6 ms·

"Unlike most previous outbreaks, which occurred in remote, localized spots, this one began in a border region where roads have been improved and people travel a

"Unlike most previous outbreaks, which occurred in remote, localized spots, this one began in a border region where roads have been improved and people travel a lot. In this case, the disease was on the move before health officials even knew it had struck." What if someone in a major US city got infected? How bad could it get? Could they even contain it at that point?

SoftwareMaven 12y ago
The US has far better medical facilities, better supplies, better communication tools, better handling procedures for corpses and a society that doesn't stigmatize infectious diseases. Taken together, an outbreak here would look very different than an outbreak in Africa, even if a sick patient was dropped into Times Square.
- Raticide 12y ago
  But what if poor people in America get Ebola? They can't afford health care, so may end up hiding their illness to avoid the insane amounts of debt they would get themselves into.
  - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
    Nobody in the US can be denied emergency medical care, regardless of ability to pay. Poor people already know this, which is why inner-city emergency rooms are overwhelmed with things like "my baby has a cough", making a $50 office visit a $400 bill that will get written off.
    - erichocean 12y ago
      > Poor people already know this, which is why inner-city emergency rooms are overwhelmed with things like "my baby has a cough" The idea that poor children are just left to fend for themselves on basic healthcare like treating a cough in the US is blatantly false. Poor people who know about the emergency rooms also know that normal healthcare is available for poor children for free from the government, which they get and then take their kids to the doctor like everyone else when they have a cough. Seriously, the hysteria around people not having healthcare in the US is just incredible relative to the actual facts on the ground. Even if you believe Obama's "40 million without healthcare" claim (I don't), that's just 12% of the country, and the two most vulnerable populations—children and the elderly–were fully covered by the state already without the Obamacare regs. There are real problems with the US healthcare system; we don't need to start spouting nonsense like poor children can only get a cough treated at the emergency room for free.
      - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
        My wife works as a pediatric nurse; the doctor she worked for until recently treated predominately Hispanic, Medicaid-insured children. She sees first hand what gets covered and what doesn't. For illegal immigrants and their children, the options are very limited (though many do choose to self-pay at doctors' offices). My point wasn't what isn't available. My point was that, regardless of ability to pay or any other factor, everybody in America has access to the American health care system for acute treatment (something Ebola would certainly be classified as). Whether you can make it to a doctor's office or are stuck at the ER for your kid's cold depends on a lot of other factors, but, even then, your kid will get seen for that cold. I don't know where you got "hysteria" from...
maxerickson 12y ago
It's likely easier to control in the U.S. where there are a lot of resources and people are less likely to engage in a lot of physical contact with the infected, and where trust of doctors is a lot higher. There is also a much more extensive public health system that is alert to the risk of an infected person entering the country.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- timr 12y ago
  People keep repeating this as if it were a definitive rebuttal of all fears, but this story gives a few great examples of why the confidence might be misplaced: when your primary diagnostic criterion is a fever (common; easily suppressed with OTC medication) and affirmative answer to the question "have you been to West Africa?", it doesn't really matter how good your public health system is -- it's a going to be a leaky early warning system. If someone makes it through the airport screens and carries the virus into a city, the epidemiology could become overwhelming before we know an outbreak has begun. So yes, we have the advantage that we have real hospitals and good infection control, but we have the disadvantage that we have huge cities, high population density and lots of personal mobility.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I dislike that you have characterized "It's likely easier" as "a definitive rebuttal of all fears".
    - timr 12y ago
      I wasn't referring just to your comment; I've been hearing this as the default response to just about every rational concern since Trump started tweeting and it became a de facto left/right issue. Obviously he's a moron, but the response from the other side of the debate has been almost as one-dimensional.
  - knodi123 12y ago
jseliger 12y ago
How bad could it get Not very, barring unexpected mutation: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/30/5948995/why-ebola-would-never-get-this-bad-in-america/in/5712456 http://www.vox.com/2014/7/30/5948995/why-ebola-would-never-g...

SoftwareMaven 12y ago

The US has far better medical facilities, better supplies, better communication tools, better handling procedures for corpses and a society that doesn't stigmatize infectious diseases. Taken together, an outbreak here would look very different than an outbreak in Africa, even if a sick patient was dropped into Times Square.

Raticide 12y ago
But what if poor people in America get Ebola? They can't afford health care, so may end up hiding their illness to avoid the insane amounts of debt they would get themselves into.
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  Nobody in the US can be denied emergency medical care, regardless of ability to pay. Poor people already know this, which is why inner-city emergency rooms are overwhelmed with things like "my baby has a cough", making a $50 office visit a $400 bill that will get written off.
  - erichocean 12y ago
    > Poor people already know this, which is why inner-city emergency rooms are overwhelmed with things like "my baby has a cough" The idea that poor children are just left to fend for themselves on basic healthcare like treating a cough in the US is blatantly false. Poor people who know about the emergency rooms also know that normal healthcare is available for poor children for free from the government, which they get and then take their kids to the doctor like everyone else when they have a cough. Seriously, the hysteria around people not having healthcare in the US is just incredible relative to the actual facts on the ground. Even if you believe Obama's "40 million without healthcare" claim (I don't), that's just 12% of the country, and the two most vulnerable populations—children and the elderly–were fully covered by the state already without the Obamacare regs. There are real problems with the US healthcare system; we don't need to start spouting nonsense like poor children can only get a cough treated at the emergency room for free.
    - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
      My wife works as a pediatric nurse; the doctor she worked for until recently treated predominately Hispanic, Medicaid-insured children. She sees first hand what gets covered and what doesn't. For illegal immigrants and their children, the options are very limited (though many do choose to self-pay at doctors' offices). My point wasn't what isn't available. My point was that, regardless of ability to pay or any other factor, everybody in America has access to the American health care system for acute treatment (something Ebola would certainly be classified as). Whether you can make it to a doctor's office or are stuck at the ER for your kid's cold depends on a lot of other factors, but, even then, your kid will get seen for that cold. I don't know where you got "hysteria" from...

maxerickson 12y ago

It's likely easier to control in the U.S. where there are a lot of resources and people are less likely to engage in a lot of physical contact with the infected, and where trust of doctors is a lot higher. There is also a much more extensive public health system that is alert to the risk of an infected person entering the country.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
timr 12y ago
People keep repeating this as if it were a definitive rebuttal of all fears, but this story gives a few great examples of why the confidence might be misplaced: when your primary diagnostic criterion is a fever (common; easily suppressed with OTC medication) and affirmative answer to the question "have you been to West Africa?", it doesn't really matter how good your public health system is -- it's a going to be a leaky early warning system. If someone makes it through the airport screens and carries the virus into a city, the epidemiology could become overwhelming before we know an outbreak has begun. So yes, we have the advantage that we have real hospitals and good infection control, but we have the disadvantage that we have huge cities, high population density and lots of personal mobility.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I dislike that you have characterized "It's likely easier" as "a definitive rebuttal of all fears".
  - timr 12y ago
    I wasn't referring just to your comment; I've been hearing this as the default response to just about every rational concern since Trump started tweeting and it became a de facto left/right issue. Obviously he's a moron, but the response from the other side of the debate has been almost as one-dimensional.
- knodi123 12y ago

jseliger 12y ago

How bad could it get Not very, barring unexpected mutation: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/30/5948995/why-ebola-would-never-get-this-bad-in-america/in/5712456 http://www.vox.com/2014/7/30/5948995/why-ebola-would-never-g...