4 ms·

Of course it will -- there is no terrorism any more, after all. Real answer: this is nothing more than security theater. The effective way to fight disease wou

by Vivtek 12y ago

Of course it will -- there is no terrorism any more, after all. Real answer: this is nothing more than security theater. The effective way to fight disease would be health care, and that's the one measure the United States will never take to fight any disease.

worklogin 12y ago
>The effective way to fight disease would be health care, and that's the one measure the United States will never take to fight any disease. What are you trying to say? That the US doesn't do health research? That the US doesn't have the best medical care in the world? That we haven't yet invented the magical cure to Ebola and shipped it to West Africa? Or are you trying to politicize a virus discussion into something about insurance?
- alexhawdon 12y ago
  I'm loathe to get involved as I know this is a very emotive subject to you friends over the pond, but from my various (largely anecdotal) readings on the subject I fear the view may be correct. I don't think it's unfair to say that there's a percentage of the population that is scared of incurring healthcare costs and that these people will not seek medical attention as pro-actively. With something like Ebola this is very bad news for their family, friends and community.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  In what way does the US have the best medical care in the world? http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthca...
  - warfangle 12y ago
    *if the patient can afford it / isn't bankrupted by the cost
  - refurb 12y ago
    In this way, among others.... http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596 http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596
    - warfangle 12y ago
      I wonder if the study includes those who died of cancer but were never diagnosed?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
    > We have an experimental treatment, and there are questions as to why it was used on two doctors flown back from Africa, but not on the patient in Dallas. What are you implying? The Dallas patient was given an experimental treatment, brincidofovir. This is the same drug that is reportedly being given to the NBC cameraman who was infected. There are other experimental treatments, including ZMapp and TKM-Ebola, that have been used. One report[1] suggested that TKM-Ebola was not given to the Dallas patient because of concerns that it could have made his condition worse, and ZMapp wasn't an option because there are no more supplies of it[2]. Furthermore, according to this article[3], "All non-human primate work done with any of the experimental treatments from any company have never extended beyond treatment four days post-infection." The Dallas patient was apparently 19 days into his infection when he presented. There is no evidence at this point that the experimental treatment you were referring to (ZMapp) "cured" the doctor and nurse flown back from Africa. To that point, the Spanish priest who was given ZMapp died. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/thomas-eric-duncan-ebola-patient-dallas-hospital/16798391/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/thomas-... [2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/1007/Why-didn-t-Texas-Ebola-patient-receive-experimental-drug-sooner-video http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/1007/Why-didn-t-Texas-Ebol... [3] http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2014/10/08/dallas-ebola-victim-passes-away-no-data-just-sadness/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2014/10/08/dallas-ebo...
- emodendroket 12y ago
  But access would seem to be an important dimension to any effort to stop the spread of a pandemic, since pathogens do not discriminate by insured status.
cheald 12y ago
I'm curious why you'd undermine your point with a statement that is demonstrably false. Hyperbole doesn't do you any favors in trying to make a convincing argument. As measured by the CDC, mortality rates in the US have been on a steady downwards march more or less across the board for as long as we've been measuring them. Making those kinds of statements just makes you seem like an angry, irrational person with an axe to grind.
dnautics 12y ago
you do realize that this is exactly what the OP asserts?
TallGuyShort 12y ago
There is little to no health care that can make a difference to a person already infected with Ebola, AFAIK, IANAD. Quarantine is the best thing you can do to prevent it getting further.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Supportive care makes a difference. It isn't a cure, but preventing dehydration at least means the infected person doesn't die of dehydration.
  - crpatino 12y ago
    Exactly! 70% mortality if disease is let to follow its course, 30-40% if supportive care is provided. I don't know guys. But anything that doubles my survival rate sounds like a big difference to me.
    - TallGuyShort 12y ago
      Back to the original point, though, a 30-40% fatality rate is still not at the point that I would consider health care alone an effective response.
      - crpatino 12y ago
        Why not? Because is not perfect? Such is life. And still, I am sure those people that have received proper care and survived are grateful enough. Or are you arguing that additional measures are needed both at the individual and at the social/political level to prevent the worst outcomes. There I agree 100%.
        TallGuyShort 12y ago
        Yes that's exactly what I'm arguing. The commenter to whom I replied initially was arguing against the need for other measures stating that "THE" solution was healthcare.

