<p>
[quote]
If it’s not stopped at the source, it’s going to engulf the globe. </p>
<p>Exactly. Think about what you are really saying there. It has to be stopped at the source. </p>
<p>
Slowing it down is how we can begin to get a handle on it. Slowing down a communicable disease is a very good thing.</p>
<p>Every new infected person is another chance for the virus to mutate.</p>
<p>Las Ma, don’t you get the difference between a short term measure and a long term solution? No one is saying we won’t work towards a long term solution. While doing that, we should take a stop gap measure to limit the spread. It’s not that hard to understand that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And buys us precious time. That’s what a short term measure is supposed to do</p>
<h1>1181 Actually, Nigeria will not be declared ebola free until 20 October.</h1>
<p>I think that quarantine has to be a significant part of the picture in stopping this disease. That said, it is a gross error to wave a hand airily at unused military bases that are supposed all ready to move into (instead of stripped ruins with no functioning plumbing or electricity), assuming leak-proof borders (I can assure you that people can walk back and forth between Canada and the US without using roads!), claiming to have “debunked” the idea that leasing some cargo planes will solve all of the problems of transporting everything an entire country needs to keep functioning (it’s not only medical supplies, people), and so forth.</p>
<p>Setting up quarantines for military personnel is one thing: they are under orders, the organization has virtually absolute control over many large scale facilities and its own transportation and supply organizations and equipment. Setting up quarantine facilities for recalcitrant civilians entering the country at numerous points is another thing altogether. I do think that control of visas, which are granted at US consulates, is a practical first line of defense.But even that is not going to be as simple as just telling the US consulates in the hot zone not to issue visas until further notice, although that would be a god first step.</p>
<p>Ultimately, it has to be stopped in Africa. That is where the vast majority of resources should be going. There is, of course, no reason why we can’t take other steps at the same time.</p>
<p>The countries with borders on Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea have closed their borders and they have no Ebola cases. </p>
<p>Quarantines whether on a small scale with individuals or a large scale with regions work to protect the rest of humanity from disease. </p>
<p>Did anyone else see CBS Travel Editor Peter Greenberg this morning? I’ve often appreciated his rational and common sense approach to traveling. His opinion this morning was that a travel ban probably won’t work because they never really have worked in the past. I don’t know. This issue is where we need some sober leadership from the authorities. This off the cuff, seat of the pants policy-making has got to stop. Can we start with a new surgeon general and not some “Czar?” We all know how the Drug Czar’s War in the 1980s worked out. Has anyone asked retired S.G.'s their opinion? What does David Satcher have to say? We really could use the late C. Everett Koop right now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So why aren’t we takng it? You quibble with a few details but basically you do agree with restricting travel. I welcome any kind of restriction.</p>
<p>Slowing it down * at the source*, zm. Once it gets here, it will overwhelm our healthcare system just as it has Liberia’s, and it will be far far too late to slow it down.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d like to see more detailed explanation since it is counterintuitive. How was it done in the past? Why didn’t it work? Are the conditions the same?</p>
<p>I haven’t read all 80+ pages of this thread, so I’m not sure if this has been posted. Apparently there is an instrument that can detect Ebola virus (and other viruses) within an hour, with 90% accuracy. I’m not sure how high the virus load has to be to be detectable by this instrument, but from the description of the technology it seems that it would be quite sensitive:</p>
<p><a href=“Dallas Hospital Had the Ebola Screening Machine That the Military Is Using in Africa - Defense One”>http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/10/dallas-hospital-had-ebola-screening-machine-military-using-africa/96713/</a></p>
<p>Apparently the military is using this system. It works on blood or saliva. The Dallas hospital has one of these, but because it doesn’t have FDA approval, it can be used only for research. I’m familiar with this problem. Getting FDA approval is a very expensive and daunting process, so when small companies or research labs invent equipment or software, they often sell it only for research purposes. </p>
<p>Wouldn’t something like this solve a lot of problems? Passengers arriving from WA could be quickly tested on arrival. People who might have been exposed could be tested and, if negative, released from quarantine. People who test positive could start treatment early.</p>
<p>The FDA could expedite approval of this system. It’s not as though it could harm people, except for harm due to incorrect diagnosis. That has to be less than the harm being done now by uncertainty. If the military has been using it, there are plenty of data to support its approval. </p>
<p>FDA has approved experimental drugs to use on Ebola patient. I’d think if it is really effective, they would grant an emergency approval. Maybe experts can chime in, but I doubt it can detect before it becomes symptomatic. You need a good amount of virus to be able to detect. By then, the person will be symptomatic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have been thinking this on a daily basis for weeks!</p>
<p>
Yes. Slow it down at the source. Fight it with all possible resources at the source. And keep it from getting here as much as humanly possible. Which is the best possible thing here AND there. Resources wouldn’t be spread even more thin than they otherwise would be. That’s why saying that flight restrictions would be counterproductive is absolutely ludicrous. Nobody actually thinking it through believes that. Restrictions coupled with aggressive work within the hot zones in Africa is the only possibility of stopping this at the source. If we end up with a major outbreak here, we won’t be as able to help there.</p>
<p>An Ebola czar has just been appointed - Ron Klain, described as a lawyer who is a Dem party insider.
Haven’t heard what his qualifications to handle a viral pandemic are.</p>
<p>Edit: this does not raise my confidence at all</p>
<p>^A lawyer? Seriously? I guess we know where this is going.</p>
<p>Apparently the detection is based on PCR. I thought that was highly sensitive?</p>
<p>The FDA will expedite the use of a RUO diagnostic product if there is a need and clear showing of performance. Clearly, this is the situation with Ebola (need), do not know about performance, but from what I know, the tests that are being used in Aftica are not BioFire (or whatever they are called now). </p>
<p>RUO = research use only</p>
<p>A lawyer? A politico? Not a scientist, a doctor? Imbecilic!</p>