<p>They were probably significantly healthier than someone who had been living in Liberia where ebola was rife than Duncan was by the time he finished his long plane ride from Liberia to Dallas and then got himself to the hospital the first or second time.</p>
<p>Undoubtedly baseline health plays a part too. Good point.</p>
<p>Yes, I’d imagine baseline health is VERY important, as well as the youth and vigor of the patient. Since these nurses are young and healthy, I believe their chances of full recoveries are very good.</p>
<p>Me too. I don’t have a comprehensive list; someone posted it upthread, but I believe at this point, there are 17 cases which have been treated outside of Africa. I only know of two deaths; Duncan, who wasn’t diagnosed until very late, and the missionary, who was 75 years old. </p>
<p>You can access a detailed timeline of Duncan’s initial visit, as presented at the congressional hearing, via the link in this USA Today article: <a href=“Timeline details missteps with Ebola patient who died”>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/17/ebola-duncan-congress-timeline/17456825/</a> </p>
<p>It seems to me, that the obvious and significant reason all the other ebola sufferers received early intervention which may be what saved their lives, is because doctors knew exactly what they were dealing with from the start. In Duncan’s case, he presented with a fever and no other remarkable symptoms. I guess it comes down to whether the mere fact that the record states he had recently been in Africa is enough to find negligence. </p>
<p>Something that’s really been ticking me off lately is when people sanctimoniously criticize medical practitioners for not calling the patients who are being treated for Ebola by their names. One of the congressman made that criticism at the hearing, and I’ve heard a number of others picking it up. They imply that by not calling the patients by their names, the CDC and hospital docs are demeaning or dehumanizing the patients. </p>
<p>I think if these critics are so totally ignorant of HIPAA and the protocols which medical practitioners follow, they should step back from being so judgmental. Or to put it another way, they should put a sock in it. </p>
<p>There are a few names I’d like to call those talking heads…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good point. How many cases shall we allow before restricting travel from affected areas? So far, we had one import. 10, 100? </p>
<p>How many cases of hysteria are there? I wasn’t paying much attention to that. All I heard was 1-2 out of bound reactions. Are there many more than that? If not, are you guys getting hysterical over 1-2 cases of hysteria?</p>
<p>Here’s an ariticle interviewing Dr Varga from NPR. Duncan gave the doctor his local address in Dallas.</p>
<p><a href=“Dallas Hospital Chief Shares Lessons Learned In Battle With Ebola : The Two-Way : NPR”>Dallas Hospital Chief Shares Lessons Learned In Battle With Ebola : The Two-Way : NPR;
<p>
</p>
<p>Igloo, on the other thread emilybee posted a CNN news story about cases of hysteria which are mind-blowngly stupid. The article listed 8 instances involving hundreds of people. And that was only the publicized incidents. Some of them are totally ridiculous. And that’s putting it in the best light possible. </p>
<p>To date there have been 2 deaths from ebola in Spain. Both were missionaries. There has also been a death in Germany.</p>
<p>Tomorrow the 4 patients who tested negative for ebola the first time will be given the 2nd test. If it comes back negative, 2 will be released, I believe, but the 2 who tested positive for malaria will remain for treatment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This.</p>
<p>DPH was faced with a difficult novel situation. Apparently, some people made mistakes: the doctor overlooked the fact that Duncan had come from West Africa, and (maybe) the protection protocol for the doctors and nurses wasn’t instituted properly, or the equipment wasn’t the right equipment, or the care providers weren’t adequately trained in its use. </p>
<p>People make mistakes when they do something for the first time. We need to figure out systems so that we can do better next time. I have no interest in any malpractice suit, which I think would be difficult to win. But I have a great deal of interest in how the mistakes made this time can be prevented next time, and that requires frank disclosure and careful analysis.</p>
<p>“How many cases shall we allow before restricting travel from affected areas? So far, we had one import. 10, 100?”</p>
<p>Doesn’t matter. We shouldn’t ban travel at all. It’s counterproductive. </p>
<p>But, don’t worry - I am sure we will, because that is always how we roll. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Economic strength assessment by the eyesight?? One guy sees bustling, so all must be good? </p>
<p>This is all I need to know to truly understand that we are in big trouble, if people think they can assess and make decisions based on not knowing the fundamentals, but based on rudimentary qualifications. This is like assessing the running the economy by joe average. </p>
<p>May I point out a few things, for example:</p>
<p>Eastern Airlines flights were fully sold / booked up to the day they declared bankruptcy and up to the very day they ceased operations. Nothing by eyesight of the general public indicated an economic problem. </p>
<p>The vast majority of hotels, which go bankrupt have over 85% occupancy rates. The average person going in the hotel would think they are doing just fine and since the signature restaurant is still crowded the place must be really making a killing. </p>
