<p>Not before you ban West Africans coming to the US. Get that done first and we can think about banning Texan travel restrictions.</p>
<p>Um, I think emilybee was being facetious.</p>
<p>So I’m thinking they’re going to have a hard time renting out that apartment again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I bet they did. Based on all the electronic charting I’ve ever worked with, I’m betting dollars to donuts all the doc had to do with take a mouse or his finger and click on “Triage Nurses Notes” and bada bing! There is the original assessment at his fingertips. What they are saying is that when he initiates his own note, it is a separate document, not that he cannot EASILY access the initial nurse assessment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s called “overabundance of caution,” i.e. because we are catering to the Nervous Nellies and Hysterical Henrys. </p>
<p>None of the Chicken Littles have addressed my comment that if it were as easy to transmit as is being insinuated on this thread, why has Western Africa not been decimated by this disease already? Even if we multiply the reported illnesses and deaths by five times what they are reporting, their transmission rates DO NOT INDICATE that the virus is transmitted before symptoms show, or that it has mutated in any significant way, or that it has become transmitted via airborne route, or anything of the kind. </p>
<p>Geez, people, do some of you just like the rush you get in going into panic?</p>
<p>And “people are discussing,” “some are questioning,” and “many have wondered” is not EVIDENCE based medicine.</p>
<p>To be precise, we should restrict travel from Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia. Just those three countries at this point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You keep saying this over and over, but I have seen no scientific evidence that this particular outbreak has an “increased infection rate.” Just because the outbreak involves more people does NOT mean that the virus itself is more infectious.</p>
<p>References, please?? And real references - not “people are saying.”</p>
<h1>464 Nor has anyone addressed the cost-benefit of permitting people from those countries to enter the U. S. without a quarantine period. How much is costing to care for this Ebola patient and for all the tracking, cleaning, quarantining of those who were in direct contact? How much in lost tourist revenue or business would such a ban entail?</h1>
<p>Call me crazy, but I imagine most people who go to the trouble of getting a visa, quitting their jobs, and heading to the airport are going to lie to the TSA or customs officials since saying yes to the dreaded question means you’re not getting on the plane. Prosecuting him might make the next guy think twice.</p>
<p>And to add to #467, the calculation changes entirely if anyone else comes down with Ebola from contact with this man. Then the dollars and cents go out the window and the inhumanity of potentially endangering Americans makes economic considerations moot.</p>
<p>^^Yes actingmt, my husband and I have been saying that since the very beginning. Simply asking someone as they are exiting a country in hopes of saving their life is not enough. Of course people will lie.</p>
<p>I keep reading that enacting travel restrictions from these countries will make things worse. I’m not getting WHY it’s felt that there would be a major disruption if there was a moratorium on travel from these countries. Can someone explain what the prevailing rationale for that is?</p>
<p>The explanation I heard, Nrdsb4 is that people will be LESS honest and find ways to sneak in with no way of tracing them. </p>
<p>“How much is costing to care for this Ebola patient”</p>
<p>This is just my opinion but I have a feeling when this guy showed up at ER without any insurance - the hospital had no intention of doing a more thorough examination. So they gave him a script and sent him on his way - just like they do to most of the other uninsured who show up at emergency room. </p>
<p>While driving in the car, I heard on local news that Louise (wife? girlfriend?) was complaining vigorously that she was “sick of being stuck inside” and felt her rights were being violated by the forced quarantine.</p>
<p>My first thoughts were not generous. But aside from those, I wonder if she is in a state of denial. She, of all people, is probably the #1 most likely person to become ill next. I will be stunned if she does not, particularly if Mr. Duncan felt well enough when he arrived to engage in sexual relations. I would be in a state of inner panic and would be very grateful to have my condition monitored twice a day. It’s been well established that the sooner medical attention is given after symptoms begin, the higher the survival rate. </p>
<p>I guess denial can be a very powerful coping mechanism.</p>
<p>Potential changes in genetic structure and viral behavior aside for the moment, THAT is how it spreads. ^^^^^^^^^</p>
<p>The family being “stuck” in a gated house is looking better and better. ~X( </p>
<p>Louise is now being called a fiance. This story is changing too much to be true. All of it. Her name is not even Louise. And, it includes the dying pregnant neighbor helping neighbor thing which seems a blatant bid for sympathy. Also, they broke the quarantine before asking for additional cleaning help. They didn’t care at all about anything but their immediate wants. And, they pushed all the right buttons. So, they knew a lot more than we think. And, the half-brother calling the CDC with his concerns makes no sense whatsoever.</p>
<p>Surprisingly, I agree with Emily somewhat abut the antibiotics. Yesterday, I said to a nurse, “Who goes to the ER with a fever of 101?”. Her answer, “People with no insurance and no way to pay.”</p>
<p>Usually otherwise healthy adults with mild to moderate flu like symptoms just stay home and use palliative care until is passes. They don’t even go to the doctor.</p>
<p>^^^ Well, I went to the ER twice in one day about three weeks ago. It was my internist’s day off, I woke up to an infected finger that had gotten worse overnight, and it needed to be lanced. They put me on an antibiotic, which I had a bad reaction to and couldn’t drive myself back to the ER, so I called 911 (H was out of town). I didn’t have a fever, but three months ago was in the hospital for five days with sepsis, so I am entitled to not feeling a tad bit guilty when I get an infection after coming so close to dying and going to the ER. And we have wonderful health insurance. </p>
<p>I was trying to think of a way to express my question/concern about transmission and came up with this: We’ve all looked at the college admission scattergrams where test scores are on the X axis and GPA is on the Y axis. There is no one point where people are admitted. You can kind of draw a box around the most common range of combinations but in most cases can’t pin it down exactly. So if we plot viral load on one axis and symptoms on the other axis do we get one single point where the virus is transmissible? At viral load ‘X’ will the subject always exhibit readily identifiable symptom ‘Y’ so that we can chart exactly when they become contagious to others? If it looks more like a box or fuzzy blob then all the “don’t worry they aren’t symptomatic” talk seems more like a stock line and isn’t at all comforting. </p>