Obama - no quarantine of ebola HC workers

a reply to: gorsestar


your link didn't work.
but if you look closer at the post you will see links at the bottom of some of the paragraphs.
i take as they may not know how to use the quote or external source buttons.

a reply to: Raxoxane

presidents, Should be sensible and have their citizens' best interests at heart.

Just because enough of you are in support of making a poorly informed choice doesn't make it right. My confidence is in him because he has the facts from the most qualified & competent individuals in real time.

Btw,being sensible is not being afraid.It's not running around like an off-head chicken.It's making logical,sensible plans.

In fact, mandatory quarantines for asymptomatics persons is proven to be illogical & counterproductive . If you can produce evidence to the contrary instead of a feeling you have I'll listen.

a reply to: Phage
No, it does not ....there have been no systematic empirical studies conducted on human viral shedding of ebola . Unequivocal data not available to support conclusive statements about the matter , there is only assumption and anecdotal evidence. Dr. Bausch just answered a similar question in a lecture given at Case Western a few days ago. One last fact, it attacks cells differently than HIV, "Ebola’s sucker punch is its speed of replication. At the time of death, a patient can have 1 billion copies of the virus in one cubic centimeter of blood.It’s a systemic viral infection throughout your body as opposed to an infection of just your immune system ,” Saphire said. “Patients may die before they’re able to mount much of an immune response.” Erica Ollmann Saphire, PhD, professor, Department of Immunology and Microbial Science, The Scripps Research Institute. The body is left wide open, with no protection. Then Ebola starts copying itself like crazy, Amarasinghe says. "Multiple viruses can even invade a single cell," he says. "HIV can't even do that." (virologist Gaya Amarasinghe, of Washington University in St. Louis)

About the need for more scientific research on Ebola: "At what stage of the illness, and in what tissues is Ebola virus shed and may infect others?" he asked. No studies have been done on that. The research instead has been very product-oriented, focusing on vaccines and other therapies. "Now we wish we did understand more about the disease," he said.
www.cleveland.com...

The human viral shedding is at best an assumption and the data we do have is based entirely on previous outbreaks, well know strand (none or limited opportunities to mutate). The current genetic sequencing research is telling you it has mutated and continues to do so....this makes the boundaries of viral shedding as well as questions of when this occurs to the point of being infectious even more presumptuous.


"We don't really have lots of sound data of what period people start shedding virus and from what tissues. And so that would be incredibly valuable data. What we do have is the epidemiological data, and when we put that together from past outbreaks, it really appears that most infections occur from very sick people late in the course of their illness"(Dr. Daniel Bausch).

There is some limited data on people that have survived in terms of how long it remains possible to shed the virus.There are many studies from non human primates
www.ecdc.europa.eu...
Data on the post-recovery viraemic period are limited. Shedding of Ebola virus has been
reported in breast milk and semen after the virus has been cleared from blood [4]. Viable virus has been isolated
from semen up to seven weeks after recovery, and spermatogenic transmission of Marburg virus has been
documented [10]. There is a paucity of data on Ebola virus in human egg cells. The risk of Ebola transmission
should be considered in connection with reproductive cell donations, both for ‘partner’ and ‘other than partner’
donations.
However, the evidence that Ebola virus may persist for some time in the human body after recovery from EVD is
insufficient to define a specific deferral period for donors who have recovered from EVD. The current guidance
stipulates deferral for 12 months following recovery from a viral haemorrhagic fever [11] and this recommendation
also applies to donors who have recovered from EVD. In addition, living or deceased donors of SoHO should have
tested negative for Ebola virus

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

ebola has last i saw was a 70% mortality rate with no known antivirus or cure that is effective. but still not quarantining people coming from those areas where the virus is. something is not right

Whatever the truth is, I live in the murder capital of the US.
I'm more likely to get shot on the train then encounter someone who has had contact with an infected person and failed to self-quarantine. The death toll is still at 1.

originally posted by: gorsestar
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

ebola has last i saw was a 70% mortality rate with no known antivirus or cure that is effective. but still not quarantining people coming from those areas where the virus is. something is not right

Whatever the truth is, I live in the murder capital of the US.
I'm more likely to get shot on the train then encounter someone who has had contact with an infected person and failed to self-quarantine. The death toll is still at 1.

