Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DouglasKC
All valid observations -- but they do not negate my point.

In the US and other developed countries, there are well-established public health measures to identify, isolate, and treat dangerous infectious disease cases and contacts. This would probably suffice for even Ebola, but, if not, the menace of a general outbreak would swiftly lead to stronger measures such as the cancellation of public events and suspension of non-essential work, shopping, and travel.

An outbreak of Ebola in a developed country would lead to face masks, gloves, and the general spraying of disinfectant becoming routine in public places. In contrast, in Africa, poverty, corruption, theft, and the shambolic nature of its societies commonly make it impossible for even medical personnel who treat Ebola to have the benefit of containment garments and disinfectants.

In a developed country that suffered an Ebola outbreak, medical care for the disease would improve rapidly, with new treatments and vaccines fast tracked into use. The result would almost certainly be the rapid and permanent containment of any such Ebola outbreak, just as bird flu and SARS were contained despite the dire predictions that attached to them.

In sum, Ebola is cause for concern and excitement in the US and other developed countries but is extremely unlikely to generate more than a relatively small number of cases.

99 posted on 09/16/2014 3:54:11 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]


To: Rockingham
In the US and other developed countries, there are well-established public health measures to identify, isolate, and treat dangerous infectious disease cases and contacts. This would probably suffice for even Ebola, but, if not, the menace of a general outbreak would swiftly lead to stronger measures such as the cancellation of public events and suspension of non-essential work, shopping, and travel.

A co-worker told me of a case where a man fell ill after traveling, and was admitted to the hospital and died without diagnosis. Because of routine infection control measures, no one else got sick. A year later, analysis of stored samples revealed that he had Marburg.

I'm sure that you are aware that Marburg is another filovirus, and is almost identical to Ebola in disease characteristics.

Fun bit of history: Marburg was first identified because of an outbreak in Marburg, Germany, after it was imported by a traveler. Unlike all of these doomsday scenarios so popular with the conspiracy-theorists, this importation did not spread around the world and kill off 80% of the population--it was quickly contained there in Marburg. That was achieved because of routine infection control measures, nothing else--the medical staff had no clue what the disease was.

I appreciate the presence of another logical voice on the forum. The doomsday scenarios need to be countered with facts--spreading falsities about the disease might be amusing to the conspiracy-minded, but it only makes the situation worse.

I, for one, will be glad when people finally get bored with Ebola and it fades into the background again.

101 posted on 09/16/2014 4:25:13 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]

To: Rockingham
In the US and other developed countries, there are well-established public health measures to identify, isolate, and treat dangerous infectious disease cases and contacts.

Sure. So with the very real chance that Ebola could show up here any time how many doctors are fully suiting up to examine each and every patient who comes in with flu-like symptoms? The hard truth is that most medical professionals have never had to fully suitup for anything because the worst that could happen is that they pick up a cold or a flu. With Ebola, the worst that can happen is they die.

This would probably suffice for even Ebola, but, if not, the menace of a general outbreak would swiftly lead to stronger measures such as the cancellation of public events and suspension of non-essential work, shopping, and travel

Under penalty of what? I'm going to bet that the first time someone tells the residents of Ferguson (or any other black community) that they have to "stay home" some politician is going to pull the race card. This might have once worked in a United States where people respected law, order and the government. But our "leaders" have been very diligent to insure that hardly anyone holds these values.

An outbreak of Ebola in a developed country would lead to face masks, gloves, and the general spraying of disinfectant becoming routine in public places. In contrast, in Africa, poverty, corruption, theft, and the shambolic nature of its societies commonly make it impossible for even medical personnel who treat Ebola to have the benefit of containment garments and disinfectants.

Again I think you have an idealized version of the US in your head...possibly based on where you live. Look at the reaction of certain people to Katrina. Look at inner cities. Look at any large city for that matter. Many of the residents and officials are just as ignorant, just as corrupt, just as dishonest. If this disease takes hold in a black community you can bet that it's going to be billed as a racist plot by whitey. One of the problems in Africa was that many thought that Ebola was fake...that they were really just trying to get blood from people. Have large groups of people in this country ever been convinced of something that isn't true? Trayvon Martin? Saint Mike?

In a developed country that suffered an Ebola outbreak, medical care for the disease would improve rapidly, with new treatments and vaccines fast tracked into use. The result would almost certainly be the rapid and permanent containment of any such Ebola outbreak, just as bird flu and SARS were contained despite the dire predictions that attached to them.

Bird flu does not and cannot spread from person to person. You could only get it from direct contact with an infected bird. SARS isn't news anymore but it really wasn't contained. It ripped through several countries. And death from it was primarily in old people. There are and were people in the United States that have likely had SARs and just chalked it up to a bad flu or cold. How many times has something been "going around".

Ebola aren't like these. The Zaire strain has an up to 90% kill rate. Young, old, doesn't matter. It spreads person to person relatively easily in almost the same way SARS does.

In sum, Ebola is cause for concern and excitement in the US and other developed countries but is extremely unlikely to generate more than a relatively small number of cases.

Based on what? That's exactly what they said about it in Africa. Until is showed up in populous places. Once it shows up in a population all theories and practices about containment become kind of cute. Part of the effort is to trace back the activities of victims to see who they might have infected. This works up to a certain point. But it doesn't take much to overwhelm whomever's "job" it is to do this. Take any one hundred people in a mobile society like the United States and try to compile of list of everyone they might have come into contact with in the past week. Did anyone of them go to sporting event? Get on the subway?

Have you read "The Hot Zone"? It's not fiction. It is a detailed account of the major ebola outbreaks up until the mid 90's. Read it free here.

Ebola is the worst nightmare of virologists. Read it and see why.

109 posted on 09/16/2014 7:47:09 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson