<p>
</p>
<p>Are you equally “annoyed and concerned” that – shortly after receiving CDC-mandated training on Ebola – the hospital somehow didn’t even consider the question of testing a patient who had recently returned from Liberia, and was exhibiting symptoms consistent with Ebola?</p>
<p>Are you equally “annoyed and concerned” that the family was left to fend for themselves in a contaminated apartment for days, before it occurred to Dallas officials that that might be inhumane?</p>
<p>“In case of malaria, the reason you see symptoms is because virus shed, namely you get sick because there’s so many of them attacking. So symptom means shedding.”</p>
<p>This sentence makes no sense - if you are talking about malaria, what’s a virus got to do with it?! Malaria is caused by a parasite, not a virus. Could you please explain what you were trying to say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it’s not spread person to person in the way many infectious diseases are.</p>
<p>God in Heaven, please help us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? Please explain this, with citations. If you can’t, then this a great example of the baseless, ignorant hysteria running rampant in some quarters.</p>
<p>“Are you equally “annoyed and concerned” that the family was left to fend for themselves in a contaminated apartment for days, before it occurred to Dallas officials that that might be inhumane?”</p>
<p>Yeah, I’m not sure this is true, yet. I know they complained but I also know they broke quarantine before the guards showed up. I doubt that situation was great before the ebola man came to visit. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting change in argument, but I like it. Sounds like a politician. </p>
<p>First, you tell people it is harder to catch than the common cold, so no worries even if you touch an infected person in early stages. But when it comes to medical personnel, you understand making sure they are not exposed at all to the exact same person by instituting a ZERO touching standard because catching it is not harmless. Interesting double standard: one for the general public and one for medical personnel. </p>
<p>May I kindly point out that catching it is not harmless to the general public as well. Unless, of course, you consider the general public not worthy of the same deference to the deadly possibility, as you afford medical personnel. I afford both sets of people, the general public and medical personnel, the same importance and deference to the risk.</p>
<p>^^^Okay, you are losing it.</p>
<p>We are not going to disinfect entire rooms because someone with a cold sat in it. In terms of benefit/risk it would be a complete and total waste of resources. I now think you are being deliberately obtuse.</p>
<p>To me it looks reasonable to assume our body’s defese mechanisms are similar in both cases; you get sick in response to foreign object in your body. If there aren’t too many, the body doesn’t notice. That the body notices by sending fever up, etc has to mean shedding has begun. You may say if you just have a fever you may have fewer virus than when you are a lot sicker and have begun to bleed out of your mouth, etc. But that doesn’t mean it’s not infectious. It may take two drops of sneeze discharge instead of one but stil infectious. See why people aren’t trusting authorities? I can’t help feeling they are more eager to hush it over than address the issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other than the usual fanfare of misguided anti-vaccine activists…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look at the patterns of infection in Africa. Do they reflect the ease in getting ebola based on two drops of a sneeze? No, they do not. There is your answer if you don’t believe four decades of research and history.</p>
<p>There was a case in the 90s – long after we knew how AIDS is spread – wherein a judge had his courtroom disinfected because someone with AIDS had appeared before him.</p>
<p><a href=“http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1991-06-15/news/9106151009_1_disinfected-stirling-judge”>http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1991-06-15/news/9106151009_1_disinfected-stirling-judge</a></p>
<p>So sometimes disinfecting a room proves nothing except ignorance. </p>
<p>So, why are they disinfecting an apartment, then? Btw, this family is not going back. And, renting it out again is sure to be a challenge. This is the mixed message problem and it goes to lack of leadership.</p>
<p>Because, Flossy, Duncan WAS contagious when he was in the apartment, and he DID leave behind sweaty sheets, etc. </p>
<p>I agree with you that the leadership from Texas public health officials has been abysmal.</p>
<h1>643 - there is a possibility that the delay in cleaning up the vomit in the apartment parking lot allowed animals to come into contact with it. Mammals are known to contract & carry Ebola. The virus finding an animal reservoir in North America would certainly be a nightmare scenario, and points to the importance of decontamination.</h1>
<p>As far as transmissability, I think all sources agree that it is less infectious than the flu but more infectious than Hepatitis C or HIV.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nrdsb, I am sure you are too smart not to understand it wasn’t meant to be literal. No reply is deserved. Fever means shedding has begun and it is infectious.</p>
<p>LasMa, they were in there with him for days and the sheets were in a plastic bag ready for pick-up. I don’t know who is supposed to be in charge here but my issue is with the State Department who granted him a Visa. And, I am pretty firmly convinced that the clean-up was for show. Does a cleaning crew typically come along with a quarantine order? This is not the first quarantine in history.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^^Doesn’t matter. Do the infection patterns in Africa support your concern?</p>
<p>No, they don’t.<br>
. </p>
<p>This doesn’t have much to do with the conversation, but I was watching the CDC press conference a little while ago, very focused, and my dog marched over to the cabinet, took his paw and turned off the Direct TV box! Even he is sick of hearing about this!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It should be pointed out that it is the CDC that sets the handling policies of diseases, not the Chief Medical Office of Texas. </p>
<p>Therefore, the contamination procedures, patient handling procedures, and the mix messages are the result of following mandated CDC guidelines. Same for the airplane in NJ and same for the patient picked up with supposed symptoms in DC an elsewhere.</p>
<p>Actually, every single community has given the same mixed messages when handling suspected cases: the everything is OK story, while they refuse to go near the same person without a hazmat suit. </p>
<p>The only reason why the concentration is on Texas is this is where the first documented case landed and resides.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong (unless you’re defining “transmissability” in a different way). According to experts, Ebola is AS CONTAGIOUS as Hep C and LESS CONTAGIOUS than HIV:</p>
<p><a href=“No, Seriously, How Contagious Is Ebola? : Shots - Health News : NPR”>No, Seriously, How Contagious Is Ebola? : Shots - Health News : NPR; </p>
<p>Man. Are you all just as worried about enterovirus D68? Because last I looked, entero has killed some children and paralyzed others. Or is enterovirus D68 not glamorous enough?</p>