6 ms·

Your characterization of the response as inept overlooks what actually was done. The very existence of the CDC is step 1, and the "outbreak" in the US has so f

by pcrh 12y ago

Your characterization of the response as inept overlooks what actually was done. The very existence of the CDC is step 1, and the "outbreak" in the US has so far been limited to 1 single person as far as I can tell. Prevention of spread from that single person looks likely to be 100% effective, due principally to the preparedness of all those involved, from the CDC to the hospital to the airline. Keep calm and carry on. Don't panic everyone into instituting a whole raft of expensive and ineffective TSA-like measures. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/an-epidemic-of-fear-and-anxiety-hits-americans-amid-ebola-outbreak/2014/10/15/0760fb96-54a8-11e4-ba4b-f6333e2c0453_story.html?hpid=z1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/an-epidemic-o...

k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> "The very existence of the CDC is step 1, and the "outbreak" in the US has so far been limited to 1 single person as far as I can tell. Prevention of spread from that single person looks likely to be 100% effective, due principally to the preparedness of all those involved, from the CDC to the hospital to the airline." Maybe I'm wrong but I read that two nurses that worked on that patient have now contracted the virus.
- pcrh 12y ago
  After searching the news a bit, there appear to be four cases of Ebola in the US. Thomas Eric Duncan arrived from Liberia with Ebola, and before dying passed it to two nurses, Vinson and Pham, who are recovering. A third patient is a doctor who contracted it in Liberia and is also recovering [1,2,3]. So, one death and three recovering patients. I'm unable to edit my previous comment. [1]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/15/dallas-nurses-accuse-hospital-sloppy-safety-ebola http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/15/dallas-nurses-a... ]2]http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/dallas-nurse-ebola-transferred-emory-26217549 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/dallas-nurse-ebola-tr... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29632433 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29632433
  - hga 12y ago
    2 more: a 2nd doctor I think, also treated at Emory, where the 2nd Dallas nurse is headed per an early report I read yesterday, and the NBC cameraman who's at the Omaha hospital. (There are 4 US hospitals truly set up for this, with a total of 23 beds.)
    - hga 12y ago
      CORRECTION: It turns out the nation has only 11 "Ebola beds": the Omaha and NIH wards can only treat 1-2 and 2 patients with something this bad out of the 10 and 7 total beds they have. Which leaves 7 free at the moment.
    - hga 12y ago
      CORRECTION #2: It turns out the nation has only 11 "Ebola beds": the Omaha and NIH wards can only treat 1-2 and 2 patients with something this bad out of the 10 and 7 total beds they have. Which leaves 7 free at the moment.
- mercer 12y ago
  This might be an interesting source to follow: http://healthmap.org/ebola/#timeline http://healthmap.org/ebola/#timeline I rather like the interface.
robomartin 12y ago
You are missing my point. With a small outbreak (not sure you can even call it that) we are seeing just how disorganized the response has been. A nurse that was caring for the index patient was allowed to get on an airplane? Really? And how about that NBC reporter on quarantine who decided to go for take-out? Really? We are lucky we only had one imported case of Ebola. Had we had twenty these people would be running around like chickens with their heads cut off. That much is obvious today. The truth is they've been sitting around not dong anything of substance to prepare against a bio/chem attack. And I phrase it like that on purpose. If there ever was a wake-up call to get ready for events with potentially massive impact that call was 9/11. The threat of a bio/chem attack could not be dismissed. And agencies should have prepared for swift and effective response. They, obviously, are not ready. They wasted thirteen years of our time and money. The consequences could be dire. Do you think terrorists are not watching our news?
- zimpenfish 12y ago
  Terrorists have been watching your news for 13 years. How many attacks have you had since then? Spending time, money, and effort on combating ghosts is a ridiculous waste - just look at the TSA for a perfect example of this.
  - hga 12y ago
    I don't see this revelation of the gross incompetence of the CDC et. al. being anything but recent. And if you admit to the possibility of biological warfare attacks, the same analysis we were doing a few weeks ago about the collapse of the facade of extreme competence of the Secret Service applies. We can be sure our adversaries are taking note of this and factoring it into their plans. Your claim these are "ghosts" by an absence of action during the period our defenders maintained their perception of competence is less than reassuring going forward.
  - robomartin 12y ago
    And now they know we can't handle an attack of any given scale. I think it is safe to assume that we all thought we were more than ready to deal with ONE patient. Not the case. The President just said we are learning and making changes. Really? Now? You are missing a very important point. It is my fault for not making it explicit. I've been using bio/tech attacks as a general term and yes, there's an immediate association with terrorism. The problem is far deeper than that. What do you think is going to kill us all? Here "us" isn't an egocentric "USA" but rather a "humanity" us. What will kill us all? Nuclear bombs? War? A meteor? Nope. Evolution. Not ours. Bacteria and viruses. We have built a world that makes it easy for these organisms to quickly move across the globe. We already have bacteria that cannot be killed with most antibiotics. And while we spend billions developing weapons to kill each other we seem to be neglecting the reality that we are not the enemy, evolving bacteria and viruses are. In that context terrorism might not be a factor. If viruses or bacteria get past that evolutionary "click" that turns them into, well, weopons of mass destruction, terrorism will be the last thing we have to worry about. Now, what we, the world, have to do is take a 100+ year view of humanity, grow up and start moving towards the things that really matter. I would be shoveling, no, trucking money into programs to develop all manner of systems, products and organizations to fight a war that could be an existential threat to our species. So, you see, when I worry about e CDC or government wasting over a decade getting ready for patient one of an unknown killer event I am thinking well beyond Ebola. I am thinking we've squandered thirteen years of work towards understanding how to effectively protect our entire species. Let's put it this way, we are not going to solve the problem by building more churches. We need to enter an age of intense scientific enlightening and stop building smart bombs and stealth fighters. We are not the enemy.

