Second Ebola patient in Dallas?

The incubation period can last up to 21 days. Its typically anywhere from one to two weeks, which is why the nurse who cared for him started showing signs as early as Friday. Its why Duncan started showing signs on the Sept 25th, nine days after he helped transport the pregnant Liberian woman with Ebola to and from the hospital prior to his travel here.

As for travel, you are missing the point I'm making on trying to block west Africans from flying out of Africa. First of all, in more advanced countries, like Spain and the US, we have shown and will continue to show that Ebola can be successfully contained.

In a few months, this will no longer be an Ebola problem, this will be an West African problem and why a few countries there can't seem to control it.

My point on travel is that you cannot 100% control everyone who enters a country. When you drive things UTR there is more chance for everyone's safety and wellbeing bc nothing is being monitored the way it should and people who fear law enforcement will hide with their sickness rather than report it. If Duncan had managed to enter the states illegally, I doubt he would have so easily gone to the hospital when he first started feeling ill. His family would have tried to hide him and we would actually be looking at the possibility of a real outbreak in Dallas. Immigrants come in from Mexico every day and have been for decades (despite whoever was president). People travel here all the time without permission. Hell they could even start coming in from Canada if they wanted too. Best to keep it monitored and legal if only for the benefit of public health. Originally Posted by thathottnurse

Your travel ban logic is horribly flawed.

You pointed out in a post below that the travel ban might cause some people to not report their illness. So? If they cannot come here, then we do not have to worry.

And is someone REALLY not going to seek medical help when they get sick or are exposed because they want to keep their options open for traveling to the US?

That sounds like a flimsy, manufactured reason for not imposing a travel ban.

In previous outbreaks of diseases, quarantining entire villages and even cities was the only effective weapon in halting the spread of disease. I believe that is how they contained some of the early outbreaks of Ebola.

I think too many western societies lack the willpower to do necessary, but unpleasant, things.

And you are speaking a little prematurely about the US and Spain containing Ebola. Obviously we did NOT contain it in the case of the US nurse. And we still have to see about the sex partner of the Spanish nurse.

The CDC continues to proclaim that it can handle Ebola with its vaunted protocols. The latest slip up is being explained away as a "breach". These guys are classic bureaucrats, believing totally in their administrative procedures, ignoring human imperfection. Current estimates of travel from the African hot zone are 150 people a day. Are we really worried about the sensitivities of 150 people? Offending them is the downside if we forbid air travel, which we would do if we truly believed the CDC's isolation protocols. Infected people are walking all over west Africa, but flying them out to Europe or North America so they can visit their baby mamas, or get stolen access to health care is madness. Each of these index cases in North America likely costs hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to treat and contain. Wouldn't it make more sense to spend that money in west Africa? Few in the self-sustaining bureaucracy think logically for the public good. We need to bar travel before this gets out of hand and overwhelms our infrastructure. I hope that Thomas Eric Duncan is slow roasting in hell after endangering North America, lying his way into our health care system, claiming to make a social call on his illegitimate spawn on our soil.

The nurse was under directions from the hospital that she followed to a "T" which is why it was caught immediately.

The logic isn't just my logic, sir. Actually travel ban logic is the flawed logic. This is the most comprehensive article I could find:

http://mobile.businessweek.com/artic...-dot-s-dot-too


"The death of Thomas Duncan in Dallas on Oct. 8 has provided another turn in the debate over containing Ebola. Infected with the virus, Duncan had flown from Liberia to Brussels to Washington to Dallas. That revelation provoked a blunt response from a few American politicians: Ban flights from West Africa. Texas Representative Ted Poe, a Republican, has written to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asking it to recommend travel restrictions. In a letter to Michael Huerta, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz wrote that “it is imperative the FAA take every possible precaution in preventing additional cases from arriving in the United States.” Representative Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida, has called for a 90-day ban on travel from Ebola-affected countries to the U.S.
The White House is resisting those calls, and that’s the right thing to do. Restricting travel to and from the affected region will have little impact on the already minimal risk to Americans from the Ebola virus while further worsening the situation in Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. The history of the global fight against infection has demonstrated that we shouldn’t raise the drawbridge or run away but fight the disease wherever we find it.
Travel restrictions have a long history as a tool against spreading infections. Quarantine was first used against the plague bacillus in 14th century Europe. At the time, quarantine was pretty much the only potentially effective public-health strategy. (Neither prayer nor pogroms had the desired impact.) The Black Death still exists—there were four cases of human infection in the U.S. in 2012—but we now have a vaccine against the disease. It can be treated with antibiotics, and sanitary and housing conditions in the 21st century are considerably better than in Europe in the 1300s.
We don’t have a vaccine against Ebola nor a fully developed cure. But like the plague, the disease is an unlikely candidate for epidemic status in the U.S. or elsewhere in the developed world. The only way to contract Ebola is for the bodily fluids of someone who’s exhibiting symptoms to come into contact with your soft tissues—the eyes or mouth, for example. In the worst of circumstances, the average Ebola victim infects one or two other people, compared with 10 or more who can be infected by someone with measles.
If we want to reduce our exposure to dangerous pathogens, we have to fight them where they are
Isolation of people with symptoms, rather than quarantine of an entire population, can stop an epidemic. That’s why all previous Ebola outbreaks have sputtered, leaving the world with no reported cases in 2010, for example. The U.S. has top-notch isolation facilities, and health authorities have considerable experience of “contact tracing,” or finding all the people a victim has spent time with since he began exhibiting symptoms and checking that they don’t have the disease.
Controlling illness by quarantine of an entire country or region involves trade-offs. It’s always theoretically possible to avoid risk by completely cutting yourself off from contact, but then you’ll be alone. We take some risk of infection through contact because the benefits of that contact outweigh the risks. Trade is worth one-quarter of U.S. gross domestic product. People want to travel to see family and friends, visit places, work, or invest. We think all that is worth the price of somewhat increased risks of illness.
Consider our approach to dealing with illnesses that are far more threatening than Ebola. In an average year, more than 23,000 deaths in America are associated with influenza. But this toll isn’t enough for us to shut the borders in an attempt to keep influenza at bay. The idea that we could completely seal off the U.S. from the rest of the world is laughable—at best we might delay a disease from arriving by a few days or weeks. When it comes to the flu, we’re not even willing to take considerably more targeted and effective measures, such as banning kids from school if they haven’t received the vaccine or providing shots for free at pharmacies.
Most of the economic harm from epidemics comes from reduced commerce and travel. A 2006 World Bank estimate (PDF) of the costs of a flu pandemic suggested it could reduce global gross domestic product by $1.5 trillion. One-third of that amount was accounted for by death, illness, and absenteeism. But two-thirds came from the cost of people trying to keep away from infection, mainly by staying in place. The World Bank has estimated the cost to Liberia of the Ebola outbreak to be equal to more than 3 percent of its GDP. Add in a formal travel ban to West Africa, and the impact on some of the world’s poorest economies could be catastrophic.
A travel ban would also be counterproductive for the U.S., making the likely global impact of the epidemic far worse. The three West African countries affected need outside support, including the hundreds of medical volunteers who have stepped forward from countries as disparate as the U.K. and Cuba. Banning flights into West Africa will delay the arival of help when every day is critical in preventing an explosion of cases. Banning commercial flights out of the countries will deter people from volunteering to work in the region.
With greater support, the three countries bearing the brunt of the epidemic can fight back against Ebola. Neighboring Nigeria and Senegal have shown that they can detect Ebola, isolate victims, trace their contacts, and shut down the disease. And although Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone have desperately fragile and underfunded health systems made worse by Ebola’s toll, their programs aren’t completely dysfunctional. All three have wiped out major infections: smallpox, polio, and Guinea worm.
The lesson of the world’s efforts to stop other deadly diseases is that if we want to reduce our exposure to dangerous pathogens, we have to fight them where they are and when they emerge. It wasn’t until the third decade of our knowledge about AIDS that a significant global effort to respond was made, notably through President George W. Bush’s 2003 announcement of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Despite the late start, the initiative currently supports treatments for 6.7 million people with HIV worldwide, and the number of new infections dropped by one-quarter from 2001 to 2011. We’ve also seen incredible progress against a range of infectious diseases over the past 20 years because of the rollout of vaccinations and other interventions in even the poorest countries.
This global progress is the most powerful weapon we have in permanently reducing the risk and cost of infectious disease in the U.S. The eradication of smallpox has saved more than 40 million lives (PDF), and it also saves about $2 billion a year in vaccination and hospital expenditures in the U.S. alone—an impressive return for a program that cost about $300 million.
We live in a global disease pool. In the end, once a disease begins to spread, there’s no escaping an infection, whether it first appears in Africa, Asia, or the U.S. Travel bans are less effective than hiding under a rock and considerably more costly. To battle continuing epidemics and potential pandemics, we need strong health and surveillance systems in every country and research and development not only for the diseases of the rich (such as cancer and heart conditions) but also for the infections of the poor. Hitting emerging disease threats early and where they emerge is far less costly in terms of lives and financing than trying to play catch-up once they have spread."



Have any of you ever hopped a flight while feeling a little under the weather??? Then you likely exposed that entire aircraft and their families to a cold or the flu which kills tens of thousands of Americans per year.

Have a nice day.

