Ebola fun

[Hmac]

Yesterday on the way to work and then again on the way home, while listening to the radio, ABC news reported than another, unidentified, patient had been treated, cured and released from Emory. Has anyone else heard anything about this?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebo...-emory-n230031

[jhs1969]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebo...-emory-n230031

Thank you, that is more info than I had received over the radio. Don't know the reason he wants to remain unknown but certainly good news on his recovery.

[Warp]

Thank you, that is more info than I had received over the radio. Don't know the reason he wants to remain unknown but certainly good news on his recovery.

(I'm not clicking news links) Are you saying you don't know why somebody who had Ebola would want to remain unknown?

You know there are a lot of people out there who would actually expect him to be contagious no matter what, afraid to walk near him for fear of catching it

[MountainRaven]

Certain programs are. And occasionally they show bias...everyone does. But honestly most of it is just straight reporting. I watch Fox Business News(I gave up on Fox News with certain exceptions,) and occasionally tune in to MSNBC/CNN just to see what idiocy they're spewing...for the most part, NPR is pretty straightforward with their reports. And they have genuinely interesting and intelligent debates with real experts that aren't built for sound bites and "gotcha" moments. Intelligence Squared airs on NPR and takes on the big issues of our time intelligently and without bias because it's run as a true debate. Things like that don't happen elsewhere.

Ideologically I'm extremely right wing/libertarian. It pains me to admit that for the most part, NPR does a pretty damned good job. Combine that with some very funny programming? Genuinely entertaining shows like This American Life, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, and Says You? You can count me in NPR's camp...though I'd prefer that they not receive federal funding(even though it's only a small portion of their budget.)

Yup.

As someone else has said, look where the money comes from. In the case of NPR, local stations get money overwhelmingly from local donors. In Montana, this means lots of ranch money. Of course, in some places in Montana, the only radio station you can reliably get is NPR.

I have heard that Al-Jazeera is pretty good at reporting on domestic U.S. issues (seriously). However, I won't watch or listen to it.

One of the largest shareholders (second largest voting shareholder, in fact) in Fox News is a Saudi prince.

[jhs1969]

(I'm not clicking news links) Are you saying you don't know why somebody who had Ebola would want to remain unknown?

You know there are a lot of people out there who would actually expect him to be contagious no matter what, afraid to walk near him for fear of catching it

That makes sense but who are we to know his reasoning. He released an anonymous statement that he would come forth at a later date. He also was a Dr. with the WHO. A little good news maybe.

[Denali]

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/healt.../ebola-rwanda/

Rwanda is not cool with the fact that the U.S. and Spain have Ebola. Not cool at all. The African nation about 2,600 miles east of Liberia hasn’t had a reported case of Ebola yet. Perhaps that spotless record is why its government announced Tuesday that it will screen all Americans and Spaniards trying to enter the nation. That’s right, some Africans are saying you’re too much of an infection risk to enter their country.

Now American and Spanish visitors will have to fill out a questionnaire and report their medical condition for the first 21 days of their visit in Rwanda. This big “screw you” to the U.S. and Spain comes after a ridiculous mix-up in New Jersey this week where an elementary school required that its nurse monitor the health of two Rwandan students for 21 days.

Tit for tat...

[Sensei]

Serious questions, not being a smart-ass.

I'm happy to answer your questions.

1) Unlike some of my colleagues, I have no real hard objection to an outright ban on immigrants coming into the US from the 3 problem countries. The realist in me thinks that my position is a compromise solution that may be a first step to an outright ban since things seem to happen in baby steps when it come to political policy.

2) I pulled the 500 number out of my ass as what I think would be a serious outbreak in the US that would cause me to regret my career decision. To be honest, I doubt that we will see more than 10 confirmed cases on our soil at the same time. Having said that, I do not think that a 20-50 bed capacity between the 4 containment facilities is unreasonable. One interesting facet of our healthcare facilities is their expandability. In other words, my home hospital is licensed for about 900 beds, but we hardly ever have more than 600 souls in-house at any given time. Having said that, we have a built in surge capacity to accommodate another 20-30% within 24 hrs should the need arise. I suggest that we invest in similar surge capacity right now when it comes to this disease; have the infrastructure for 20 beds available at any time, but start building the capacity in reserve beds and trained personnel.

3) This is a tough one and I thought that someone might ask - congratulations on thinking outside of the box. My understanding is that the mortality of patients presenting with, or progressing to, respiratory failure or refractory shock is dismal. An infectious disease colleague who works with me in the lab also thinks that your ass is grass if you progress to DIC, septic shock, or respiratory failure. There is growing consensus that invasive therapies including intubation and dialysis are not helpful in patients who deteriorate and I expect CDC "guidance" is forthcoming to clarify this very point. Thus, I feel no obligation to offer therapies that are not evidence based.

[Eurodriver]

It's really nice when people in this thread post their actual thoughts, rather than copying and pasting links. Some good points have been made.

You know there are a lot of people out there who would actually expect him to be contagious no matter what, afraid to walk near him for fear of catching it

Absolutely! Between the people who know absolutely nothing of the disease, and others who read so much BS - you'd never be able to convince at least half of the population that you weren't contagious anymore. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if you got sick again (with the flu, or whatever) and people knew you were a recovered Ebola patient that they would roll out the Hazmat Red Carpet for you all over again.

3) This is a tough one and I thought that someone might ask - congratulations on thinking outside of the box. My understanding is that the mortality of patients presenting with, or progressing to, respiratory failure or refractory shock is dismal. An infectious disease colleague who works with me in the lab also thinks that your ass is grass if you progress to DIC, septic shock, or respiratory failure. There is growing consensus that invasive therapies including intubation and dialysis are not helpful in patients who deteriorate and I expect CDC "guidance" is forthcoming to clarify this very point. Thus, I feel no obligation to offer therapies that are not evidence based.

So there is very little evidence to support that these measures work on severely ill patients - yet they continue. Is this just "protocol"? It doesn't make any sense to continue treating someone who is beyond the point of no return. ABNAK, as a health professional, wouldn't you be more likely to continue treating patients if you weren't going to be exposed to the most severely ill? It seems, and I hope I don't eat crow with Nina or Amber passing away, that if you begin treatment early enough (with quality treatment) the latter stages of the disease can be avoided.

It's just like triage on the battlefield. You're not going to jump through gunfire to put a guy's intestines back in. Difficult choices have to be made sometimes.

[Arctic1]

I did not see it mentioned here.

A Norwegian nurse who worked for Doctors Without Borders contracted Ebola in Sierra Leone, was evacuted to Norway, and recently made a full recovery.
She was given an experimental drug, that seemingly works well.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Can someone explain why we have only 10-20 of these beds in facilities in light of bio-terror threats? Was this just not big enough to trigger that response? I'm just trying to square the money and supposed resources DHS has versus the response. It just seems that if some tried even a low-tech bio-attack based on Ebola, it would rapidly swamp these resources.