Two US citizens infected with ebola coming back to america.

#1 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -
#2 Posted by Tokeism (2323 posts) -

The virus spreads mostly via direct contact, it's highly unlikely that bring the patients back home will spread the disease to other people. And America has much better ways of containing and monitoring diseases.

#3 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

@Tokeism said:

The virus spreads mostly via direct contact, it's highly unlikely that bring the patients back home will spread the disease to other people. And America has much better ways of containing and monitoring diseases.

Everybody says it's highly unlikely, yet those 2 people got it.

#4 Posted by foxhound_fox (87690 posts) -

I'm sure they wouldn't bring them back unless under strict quarantine.

#5 Posted by Nintendonly (1409 posts) -

I'm sure they wouldn't bring them back unless under strict quarantine.

We all know how that goes.

#6 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26048 posts) -

@Tokeism said:

The virus spreads mostly via direct contact, it's highly unlikely that bring the patients back home will spread the disease to other people. And America has much better ways of containing and monitoring diseases.

Everybody says it's highly unlikely, yet those 2 people got it.

...because they were a doctor and nurse who would have been in near constant direct contact with patients...did you not read what you posted?

#7 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26048 posts) -
#8 Edited by Nintendonly (1409 posts) -

So what game will this parallel with? The Last of Us? Resident Evil?

#9 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

@purplelabel said:

@Tokeism said:

The virus spreads mostly via direct contact, it's highly unlikely that bring the patients back home will spread the disease to other people. And America has much better ways of containing and monitoring diseases.

Everybody says it's highly unlikely, yet those 2 people got it.

...because they were a doctor and nurse who would have been in near constant direct contact with patients...did you not read what you posted?

So nobody would be near them? This is out how outbreaks start. Keep it in Africa. Keep it contained.

#10 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26048 posts) -

@SaintLeonidas said:

@purplelabel said:

@Tokeism said:

The virus spreads mostly via direct contact, it's highly unlikely that bring the patients back home will spread the disease to other people. And America has much better ways of containing and monitoring diseases.

Everybody says it's highly unlikely, yet those 2 people got it.

...because they were a doctor and nurse who would have been in near constant direct contact with patients...did you not read what you posted?

So nobody would be near them? This is out how outbreaks start. Keep it in Africa. Keep it contained.

If you are really comparing the US quarantine and transport of two people to constant contact with patients in a environment that could best be summed up as a "shit-show", then you really shouldn't be posting serious news articles in the first place. And no, it most certainly is NOT how outbreaks starts, unless you live in a world of fiction and fantasy.

#11 Posted by KiIIyou (27144 posts) -

I did nothing!

#12 Edited by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

@purplelabel said:

@SaintLeonidas said:

@purplelabel said:

@Tokeism said:

The virus spreads mostly via direct contact, it's highly unlikely that bring the patients back home will spread the disease to other people. And America has much better ways of containing and monitoring diseases.

Everybody says it's highly unlikely, yet those 2 people got it.

...because they were a doctor and nurse who would have been in near constant direct contact with patients...did you not read what you posted?

So nobody would be near them? This is out how outbreaks start. Keep it in Africa. Keep it contained.

If you are really comparing the US quarantine and transport of two people to constant contact with patients in a environment that could best be summed up as a "shit-show", then you really shouldn't be posting serious news articles in the first place. And no, it most certainly is NOT how outbreaks starts, unless you live in a world of fiction and fantasy.

Living proof common sense isn't so common.

#13 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26048 posts) -

@SaintLeonidas said:

@purplelabel said:

@SaintLeonidas said:

@purplelabel said:

@Tokeism said:

The virus spreads mostly via direct contact, it's highly unlikely that bring the patients back home will spread the disease to other people. And America has much better ways of containing and monitoring diseases.

Everybody says it's highly unlikely, yet those 2 people got it.

...because they were a doctor and nurse who would have been in near constant direct contact with patients...did you not read what you posted?

So nobody would be near them? This is out how outbreaks start. Keep it in Africa. Keep it contained.

If you are really comparing the US quarantine and transport of two people to constant contact with patients in a environment that could best be summed up as a "shit-show", then you really shouldn't be posting serious news articles in the first place. And no, it most certainly is NOT how outbreaks starts, unless you live in a world of fiction and fantasy.

Living proof common sense isn't so common.

Yes, you are.