The author of that article, Charles Kenny, is not an expert on controlling infectious diseases...not even close. It is funny you offer the arguments of a man whose bio claims him to be a globalist - author of the book "Getting Better: Why Global Development is Succeeding, and How We Can Improve the World Even More."

The primary assumption in your posted article is:

If we want to reduce our exposure to dangerous pathogens, we have to fight them where they are. Isolation of people with symptoms, rather than quarantine of an entire population, can stop an epidemic. That’s why all previous Ebola outbreaks have sputtered, leaving the world with no reported cases in 2010, for example.

Nobody is saying we shouldn't fight these pathogens "where they are". His posturing is just utter malarky. The reason prior ebola outbreaks didn't spread was because those out breaks occurred in generally rural remote areas. They essentially were quarantined. This recent outbreak is in more heavily populated areas; thus it has progressed thru more dense populations geometrically.


And let's not forget that In 2010, the Obama administration withdrew updated quarantine regulations drafted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and proposed by the Bush administration. The new rules would have required air passengers to submit more information to airlines and strengthened the government’s authority to detain travelers suspected of carrying disease.

You have too much faith in government bureaucrats and politicians to do the right thing.

Really?

Please look at the context. As in it meant the opposite of what he was saying: like healed vs sick. A person can be sick and asymptomatic. But he meant he went to the hospital with symptoms, the opposite of asymptomatic. Originally Posted by thathottnurse

Since you are in the medical field, you understand the importance of proper word choices. You were OK with asymptomatic. Healed is the wrong choice.
Do you say "careful" or "don't kill the patient"?
Think of the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty". Which was Orenthal James Simpson?
He didn't seem innocent to me.

JL, I was referring to an ebola patient "becoming asymptomatic". That would mean they were on the mend. Operative word there being "becoming". He was declining in health from the ebola, meaning he was becoming symptomatic, the opposite of "becoming asymptomatic".

Are you done splitting hairs?

Not exactly healed..from Wikipedia:

In medicine, a disease is considered asymptomatic if a patient is a carrier for a disease or infection but experiences no symptoms. A condition might be asymptomatic if it fails to show the noticeable symptoms with which it is usually associated. Asymptomatic infections are also called subclinical infections. The term clinically silent is also used.
Knowing that a condition is asymptomatic is important because:

• It may develop symptoms later and so require watch and wait or early treatment.
• It may resolve itself or become benign.
• It is required that a person undergoes treatment so it does not cause later medical problems such as high blood pressure and hyperlipidaemia.[1]
• Be alert to possible problems: asymptomatic hypothyroidism makes a person vulnerable to Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome or beri-beri following intravenous glucose.[2]
• The affected person may be infectious and unknowingly spread the infection to others.
• An example of an asymptomatic disease is Cytomegalovirus (CMV) which is a member of the herpes virus. "It is estimated that 1% of all newborns are infected with CMV, but the majority of infections are asymptomatic." (Knox, 1983; Kumar et al. 1984)[3]

ANNOUNCEMENT 1: Assup, the dumb-fuck golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, was elected: (please reference the avatar & see @: http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=946023, .http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=897663 & http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1052174471&postcount=1)

ANNOUNCEMENT 2: Ekim the Inbred (AKA "i'va biggen") is a "chimp off the ol' block." See @: http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1053405983&postcount=35 Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

I just love how people suddenly google or take Wikipedia info and run with it.....another reason why I love Lawyers..

The nurse was under directions from the hospital that she followed to a "T" which is why it was caught immediately. Originally Posted by thathottnurse

Plainly not true.

If she followed directions to a "T", she would not have gotten the disease, right? All the government officials a throwing her under the bus saying she must have breached protocol, but none of them can say how.

Not exactly inspiring.

And the travel ban does NOT have to be an all or nothing proposition. We can impose a travel ban on the affected countries but still allow our medical personnel to go there to help the Africans deal with it.

But only our medical personnel get to come back to the US until the epidemic breaks. Then we can lift the travel ban.

Goddamn. You fuckers can turn just about anything into a political pissing match.

So much so that you COMPLETELY miss the point - and wouldn't know a solution if it shat in your face.

First of all, its Thomas Duncan, not Michael Duncan.

Of all the people who can't remember a name they read repeatedly over the course of two weeks, you'd think you know-it-all jokers could get it right. Or at least notice when someone else got it wrong.

Second of all, the fit isn't gonna hit the shan. After all the possible infections over the last two weeks and the only case to have been reported (and self-reported within 90minutes of onset even) is a medically trained caregiver who was aware of what she was looking for. I'd say that is pretty good.

This has nearly played itself out and it was handled well all in all. No plan is full-proof until put into practice and even then fuck ups happen. Two cases in three weeks??? I call that a win.

