Ebola outbreak - general thread #7

[jjenny]

And maybe for some that want to protect other members of their family as well.

Yes.
If they do have Ebola, they don't want their family members to either be infected or to be placed into quarantine where they can not go to school or work.

 

[Yoda]

The period of 42 days, with active case-finding in place, is twice the maximum incubation period for Ebola virus disease and is considered by WHO as sufficient to generate confidence in a declaration that an Ebola outbreak has ended.Recent studies conducted in West Africa have demonstrated that 95% of confirmed cases have an incubation period in the range of 1 to 21 days; 98% have an incubation period that falls within the 1 to 42 day interval. WHO is therefore confident that detection of no new cases, with active surveillance in place, throughout this 42-day period means that an Ebola outbreak is indeed over.
The announcement that the outbreaks are over, in line with the dates fixed by the subcommittee on surveillance, epidemiology, and laboratory testing, is made by the governments of the affected countries in close collaboration with WHO and its international partners.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/14-october-2014/en/

 

[Yoda]

WHO is alarmed by media reports of suspected Ebola cases imported into new countries that are said, by government officials or ministries of health, to be discarded as “negative” within hours after the suspected case enters the country.
Such rapid determination of infection status is impossible, casting grave doubts on some of the official information that is being communicated to the public and the media.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/14-october-2014/en/

 

[Hatfield]

.....snipped......

I read the CDC procedure about "contact monitoring" and it seems if they change their process right from the beginning and really isolate any initial contacts, it would really help. Instead of having 800-1000 people they had to track down, they could have kept that to a handful if they would just change that process to really isolate them right from the start.

Just replying to myself so I can post the link I was referring to.
Here is the CDC link below that describes their process for contact monitoring. I honestly feel that 1 simple change to really isolate all initial contacts would be the thing to do. It would have prevented having to track down hundreds and hundreds of people. It seems to me that right at the beginning of a potential crisis is the time to isolate the small number of contacts.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/what-is-contact-tracing.html

 

[SCHMAE]

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/14-october-2014/en/

It's very curious why the 3% in the 42 day range is NEVER mentioned at all on the tv or the news links or from the mouths of the officials.

 

[Yoda]

It's very curious why the 3% in the 42 day range is NEVER mentioned at all on the tv or the news links or from the mouths of the officials.

Because we are a world full of Chicken Littles. Moo

 

[jjenny]

It's very curious why the 3% in the 42 day range is NEVER mentioned at all on the tv or the news links or from the mouths of the officials.

I have the same question. Somebody should ask the judge (if he is telling people the risk is zero). The risk is not zero.

 

[jjenny]

Because we are a world full of Chicken Littles. Moo

While that might be so, the risk is not zero that somebody released from quarantine after 21 days might still develop Ebola.

 

[SCHMAE]

While that might be so, the risk is not zero that somebody released from quarantine after 21 days might still develop Ebola.

So if you're in the list who got released today and you're in the clear and your risk is ' zero' and within the next 21 days, you get it and so does your family or co workers or neighbors, what now? I'd be smoking hot pi$$ed ! I'd be furious! Let's face it . Not everyone is reading up all day every day on ebola virus. They are trusting the officials ( although after all the bumbling, i'm not sure why ) to protect them and once they get the all clear, they will believe it. Yes 3% doesn't sound like a lot but if you had a 3 % chance of it raining gold on your head, you 'd be outside with a bucket waiting. So 3% is not the same as zero.

 

[nrdsb4]

What the heck is all this new rumor mill about Nina Pham's boyfriend about?

It was stated from the beginning of her hospitalization that her boyfriend had also been admitted for isolation/observation.

It was stated early on that the boyfriend's employer, Alcon, had sent a letter to the employees about a coworker being admitted to the hospital as an ebola contact.

NOTHING new here unless he has begun to show symptoms.

 

[nrdsb4]

So if you're in the list who got released today and you're in the clear and your risk is ' zero' and within the next 21 days, you get it and so does your family or co workers or neighbors, what now? I'd be smoking hot pi$$ed ! I'd be furious! Let's face it . Not everyone is reading up all day every day on ebola virus. They are trusting the officials ( although after all the bumbling, i'm not sure why ) to protect them and once they get the all clear, they will believe it. Yes 3% doesn't sound like a lot but if you had a 3 % chance of it raining gold on your head, you 'd be outside with a bucket waiting. So 3% is not the same as zero.

It's possible that they have been given information along those lines to still be aware of their bodies and what to do if they become ill with anything at all. We don't know that they've been told they have "zero" chance.

 

[Hatfield]

It's very curious why the 3% in the 42 day range is NEVER mentioned at all on the tv or the news links or from the mouths of the officials.