by pcrh 12y ago

k-mcgrady 12y ago

>> "The very existence of the CDC is step 1, and the "outbreak" in the US has so far been limited to 1 single person as far as I can tell. Prevention of spread from that single person looks likely to be 100% effective, due principally to the preparedness of all those involved, from the CDC to the hospital to the airline." Maybe I'm wrong but I read that two nurses that worked on that patient have now contracted the virus.

pcrh 12y ago
After searching the news a bit, there appear to be four cases of Ebola in the US. Thomas Eric Duncan arrived from Liberia with Ebola, and before dying passed it to two nurses, Vinson and Pham, who are recovering. A third patient is a doctor who contracted it in Liberia and is also recovering [1,2,3]. So, one death and three recovering patients. I'm unable to edit my previous comment. [1]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/15/dallas-nurses-accuse-hospital-sloppy-safety-ebola http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/15/dallas-nurses-a... ]2]http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/dallas-nurse-ebola-transferred-emory-26217549 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/dallas-nurse-ebola-tr... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29632433 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29632433
- hga 12y ago
  2 more: a 2nd doctor I think, also treated at Emory, where the 2nd Dallas nurse is headed per an early report I read yesterday, and the NBC cameraman who's at the Omaha hospital. (There are 4 US hospitals truly set up for this, with a total of 23 beds.)
  - hga 12y ago
    CORRECTION: It turns out the nation has only 11 "Ebola beds": the Omaha and NIH wards can only treat 1-2 and 2 patients with something this bad out of the 10 and 7 total beds they have. Which leaves 7 free at the moment.
  - hga 12y ago
    CORRECTION #2: It turns out the nation has only 11 "Ebola beds": the Omaha and NIH wards can only treat 1-2 and 2 patients with something this bad out of the 10 and 7 total beds they have. Which leaves 7 free at the moment.
mercer 12y ago
This might be an interesting source to follow: http://healthmap.org/ebola/#timeline http://healthmap.org/ebola/#timeline I rather like the interface.

robomartin 12y ago

You are missing my point. With a small outbreak (not sure you can even call it that) we are seeing just how disorganized the response has been. A nurse that was caring for the index patient was allowed to get on an airplane? Really? And how about that NBC reporter on quarantine who decided to go for take-out? Really? We are lucky we only had one imported case of Ebola. Had we had twenty these people would be running around like chickens with their heads cut off. That much is obvious today. The truth is they've been sitting around not dong anything of substance to prepare against a bio/chem attack. And I phrase it like that on purpose. If there ever was a wake-up call to get ready for events with potentially massive impact that call was 9/11. The threat of a bio/chem attack could not be dismissed. And agencies should have prepared for swift and effective response. They, obviously, are not ready. They wasted thirteen years of our time and money. The consequences could be dire. Do you think terrorists are not watching our news?

zimpenfish 12y ago
Terrorists have been watching your news for 13 years. How many attacks have you had since then? Spending time, money, and effort on combating ghosts is a ridiculous waste - just look at the TSA for a perfect example of this.
- hga 12y ago
  I don't see this revelation of the gross incompetence of the CDC et. al. being anything but recent. And if you admit to the possibility of biological warfare attacks, the same analysis we were doing a few weeks ago about the collapse of the facade of extreme competence of the Secret Service applies. We can be sure our adversaries are taking note of this and factoring it into their plans. Your claim these are "ghosts" by an absence of action during the period our defenders maintained their perception of competence is less than reassuring going forward.
- robomartin 12y ago
  And now they know we can't handle an attack of any given scale. I think it is safe to assume that we all thought we were more than ready to deal with ONE patient. Not the case. The President just said we are learning and making changes. Really? Now? You are missing a very important point. It is my fault for not making it explicit. I've been using bio/tech attacks as a general term and yes, there's an immediate association with terrorism. The problem is far deeper than that. What do you think is going to kill us all? Here "us" isn't an egocentric "USA" but rather a "humanity" us. What will kill us all? Nuclear bombs? War? A meteor? Nope. Evolution. Not ours. Bacteria and viruses. We have built a world that makes it easy for these organisms to quickly move across the globe. We already have bacteria that cannot be killed with most antibiotics. And while we spend billions developing weapons to kill each other we seem to be neglecting the reality that we are not the enemy, evolving bacteria and viruses are. In that context terrorism might not be a factor. If viruses or bacteria get past that evolutionary "click" that turns them into, well, weopons of mass destruction, terrorism will be the last thing we have to worry about. Now, what we, the world, have to do is take a 100+ year view of humanity, grow up and start moving towards the things that really matter. I would be shoveling, no, trucking money into programs to develop all manner of systems, products and organizations to fight a war that could be an existential threat to our species. So, you see, when I worry about e CDC or government wasting over a decade getting ready for patient one of an unknown killer event I am thinking well beyond Ebola. I am thinking we've squandered thirteen years of work towards understanding how to effectively protect our entire species. Let's put it this way, we are not going to solve the problem by building more churches. We need to enter an age of intense scientific enlightening and stop building smart bombs and stealth fighters. We are not the enemy.