by Vivtek 12y ago

worklogin 12y ago

>The effective way to fight disease would be health care, and that's the one measure the United States will never take to fight any disease. What are you trying to say? That the US doesn't do health research? That the US doesn't have the best medical care in the world? That we haven't yet invented the magical cure to Ebola and shipped it to West Africa? Or are you trying to politicize a virus discussion into something about insurance?

alexhawdon 12y ago
I'm loathe to get involved as I know this is a very emotive subject to you friends over the pond, but from my various (largely anecdotal) readings on the subject I fear the view may be correct. I don't think it's unfair to say that there's a percentage of the population that is scared of incurring healthcare costs and that these people will not seek medical attention as pro-actively. With something like Ebola this is very bad news for their family, friends and community.
bitJericho 12y ago
In what way does the US have the best medical care in the world? http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthca...
- warfangle 12y ago
  *if the patient can afford it / isn't bankrupted by the cost
- refurb 12y ago
  In this way, among others.... http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596 http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596
  - warfangle 12y ago
    I wonder if the study includes those who died of cancer but were never diagnosed?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
  > We have an experimental treatment, and there are questions as to why it was used on two doctors flown back from Africa, but not on the patient in Dallas. What are you implying? The Dallas patient was given an experimental treatment, brincidofovir. This is the same drug that is reportedly being given to the NBC cameraman who was infected. There are other experimental treatments, including ZMapp and TKM-Ebola, that have been used. One report[1] suggested that TKM-Ebola was not given to the Dallas patient because of concerns that it could have made his condition worse, and ZMapp wasn't an option because there are no more supplies of it[2]. Furthermore, according to this article[3], "All non-human primate work done with any of the experimental treatments from any company have never extended beyond treatment four days post-infection." The Dallas patient was apparently 19 days into his infection when he presented. There is no evidence at this point that the experimental treatment you were referring to (ZMapp) "cured" the doctor and nurse flown back from Africa. To that point, the Spanish priest who was given ZMapp died. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/thomas-eric-duncan-ebola-patient-dallas-hospital/16798391/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/thomas-... [2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/1007/Why-didn-t-Texas-Ebola-patient-receive-experimental-drug-sooner-video http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/1007/Why-didn-t-Texas-Ebol... [3] http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2014/10/08/dallas-ebola-victim-passes-away-no-data-just-sadness/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2014/10/08/dallas-ebo...
emodendroket 12y ago
But access would seem to be an important dimension to any effort to stop the spread of a pandemic, since pathogens do not discriminate by insured status.

cheald 12y ago

I'm curious why you'd undermine your point with a statement that is demonstrably false. Hyperbole doesn't do you any favors in trying to make a convincing argument. As measured by the CDC, mortality rates in the US have been on a steady downwards march more or less across the board for as long as we've been measuring them. Making those kinds of statements just makes you seem like an angry, irrational person with an axe to grind.

dnautics 12y ago

you do realize that this is exactly what the OP asserts?

TallGuyShort 12y ago

There is little to no health care that can make a difference to a person already infected with Ebola, AFAIK, IANAD. Quarantine is the best thing you can do to prevent it getting further.

maxerickson 12y ago
Supportive care makes a difference. It isn't a cure, but preventing dehydration at least means the infected person doesn't die of dehydration.
- crpatino 12y ago
  Exactly! 70% mortality if disease is let to follow its course, 30-40% if supportive care is provided. I don't know guys. But anything that doubles my survival rate sounds like a big difference to me.
  - TallGuyShort 12y ago
    Back to the original point, though, a 30-40% fatality rate is still not at the point that I would consider health care alone an effective response.
    - crpatino 12y ago
      Why not? Because is not perfect? Such is life. And still, I am sure those people that have received proper care and survived are grateful enough. Or are you arguing that additional measures are needed both at the individual and at the social/political level to prevent the worst outcomes. There I agree 100%.
      - TallGuyShort 12y ago
        Yes that's exactly what I'm arguing. The commenter to whom I replied initially was arguing against the need for other measures stating that "THE" solution was healthcare.