<p>I would just like to note that it’s hard to appoint somebody with credibility, if the mere fact that you appointed him is going to result in many people thinking that he has no credibility. People are already discounting the opinions of actual Ebola experts–would they be more likely to believe them if they were appointed to a position by the government?</p>
<p>Also, the imposition of increased travel restrictions (funneling passengers through five airports) is not necessarily evidence that experts who know what they are talking about now believe that this is a necessary precaution. People who don’t know what they are talking about have a lot of clout in this country.</p>
<p>From what I remember reading, 94% of the subject incoming passengers already were arriving into those 5 airports. So the measure isn’t changing much from the status quo, but it is at least a move in the right direction.</p>
<p>Nrdsb, Thank you. So the experts deemed ebola most dangerous. HIV is level 2. 2 levels below ebola. That would justify “hysteria” partially. It certainly deserves more hysteria than HIV. Forgive me if we have agreed on that and moved on. I didn’t read everything since yesterday morning. </p>
<p>Would that disagree R0 being 2? One patient infecting two people on the average? That’s not very high for infectious disease and yet it’s level4. That happened in the US; Duncan infecting Pham and Vinson. That was in a hospital setting with protective gear. However flawed that may have been, I would think it is much more sanitary condition than anywhere in West Africa where R0 is prsumably measured.</p>
<p>^^^The virulence probably plays into that rather than ease of transmission to others. Think if there were a virus which barely causes any symptoms but it is easily spread via every mode of transmission we can think of. It wouldn’t make any sense to call it a level 4 virus and take all these massive precautions.</p>
<p>The goal is not to change the status quo, per se. It is to prevent people from trying to go around those 5 airports if the screening begins to stop people. Pretty much it s enforcing the traffic flow already instituted by the marketplace by shutting down other flight avenues. </p>
<p>The bio safety lab levels determine how a pathogen should be treated in a laboratory setting while taking into consideration the availability of vaccines and drugs, severity of the disease and mode of transmission. Is TB more dangerous than HIV? TB is a level 3 pathogen. Why is that? TB is very treatable, has a vaccine against it (not a really great one, but still a vaccine), but it is easily transmitted via aerosols. Therefore, level 3 pritection was deemed appropriate (negative air pressure rooms and other precautions).</p>
<p>R0 is just what it is - how many people an infected person can infect. For TB, the estimated numbers are as high as 10.</p>
<p>“Since the US is an effected country, would you support a 21 day quarantine on all Americans traveling abroad, and if so, how would you administer this quarantine?”</p>
<p>Of course not. I was talking about the countries in West Africa, which is pretty obvious. Out of about 320 million people in this country, we have two (so far) who were infected here. They know exactly who infected them, knew they were at risk, and got treatment early. Though the stupidity of the CDC clearing someone to travel, knowing they were exposed, and knowing they had a slight fever, is staggering. In Liberia, a country of slightly over 4 million, over 4,000 have been infected and the number is growing daily. Many seem to not know whom they were infected by.</p>
<p>It looks like the CDC has instituted a 21 day monitoring program for people who arrive here from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. It’s about time, that seems to be an obvious move.</p>
<p>“It looks like the CDC has instituted a 21 day monitoring program for people who arrive here from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. It’s about time, that seems to be an obvious move.”</p>
<p>Rwanda has also instituted a 21 day monitoring program for Americans and Spaniards who travel there. </p>
<p>No doubt Rwanda doesn’t want to add Ebola to its long list of serious infectious diseases. Though it’s possible it’s already there. I’m sure they seriously fear the hordes of infected Americans traveling to Rwanda for their state of the art medical care.</p>
<p>The news here has been clear that Amber Vinson wants privacy. Emory did a fabulous job of keeping the news completely in abeyance when they were treating the other doctor who was released Sunday. They seem to be doing the same here. So it looks like the family will release information at their comfort level.</p>
<p>With the end of quarantine for the first group, plus no new cases, plus the apparent improvement of the two nurses, it appears that the media has moved on. I just pulled google news, and the following stories were deemed more important: Canadian shooting, UNC scandal, serial killer in Indiana, Rene Zellweger’s new face, Google Inbox, and Ferguson.</p>
<p>So glad that the media is moving on–they often create more problems than they solve! It’s great that there are no new confirmed cases. Even the hysterical should calm a bit, hopefully.</p>
<p>Regarding the blood transfusion issue, Dr. Brantley received a transfusion from a young boy while he was still in Liberia.</p>
<p>It looks like it would help enormously if there were some O+ and O- survivors. I keep wondering why Brantley seems to be the one one donating…it is possible that Nancy Writebol has had malaria. She said that’s what they thought her illness was at first.</p>