Kaci Hickox and the science surrounding Ebola

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, if this is such a scary, threatening, and such a highly communicable disease, why have the few cases of Ebola in America not turned into scores of cases?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The science to prove that she is not infected: ...

Yes: persistently. That you would even use the term 'science' is laughable given your willingness to toss out scientific consensus, and statements like …

The science to prove that she is not infected:
A. 21 day quaratine based the incubation period. A person to not show symptons after this period is assumed to be virus free.

… are simply ignorant.

But, most importantly, at issue is not whether she is infected but whether she is infectious and the scientific consensus is that she is not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes: persistently. That you would even use the term 'science' is laughable given your willingness to toss out scientific consensus, and statements like …

​

… are simply ignorant.

But, most importantly, at issue is not whether she is infected but whether she is infectious and the scientific consensus is that she is not.

From a public policy standpoint, I can understand gov aparatchiks wanting to be conservative about restricting potentially infectious people. Let's say she's infected but not infectious. If this is true, then she could become infectious, at which point it might be better if she'd been quarantined. Government is a blunt instrument, & either slow or incompetent in responding to threats. It wouldn't be quick & smart enuf to deal with a person who went overnite from being an unconstrained potential threat to an actual threat. A system must be designed to cope with its own shortcomings & the failings of people running it.

Note: Just trying to consider possible merit in the other side with this post.
Please do not infer that I'm becoming friendly to oppressive bone headed government.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Let's say she's infected but not infectious. If this is true, then she could become infectious, at which point it might be better if she'd been quarantined.

I could not agree more. And, if an when the science suggests that she might be becoming infectious, she should be quarantined. At this point, if I understand the consensus, she is (a) no more a threat to her neighbor than you or I, and (b) taking all appropriate self-monitoring steps to insure that any change in this status will be detected in plenty of time to take all appropriate action.

 

[suncowiam]

I am correcting you. Ebola is not an easy virus to transmit or catch (and it can't be passed on unless you show symptoms), and not once, but TWICE Hickox tested NEGATIVE for ebola. In all reality, she has a zero chance of coming down with any symptoms and passing the virus along.

Does testing twice and failing indicate a ZERO percent chance of having the virus? The reason to test more than once is to better the odds but if the test wasn't 100% versus 0% the first time then what odds are we really asserting?

Again, if this is such a scary, threatening, and such a highly communicable disease, why have the few cases of Ebola in America not turned into scores of cases?

America has been conservative in its approach to Ebola, hence, this debate. Can you explain how some nurses and doctors contracted the virus when they supposedly wore hazmat suits and followed protocol? This suggests of following:
* Error on the caretaker
* Error on the protocol
* Error in our understanding of the transmission

Yes: persistently. That you would even use the term 'science' is laughable given your willingness to toss out scientific consensus, and statements like …

​

… are simply ignorant.

But, most importantly, at issue is not whether she is infected but whether she is infectious and the scientific consensus is that she is not.

At this point, if I understand the consensus, she is (a) no more a threat to her neighbor than you or I, and (b) taking all appropriate self-monitoring steps to insure that any change in this status will be detected in plenty of time to take all appropriate action.

My point to you all along was that there is no scientific consensus on the matter. That is why you have health officials arguing with health officials. It's a bit convenient to term scientific consensus in your favor at this stage. Ebola research is in its infantile state.

Good point concerning being infected and being infectious which I believe you pointed out before and I have not addressed. So, help me define when a person is infectious? Is this ONLY when a person is symptomatic? Is there such a chance that a person is infectious before they become symptomatic? Are there tests to show when a person is infectious when not being symptomatic?

If a person can be infectious and appear normal, then you're still playing with probability. A probability that I personally will not bet my life on.

From a public policy standpoint, I can understand gov aparatchiks wanting to be conservative about restricting potentially infectious people. Let's say she's infected but not infectious. If this is true, then she could become infectious, at which point it might be better if she'd been quarantined. Government is a blunt instrument, & either slow or incompetent in responding to threats. It wouldn't be quick & smart enuf to deal with a person who went overnite from being an unconstrained potential threat to an actual threat. A system must be designed to cope with its own shortcomings & the failings of people running it.