As far as stopping them from traveling, good luck with that. We can't even stop people from traveling here uninvited. At least we have a chance to check them for signs of illness the way it is. The guy did lie on his questionnaire in Liberia. Had he told the truth he would not have been allowed to fly.

You guys that get shit so twisted up and lose track of the real situation need to get some help from trained professionals. Seriously. Originally Posted by thathottnurse

Don't distract them from their mission of finding a way to blame Obama for Ebola.

^^^ Totally of topic...ExNYer and timpage. You're avatars ..omg..

Plainly not true.

If she followed directions to a "T", she would not have gotten the disease, right? All the government officials a throwing her under the bus saying she must have breached protocol, but none of them can say how.

Not exactly inspiring.

And the travel ban does NOT have to be an all or nothing proposition. We can impose a travel ban on the affected countries but still allow our medical personnel to go there to help the Africans deal with it.

But only our medical personnel get to come back to the US until the epidemic breaks. Then we can lift the travel ban. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I meant she was following self-monitoring to a T and her instructions from the hospital during her off duty hours. She followed protocol during her shift to the best of her ability. Have you ever heard of the 'Human Factor'?

And to be more exact, it wasn't just a "breach", it was an "inadvertant breach" or in other words, unintentional or accidental.

Have you ever done a "spread of infection" type of exercise where you touch a UV dye to your hands, then wash them (properly), then go about your business in a room for a half hour or so, then the facilitator turns the reg lights off and UV lights on? Its pretty crazy how many things get touched without realizing. The most amazing thing is how much dye ends up around your mouth, eyes and nose.

I don't believe this nurse was negligent or careless in her actions. She followed protocol on and of her shift to the best of her ability. When Mr. Duncan's condition worsened from serious to critical there was likely an episode that caused that change such as a code blue. When that happens, the first instinct is to save their life which is what they did at the time. It would not surprise me at all to learn that is when the "inadvertant breach" occurred; while she was performing CPR or when she was tubing him or assisting with the tube to get him ventilated.

Democrats have already rushed to that low road......................

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._outbreak.html

Ad Blames GOP Budget Cuts For Ebola Outbreak

Don't distract them from their mission of finding a way to blame Obama for Ebola. Originally Posted by timpage

But if you can find a similar ad by a mainstream activist group that supports the GOP, please post.

Why are you always one step behind things Loser Tim?

And feel free to explain why liberals are such low life POS (as proven by the Ebola ad, not to mention your honey Wendy Davis's recent ad).

All this blather about harming the economies with a travel ban from West Africa is amazing. Nobody, not Ted Poe, not anybody has proposed banning travel TO West Africa. What has been sensibly proposed is a ban on travel FROM West Africa by commercial air carriers full of possibly infected passengers, violating all logical policies of disease containment. We weren't even doing the most basic of screening at our airports until 3 days ago. Can you imagine doing this with terrorist security? We still post warnings about lax airport security in Lagos. The arguments that our borders are already porous and we cannot prevent infected people from coming is beyond comprehension. Picture yourself as an Ebola infected Liberian intent on infecting the world, but banned from commercial air travel. You will die before you can walk, ride a boat, or ride a car to an un-infected area. Madness upon madness. Why are we worried about restricting 150 people a day that risk North America and Europe with plague and economic calamity. Give them all $1,000 bribes to stay in West Africa. As for the economic damage to the world economy, this assertion is beyond the pale. The combined economies of these wretched nations is a rounding error in the trade volume with the U.S. or any other country. This is just common sense. Restrict un-controlled exit. Keep sending aid including Doctors Without Borders, Samaritan's Purse, the 101st Airborne, and anybody else that wants to go. How about Jessie Jackson?? Racism and white guilt are at the root of the bad decision making and shameful actions to control this plague. Shame on Barack Obama and the CDC for not instituting sensible restrictions on entry of West Africans. Shame on Jessie Jackson for exploiting this bungling crisis. Pray for those soldiers who volunteered to fight to defend our country, and now find themselves on a mission of political correctness because the UN WHO is powerless to do anything to drag these wretched souls out of their depravity and disease.

If the liberal elite won't ban travel from Africa hot zones, at a minimum they could require ALL FLIGHTS TO ARRIVE AT A SINGLE AIRPORT LOCATION, where rigorous screening could be effective and less costly. Currently flights from africa arrive at how many US airports?

But no, they don't want to cause "hardships" on travelers or african economies.

Unless every other country in the world imposes the same travel ban from West Africa a travel ban will do no good.
Think about it.
21 day incubation. Dude travels from Liberia to Greece stays a couple days before flying to Paris then London to take care of some business then travels on to the US. He hands the customs agent his passport. Bam. SHTF.
CDC is not ruling out the possibility that this could be transmitted airborne. They can just confirm that there is not a case where that is the only possible way it could have been transmitted.