I actually did see a person on the news (i think it was CNN) that was talking about WHO and the 42 days. Just yesterday for the first time I heard on the news about this.

 

[jjenny]

It's possible that they have been given information along those lines to still be aware of their bodies and what to do if they become ill with anything at all. We don't know that they've been told they have "zero" chance.

I don't know what they were told, but why is public being told there is a zero chance? These people will go back to work and children will go back to school.

 

[nrdsb4]

Hmm, I wonder if Presby , now a ghost town but for ebola monitored folks, has said something akin to ' if you are unsure or afraid of self monitoring, you can come to the hospital and be monitored by staff'. ** speculative *** But there are some people who may not trust themselves to monitor slight change in fever etc. There are some folks who were far more heavily exposed than others. If I were on the ' watch list' and was a very nervous type person , I might consider going to a hospital setting instead to have around the clock monitoring by health professionals. Again, I'm purely speculating as to why some are in hospital and others are at home.

Local news (Dallas) has stated that some with children just want to isolate themselves away from their homes.

Presbyterian Hospital has a hotel within its main building. It's very nice and is probably where many if not most of the on site monitoring folks are living.

 

[jjenny]

So if you're in the list who got released today and you're in the clear and your risk is ' zero' and within the next 21 days, you get it and so does your family or co workers or neighbors, what now? I'd be smoking hot pi$$ed ! I'd be furious! Let's face it . Not everyone is reading up all day every day on ebola virus. They are trusting the officials ( although after all the bumbling, i'm not sure why ) to protect them and once they get the all clear, they will believe it. Yes 3% doesn't sound like a lot but if you had a 3 % chance of it raining gold on your head, you 'd be outside with a bucket waiting. So 3% is not the same as zero.

Like the article I linked above said, 21 day quarantine might make sense in Africa (because it's a big problem there and cutting down infection will work) but doesn't necessarily makes sense for US (because we don't want any new cases).

 

[nrdsb4]

I don't know what they were told, but why is public being told there is a zero chance? These people will go back to work and children will go back to school.

If they are healthy, they are fine to go back to school.

If they start mandatory quarantine of 42 days for casual contacts (which these children were), this will contribute to people not being honest about their exposure. That doesn't sound like something we want.

Duncan's close contacts are going to stay a while longer at their nice residence. I doubt they are going around exposing others to their body fluids.

 

[jjenny]

If they are healthy, they are fine to go back to school.

If they start mandatory quarantine of 42 days for casual contacts (which these children were), this will contribute to people not being honest about their exposure. That doesn't sound like something we want.

Duncan's close contacts are going to stay a while longer at their nice residence. I doubt they are going around exposing others to their body fluids.

Well, if one of these people does get Ebola, it will be a huge deal. Authorities are not going to be able to avoid dealing with the fact that 21 days in quarantine doesn't guarantee a 100 % a person won't get Ebola.

 

[SCHMAE]

If they are healthy, they are fine to go back to school.

If they start mandatory quarantine of 42 days for casual contacts (which these children were), this will contribute to people not being honest about their exposure. That doesn't sound like something we want.

Duncan's close contacts are going to stay a while longer at their nice residence. I doubt they are going around exposing others to their body fluids.

Brings up a point I've been thinking on . If two nurses with protective gear ( you can argue it was inadequate if you like ) did get ebola from Duncan and not ONE of the family members inside the apartment with no protective gear did, then what kind of diligent care was Louise taking? I mean think about that. She had to have been literally on top of that situation to protect herself and the kids . And apparently it is no small task and she pulled it off. I wonder if she knew/ learned/heard preventive techniques from family back in Liberia on what to do about it. Either way, if they truly are symptom free and remain so, she's a bad a$$ !

 

[faw720]

Please could you explain - not in the US.

What was the comment and which PC crowd would it rile up and why?

In the UK the 'PC brigade' is used as a derogatory term for people who object to negative stereotyping of black/gay/foreign people, so I am wondering whether something is getting lost in translation or if there is some context I have missed.

TIA

Sorry, I can't remember the exact words used. It very strongly implied that middle-school kids are not the kindest humans on earth & are capable of vicious actions. It may not be the PC thing to say, but in my experiences, it is the truth. They are particularly concerned about Louise's 12 year old son who will soon be returning to school. I think somewhere up-thread there is a link to the live streaming of the news conference & it will probably continue to re-run for a while.

 

[Isabelle]

CNN: I just heard Carol Costello comment about the attorney representing Amber Vinson, saying what I heard as "these are no or low class people" how can they afford the attorney! Did anyone else hear this.? Thanks