Ebola: I Guess We Are All Going To Die

Now I'm no expert, but there is so much wrong with this lady's protective clothing it's a joke... if this happened in my lab, I'd have no option but to take serious disciplinary action.

4f03b5b0768f2474364676a7f1ef9247.jpg
 
EBOV cases now slowing in Liberia, with the global total just over 13k. Anyone remember the WHO's early estimate of 20k total for this outbreak?

Also, more people have died playing Neknominate than have been treated for EBOV outside of West Africa.
 
I don't see why we have to have more than one hospital in the US to treat patients. Emory is close to where I live and no one really cared about us having the first two in THE WORLD to come here after four days, not even maybe...

Everyone who has been treated has been returned in good health. Why spread it all over the country even if it is contained. I believe I read that there are four rooms equipped for this, so unless there is another outbreak more than four people, send them to Maryland...

I feel that this got out of hand when there were more than one hospitals allowed to treat this. It's a popularity contest between the CEO's and managers of the hospital to see who is best.
Really after all the ebola madness is over with, then I would expect at least two major hospitals in each state have room for up to five patients for disease of this type.. my two cents..
 
It's a popularity contest between the CEO's and managers of the hospital to see who is best.
Really after all the ebola madness is over with, then I would expect at least two major hospitals in each state have room for up to five patients for disease of this type.. my two cents..

I agree, it makes a lot of sense to have one control/isolation centre, maybe two for geographical ease. Thing is if you have a survivor.... what do you have...? ;)
 
so unless there is another outbreak more than four people, send them to Maryland...
In the event of an outbreak, only having one hospital fully prepared is poor preparation. This kind of isolation facility is not something you pull out of a box and take an Allen wrench to. You need enough to handle a sudden number of patients and spread out in a way that you can move cases from non-prepped hospitals to somewhere like Emory with minimal time in travel.

If you are being serious about preparing for potential you need to be ready for more than we currently have.
 
In the event of an outbreak, only having one hospital fully prepared is poor preparation. This kind of isolation facility is not something you pull out of a box and take an Allen wrench to. You need enough to handle a sudden number of patients and spread out in a way that you can move cases from non-prepped hospitals to somewhere like Emory with minimal time in travel.

If you are being serious about preparing for potential you need to be ready for more than we currently have.
I guess you didn't read all of my post..

Really after all the ebola madness is over with, then I would expect at least two major hospitals in each state have room for up to five patients for disease of this type.. my two cents..
 
If it's contained, it's contained. Ebola is not an airborne virus that can pass through filters. Transport the patient in a sealed ambulance and wash it down and you're done. Far less dangerous to you than a million other things that get transported through your state.

And why transport patients further than you need to? Also, why stretch the resources of one center when you can split them between two?
 
I guess you didn't read all of my post..
Doing something after is not preparedness. If the fear is a widespread outbreak, one hospital now won't cut it if it goes wrong. And 100 hospitals/500 beds after will be too late.
 
And the winner of this year's prestigious Most Unprofessional Heath Care Worker is ... Kaci Hilcox! The sight of her riding her bike around whilst holding a press junket was, quite frankly, irresponsible. Sure, she has tested negative twice, but she's still in the twenty-one day incubation period. Having had direct experience of working with Ebola patients, she must recognise the danger here. There is no way that she can know for certain that she is not infected, and now she is trying to prove a point about civil liberties at a time when the public is concerned about the potential for an Ebola outbreak.
 
Heard on a local news station that people with flu-like symptoms are showing up in ERs, thinking they might have Ebola. This is going to be an interesting winter.
 
And the winner of this year's prestigious Most Unprofessional Heath Care Worker is ... Kaci Hilcox! The sight of her riding her bike around whilst holding a press junket was, quite frankly, irresponsible*****

She does seem to somewhat enjoy having the media spotlight on her.

However, so far, I'm siding with Kaci Hickox:tup:

The medical science says that the chance for her to transmit Ebola to someone else before she actually shows symptoms is nil. Unless this science changes, riding a bike down the back roads of Maine can't possibly infect anyone else since Kaci Hickox is not exhibiting any symptoms, and has not tested positive for Ebola.

I think that Kaci should limit the number of beer slugging;) or hotdog eating contests:D that she might enter during the 21 day exposure period, but requiring her to be in a full quarantine during the 21 day period is not supported by the current medical science.

Respectfully,
GTsail
 
Yup, agree with above. The town doesn't even want the attention from her, and it's only an issue to those who have no knowledge about what is going on. People calling in to a pizza shop asking if she has sat in a seat recently is ridiculous.

And they act as if this was done to prove a point, while she and her husband both say she usually rides her bike..
 
And the winner of this year's prestigious Most Unprofessional Heath Care Worker is ... Kaci Hilcox! The sight of her riding her bike around whilst holding a press junket was, quite frankly, irresponsible.
Or fully within CDC standards.
 
...now she is trying to prove a point about civil liberties at a time when the public is concerned about the potential for an Ebola outbreak.

Yes, this is correct. And warranted.

Just now we are testing the limits of our freedoms and civil liberties during a time of extreme fear. This is an important contest between what can be accomplished by science, reason and constitutional law on the one hand, and raw fear, media hype, political opportunism and an undercurrent of "the ends of public safety justify draconian means" rhetoric on the other hand. In America today, it is a roughly balanced contest, so it's amusing to watch.
 
Last edited:
Let me guess, there's an election going on in Maine!

http://www.news4jax.com/politics/ebola-battle-brewing-obama-heads-to-maine/29429588
Hickox was initially quarantined inside a tent in Newark before being allowed to leave for her home in Maine, where Gov. Paul LePage said he'd require her to remain inside her home for 21 days. Hickox said the state rules amount to a restriction on her civil rights and has threatened a legal battle over the mandated isolation.

LePage, an Republican whose past off-color remarks have garnered national headlines, sent state troopers to Hickox's Fort Kent home to enforce the quarantine.

On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said only that Obama believed state policies "should be guided by science," but wouldn't go to say whether Obama believed Maine's rules lived up to that tenet.

A five-hour drive south from the unfolding legal machinations, Democrats welcomed Obama for a political rally supporting LePage's opponent Mike Michaud, who scored a boost to his chances on Wednesday when the state's independent Sen. Angus King lent his backing.

Michaud, a six-term congressman, is locked in a dead heat with LePage. Like past races in Maine, an independent is also in the mix, though Eliot Cutler is running well behind the two main party candidates.

Maine's gubernatorial contest is one of only a handful of stops Obama will make on the campaign trail this year; his record low approval ratings and controversial policies have made him unwelcome in key Senate battles.
 
If by Nov. 10th, Hickox turns out not to have Ebola, I'm going to be a bit worried about how this may affect things in the future.
Unless through some miracle this doesn't happen, there will no doubt be more healthcare workers coming from West Africa that caught Ebola. What if they feel fine at first, tried to do what this woman is doing, and then later on they actually have the virus? This whole thing might cause a little complacency with these kind of situations.
 
Doing something after is not preparedness. If the fear is a widespread outbreak, one hospital now won't cut it if it goes wrong. And 100 hospitals/500 beds after will be too late.
So far, the five or how little the amount is, have caused a massive uproar from the US. Not too much from the same people complaining is being done to help those at the source of all this. I do not expect a massive outbreak anytime soon, anywhere near above 500 in the US.

The CDC never planned anything for this in the US, because they thought it would be contained in Africa. A little preparedness is much better than what happened before all this. Not sure what you're complaining about.
 
So far, the five or how little the amount is, have caused a massive uproar from the US. Not too much from the same people complaining is being done to help those at the source of all this. I do not expect a massive outbreak anytime soon, anywhere near above 500 in the US.
The CDC never planned anything for this in the US, because they thought it would be contained in Africa. A little preparedness is much better than what happened before all this. Not sure what you're complaining about.
My initial point was that your notion of not seeing why we need more than one hospital.

It was a response to this.
I don't see why we have to have more than one hospital in the US to treat patients.
Because one hospital wouldn't be enough to contain a larger outbreak.

If by Nov. 10th, Hickox turns out not to have Ebola, I'm going to be a bit worried about how this may affect things in the future.
Unless through some miracle this doesn't happen, there will no doubt be more healthcare workers coming from West Africa that caught Ebola. What if they feel fine at first, tried to do what this woman is doing, and then later on they actually have the virus? This whole thing might cause a little complacency with these kind of situations.
Well, in the scenarios that have happened like you described, no one else caught Ebola from them. In fact, Ebola has only been contracted in the US under current CDC protocols by health care workers treating a patient who was symptomatic. No case of someone contracting Ebola from someone not exhibiting symptoms has occurred.



All this political posturing is now likely going to start costing lives.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/eb...-groups-see-fallout-quarantine-debate-n237751
“We have seen a big deterrence,” said Margaret Aguirre, head of global initiatives for International Medical Corps, which has about 20 Americans working in the outbreak countries. “People are worried. They don’t want to sign up.”



Quick question for people worried about quarantine protocols: Why are you listening to politicians, who clearly don't even take even diet advice from their own doctors, instead of the scientists? There is an election next week. That is all this is about.
 
I don't see why we have to have more than one hospital in the US to treat patients.

It's very costly to transport patients from one local hospital to another, moving them across the country would be even more expensive. All major hospitals should be equipped to handle an infectious disease, whether it's Ebola or something like TB or MRSA.

Heard on a local news station that people with flu-like symptoms are showing up in ERs, thinking they might have Ebola. This is going to be an interesting winter.

This is already starting to occur at local organization, so much so that we've even developed software plugins to our EMR to help guide schedulers, clinical staff, and providers to make a quicker call whether or not the presenting patient is an Ebola risk or not.
 
Yes, this is correct. And warranted.

Just now we are testing the limits of our freedoms and civil liberties during a time of extreme fear. This is an important contest between what can be accomplished by science, reason and constitutional law on the one hand, and raw fear, media hype, political opportunism and an undercurrent of "the ends of public safety justify draconian means" rhetoric on the other hand. In America today, it is a roughly balanced contest, so it's amusing to watch.
By all means, have a public debate about it. But Hilcox's actions were an irresponsible stunt. She embodies the attitude that your civil rights are inviolable, and that you don't have to exercise them responsibly. Like I said, she is a health care worker with direct experience of Ebola, and she is doing this at a time when the public is concerned about an outbreak and doesn't really understand the situation. The Hippocratic Oath says "first, do no harm"; surely she understands that by deliberately defying a quarantine, she's doing damage. Just because she isn't showing symptoms, that doesn't mean that she doesn't have Ebola.
 
By all means, have a public debate about it. But Hilcox's actions were an irresponsible stunt. She embodies the attitude that your civil rights are inviolable, and that you don't have to exercise them responsibly. Like I said, she is a health care worker with direct experience of Ebola, and she is doing this at a time when the public is concerned about an outbreak and doesn't really understand the situation. The Hippocratic Oath says "first, do no harm"; surely she understands that by deliberately defying a quarantine, she's doing damage. Just because she isn't showing symptoms, that doesn't mean that she doesn't have Ebola.
And..State of Maine Document Reports Kaci Hickox’s Roommate in Africa Developed Ebola
 
My initial point was that your notion of not seeing why we need more than one hospital.

It was a response to this.

Because one hospital wouldn't be enough to contain a larger outbreak.


Well, in the scenarios that have happened like you described, no one else caught Ebola from them. In fact, Ebola has only been contracted in the US under current CDC protocols by health care workers treating a patient who was symptomatic. No case of someone contracting Ebola from someone not exhibiting symptoms has occurred.



All this political posturing is now likely going to start costing lives.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/eb...-groups-see-fallout-quarantine-debate-n237751




Quick question for people worried about quarantine protocols: Why are you listening to politicians, who clearly don't even take even diet advice from their own doctors, instead of the scientists? There is an election next week. That is all this is about.
It's very costly to transport patients from one local hospital to another, moving them across the country would be even more expensive. All major hospitals should be equipped to handle an infectious disease, whether it's Ebola or something like TB or MRSA.



This is already starting to occur at local organization, so much so that we've even developed software plugins to our EMR to help guide schedulers, clinical staff, and providers to make a quicker call whether or not the presenting patient is an Ebola risk or not.
And my reply to both of you is the same. After this dies down a little more, I would expect to see at least two hospitals per state be equipped.

And by dies down I don't mean after the African crisis is solved, but until enough time where the CDC can come up with a plan to see that most hospitals are structured for such..
 
Yes, but Hickox isn't showing symptoms yet, so it's somebody else's problem. Because are public safety and the public interest really that big of a deal so long as her civil liberties are left unmolested?

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for civil liberties. But I firmly believe that for every right we have, we also have an equal responsibility to see that we exercise those rights appropriately. Hickox has a right to her liberty and her freedom from detention - but as a trained health professional with direct experience of Ebola, she should recognise the both the danger of the virus and the public tensions surrounding it, she should consider the consequences of her actions and enter a voluntary quarantine, even if she is ultimately proven to be free of the disease.

Ultimately, her attitude is a by-product of a favourite quote among the self-proclaimed "righteous" among us: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". It's a noble sentiment, and completely empty. Anybody who says it knows that they will never have to defend that right with their lives. They will probably never have to defend anything with their lives. But by saying it, they immediately position themselves as morally superior to whoever said something objectionable, so it too often becomes "I'm better than you because I'm turning the other cheek" which in turn morphs into "I'm better than you because I believe in something you don't" and the whole thing becomes a storm of peoples' convictions to the point where they believe that so long as they can claim the moral high ground, then whatever they do is right. But morality is what we believe to be right in the absence of law to guide us. So in this case, what is morally right? To voluntarily surrender some of your own personal freedoms for a month and co-operate with the authorities and health practitioners in presenting a unified front in fighting Ebola, or to start up a media circus, claiming your civil rights have been violated and making a show of defiance with no regard with the public's need for (and some may say right to) safety and reassurance?
 
And my reply to both of you is the same. After this dies down a little more, I would expect to see at least two hospitals per state be equipped.

And by dies down I don't mean after the African crisis is solved, but until enough time where the CDC can come up with a plan to see that most hospitals are structured for such..

Except hospitals should be equipped now, dealing with Ebola is similar to dealing with TB or MRSA, and those are more contagious since they are airborne.
 
And my reply to both of you is the same. After this dies down a little more, I would expect to see at least two hospitals per state be equipped.

And by dies down I don't mean after the African crisis is solved, but until enough time where the CDC can come up with a plan to see that most hospitals are structured for such..
This doesn't explain why you think we should only have one when there is a crisis that might spread to the U.S. What good would one hospital be then?

@prisonermonkeys Who do you think knows more about Ebola, politicians or the CDC? Guess which one is pushing the quarantine as you want it. If you think the CDC has it wrong then you've been suckered by political posturing for an election in five days, an election with the ability to change the direction of the politics in this country for the next two years. If this were a month from now I guarantee this wouldn't even be a debate.
 
Back