Ebola, coming to a place near you soon!

Then other people may get it and we will treat them.

What happens when someone with CMV comes into the country, affects a woman and the woman's baby dies? 45 babies a year in the US die from it, and the disease is much harder to detect than Ebola (and so far, much more deadly.) It is endemic in developing countries. So why aren't people calling for banning travel from countries that can spread contagion that kills dozens of infants a year, rather than disease that so far has killed no people in the US?

That was a rhetorical question. The answer is irrational fear. Ebola is scary. We should not make decisions based on irrational fear.

Travel restrictions INCREASES the odds of outbreak in another country.

================
National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases Director: Travel Bans Are "Completely Impractical" And "Not Helpful" From A Public Health Standpoint. On the October 6 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fauci responded to co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck's suggestion that a travel ban would work "just as a precaution" to control the spread of Ebola, asserting that "from a public health standpoint," a travel ban from these countries would be not behelpful. Fauci added that that the best way to address the epidemic would be to suppress it in West Africa, emphasizing that isolation marginalizes countries and can compound the problem, resulting in civil unrest, failing governments, and further spread of the disease:

HASSELBECK: You know, the top question in everyone's mind is given the fact that we are dealing with the cases as I just described of Ebola, and potential infection moving forward, why not, just as a precaution until we get things under control, seal off the border temporarily?

FAUCI: Well, from a public health standpoint, that really doesn't make any sense. It's understandable how people can figure that that might help, but when you completely seal off and don't let planes in or out of the West African countries involved, then you could paradoxically make things much worse in the sense that you can't get supplies in. You can't get help in. You can't get the kinds of things in there that we need to contain the epidemic. And the best way to protect America is to suppress the epidemic in West Africa. And if we completely isolate them, don't let anything in, don't let anything out, we know from experience with public health that marginalizes them. And you could have civil unrest, the governments could fall, and then you wind up could having spread of the virus spread to other countries in West Africa, which would only compound the problem. So it's understandable, that thought -- "let's just close them off" -- but that just doesn't work. [Fox News, Fox & Friends,10/6/14]
==================

Well, when the argument against them is being made by doctors and directors of medical organizations, and the argument for them is being made by conservative pundits, I am going to tend to go with doctors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, other people will get the disease and they will infect others and they will die. That is how epidemics begin.

Seriously? CMV, cytomegalovirus, is rarely lethal. It rarely produces even an illness. It is naturally occurring in the current US population and rarely causes even illness much less death. It isn’t a new disease. It is endemic to the US, so screening immigrants or stopping immigration will not stop occurrences in the US. So you are being more than a little disingenuous.

LOL, NO, you wish it to be a rhetorical question. But it isn’t. The answer is indeed very factual and rational.

And where is the supporting evidence? The affected countries have a long history of political instability, failed governments, and civil unrest. There is no indication a travel ban will affect or worsen the region’s political instability, especially when you consider the enormous economic activity generated by aid societies, the United States and accompanying countries are investing in the region to fight the Ebola epidemic.

While I agree with Fauci, the best way to fight the epidemic would be to suppress it. But they have been trying to do so for several months now without success. What makes Fauci think doing the same thing over and over without success is the key to success? It seems to me Fauci’s argument is based less on scientific evidence and more on political correctness.

Except, that is not the argument, Fauci is creating a straw man which should be easily identifiable by anyone with half a brain. As noted in my previous post, no one is talking about “completely sealing off” the region. Sealing off the region is a physical impossibility. No one is talking about banning relief efforts. Banning foreign travel by nationals on airlines isn’t impossible and is very practicable and reasonable. Thirteen African countries and some airlines have already invoked travel bans on regions afflicted with Ebola.

Actually, that is more than a little deceptive. Some physicians and some directors of medical organizations (primarily US government organizations) are making that argument using illogical arguments which should be readily apparent to everyone (e.g. straw man, appeal to authority).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevens...-travel-from-liberia-sierra-leone-and-guinea/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

CMV kills dozens of infants a year. It is, objectively, a much more deadly disease in the US than Ebola is. But because people are used to it there is no fear of it; your reply is a good example of this.

Exactly. Thus they are at much greater risk of collapse if you turn them into a leper colony.

Do you really think that what we have done so far is all we can do? How many hospitals have been constructed? How many supply depots established?

What are we doing over and over?