#14 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

@purplelabel said:

@SaintLeonidas said:

@purplelabel said:

@SaintLeonidas said:

@purplelabel said:

@Tokeism said:

The virus spreads mostly via direct contact, it's highly unlikely that bring the patients back home will spread the disease to other people. And America has much better ways of containing and monitoring diseases.

Everybody says it's highly unlikely, yet those 2 people got it.

...because they were a doctor and nurse who would have been in near constant direct contact with patients...did you not read what you posted?

So nobody would be near them? This is out how outbreaks start. Keep it in Africa. Keep it contained.

If you are really comparing the US quarantine and transport of two people to constant contact with patients in a environment that could best be summed up as a "shit-show", then you really shouldn't be posting serious news articles in the first place. And no, it most certainly is NOT how outbreaks starts, unless you live in a world of fiction and fantasy.

Living proof common sense isn't so common.

Yes, you are.

Not the one suggesting we bring a deadly virus into the states, no matter what the process is.

#15 Posted by lostrib (34512 posts) -

@SaintLeonidas said:

@purplelabel said:

Living proof common sense isn't so common.

Yes, you are.

Not the one suggesting we bring a deadly virus into the states, no matter what the process is.

Eh, we do it all the time. At least these people will be under quarantine. Ebola is a BSL4 agent, they're not just going to stick them on a 747 and call it good.

#16 Posted by Netret0120 (2033 posts) -

So as long as i don't touch anyone who has been to West Africa I'll be alright?

#17 Edited by Solaryellow (463 posts) -

@Tokeism said:

The virus spreads mostly via direct contact, it's highly unlikely that bring the patients back home will spread the disease to other people. And America has much better ways of containing and monitoring diseases.

Would you be so kind as to give your definition of direct contact?

#18 Posted by lostrib (34512 posts) -

@Tokeism said:

The virus spreads mostly via direct contact, it's highly unlikely that bring the patients back home will spread the disease to other people. And America has much better ways of containing and monitoring diseases.

Would you be so kind as to give your definition of direct contact?

"direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and indirect contact with environments contaminated with such fluids"

#19 Edited by thegerg (14859 posts) -
#20 Posted by Solaryellow (463 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Solaryellow said:

@Tokeism said:

The virus spreads mostly via direct contact, it's highly unlikely that bring the patients back home will spread the disease to other people. And America has much better ways of containing and monitoring diseases.

Would you be so kind as to give your definition of direct contact?

"direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and indirect contact with environments contaminated with such fluids"

I want a definition from the person I asked because everyone can have a different interpretation. What I was getting at is whether or not the person quoted would be comfortable in close proximity to a person with ebola because he seems to think it isn't a big deal.

#21 Edited by lostrib (34512 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Solaryellow said:

Would you be so kind as to give your definition of direct contact?

"direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and indirect contact with environments contaminated with such fluids"

I want a definition from the person I asked because everyone can have a different interpretation. What I was getting at is whether or not the person quoted would be comfortable in close proximity to a person with ebola because he seems to think it isn't a big deal.

that's from the WHO. I doubt anyone would actually be comfortable next to someone with ebola.

#22 Posted by musicalmac (22902 posts) -

That's a very interesting decision.

#23 Posted by Boddicker (2518 posts) -

Have we seriously become this stupid?

Is this a trick question?

#24 Edited by Solaryellow (463 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Solaryellow said:

@lostrib said:

@Solaryellow said:

Would you be so kind as to give your definition of direct contact?

"direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and indirect contact with environments contaminated with such fluids"

I want a definition from the person I asked because everyone can have a different interpretation. What I was getting at is whether or not the person quoted would be comfortable in close proximity to a person with ebola because he seems to think it isn't a big deal.

that's from the WHO. I doubt anyone would actually be comfortable next to someone with ebola.

That's fine and I understand the clinical definition of the phrase but I wasn't quoting the comments of the World Health Organization unless, of course, they are a member of this board. Things like this outbreak should be taken extremely seriously because one mistake is all it would take to have a full on pandemic. The government saying "oops" won't cut it if it does happen. 12:35 pm e.s.t. on CNN: Experts: Ebola epidemic will worsen. According to those in the field, it will spread to other nations.

#25 Posted by SUD123456 (4417 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Solaryellow said:

@lostrib said:

@Solaryellow said:

Would you be so kind as to give your definition of direct contact?

"direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and indirect contact with environments contaminated with such fluids"

I want a definition from the person I asked because everyone can have a different interpretation. What I was getting at is whether or not the person quoted would be comfortable in close proximity to a person with ebola because he seems to think it isn't a big deal.

that's from the WHO. I doubt anyone would actually be comfortable next to someone with ebola.

That's fine and I understand the clinical definition of the phrase but I wasn't quoting the comments of the World Health Organization unless, of course, they are a member of this board. Things like this outbreak should be taken extremely seriously because one mistake is all it would take to have a full on pandemic. The government saying "oops" won't cut it if it does happen. 12:35 pm e.s.t. on CNN: Experts: Ebola epidemic will worsen. According to those in the field, it will spread to other nations.

Except one mistake would not lead to a full on pandemic. Which is why the definition matters, as it clarifies how it is spread... something which you do not seem to understand.

#26 Edited by airshocker (29041 posts) -

They're coming back to a specially designed lab at Emory University. So I'm not sure what your problem with this is, TC.

#27 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@Solaryellow said:

@lostrib said:

@Solaryellow said:

@lostrib said:

@Solaryellow said:

Would you be so kind as to give your definition of direct contact?

"direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and indirect contact with environments contaminated with such fluids"

I want a definition from the person I asked because everyone can have a different interpretation. What I was getting at is whether or not the person quoted would be comfortable in close proximity to a person with ebola because he seems to think it isn't a big deal.

that's from the WHO. I doubt anyone would actually be comfortable next to someone with ebola.

That's fine and I understand the clinical definition of the phrase but I wasn't quoting the comments of the World Health Organization unless, of course, they are a member of this board. Things like this outbreak should be taken extremely seriously because one mistake is all it would take to have a full on pandemic. The government saying "oops" won't cut it if it does happen. 12:35 pm e.s.t. on CNN: Experts: Ebola epidemic will worsen. According to those in the field, it will spread to other nations.

Except one mistake would not lead to a full on pandemic. Which is why the definition matters, as it clarifies how it is spread... something which you do not seem to understand.

Sadly, much of OT doesn't seem to understand that words have meaning.

#28 Posted by Hemmaroids (3148 posts) -

One of them will be coming down the block from me and will be held at Emory Hospital. Am I worried? Nope. They have a much better chance of treatment here in the US than in Africa.

#29 Posted by musicalmac (22902 posts) -

It is surreal to think that two Americans in America are infected with a particularly nasty strain of Ebola. Regardless of how secure one may feel about the decision to bring them home, that's the consequence. It's unlikely that the infection will spread, but just the idea that there are Americans infected with Ebola in America is surreal.

#30 Edited by Solaryellow (463 posts) -

@SUD123456 said:

@Solaryellow said:

@lostrib said:

@Solaryellow said:

@lostrib said:

@Solaryellow said:

Would you be so kind as to give your definition of direct contact?

"direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and indirect contact with environments contaminated with such fluids"

I want a definition from the person I asked because everyone can have a different interpretation. What I was getting at is whether or not the person quoted would be comfortable in close proximity to a person with ebola because he seems to think it isn't a big deal.

that's from the WHO. I doubt anyone would actually be comfortable next to someone with ebola.

That's fine and I understand the clinical definition of the phrase but I wasn't quoting the comments of the World Health Organization unless, of course, they are a member of this board. Things like this outbreak should be taken extremely seriously because one mistake is all it would take to have a full on pandemic. The government saying "oops" won't cut it if it does happen. 12:35 pm e.s.t. on CNN: Experts: Ebola epidemic will worsen. According to those in the field, it will spread to other nations.

Except one mistake would not lead to a full on pandemic. Which is why the definition matters, as it clarifies how it is spread... something which you do not seem to understand.

Newflash: If an infectious disease spreads across the world we have a pandemic. Yes, one mistake could have grave consequences which is something no one is thinking about. The disease could be incubating in a body and no one would know they had it until it was too late when the possibility exists it could have been spread to others.

#31 Posted by gamerguru100 (10502 posts) -

So what game will this parallel with? The Last of Us? Resident Evil?

I saw this story on my phone and thought of The Last of Us.

#32 Posted by evildead6789 (7503 posts) -

I really hope this breaks out in the usa

joking of course

for those who are so scared, they have much more deadly (and more contiagent) virusses in labs in the usa.

