Ebola victim in the U.S.

[gPink]

The absolute safest way to proceed for any health care professional is to move them away from any and all sick or possibly sick people.

This statement begs for clarification.

[turbojoe78]

Wow Dave, and I thought we were having a discussion. ?? I guess maybe I was having a discussion and you were.... whatever you were doing.

Brian

I don't think it was as much a discussion as it was two people with differing opinions voicing their thoughts.

Some people seem to be willing to accept that people will have different opinions than them, and allow them to, and some people seem to keep pushing their opinion on others, time, after time, after time, until they get the other person to see it their way or turn the "discussion" into a heated argument.

On the topic of the post, I fall into the category of opinion as the guy with the sword and the EMT.

[B.D.F.]

If individual safety for medical safety is the goal, the best possible thing for all of them would be to move them a great distance away from sick people. In other words, it is not particularly safe for surgeons to operate on AIDS paitents because the Dr. has a huge risk of receiving a nick or a cut while covered in that patient's blood. So the safest thing for a surgeon to do is to simply refuse to operate on AIDS patients. And anyone with Hepatitus C. And any other blood- borne disease. Well, the big picture would be to simply move all the medical personal away from any sick people at all, or even those who <may> be sick. So in the interests of medical personal safetly, we better put a good deal of distance between those medical personal and the public.

The problem with that is that effectively medical treatment would stop. Which is great if medical personal safety is the only goal but mix in PUBLIC HEALTH into the fray and it gets more complicated.

Therein is the root of this entire discussion I believe: A week or so ago we did not have any Ebola patients in the US. Two US citizens contracted the disease and were brought back to the US for treatment. Some people (go to the beginning of this thread) did not want those people brought into the US because it may give greater exposure to "us" than we had before to this deadly disease.

I reject that argument on the grounds that absolutism is rarely a good answer to a problem. We have auto accidents and auto fatalities in the US (what 40,000 + a year?). Want the easy, absolute solution? Ban cars. But that only addresses the problem of auto caused injury without viewing any of the benefits or needs of automobile travel. Not a very practical solution IMO.

And as to the thought that Ebola will 'get away' and spread all over the country (i.e., an epidemic), no one with any knowledge of the methods of disease transmission believe that can possible happen, at least that I have found from any legitimate source. Again, I think we (the public) are mixing up reality with the latest Zombie movie. Nuclear power plants cannot generate a nuclear explosion (going super- critical) either but 1) they sure can in the movies and 2) I believe most people believe they can do so.

Brian

The absolute safest way to proceed for any health care professional is to move them away from any and all sick or possibly sick people.

This statement begs for clarification.

[gPink]

What I'm getting here is the notion it's somehow wrong to start with the most extreme precautions and then move towards more mainstream treatment as knowledge and surety of containment is assured. Given that human beings are the nastiest, least naturally hygienic animals on the face of the earth I believe that it is wise and proper to follow the survival instinct until proven unnecessary.
But hey, if you want to get a card game going in the quarantine ward the more power to you. They could probably use the company.

[T Cro ®]

A week or so ago we did not have any Ebola patients in the US. Two US citizens contracted the disease and were brought back to the US for treatment. Some people (go to the beginning of this thread) did not want those people brought into the US because it may give greater exposure to "us" than we had before to this deadly disease.

My 2 cents worth is this...

They are US citizens correct?

What else should we do with them?

Abandon them or bring them home where they can receive the benefit of being US citizens?

[gPink]

What's being done here that wasn't being done where they were?

[T Cro ®]

What's being done here that wasn't being done where they were?

Here they have indoor plumbing....

[VirginiaJim]

Well, there is that of course...

[B.D.F.]

Wow, a voice of reason. Like a ray of sunshine I tells' ya'.

Brian

My 2 cents worth is this...

They are US citizens correct?

What else should we do with them?

Abandon them or bring them home where they can receive the benefit of being US citizens?

[B.D.F.]

I can't even believe you typed that Gary.

Where would you rather have your appendix taken out, anywhere in the US or Liberia. They gots' sharp knives in both places so what would be the difference?

Brian

What's being done here that wasn't being done where they were?

[gPink]

Your incredulity that I asked the question does not answer it. I have yet to hear a valid medical reason for the infected people to be brought to this country. It's my understanding the fatality rate is as high as 90%. Unless the magic elixer works there is no known cure or treatment to facilitate recovery. So the question stands.

[B.D.F.]

Well, I almost cannot believe I am answering this but.... better care.