Unless the gov and others keep taking your attitude toward the situation, and then I would wager in about 6 months , your previous statement would probably be a bet you wouldnt want to take

a reply to: gorsestar

No I did not all the links to the pages are either to journal articles, university or other lab research etc.
In other words your wrong and accusation is not founded nor appreciated.
I write research articles I don't need to plagiarize them, I know the science.
If your going to make that kind of accusation back it up

a reply to: gorsestar

By the way your link does not work. The next time you accuse me of something maybe you could make sure it works. I posted this research summary before on the boards a week ago with the same references, none of which include before it was news,,,, but I imagine the article links are probably above your reading comprehension . With that in mind you probably googled a few statements and you got a hit from before it was news,, this research been quoted many times. You might improve your learning curve to go and read the research articles

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: gorsestar
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

ebola has last i saw was a 70% mortality rate with no known antivirus or cure that is effective. but still not quarantining people coming from those areas where the virus is. something is not right

Whatever the truth is, I live in the murder capital of the US.
I'm more likely to get shot on the train then encounter someone who has had contact with an infected person and failed to self-quarantine. The death toll is still at 1.

Unless the gov and others keep taking your attitude toward the situation, and then I would wager in about 6 months , your previous statement would probably be a bet you wouldnt want to take

That's the thing about the dynamic between government and people. We bring up our complaints. Then we scorn them for attempting to fix them.

Guns and inadequate healthcare have killed scores of Americans. Ebola has killed 1... We can provide life saving treatment domestically and humanitarian relief to infected regions. Banning travel will prove to be detrimental.

a reply to: bella2256

I apologize.

a reply to: gorsestar
Thanks, I appreciate that... I try to post the best links to papers that I can and only credible sources. I really think it's important we understand the research and I verify everything before hand... I consider that a personal responsibilty since i do research for a living.
Namaste

originally posted by: gorsestar

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: gorsestar
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

ebola has last i saw was a 70% mortality rate with no known antivirus or cure that is effective. but still not quarantining people coming from those areas where the virus is. something is not right

Whatever the truth is, I live in the murder capital of the US.
I'm more likely to get shot on the train then encounter someone who has had contact with an infected person and failed to self-quarantine. The death toll is still at 1.

Unless the gov and others keep taking your attitude toward the situation, and then I would wager in about 6 months , your previous statement would probably be a bet you wouldnt want to take

That's the thing about the dynamic between government and people. We bring up our complaints. Then we scorn them for attempting to fix them.

Guns and inadequate healthcare have killed scores of Americans. Ebola has killed 1... We can provide life saving treatment domestically and humanitarian relief to infected regions. Banning travel will prove to be detrimental.

Banning travel does not = banning aid FROM agencies TO the countries who need it.......

The whole "if you ban travel we cant aid them" bs line is cognative dissonance and outright lies....

Stopping commercial flights coming out of , does not = aid cannot be sent to......

How stupid do you think people need to be to buy that ?

Also.....The gov isnt HELPING the situation here......what part of that eludes you? They arent taking the proper procedure to do so.......the doctors and the nurses and even virologists all over the states are saying the SAME DAMN THING!

Im not saying run through the streets with your hair on fire, after all Ive flown in and out of DFW 4 times since this whole thing began.

However.......

I live in DFW I watched this whole thing unfold, we saw how they handled it, we watched as the CDC and others tried to shut up the media and shut down information going out, we watched as they botched EVERY STEP OF THE WAY....and then tried to cover it up with Lies in the media......and we arent fooled.....

Ive never been one to call people shills on this site, but seriously watching the amount of blatant disinfo and clear lies coming from some members on the forum about the Ebola thing is really starting to make me wonder.....

a reply to: bella2256

I jumped the gun. It wasn't based on content but organization. At first glance it's difficult to discern what is quoted material...

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

There is enough red tape involved in sending our dollars over there. To complicate travel for individuals aiding the effort is going to discourage them. Knowing a 3 week quarantine is a condition of you getting home isn't an incentive to leave. As others have repeatedly pointed out (to no avail) you aren't contagious until you have symptoms.

The measures in place at airports now are enough (temperature checks). This combined with passenger flight data is an effective early web to prevent symptomatic persons from infecting others. A travel restriction of any kind will be ineffectual.

The disinformation is coming from your side! The fear mongering is deliberate and borderline propaganda. It scares me that so few are approaching this with rationality. These same politicians that want to ban flights couldn't even collectively screw in a light bulb. I doubt they could find Liberia on a map.

I'm convinced some of you want this to become a pandemic so you can say, "I'm right", about the FEMA, Obama, and NWO theories. Not happening.

Well you are most welcome to trust your president,because you believe he is basing his decisions on consultations with the best-informed sources.In My opinion,it is better to err on the side of caution re the ebola virus,and healthworkers returning from working with ebola patients.I believe That is the most sensible approach.I believe That is more logical than refraining from implementing these safety measures.I believe 21 days out of a life is not too much to ask,to try and make as sure as possible that these aid workers do not develop symptoms,and spread it. I believe if you are willing to go into a hot zone,you should have the maturity and decency to realise that you may present with symptoms after your return,and take precautions just in case.Erring on the side of caution,for the common good.

