General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCDC: Travelers from Ebola-ravaged countries will be monitored for 21 days
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/10/22/cdc-announces-travelers-will-be-monitored-for-21-days/Tom Frieden, director of the CDC, said that anyone arriving from the three countries Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia will be actively monitored on a daily basis and will also face new rules about where they can travel within the United States.
...Good. Someone apparently got the memo, and realized that if more people like Mr. Duncan show up sick, out of the blue, at emergency rooms, it will be a political as well as a medical clusterfuck.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Or the thousands of gun deaths?
Clearly these issues are something we should be more worried about.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There's a vaccine for the flu, which also does not have a 70% lethality rate.
But again, I'm positively stumped as to why this would piss anyone off. It seems pretty fuckin' sensible.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Americans than Ebola. The flu is more concerning than Ebola.
Why would you think I'm pissed off?
I'm just asking a question...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Nassim Taleb: Here's What People Don't Understand About Ebola
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)But the fact remains there are other things, like gun deaths and the flu, which kill more Americans.
After all, this about preventing deaths, right?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)from the 3 countries where ebola transmission is out of control.
So I'm not sure why the flu or guns are even the least bit relevant. Should I keep guessing? Is it because we (or the CDC) are supposed to be only capable of doing one thing at a time? Am I getting warmer?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)My point is that there are other things that are more dangerous to Americans and kill even more Americans.
That's why it's relevant.
It's about preventing deaths.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)dying by way of gun?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Where's the Psoriasis Czar?
Can you even say "Psoriasis Czar" 10 times fast, smart guy?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Not without a drink.
madville
(7,412 posts)Or auto accidents. Or the thousands of other things that kill more than Ebola does.
Ebola should be stopped in it's tracks of course. The nature of it would bring or society and economy to a halt if it takes off somewhere like New York or Chicago.
All those other things are familiar and seen as a regular part of life at this point, basically people are used to the weak and elderly dying of the flu, smokers dying of related diseases, thousands dying in auto accidents, etc, etc.
REP
(21,691 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)They need to look into gun deaths. Too many Americans are dying from guns.
REP
(21,691 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)Start a thread about that.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Because Ebola is just another Obama 'false flag' for...
Wait for it...
Just a little bit longer...
Ending the suspense now:
This is a real concern, you know!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm not sure why that is.
REP
(21,691 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)when you gonna ring it?
REP
(21,691 posts)But no one uses pay phones.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You claim we can take Ebola seriously but when the OP notes Ebola is being taken seriously you give him a hard time about the flu and gun deaths. I would hope the CDC can do several things at once but whether or not they can or cannot isn't the fault of the OP.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)It just seems to me that there are more pressing issues than Ebola.
While the media screams about Ebola, there are other things which are even more dangerous.
REP
(21,691 posts)TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)In fact, most hospitals are well equipped to handle flu patients, although we might not have enough ventilators were we to go through a serious flu pandemic.
REP
(21,691 posts)The flu kills primarily the very young, the very old, and the very sick (in normal flu years); ebola kills 50-70% of everyone who gets it, including the young and healthy. Flu vaccines are available at many places - pharmacies, clinics, doctors' offices, work places - often at very low or no cost. There is no vaccine or even treatment for ebola.
The CDC's new guideline is about trying to prevent the spread if a disease to another continent. The flu is already here, and there is a lot being done about preventing as many cases of flu each year as possible.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Given the way it spreads.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Even with decent medical care? If not, then you'll understand the OP's concern over Ebola.
Comparing the flu to Ebola is laughable.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)as part of the Essential Benefits the ACA requires all insurers, including government insurance, to cover.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Unlike recursion, for its definition look up recursion.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 23, 2014, 12:04 AM - Edit history (1)
With public health/infectious disease control, the question is not how many deaths there are now, but how many deaths there may be if you don't take action.
By your logic, we wouldn't spend up to 400K to take care of one Multi-drug resistant TB case. But we do:
http://www.cdc.gov/tb/topic/drtb/default.htm
The reason we do is that if the disease spreads, it is going to cost us incredibly more to control it.
And yes, if we find one case out and about we contact trace. And there can be a big hunt if one was on an airplane. Why don't you argue that the TB efforts are a waste of our time and money?