<p>The same goes for restaurants as well.</p>
<p>In fact, 90%+ of business that go bankrupt still have 90%+ of their customers. There is nothing, which the eye can tell by"bustling," of what is really happening.</p>
<p>But, the best example that affected everyone was the “money” disruption in 2008 that literally tanked the economy. That was something that even the Fed, Wall Street, the IMF or the World Bank saw coming at that magnitude the week that it occurred. Everything was bustling, but everyone missed the tipping point of the leverage in low interest mortgages by Freddie Mac. Some warned that it could happen, but until it occurred NOT one leading economic body saw that type of meltdown coming even 48 hours before it did. </p>
<p>So, let’s see - given the above as context, the leading world economists can miss the biggest meltdown since the depression, but one guy, who knows nothing about how economics and money works, can survey Dallas with his eyes and people on this thread actually buy that as useful information? </p>
<p>I do think doctors should stick to doctoring. </p>
<p>That said, Dallas will be fine, but any damage to it is not the type the person who gets a paycheck would even recognize. It is the guys who make tons more money than that who understand the underlying fundaments who know what may be happening. </p>
<p>And the average person who sees bustling would never connect the 1000 jobs that were suppose to come to Dallas, but are now going to Oklahoma instead, as a real loss to Dallas. And the person who sees bustling will never connect that the people who depend on overtime in certain industries over the holidays will not get the overtime now because of cancellations and thus they get a big pay cut.</p>
<p>There will still be bustling in Dallas because hint, people still live there. Everyone will still have grocery stores, people will still be shopping, and people will still be going to to eat etc., but that is not even close to being a measure of the health of any economy.</p>
<p>We are clearly, as a society doomed, if what people just see with their eyes is accepted and put forth, as intelligent economic assessment. </p>
<p>Wanted: Ebola screeners at JFK. $19/hour. <a href=“Wanted: Ebola screeners at JFK for $19 an hour”>http://nypost.com/2014/10/18/airports-now-hiring-medics-for-ebola-screening/</a></p>
<p>They are told what to do if a passenger from West Africa has a fever, but not what to then do for themselves or for all the other passengers on that plane. </p>
<p>Air France flight attendants union calls for halting the flights from Guinea. They are potentially exposed with no safety gear other than gloves.
<a href=“http://www.thelocal.fr/20141018/air-france-unions-seek-to-stop-flights-to-guinea”>http://www.thelocal.fr/20141018/air-france-unions-seek-to-stop-flights-to-guinea</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This type of thinking is renown in government, and I deal with it all the time. And we are seeing it here with the CDC on full display. </p>
<p>Private execs discuss this in hiring all the time because we purposely scope and weed out directors and high position people who think like this. There are way too many people who are trained to be reactive rather that taking the more prudent proactive measure, which is always times cheaper. </p>
<p>Collectively, we have come to the conclusion it must be because people are risk adverse to taking forward-looking decisions and then having to explain coherently something others cannot see. It is much easier to say you are solving a visible problem that people see rather than saying please do this to prevent X from happening. </p>
<p>CEOs and leaders who are accountable are just the opposite. They do not wait around for the expensive disaster, but implement preventive measures, and then peel back the measures in pieces, if they see that not all measures are required. </p>
<p>One approach is forward-thinking to protect employees and jobs, and the other is an employee saying I am just doing my job until a disaster makes me implement new things. Very different approaches for sure. </p>
<p>Therefore, the CDC chief is not going to implement anything unless he has the cover of a disastrous event to so it, because he is thinking like an employee, not as an executive, who has a company and people to protect. Note his changing stances, as one “unseen” event happens after another. H is doing is what execs call following “disaster train” to bankruptcy. In contrast, execs hire top people to do is prevent or slow down said “disaster train.”</p>
<p>Additionally, contrast to the military generals’ response - they told Congress in no uncertain terms that, “the military has something to protect, therefore, given what the CDC is saying, we concluded that we cannot protect, with confidence, our personnel stateside without a mandatory 21-day quarantine for personnel returning from the hot zone - even if they were never exposed to infected patient as far as we know.” </p>
<p>One leader’s approach is the executive preventive mode, while the leader of the other agency is in an employee reactive mode. </p>
<p>This entire scenario is worthy of a business school course of its own.</p>
<p>An executive thinking ahead asks this question:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And after seeing the effect in Dallas realizes that such an effect is not good for the economy and social infrastructure of any community and will step in with measures to slow and limit the risk of this occurring again as much as possible - and then peel back the measures in pieces, if he sees that not all measures are required. </p>