You state that its both illogical and counter-productive to quarantine returning health workers-i don't see anything illogical in quarantining these workers,nor anything counter-productive.You are welcome to provide links that would give me a better understanding of why you believe what you do-i'm afraid I cannot provide a link to prudence and common sense-either you have it or you don't.a reply to: gorsestar

BRANTLY: In Liberia. I was taking care of patients in the isolation unit, the Ebola treatment unit, but I was also evaluating patients in the emergency room and I had contact with a lot of patients without all the protective gear who later were confirmed to have Ebola. And I'm very confident that I contracted Ebola from one of those patients in the emergency room.

VAN SUSTEREN: I saw BBC two weeks ago, a woman -- I don't know. But she said that the thing that upset them the most about when you got sick, they all said they knew you were and that you were the most meticulous about it. So they were stunned if Dr. Brantly could get Ebola, you know, how incredibly contagious this is.

BRANTLY: I was surprised that I had contracted it also but again, I felt confident and still do feel confident that our procedures, our process, our equipment in that isolation unit following NSF protocols, we were safe in that unit and I will continue to say I contracted Ebola outside of that isolation unit. [Source]

Is this theory about how he contracted the disease supposed to be a warm fuzzy?

Because to me, it's not.

Do they keep track of someone they saw and "had contact with?" The vast majority of healthcare workers would be in this situation, rather than the situation where they are in gear, wouldn't they?

a reply to: ~Lucidity
I smell a hint of BS.

A doctor working with ebola patients while NOT wearing appropriate PPE?

Yup. Ok.

a reply to: Bilk22

As Phage has pointed out its pointless if they dont have symptoms. Here is some Epi 101 for you - there is no known definite upper limit in calculating an incubation time, in epidemiology we just base it on the longest known - but its only the longest known until someone else comes along and breaks the record..

I dont wish to add fuel to your consipriacy theories or provoke more fear but 21 days is actually a rather arbitrary number for EVD calculated on a range of different outbreak but all outbreaks are different

so how long would you quarantine for?

21 days? that seems reasonable but youre still only caputuring around 95% of people
42 days? thats even more extreme but still then youre only capturing 98% there is still 2% that have gone longer than that.

Indefinite house arrest to make sure would be the only way to prevent any spread.. but then if we do that we should also do it to all other infectious diseases because hey, we need to erase all risk and ignore the medical and scientific community.

Also finally it takes a lot of public health resources to quarantine and monitor people, i know its hard for people who have no idea what public health actually does but ebola is only a small part of our work load, we still have to deal with 100s of other cases of infectious diseases that arent scary enough to make the nightly news.

So what do you suggest we do when we are required to be contacting quarantined inviduals twice a day for 21 days? its fine when its only one but when they start adding up and you also have to deal with the rest of your work load it simply inst feasible we dont have the man power to be contacting everyone plus doing the rest of our jobs.

Also as a side note entry screening for people at an airport is a huge waste of time, money and resources there is basically zero evidence to support that it works. Look into any research that came out of SARS and see the colossal failure that was entry screening. Exit screening on the other hand has shown some limited potential in previous outbreaks and is already in place in all the effected countries.

originally posted by: gorsestar
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

ebola has last i saw was a 70% mortality rate with no known antivirus or cure that is effective. but still not quarantining people coming from those areas where the virus is. something is not right

Whatever the truth is, I live in the murder capital of the US.
I'm more likely to get shot on the train then encounter someone who has had contact with an infected person and failed to self-quarantine. The death toll is still at 1.

Wow, apart from Phage's "blindly trusting the government statements" [because everything they say is always true], yours is one of the least logical ones I've come across in this thread.
Unless those who have been murdered/shot at will get up and shoot everyone else they come into contact with you can't even compare it with a contagious deadly disease.

And to contribute to this thread: Of course people who have been in contact with Ebola patients should go into quarantine regardless of showing symptoms. Its so much of a no-brainer I don't know how someone could possibly argue against this.

The truth is that nobody, no scientists, no doctors and certainly not politicians have a 100% accurate idea about the factors that contribute to the spread of Ebola and until they do, isn't it logic to err on the side of caution?

Isn't it?

a reply to: Hecate666

So how long should quarantine last?

a reply to: D4rcyJones
My friend they should be quarantine in the country they were exposed to the disease. It was the law at one time that no persons carrying or possibly carrying an infectious disease to not be allowed entry until clear. Ellis Island mean anything to you?