The overall health care in the US is better than it is in Africa. (surprise!) Intensive care, around- the- clock attention, treatment of every possible situation that arises from the poor condition of the patient. While we (humans) cannot treat viruses specifically, we can greatly aid a patient suffering from a virus: we can maintain hydration, balance electrolytes, maintain respiration up to and including actually causing respiration to happen, counteract high body temperatures that often result from a severe infection (betcha' they can't do that in 'the bush'), re- start a normal rhythm in a heart that has gone into fibrillation, etc., etc., ad nauseum. In short, better care than any third- world country that I am aware of, especially outside of whatever major hospitals may be available there (and I do not believe those Americans were operating in a major hospital in Africa).

The morbidity rate of Ebola is so high at least in part because there is little to no care for the patients who have it.

And, as Rich said earlier, it treating patients in the US provides an opportunity to study the disease's progress, note its specific stages and the results of each stage and begin to develop useful treatments for the patients of the disease if not the actual virus. How many blood gas analyses do you think there might be available in huge parts of Africa?

I am not a liberal, bleeding- heart or otherwise. I am not naive and do not think that happy thoughts or blowing sunshine up our collective skirts is going to do any good. But we are all stuck here on this rock together, and we have formed and live in societies for better AND worse. I think the day of leper colonies and forming angry mobs with pitchforks and torches to find and punish the [witch, sorcerer, [put ethnic / religious group here], demons, et. al] are over. Time to move in a different direction and work toward more profitable (and I do not necessarily mean money) pursuits. Standing on some imaginary line with sticks poking the 'bad' people and trying to keep them 'away' just won't work anymore IMO.

Brian

Your incredulity that I asked the question does not answer it. I have yet to hear a valid medical reason for the infected people to be brought to this country. It's my understanding the fatality rate is as high as 90%. Unless the magic elixer works there is no known cure or treatment to facilitate recovery. So the question stands.

[gPink]

So a softer mattress and a prettier nurse?

[B.D.F.]

http://www.bu.edu/today/2014/tracking-the-virus/

A simple version of how transmittable diseases spread and how outbreaks occur, including epidemics and pandemics.

The last two paragraphs of the article are most useful to the discussion that has been going on here:

<begin quote>
How do you feel about the media coverage of this outbreak? What are the media getting wrong?
The sources I have been reading have been pretty accurate and seem careful. I think that some articles and headlines I have seen have been trying to over-sensationalize the transport of two sick Americans to Atlanta for care. The threat to the US public is negligible. The key take-home point is that transmission requires contact with bodily fluid from an infected person or contact with an object contaminated with this fluid. The special units in which these individuals are cared for are designed to eliminate this risk.

Could Ebola thrive here or would we be better able to contain and stop it?
I think that any model considering this would show that Ebola would not spread here. And I think that most would agree that the likelihood of this outbreak spreading outside of Africa is very small.
<end quote>

Brian

[turbojoe78]

Well if BU Today says it's ok, than it must be ok, right?

I don't think the media would ever mislead us ... would they?

[B.D.F.]

Just a follow- up....

ATLANTA (AP) - Calling it a "miraculous day," an American doctor infected with Ebola left his isolation unit and warmly hugged his doctors and nurses on Thursday, showing the world that he poses no public health threat one month after getting sick with the virus.
Dr. Kent Brantly and his fellow medical missionary, Nancy Writebol, who was quietly discharged two days earlier, are still weak but should recover completely, and no one need fear being in contact with them, said Dr. Bruce Ribner, who runs the infectious disease unit at Emory University Hospital.

Brian

[gPink]

Just thought it's time to 

[Son of Pappy]

been at days 7-9 for some time   I think I'll skip the anal bleeding stage, sounds, well, my body can't bleed for 7 days out of the month and survive

[B.D.F.]

And now, unfortunately, we are going to see the 'other side of the coin'.

This thread was started with regard to a pair of American medical personal, infected with Ebola in Africa and then flown to the US for treatment.

Now we have the first known case of Ebola diagnosed IN the US and brought here with no scientific supervision or isolation of any kind- apparently the man just flew to the US after contracting the Ebola virus. And ended up in Texas, which just may be hot enough to sustain that virus....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/02/us-health-ebola-usa-idUSKCN0HP2F720141002

Brian

[VirginiaJim]

We'll see where this goes.  He should never have been let into the country.  Anybody traveling from that part of the world should be stopped from entering our borders but it's a bit late now.