This British medical team had gone to advise the medical providers in Sierra Leone. They had to decide whether to leave or stay and help when the first Ebola cases were found. They found themselves assisting with creating the isolation wards and setting up procedures. Then treating the patients and training staff at the same time. Tough work in those hot suits. Such dedicated and brave people.
If it is not 100% preventable, how is it easy to prevent? Those two statements seem to conflict.
Seriously?
It’s easy to prevent HIV. But HIV is not 100% preventable. The CDC estimates that more than 100 health care workers have contracted HIV on the job. Same deal. Anyone who works around blood born diseases and needles is at some small risk.
That’s why we also have tracking systems for said healthcare workers. They may get infected, but the virus will not reach the general population. Again, unlike HIV, Ebola has a short incubation period and is symptomatic before it is very contagious.
here is an interview with a reporter in Guinea from the village where they think the outbreak started
the reporter talks about conditions there and that Ebola wasn’t known before and how people still don’t necessarily believe it. that’s just one problem they’ve had keeping it from spreading.
30 million people died of what you described as an easily preventable virus. Ebola is transmitted through the exchange of body fluids just like HIV. But this virus is different somehow because generators ran out of fuel or some other vague reason given about how bad 3rd world medical facilities are.
OMG.
HIV = decade long asymptotic incubation period during which it can be transmitted. Was in the US for decades before it was identified. Large risk for the general population.
Ebola = short incubation period, patients have symptoms before they are contagious. Exactly two people in the US are infected, and those people are not going to be donating blood, sharing needles, or having unprotected sex any time soon. Not a risk to the general population.
BUT, both pose a non-zero risk to health care workers (and just in case you try to play dumb, that small risk becomes a large risk in inadequate medical facilities.) But infected medical workers are unlikely to spread to the general public because of the factors above (and basically, any Ebola doc who gets so much as a headache can expect to be immediately isolated)
A faster incubation period isn’t an argument in your favor. The risk of transmitting it is zero 4000 miles away.
Thank you to even sven, Broomstick, Red Stilettos, and all who are rocking the facts in this thread; it is genuinely informative and enlightening.
We’ll find out if it was a good idea as soon as the incubation period expires.
There are legal and political issues involved in transporting people with infectious, deadly diseases. Americans always have a right to come back to the US, the legal ability of foreigners to do so is another matter. There is also the fact that treatment of those two involves an experimental drug never used in humans before at all. While the FDA can made an exception for compassionate reasons (as in this case) it only has jurisdiction over the US and its citizens - the FDA has zero authority to authorize the use of such a treatment abroad.
The above are factors why experimental treatment was tried in US citizens who were then transported to the US and not someone else involved in the outbreak.
Now, you can rail about whether or not that was the correct decision, but this wasn’t done because no one gives a damn about all those other suffering people. If a team from the US had gone over there and just randomly jabbed people with experimental treatments people would bitch about that, too.
As noted, they are inadequate.
The entire medical system in those countries are inadequate by first world standards. There is no reliable clean water or power, so cleaning and sanitizing anything is difficult, much less anything contaminated by something like ebola. Isolation units are jury-rigged and fragile. It is very, very easy to break protocols under such circumstances and risk infection.
In contrast, even a rural hospital in someplace like the US or Europe will have ample supplies of clean water, power, and disposable supplies that can be properly incinerated instead of needing to, say, launder bedding because there is only so much and no replacements coming.
As noted, the experimental drug was administered in Liberia.
And no, that 4000 miles of ocean is NOT as effective as a modern, first world medical center. If it was, we wouldn’t be worried about the guy who walked into an ER in New York City with a high fever after travel to West Africa. We are far, far more likely to have an ebola outbreak in this country from a traveler coming back from African than from the two patients flown under careful precautions to Atlanta.
