4 ms·

We were 1 homeless person away from Ebola in the US, the ambulance in Dallas picked up a homeless guy along with the guy who had Ebola. The homeless guy wandere

We were 1 homeless person away from Ebola in the US, the ambulance in Dallas picked up a homeless guy along with the guy who had Ebola. The homeless guy wandered away from the hospital. While Ebola isn't always transmitted by close contact, if it had been I bet there would have been thousands of people within a few days with it. How many doctors or hospitals even recognize Ebola when a random person walks in the door?

ams6110 8y ago
At that time, with Ebola raging in Africa, I think that there was a lot of awareness around containing it and hospitals in the USA were definitely on the lookout for it.
- Fomite 8y ago
  I was on several CDC conference calls and yes, there was a lot of awareness about it in local hospitals.
matt4077 8y ago
Ebola transmission is almost always from patient to a close caregiver. While the latter often are family members in Western Africa, someone bleeding from all orifices will get to an ER much faster in the US. Some transmissions from the index case would certainly be possible, although even standard hospital practice goes a long way towards inhibiting it. I doubt a diagnosis would take more than a day, especially if the patient recently traveled or the hospital is near a major hub. Medical professionals are as obsessed with such diseases as we are. Once the threat is known, I have no doubt that any decent medical system would contain it within a few days at the most. Ebola isn't the Sci-Fi threat you might think, requiring Biohazard suits etc. Basic precautions work well, finding possible contacts will be much easier, and the tendency of Americans not to attend mass events helps tremendously: Cars instead of public transport, Netflix instead of crowded bars, small families in suburban houses instead of large families in shared apartments, Wall-Mart instead of markets, etc
- ff317 8y ago
  All somewhat true, but there are a few key areas where America does attend mass events that can help spread diseases quickly. The top three examples in my mind are the trifecta of public schools, large office complexes, and churches (esp mega-churches). These all feed and overlap each other. Something can spread through the public school system's children quickly into parents, who take it into large shared office building environments (think typical complex of skyscrapers full of tenant companies sharing hallways, elevators, sidewalks, lunch spots, etc), and once a week completely different insersectional sets of these adults and children then gather up in a large church and disperse into the trifecta. Hospitals themselves are another factor. Those with family ties end up randomly visiting hospitals a few times a year on average for their eldery relatives' or childrens' sakes, where they pick up a ton of chances at diseases.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    Hospitals are cesspools for infections of all kinds. They are best avoided unless your life is in imminent danger.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    During a serious outbreak of something more transmissible than endemic disease like the flu (and all the various viruses that give us colds), people would freak out and attendance to all those things would plummet.
- Fomite 8y ago
  "...someone bleeding from all orifices will get to an ER much faster in the US. Some transmissions from the index case would certainly be possible, although even standard hospital practice goes a long way towards inhibiting it." We now know this is not the default presentation of Ebola. In most patients, it's a serious febrile disease, not "Leaking blood from everywhere". The diagnostic process is much harder than you're giving credit for. "I doubt a diagnosis would take more than a day, especially if the patient recently traveled or the hospital is near a major hub. Medical professionals are as obsessed with such diseases as we are." The number of times travel histories are skipped or missed is staggering. That being said, I worked in a group that was modeling both Ebola in West Africa and Ebola in the U.S., and the conclusion, even with some pretty serious scenarios, was that Ebola in U.S. would be pretty swiftly contained.

ams6110 8y ago

At that time, with Ebola raging in Africa, I think that there was a lot of awareness around containing it and hospitals in the USA were definitely on the lookout for it.

Fomite 8y ago
I was on several CDC conference calls and yes, there was a lot of awareness about it in local hospitals.

matt4077 8y ago

Ebola transmission is almost always from patient to a close caregiver. While the latter often are family members in Western Africa, someone bleeding from all orifices will get to an ER much faster in the US. Some transmissions from the index case would certainly be possible, although even standard hospital practice goes a long way towards inhibiting it. I doubt a diagnosis would take more than a day, especially if the patient recently traveled or the hospital is near a major hub. Medical professionals are as obsessed with such diseases as we are. Once the threat is known, I have no doubt that any decent medical system would contain it within a few days at the most. Ebola isn't the Sci-Fi threat you might think, requiring Biohazard suits etc. Basic precautions work well, finding possible contacts will be much easier, and the tendency of Americans not to attend mass events helps tremendously: Cars instead of public transport, Netflix instead of crowded bars, small families in suburban houses instead of large families in shared apartments, Wall-Mart instead of markets, etc

ff317 8y ago
All somewhat true, but there are a few key areas where America does attend mass events that can help spread diseases quickly. The top three examples in my mind are the trifecta of public schools, large office complexes, and churches (esp mega-churches). These all feed and overlap each other. Something can spread through the public school system's children quickly into parents, who take it into large shared office building environments (think typical complex of skyscrapers full of tenant companies sharing hallways, elevators, sidewalks, lunch spots, etc), and once a week completely different insersectional sets of these adults and children then gather up in a large church and disperse into the trifecta. Hospitals themselves are another factor. Those with family ties end up randomly visiting hospitals a few times a year on average for their eldery relatives' or childrens' sakes, where they pick up a ton of chances at diseases.
- ams6110 8y ago
  Hospitals are cesspools for infections of all kinds. They are best avoided unless your life is in imminent danger.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  During a serious outbreak of something more transmissible than endemic disease like the flu (and all the various viruses that give us colds), people would freak out and attendance to all those things would plummet.
Fomite 8y ago
"...someone bleeding from all orifices will get to an ER much faster in the US. Some transmissions from the index case would certainly be possible, although even standard hospital practice goes a long way towards inhibiting it." We now know this is not the default presentation of Ebola. In most patients, it's a serious febrile disease, not "Leaking blood from everywhere". The diagnostic process is much harder than you're giving credit for. "I doubt a diagnosis would take more than a day, especially if the patient recently traveled or the hospital is near a major hub. Medical professionals are as obsessed with such diseases as we are." The number of times travel histories are skipped or missed is staggering. That being said, I worked in a group that was modeling both Ebola in West Africa and Ebola in the U.S., and the conclusion, even with some pretty serious scenarios, was that Ebola in U.S. would be pretty swiftly contained.