Note: Just trying to consider possible merit in the other side with this post.
Please do not infer that I'm becoming friendly to oppressive bone headed government.

Although I appreciate the merit of looking at the other side, I actually care less on the legality and government issue.

I believe the true test of our convictions in this matter is if one is willing to interact with people who just came back from infected areas. Are we willing to put our lives on the line based on our understanding of the science. I've been very clear on my stand and, no, I will not interact with said individuals. But, its not that I won't budge from this position because I have not concluded the position and acting on the side of caution. I will wait until the science proves itself to be black and white, and that there is true consensus with the experts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Does testing twice and failing indicate a ZERO percent chance of having the virus?

No. Nor is there a ZERO (sic!) percent chance of you being contagious with the flu and, thereby, posing a potentially deadly threat to your neighbors. Therefore: go home and stay home ...

 

[suncowiam]

No. Nor is there a ZERO (sic!) percent chance of you being contagious with the flu and, thereby, posing a potentially deadly threat to your neighbors. Therefore: go home and stay home ...

Now, we're back at comparing the Ebola virus to the flu which I've already addressed. Do you disagree with my previous summary?

I'm at fault for responding with a short comment.

I think Kilgore is dead on when he is asking for the mortality rate of both viruses. Of course, there are sub groups of human beings that would be affected different and would have more risk against the flu.

Flu Epidemics:
Influenza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Known flu pandemics[56][172][180]
Name of pandemic Date Deaths Case fatality rate Subtype involved Pandemic Severity Index
1889–1890 flu pandemic
(Asiatic or Russian Flu)[181] 1889–1890 1 million 0.15% possibly H3N8
or H2N2 N/A
1918 flu pandemic
(Spanish flu)[182] 1918–1920 20 to 100 million 2% H1N1 5
Asian Flu 1957–1958 1 to 1.5 million 0.13% H2N2 2
Hong Kong Flu 1968–1969 0.75 to 1 million <0.1% H3N2 2
Russian flu 1977–1978 no accurate count N/A H1N1 N/A
2009 flu pandemic[183] 2009–2010 105,700-395,600[184] 0.03% H1N1 N/A

Ebola Death Rate 70 Percent, WHO Says in Dire New Forecast - NBC News
It basically states the Ebola mortality rate at 50-70%.

Now, if you take this at face value and assume the numbers are true. You're comparing an average say less than 1% to around say 63% concerning flu and ebola respectively.

Do you recall the number times of you or your family had the flu? I don't because I've simply had it too many times to count.

These numbers imply that you most likely will die if you contracted the Ebola virus and if you were to spread it to your family, then more than half of your family will die.

The problem with Ebola is that we essentially are not prepared to deal with it if a true epidemic broke out in US or even where you're from. It took around 70 something nurses around the clock to take care of our first ebola patient. They wore hazmat suits and supposedly thoroughly disenfected themselves after each care session. The patient was in a specific isolation area tailored for such events. Our success rate compared to Africa is due to the infections not being an outbreak and causing further epidemics. However, if an epidemic occured where the disease is not controled and spreading without knowledge, our hospitals will not have the proper resources to treat patients in the hundreds/thousands. You will have further ethical issues of who to treat first and who will help with the treatment.

The irony here is that a population of people within a travel radius whether infected or not would be forced in quaratine by the US military if an epidemic were to occur as opposed to this single individual. You might say I'm stretching the facts and I would say to you, think worst case scenario.

 

[Valjean]

Now, we're back at comparing the Ebola virus to the flu which I've already addressed. Do you disagree with my previous summary?

Ebola is exquisitely infectious, very virulent, but not that contagious.
Flu is very contagious, though much less virulent.
Factoring in all the relevant epidemiologic data, flu seems the greater threat for widespread mortality in the US.