They know what they're doing, this is not a hollywood movie.

#33 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

They're coming back to a specially designed lab at Emory University. So I'm not sure what your problem with this is, TC.

Things can always go wrong. Why risk it?

#35 Edited by lamprey263 (23173 posts) -

Well, probably a big contributor of the virus's mortality rate probably has a lot to do with lack of proper healthcare resources in the areas effected, even if it spreads I think the effect will be limited, nothing like the movie Outbreak... though, one thing I heard about this most deadly Ebola outbreak is it actually evades detection and screening of people with the virus has turned up false-negatives, so this particular strain of Ebola is a tricky one and if it did spread containment could be tricky since they can't detect it.

Anyhow, people should be less freaked out by this and more freaked out about things they don't know, like how we have extremely hazardous biological testing going on in laboratories without any kind of regulated containment and security. In the wake of the Bruce Ivin's anthrax mailings I remember a follow up story looking at the security of research facilities like the one Bruce Ivin's worked at, and what I found was shocking, that many facilities exist that are unregulated, have no security or biological containment and fail-safes. It went on to talk about one facility that didn't even have a secure building, that it had open doors that anybody from the public could just wonder into the building where they kept seriously dangerous biological materials around. It didn't have air containment, just rudimentary ventilation that ventilated the air from the hazard rooms outside, that the biological materials were just kept on the shelf in a room with an open back door anybody in the public could walk into... crazy stuff. And this was said to be typical of many of the unregulated facilities that exist. Also recently in the news was one such research group left all their biological materials in a public storage unit, and only discovered it when they emptied it out, finding vials of smallpox stored there.

Plus, recently the CDC or one of the big government organizations announced that they were going to drastically cut the number of facilities that had access to hazardous and weaponized biological materials and viruses and such, as to not have another Bruce Ivin's incident again, by limiting the number of people who have access to such materials. This actually scares me, even though this should have been the situation to begin with, you're now telling thousands of researchers who make their living doing research on this stuff that they're about to be out of jobs... telling these thousands of people, with this stuff at their disposal, that they're about to join this countries horrendous and spiritually detrimental job market, that does worry me. All you need is for one of them to snap, then you got that virologist guy from 12 Monkeys.

#36 Posted by airshocker (29041 posts) -

@airshocker said:

They're coming back to a specially designed lab at Emory University. So I'm not sure what your problem with this is, TC.

Things can always go wrong. Why risk it?

Because it's a human being and it needs help.

#37 Posted by MrGeezer (56127 posts) -

Newflash: If an infectious disease spreads across the world we have a pandemic. Yes, one mistake could have grave consequences which is something no one is thinking about. The disease could be incubating in a body and no one would know they had it until it was too late when the possibility exists it could have been spread to others.

See, this whole train of thought is weird to me. If you're worried about an ebola pandemic spreading across the globe, then I think the far bigger issue is the ebola outbreak in west Africa.

Think about it for a minute. One one hand, we've got two ebola patients in the USA isolated under strict quarantine measures. On the other hand, there's a freaking ebola outbreak in Africa. If this spreads across the globe, my money is on it NOT being started by the two doctors being treated in the USA. There is no ebola outbreak in the USA, the patients are being under tightly controlled conditions. Meanwhile, in Africa, there IS an ebola outbreak and no one knows exactly how many people are infected and who those people are. Again, stop and think for a minute. Out of those two scenarios, which is more likely to result in a worldwide ebola pandemic?

#38 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

@purplelabel said:

@airshocker said:

They're coming back to a specially designed lab at Emory University. So I'm not sure what your problem with this is, TC.

Things can always go wrong. Why risk it?

Because it's a human being and it needs help.

What is the chance of them surviving ebola here in the US, with our treatments?

#39 Posted by Solaryellow (463 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@Solaryellow said:

Newflash: If an infectious disease spreads across the world we have a pandemic. Yes, one mistake could have grave consequences which is something no one is thinking about. The disease could be incubating in a body and no one would know they had it until it was too late when the possibility exists it could have been spread to others.

See, this whole train of thought is weird to me. If you're worried about an ebola pandemic spreading across the globe, then I think the far bigger issue is the ebola outbreak in west Africa.