:smack:
Yes, HIV is easily prevented if you follow precautions EXACTLY EVERY SINGLE TIME. Forever. That means NO needle sticks, NO broken condoms, NO accident victim accidentally splashing medical personnel with blood… Newsflash: no one in the real world is perfect. Whether over long periods of time or due to exhaustion/poor conditions accidents can and do happen. That’s how medical personnel get infected - they are the people most often exposed to potentially hazardous conditions and the odds catch up with them from time to time.
Don’t want to catch ebola? Easy-peasy - stay 20 feet away from any other human being and/or their bodily fluids. Forever. Of course, this greatly complicates things like taking care of sick people instead of leaving them to simply die.
Looks like they are being test subjects. I’m guessing they volunteered. Thoughts?
What have they got to lose? Considering Ebola’s mortality rate.
Hope the new drugs work fo them and future patients.
I read they both got blood transfusions from an Ebola surivor. That’s been known to aid in recovery. They aren’t sure why or if it helps everybody.
The drug is made in tobacco plants at Kentucky BioProcessing, a subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc., in Owensboro, Kentucky.
Precisely.
But we know that he is insensitive to all informations that do not fit into the alarmist conclusions he already reached, it is only needed to read about the benghazi incident in his posting to understand.
Incredible.
Even though you will remain insensitive to this, for the others reading:
It’s Nearly Impossible to get Ebola in New York
A useful information from this same authorthat shows in graphics the progression - and that it is much worse in the Liberia and the Sierre Leone than in the Guinea Conakry, and this because there is a horrible infrastructure for medicine in these two countries, which only finished decades of civil war in the past ten years:
But there is a type of person who will condemn other humans to death out of pure fear, unreasoning.
It is important for this not to be the dominant reaction as the article makes clear there is great need for the foreign, international support because of lack of the hospital facilities, etc. Such aide and the workers needed should not be condemned to not have their home country supports because of ignorant and unreasoned fear.
Come on folks, Magiver is completely correct.
What you do is this.
You drop, via parachute, all the necessary medical equipment, doctors, several dirt bikes and a Special Forces team into the area.
Then using F16s launched from carriers that aren’t busy oppressing third-world nations or being nuked by other superpowers you provide the crew top cover.
Problem solved. Why was that so hard?
(Jokes aside, thanks for all the serious answers in this thread. It was very educational)
Liberia has 17 doctors per MILLION people. These are not people used to getting health care.
One of the big issues with ebola infection in Africa has always been disposal of the dead. In America, once someone dies, we generally send the body away, we don’t prep in (barring a few religious sects who wash the body or something else) - a professional does. In Africa, you prep the body of your loved one. When someone bleeds out dying, that means that cleaning the body often exposes you to infected fluids. The Red Cross is volunteering to decontaminate the bodies before burial to hand them over the the families, but these people don’t necessarily trust outsiders - and death has a lot of ritual and belief around it.
(ETA: That graphic has 14 doctors, I had thought I’d read 17 yesterday).
I voted to bring them here. First, I’m pretty sure the CDC is quite good at this sort of thing. Second, it’s going to get here one way or the other anyway.
This is ridiculous! F-16s don’t operate from carriers. 
So you did not read the linked article entitled, “Second Ebola patient headed to U.S.; N.Y. tests possible victim,” in which a hospital in the U.S. is testing a man who recently returned from West Africa with various symptoms (with a doctor being quoted in the story saying: “Odds are it is not Ebola. . . I want to stress there is absolutely no risk from … being in the emergency room.”).
You maintain that the risk of transmitting Ebola from West Africa to the U.S. over 4,000 miles of ocean is “zero?” Then why are the doctors even testing for it? I would imagine that one of those physicians at a very good hospital in Manhattan would say: “Hey guys, I may have all these fancy university degrees and extensive experience in infectious diseases, but I also used to work at a charter aviation business, and therefore I know that there is zero chance that Ebola can come to the U.S. from 4,000 miles away unless the Government brings the victims here. Testing this guy is just a waste of money, let’s just not do it.”
I wonder what the views of those who say “don’t bring them here” would be if they knew that there are labs in the US that have done work (lab animal) with Ebola and similar viruses. In the United States itself.