It is bizarre that we would spend money monitoring very slight Ebola risks in the US but none monitoring incoming, because the primary risk in the US of getting a long transmission chain started is that someone goes for medical care before they are acutely ill, and spreads it through the medical facility. That is one of the primary transmission mechanisms in West Africa.
Update:
WHO is publishing weekly updates re West Africa cases. Here are the last two:
The situation report for October 8th reported 8,033 cases.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/136508/1/roadmapsitrep15Oct2014.pdf?ua=1
October 15th: 8,997 total identified cases, 4,493 deaths
October 22nd:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/137091/1/roadmapsitrep22Oct2014_eng.pdf?ua=1
9,936 cases, 4877 deaths.
They know they are missing a lot of cases. MSF says the epidemic is picking up still. Well over one hundred new cases a day and nearly one thousand new cases a week makes a mockery of all the efforts to add new Ebola beds. There are, in total, under 1,200 Ebola treatment beds in the three active countries. One week's additional cases would fill up those beds entirely - it's more probable that the reported cases are constrained by intakes, which are constrained by available beds.
That's what new infectious diseases do to subject populations. The world needs to pour resources into West Africa and bordering nations, and it can't do that if it is fighting the disease in currently clear or mostly clear nations. Plus it is just murder not to stop it where you can.
The rule of thumb for epidemiology is that if you are going to have to do something if a disease were to become more widely spread, you always do whatever you would have to do BEFORE the disease becomes widely spread. That is always the cheapest option, and obviously saves the most lives.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)There is no reason we can't do everything we can to limit both Ebola deaths and those from other causes.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)nitpicker
(7,153 posts)Currently, the reported and unreported assumed Ebola caseload in the 3 countries may be 20,000. That is about 1 in 1000 of the population.
Assuming no difference between rich and and poor: 1000 travelers to the US a week =1 case a week, mostly asymptomatic on landfall
So CDC monitoring is a good idea. (and to catch malaria imports...)
BUT even if doubling time in the three countries has lengthened to 4 weeks:
Mid- Dec: 4 cases a week
Mid-Feb: 16 cases a week (are we ready for this level of isolation effort, let alone contact tracing?)
ecstatic
(32,731 posts)That's approximately 4,500 people every month. It's a good idea considering how the disease is spreading exponentially in W. Africa, but I'm wondering what resources allow for this type of monitoring, especially since we're always being told that there's no money for things like education, healthcare, etc. At some point, wouldn't it be easier to temporarily ban those countries rather than to pay for 4500 people per month to get 21 days of monitoring?
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)less costly to do those things. Throw a bunch of people and resources where they are most needed.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's not their job. Protecting the American people is their job, and frankly if we're going to continue to allow vacationing visa holders from the 3 countries where ebola is out of control, this is a sensible and reasonable step.
And far cheaper tha having another case like Mr. Duncan show up at the ER after he's been sick for a few days.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)containing, caring for, tracing contacts in the area where it is epidemic to prevent it spreading further, including here.
That would protect the American people also.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If we're really only worried about cost, then we should do as the previous poster suggested and block all the visa entry from the 3 main countries, entirely. That would undeniably be cheaper.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)contract trace where the sick are, where the outbreak is. And the sooner the better.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)with helping out over there, is beyond me.
Because guess what- it's not. Having the customs guy say "sorry" or the state department temporarily suspend the visa issuance, has zero to do with our commitment of resources to fighting the problem over there.
Apparently some people have got themselves convinced that the only way for Liberia to contain ebola is for a handful of Liberians to vacation at Disneyland.
Honestly it sounds more like a knee-jerk ideological reaction, than a logical one.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)http://time.com/3528833/ebola-spread-west-africa/
Greg Rose, a health advisor at the British Red Cross, says that while border controls may have had a small effect on the situation in West Africa, a key difference was that that other countries had been forewarned, which allowed them to set up systems to prevent further infections. Moreover, Tall says that in neighboring countries like Côte dIvoire, Senegal and Mali, the health systems were in a slightly better shape. In comparison, the three most-affected countries already had overburdened health care infrastructure before the Ebola outbreak. Sierra Leone and Liberia had not yet fully recovered from the damaging effects of long civil wars Sierra Leone had two doctors per 100,000 people and Liberia had only one, whereas Mali had eight and Côte dIvoire had 14. (The U.S. has 242.) With a lack of staff and resources, Tall says, Ebola came in and rapidly overwhelmed the health systems in the three countries, which have now collectively seen more than 9,900 cases of the virus.