Think about it for a minute. One one hand, we've got two ebola patients in the USA isolated under strict quarantine measures. On the other hand, there's a freaking ebola outbreak in Africa. If this spreads across the globe, my money is on it NOT being started by the two doctors being treated in the USA. There is no ebola outbreak in the USA, the patients are being under tightly controlled conditions. Meanwhile, in Africa, there IS an ebola outbreak and no one knows exactly how many people are infected and who those people are. Again, stop and think for a minute. Out of those two scenarios, which is more likely to result in a worldwide ebola pandemic?

Have you been following the news lately? Experts (doctors) are saying this will spread across the world. The ebola outbreak in Africa is the largest they've seen which is why many airports are screening travelers in Africa in the hopes of stopping it from spreading outside of the continent. Remember, it incubates in the body and takes time to expose itself so people could have it and not even know it as of yet. Humans do make errors and to think there is a guarantee the two people in the U.S.A. with ebola won't possibly infect others (due to error, as I said) is asinine.

#40 Posted by MrGeezer (56127 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@Solaryellow said:

Newflash: If an infectious disease spreads across the world we have a pandemic. Yes, one mistake could have grave consequences which is something no one is thinking about. The disease could be incubating in a body and no one would know they had it until it was too late when the possibility exists it could have been spread to others.

See, this whole train of thought is weird to me. If you're worried about an ebola pandemic spreading across the globe, then I think the far bigger issue is the ebola outbreak in west Africa.

Think about it for a minute. One one hand, we've got two ebola patients in the USA isolated under strict quarantine measures. On the other hand, there's a freaking ebola outbreak in Africa. If this spreads across the globe, my money is on it NOT being started by the two doctors being treated in the USA. There is no ebola outbreak in the USA, the patients are being under tightly controlled conditions. Meanwhile, in Africa, there IS an ebola outbreak and no one knows exactly how many people are infected and who those people are. Again, stop and think for a minute. Out of those two scenarios, which is more likely to result in a worldwide ebola pandemic?

Have you been following the news lately? Experts (doctors) are saying this will spread across the world. The ebola outbreak in Africa is the largest they've seen which is why many airports are screening travelers in Africa in the hopes of stopping it from spreading outside of the continent. Remember, it incubates in the body and takes time to expose itself so people could have it and not even know it as of yet. Humans do make errors and to think there is a guarantee the two people in the U.S.A. with ebola won't possibly infect others (due to error, as I said) is asinine.

Again, OUTBREAK in Africa, two patients in QUARANTINE in the USA. Stop and think about that for a minute.

#41 Posted by airshocker (29041 posts) -

What is the chance of them surviving ebola here in the US, with our treatments?

Very high, apparently. What you also have to realize is Ebola isn't as scary as the media makes it out to be. It kills too quickly.

#42 Edited by LostProphetFLCL (17148 posts) -

Eck.

I work as a CNA and deal with people who have contagious infections every now and then. Never enjoy having to deal with that and I certainly wouldn't enjoy being someone who had to work around Ebola....

#43 Posted by Solaryellow (463 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@Solaryellow said:

Have you been following the news lately? Experts (doctors) are saying this will spread across the world. The ebola outbreak in Africa is the largest they've seen which is why many airports are screening travelers in Africa in the hopes of stopping it from spreading outside of the continent. Remember, it incubates in the body and takes time to expose itself so people could have it and not even know it as of yet. Humans do make errors and to think there is a guarantee the two people in the U.S.A. with ebola won't possibly infect others (due to error, as I said) is asinine.

Again, OUTBREAK in Africa, two patients in QUARANTINE in the USA. Stop and think about that for a minute.

Should that be a calming reassurance for people or something?

#44 Posted by seahorse123 (1228 posts) -

A stunt by Obama to scare the US public. Globalists at work again trying to give Obama more excuses to arrest people at airports.

#45 Posted by jer_1 (7451 posts) -

I found this a bit concerning.

Genius idea having a cameraman right near and unloading this guy right by where people are moving. This can't be good...

#46 Edited by seahorse123 (1228 posts) -

Ebola was created in bio weapons research labs anyway, they might want to look if it has mutated and if they can try and make in into being airborne if they don't already have the airborne strain already.

#47 Posted by MrGeezer (56127 posts) -

Should that be a calming reassurance for people or something?

Not really. I'm just saying that if you're gonna start panicking, at least make sure you panic about the right thing.

#48 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (7742 posts) -