Well, you are in good company, at least. Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Paul Rand et al are firmly in agreement with you on the necessity of a travel lockdown.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's like saying that soap is more deadly than nuclear bombs,
because more people die slipping on soap than from nuclear war each year.

Ebola may be potentially catastrophic. But perhaps it isn't. We don't know yet.
As an untreatable deadly infectious disease the two great weapons against Ebola spread are hygiene and quarantine.
Depending upon how seriously it spreads, there are no limits on the latter.

 

Good example. Indeed, if his preoccupation with fallout shelters distracts him enough to leave bars of soap on the floor, then his fear of nuclear bombs makes him less, not more, safe. It would be wise of him to pick up the bars of soap, even if it means he is a day behind on completing his fallout shelter.

I'd disagree there. It is a real, ongoing catastrophe to people in Liberia, and that's where we should be expending our efforts - both to save their lives, and to make the world (including the US) a bit safer overall.

 

Texas ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan dies:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/texas-ebola-patient-thomas-eric-duncan-died/story?id=26045360

 

notice how the Ebola "survivors" in Atlanta hospital got a gigantic media charade spanning numerous days, praising the medical advances of the American Society genius for developing the vaccine.

In reality however, the real Ebola infected American died quickly without any Zmapp miracles or genius vaccines doing any good to him. How many days of media coverage is that going to get? Guess which ever subsidiary Mapp Biopharmaceutical is of, will not get the premiums.

 

Mahatma Gandhi copycat!

 

As the first Ebola fatality in the US - a lot. Currently:
Second-to-top story on CNN
Top story on Yahoo News
"EBOLA" is top topic on MSNBC; clicking on that leads to US death as top story
(FOX News, of course, has the top story of "Senate battleground races trending GOP")

 

Now the law suits begin.

 

How will restricting travel hamper our efforts to fight Ebola? We can let the doctors and nurses go around as they need, you know. We can be a little selective. That whole construction just doesn't stand to reason.

 

What, another mass conspiracy from you? You would fit in nicely with our American right wing whackos. Who is the "real Ebola infected American?

 

Reducing the likelihood of many aid organizations participating in the effort
Tanking the economy, which adds unemployment, starvation, failure of sanitation and police services etc to the problem
Driving people to leave via completely uncontrolled means of transportation
Increasing panic among infected areas

So only let the people who have been in direct contact with the victims travel? Not sure if that's the filter we want - especially given that nurses and aid workers have been most of the infected who have traveled via air to other cities.

OK. So what's the selection criteria?

 

Osama Bin Laden, obviously.

 

No I am stressing the double game that USA is playing. The face card for all the public is "USA has the drug against the Ebola and it is called Zmapp". The real playing card though is pharmaceutical companies doing their time to make as many drugs as possible and sell it to as many people as possible, thus maximizing their profit. It's a deliberate slowing of the research on Ebola.

 

Zmapp

Wikipedia

 

The US has an experimental drug which has not been tested. The drug has not been proven effective. Moreover, all doses of ZMAPP were used to treat 2 earlier victims. Now how you get to the US is slowing Ebola research is beyond me. Again, do you have any evidence to support your assertions?

 

Re travel.
Perhaps the airlines could be made responsible for testing passengers before they get on flights.

An indicator blood test would be very useful.
Is that possible for viruses?

I wonder if dogs could be trained to spot people with Ebola.
Just a thought.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re Zmapp

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...lable-dose-of-zmapp-in-the-world-9781740.html

 

Just allow them through.

Their economy is already in the tank so far as that goes. It'll suck whether you restrict air travel or not. People know Ebola is there. I would suspect tourism, at least, is done.

These are possible and the solution sounds monstrous: don't let them leave. Armed guards, checkpoints, the army on the frontiers. Establish confidence by controlling the problem. It sounds terrible, but isn't this what Nigeria did? There's an obligation to prevent further spread. It's well to say that people might be afraid, but it's no consolation to the dead that at least no one was frightened by the outbreak - and in fact, people in non-infected regions appear to be panicking because of the failed restrictions on travel.

Why are they leaving? Where are they going? Aren't they supposed to be in-country, fighting the disease? If they must go, 48-hour quarantine with PCR check before they leave. Same with aid organisations. Hell, same with private parties who wish to leave. Surely that would be a little more secure?

How about: known to be uninfected via blood sampling?