to try to speak some truth about it.

I answered you, how about you answer me. Do you really think the guy outside the hospital without a suit on, or the camera crew without a suit on, are at risk of catching Ebola from the transferred patients?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: 00nunya00

www.fda.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The Real Time test has actually been around a while. I think since 2004? It has been perfected over the years but I think it still takes a few hours to give a negative/positive. Unless this is some complete update to the test.

This is a different, new test. It has not been approved by the FDA yet. They made an emergency approval for use by the DoD. The existing PCR test is known to fail, which is why they already do two different kinds of test, to have more confidence of the results of either.

a reply to: DirtyD

No it could not infect a train...you are still confusing airbone with close contact.

Could the people right next to him on the 6 train get infected? Possibly, if he was sneezing and hacking all over them from 59th all the way to Fulton...However I rode the 6 train every day for 5 years, and when people are sick on it there's always the good ol' new yorker who tells them to "cover their f*king mouth" or "go the f*ck home". I've also seen a completely packed subway leave 10 feet of space around people who obviously have the full blown flu...

Can everyone on the train get sick? No. Could potentially a couple? Yes.

a reply to: DirtyD

I KNOW! But now you're saying close contact, which has been my point all along. A symptomatic person coughing and sneezing on a packed 6 train in grand central station at rush hour could unwittingly infect countless people through "close contact".

Ebola is not a respiratory disease, there is no reason someone with Ebola should be coughing and sneezing all over people.

A person with Ebola that is contagious will have a high fever, vomiting, and diarrhea. I doubt someone with those symptoms is getting on a train. And if he does...he would have to vomit, poop, or bleed on someone to infect them.

Again, coughing and sneezing are not symptoms or Ebola...there would be no logical reason someone should think that someone with Ebola is going to have the energy to get on a train while they are contagious and then cough and sneeze all over everyone for no reason.

There is no sneezing...there is no coughing associated with Ebola, so to attempt to create a scenario where coughing and sneezing on people is the primary means of transmission doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's a good plot for a movie...but not in reality.

a reply to: kruphix

Ebola is not a respiratory disease, there is no reason someone with Ebola should be coughing and sneezing all over people.

Oh really?

Signs and Symptoms
Symptoms of Ebola HF typically include:
Fever
Headache
Joint and muscle aches
Weakness
Diarrhea
Vomiting
Stomach pain
Lack of appetite

Some patients may experience:
A Rash
Red Eyes
Hiccups
Cough
Sore throat
Chest pain
Difficulty breathing
Difficulty swallowing
Bleeding inside and outside of the body

Src

The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta strongly disagree with your statement.

a reply to: new_here

With each passing day, we have 21 days from the moment the last airplane lands in the US from another country, because no one truly knows where those people have traveled and what their exposure/infection status is.

The first case of this outbreak was back in December.

If it is so easy to transmit and so easy to bring to the USA, why isn't it hear already?

I'm not saying it won't ever come to the USA, but it is extremely hard for it to get out of the area, we know this from this current outbreak and past outbreaks. It's not impossible, but it is hard. And if it would get here, then it is a whole different story than when it springs up in Africa where they don't have good medical care and they don't even trust western doctors that come there to help them.

Anything is possible, but not all possible things are very probable. In this case, Ebola coming to the USA is possible...but not very probable.

a reply to: kruphix

Then why would the CDC issue this warning, if coughing, sneezing and talking weren't a risk?

Source

Management of ill people on aircraft if Ebola virus is suspected

Crew members on a flight with a passenger or other crew member who is ill with a fever, jaundice, or bleeding and who is traveling from or has recently been in a risk area should follow these precautions:

Keep the sick person separated from others as much as possible.

Provide the sick person with a surgical mask (if the sick person can tolerate wearing one) to reduce the number of droplets expelled into the air by talking, sneezing, or coughing.

Give tissues to a sick person who cannot tolerate a mask. Provide a plastic bag for disposing of used tissues.

Wear impermeable disposable gloves for direct contact with blood or other body fluids.

Please start a new thread if you insist on arguing that sneezes, coughs, and talking are not a risk. The CDC says otherwise.