<p>^^^ I suspect it is because they don’t have the means to support people who have caught this disease, and when I mean support, I mean the medical technology and medications. It sounds like dehydration is the first big battle to wage war against due to all the vomiting and diarrhea, so just providing enough IVs would be huge. I doubt they have the resources to do that in Liberia, et al. And then I’m sure they need drugs to help with the nausea and diarrhea, which again, I assume are not readily available at the makeshift clinics that are popping up. And if you need dialysis, or intubation, then probably forget it. So yes, it MUCH better care in the U.S. with all the interventions that are needed to prevent or support sometimes eventual organ failure.</p>
<p>“So what do you propose we do then, to plan for this “potential eventuality”? I’m curious”</p>
<p>I have a couple of ideas. Starting out with selecting the person in charge to be someone who is an infectious disease specialist with credibility, preferably an Ebola specialist. A doctor, not a spin doctor. Then you quarantine everyone from the affected West African countries for 21 days (or however long they determine), before they can enter the US. You send far more assets to these countries, and give them whatever they need to stop the spread. Have only a couple of hospitals in the US treating this, who specialize in treating infectious disease. Patients safely transported to these facilities. You don’t give patient treatment to the youngest, most junior nurses. You give it to the most experienced nurses, and you make it worth their while. Salary times 2 (or 3), you make it a great deal for people. And after duty is over, they stay away from travel and large crowds, constantly being monitored. The second any possible symptom starts, they go into quarantine immediately, even if they think it’s just minor. Quarantine also at salary times 2 or 3. And health care providers are protected as if they are working in a hazmat situation. Getting the best possible gear that covers everything, having it sprayed with an Ebola killing disinfectant before they disrobe, immediately going into a shower with more disinfectant.</p>
<p>Just a few ideas from someone who knows very little. Imagine what kind of ideas there would be from specialists, if they actually took disease very seriously.</p>
<p>Nina was taking her temperature twice daily and was in the hospital 90 minutes after she developed a slightly elevated temp. She is likely the most quickly identified and treated Ebola patient that has been documented. She is also young and was presumably quite healthy before infection.</p>
<p>" I suspect it is because they don’t have the means to support people who have caught this disease, and when I mean support, I mean the medical technology and medications. It sounds like dehydration is the first big battle to wage war against due to all the vomiting and diarrhea, so just providing enough IVs would be huge. I doubt they have the resources to do that in Liberia, et al. And then I’m sure they need drugs to help with the nausea and diarrhea, which again, I assume are not readily available at the makeshift clinics that are popping up. And if you need dialysis, or intubation, then probably forget it. So yes, it MUCH better care in the U.S. with all the interventions that are needed to prevent or support sometimes eventual organ failure"</p>
<p>Well, that makes sense. I hope, that even if medical personnel don’t want to take the risk to go to Liberia, that we can help support them with the technology and medications that they need.</p>
<p>She also received the antibody plasma very early in the curse of her infection before the virus had a chance to multiply to the point that she was significantly symptomatic. Most people in Africa who receive any kind of treatment don’t start treatment until they are so sick that they are hardly able to walk under their own power if that.</p>
<p>I wonder how effective that plasma really is. Or if it’s just a shot in the dark.</p>
<p>I wonder what Mr. Duncan’s outcome would have been, if at the first indication of illness, he had gone to the hospital and said, “I HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO EBOLA”.</p>
<p>Ha! I meant ‘course’ of her infection, but I suppose curse will do as well.</p>
<p>^^^ I think he might have had a much better chance at survival if he’d been admitted the first time around. The dehydration is brutal on your system - organ failure was a given by his not being treated early on. I think the plasma treatment is interesting. Unfortunately, it’s hard to tell if that’s what is truly saving some of the infected here because like I said, the means to early and aggressive treatment is so significant. I’m sure they will obviously continue to study the plasma treatment, though, and I hope it holds some promise. In the meantime, I don’t think there are any significant risk factors in plasma donation like there could be when experimental drugs are given… those could be a crap shoot. But going back to Liberia, I doubt they have the resources to collect, much less type plasma for donations for patients (again, many of these patients aren’t coming in until they are very, very sick). It would be interesting to see if one of the charity organizations serving the area made that a priority so we could get a good sample to see if it works or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I saw that typo, and thought, “Freudian slip.” I almost edited it for you, then thought that might be too presumptive. If you’d like me to, I can, and will delete post #1866 that refers to it. Or, we could just leave it up for entertainment purposes!</p>
<p>I saw that too, and thought actually, that’s pretty appropriate wording!</p>
<p>Might as well leave it 
</p>
<p>Victims being treated outside of Africa have a MUCH higher survival rate, like 90%-ish. That’s probably attributable to a combination of better general health, early diagnosis, far better supportive care in state-of-the-art facilities, and in some cases, receipt of plasma and/or experimental drugs. </p>
<p>The reason we have not heard about whether or not Amber received any plasma from a survivor is because she has requested total privacy as is her right under HIPAA. Unless or until she changes her mind, we can’t even get her official status updates. The only reason we even know she is doing “okay” is because her mother spoke briefly with the media in Dallas.</p>
<p>As to whether or not survivor donated plasma is actually beneficial: we could certainly guess that it is beneficial, if you think about the concept of introducing antibodies against the disease into an infected person. But at this particular time, there is no way to know for sure. Risk/potential benefit tells us that considering the virulence of this virus, it “can’t hurt.”</p>
<p><a href=“No Indication Fevered Newark Passenger Has Ebola: Christie – NBC New York”>No Indication Fevered Newark Passenger Has Ebola: Christie – NBC New York;
<p>
</p>
<p>I saw this a few weeks ago and thought it sounded interesting. Haven’t heard another word about it since.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/27/health/ebola-hiv-drug/”>Apparent success against Ebola with HIV drug in Liberia - CNN;
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is a HIV treatment, I believe. He is using what is available in his country, as no one has any clinically test anti-ebola medications. As he says, the side effects (like liver and other problems) can be very serious as well. Yes, I heard and read about this but also haven’t heard any follow up either.</p>
<p>If you blog his name, it seems he wants to work with GSK and do a clinical trial but there are ethical issues, especially since the risk of serious side effects from the treatment are high. It still just cites the same 13 cured out of the 15 treated with the drug.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.liberianobserver.com/news/dr-logan-wants-support-his-ebola-treatment-protocol-which-he-has-used-cure-10-ebola-patients”>http://www.liberianobserver.com/news/dr-logan-wants-support-his-ebola-treatment-protocol-which-he-has-used-cure-10-ebola-patients</a></p>
<p>^^^^thanks. When I googled, I didn’t get much new info.</p>
<p>If you consider that a higher percentage if Ebola infected patients in West Africa may also have had malaria, been HIV positive and/or pregnant it isn’t surprising that the death rate is higher than amongst the Americans who were infected. </p>
<p>A quick google of malaria in Liberia tells me that adults who may have developed some level of immunity are quite susceptible to malaria during pregnancy due to lowered immunity - particularly the first pregnancy. This could lead to some of the added misdiagnosis of malaria vs Ebola. </p>
<p>
He was treated for Ebola in Nebraska,not Massachusetts. He went to the hospital in MA for evaluation of a respiratory illness and conjunctivitis but was found to remain ebola free.</p>
<p>Just curious, as he donated plasma? Wonder if the physician patient who wished to remain anonymous and was successfully treated at Emory will also donate if needed. Hope so.</p>