Tall adds that two key elements in containing the spread in neighboring countries are community mobilization and the preparedness of the public health system. He highlights the importance of raising public awareness on Ebola and of putting the medical system on high alert all the way to border areas, so that anything that looks like a suspect case has a higher chance of being picked up. The difference made by a rapid response can be seen in Senegals success with its one Ebola case. Despite closing its border, Senegal reported its first case on Aug. 29, after a a Guinean university student traveled by road to Dakar, the capital. He was treated and recovered, and his contacts were traced and monitored. On Oct. 17, WHO declared the outbreak in Senegal officially over, saying the most important lesson for the world at large is this: an immediate, broad-based, and well-coordinated response can stop the Ebola virus dead in its tracks.
Though not a bordering country, Nigeria suffered an outbreak of 20 cases including eight deaths after a Liberian-American man died of Ebola after arriving at the main airport in Lagos. However, the government of Africas most populous nation was able to successfully trace those in contact with him and has since been declared Ebola-free. Nigeria has kept its borders open to travelers from the most affected countries, but increased surveillance. Dr. Faisal Shuaib, of the countrys Ebola Emergency Operation Center, recently told TIME that closing borders tends to reinforce panic and the notion of helplessness. When you close the legal points of entry, then you potentially drive people to use illegal passages, thus compounding the problem.
Shuaib pointed out that closing borders has another unwelcome effect: it stifles commercial activities in countries whose economies are already struggling because of the Ebola crisis. Access to food has become a pressing concern for many people in the three affected countries and their neighbors, Bukar Tijani, a U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization representative, said in September. In Liberia, for example, the collapse of cross-border trade meant that the price of cassava a food staple jumped 150% in early August. Another immediate consequence of travel restrictions, says Tall, is that most airlines have stopped flying to these countries, which makes it more difficult for humanitarian personnel to get in and out.
The most effective way to contain the spread of Ebola is in proper tracing of the epidemic, containment within communities and caring for those infected, says Rose, the Red Cross advisor, who believes this problem is not going to be solved by closing borders. And though Ebola has not spread quickly beyond Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, its clear that neighboring countries in West Africa need to remain vigilant. As Tall says, were not out of the woods yet.
"the only way for Liberia to contain ebola is for a handful of Liberians to vacation at Disneyland"? what the hell?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I understand that for some reason there's a full-court press; including deliberate obfuscation and misinformation- to stop the US from restricting entry to, again, a small number of travelers entering the US on state department issued visas from the 3 countries where ebola transmission is out of control.
These efforts include deliberately confusing/conflating travel bans, "stopping flights" and visa restrictions. Again, claiming that Nigeria "kept its borders open" is ridiculous when they went ahead and stopped direct flights; it's especially specious when it is coming from the same people who argue that "you can't close the borders" because "there ARE no direct flights".
Someone in the administration- despite the noise- has figured out that if we get another case like Mr. Duncan who is here on a visa and infects others with ebola, it will be not just a medical problem, but a giant political one.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But apparently that's not going to happen, as you can see some people are reflexively against the idea of ANY sort of controls or monitoring of travelers who come into this country, because ... Honestly, the fuck if I know why.
REP
(21,691 posts)Madness, I tell you.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)that's the least they can do.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Please, elaborate.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #43)
Post removed
Virus wasn't invented in the US in 2009.
It was discovered 40 years ago.
There is not enough tin foil in the world.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)not invented, the disease was invented or the first known case was in 1976.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)Obama did not take up office until 2009 so there is no way he is responsible for this. Try to google the patent number.
LisaL
(44,974 posts)You should try it.
ecstatic
(32,731 posts)And let's not kid ourselves, they test it in the field too (why go through all the trouble of recreating and patenting a virus if you're never going to use it or at least see if it works correctly?). Unethical human experiments are an ugly but well documented part of US policy. Something went wrong this time. The people of Guinea saw it for what it was, got angry, and refused treatment--which has now allowed the virus to spread at an exponential pace.
REP
(21,691 posts)It was first described in 1976 during an outbreak; Robin Cook used it in a 1987 series of typed words he called Outbreak.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)projecting any doubts?
LisaL
(44,974 posts)They didn't invent the virus. They isolated it from patients in Uganda.