4 ms·

I am not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand your point. Ebola is a vanishingly unimportant concern as far as infectious diseases go. This current "o

I am not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand your point. Ebola is a vanishingly unimportant concern as far as infectious diseases go. This current "outbreak" has resulted in 2 transmissions in the US to date. The reason it appears that the system failed is that the system correctly reacted to a low value threat, but it was amplified into a hysteria because of dynamics in media economics and US political cycles. If I were the CDC, I'd be spending a boatload on SARS, MERS, MERSA, MDR/XDR TB, any number of the highly virulent seasonal influenza strains, social programs to promote vaccinations (pertussis, for example, kills more babies in the US annually than there have been total US cases of Ebola), annual rabies tracking programs, general education (good hygiene practices)... so many others. And the good news is they are doing this, as I'm sure your research into their budget shows. edit: thus the downvoter exemplifies the problem, without saying a single word.

hga 12y ago
OK, I'll down vote you and explain why: your studied inability or unwillingness to do math, to whit, what a disease like Ebola can do in a 3rd World urban environment (or village/small town ones different than the former locations of outbreaks), specifically double the number of infections approximately every 3 weeks. Right now this Ebola outbreak gives every sign of having the potential to be the most significant public health event in a number of centuries. Like, maybe we'll end up having to go back to the 1346–1350 Black Death for comparison, unless we can develop, test, produce and distribute a vaccine very quickly.
- throwaway5752 12y ago
  Malaria kills 500K-1M people EVERY DAMN YEAR in subsaharan Africa (http://www.who.int/malaria/media/world_malaria_report_2013/en/ http://www.who.int/malaria/media/world_malaria_report_2013/e...).
  - hga 12y ago
    The CDC's worst case, last I heard, was 1.4 total million infected with Ebola in January. At the current estimate of 70% lethality, there's your 1M million people 10-16 days after infection. Then it all doubles in 3 weeks. And another 3 weeks. Do the math. If you want to be conservative, dial the starting point back, it won't matter for long. But when I did my own calculations, I found 20,000 cases as of a week or two ago (a fairly conservative guess at the true number) would get you to 1.4 million in January.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > The CDC's worst case, last I heard, was 1.4 total million infected with Ebola in January. That was a "no new action" estimate in late September based on data through late August [1]. There has been considerable new action since late August (in part based on the report, or, to the extent that the action in some cases preceded the report, at least an understanding of the general principles behind it.) [1] http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6303a1.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6303a1.htm
    - smeyer 12y ago
      Your assumption for those numbers is that it will keep doubling everywhere it goes, correct? For example, Nigeria seems to have stamped it out in Lagos, refuting the idea that it automatically breaks out exponentially in "3rd World urban environments".
      - hga 12y ago
        Here's what I said, emphasis added: "what a disease like Ebola can do in a 3rd World urban environment" Nowhere did I say or ever imply that it "automatically breaks out exponentially" in such environments, just that in this outbreak, it has, and I would hope you would not deny it could in others.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      At some point, the danger of handling the bodies of those who die of Ebola will sink into the public consciousness there. The worst case scenario assumes no modification of burial practices. Note that the article dragonwriter linked says safe burials would have the outbreak ending soon after January: If, by late December 2014, approximately 70% of patients were placed either in ETUs or home or in a community setting such that there is a reduced risk for disease transmission (including safe burial when needed), then the epidemic in both countries would almost be ended by January 20, 2015
- alexbecker 12y ago
  You seem to be talking past each other. He/she is saying that Ebola is not a threat to the US, which is the scope of the legal mandate of the CDC.
  - hga 12y ago
    Ah, perhaps so. However, one of the things I'm concerned about is what happens if or when it hits Latin America, which would then have very direct consequences on the US.
jerf 12y ago
The response to Ebola vs. the other things isn't that different. I see no reason to believe the CDC is caught flatfooted by "Ebola", which is indeed as you say a relatively minor issue that one could almost consider a practice warmup for the "real thing", but will suddenly be a well-oiled machine when the real crisis hits. That is not how human organizations work. If the CDC is suddenly able to handle Spanish-Influenza-Bird-Flu-2015 with stunning competence, it will only be because we got lucky and got a wakeup call with our complete unpreparedness for and blithering incompetence with Ebola. Unless, of course, enough people keep covering for the CDC because by golly, they're government so of course they're competent, ignore your lying eyes, in which case we will learn nothing and have the same CDC when the real crisis hits. And next time, it probably won't be Ebola. (Unless someone somewhere gets the bright idea of just how much havoc they could wreak with a simple trip through New York via Liberia... which will be vicious anti-government smearing right-wingnut fear mongering right up until the moment it happens....)
Fomite 12y ago
For someone talking about "Vanishingly unimportant concerns" to then go on about SARS, which has caused zero transmissions in years and never reached the point the current Ebola outbreak has reached is...curious.

hga 12y ago

OK, I'll down vote you and explain why: your studied inability or unwillingness to do math, to whit, what a disease like Ebola can do in a 3rd World urban environment (or village/small town ones different than the former locations of outbreaks), specifically double the number of infections approximately every 3 weeks. Right now this Ebola outbreak gives every sign of having the potential to be the most significant public health event in a number of centuries. Like, maybe we'll end up having to go back to the 1346–1350 Black Death for comparison, unless we can develop, test, produce and distribute a vaccine very quickly.

throwaway5752 12y ago
Malaria kills 500K-1M people EVERY DAMN YEAR in subsaharan Africa (http://www.who.int/malaria/media/world_malaria_report_2013/en/ http://www.who.int/malaria/media/world_malaria_report_2013/e...).
- hga 12y ago
  The CDC's worst case, last I heard, was 1.4 total million infected with Ebola in January. At the current estimate of 70% lethality, there's your 1M million people 10-16 days after infection. Then it all doubles in 3 weeks. And another 3 weeks. Do the math. If you want to be conservative, dial the starting point back, it won't matter for long. But when I did my own calculations, I found 20,000 cases as of a week or two ago (a fairly conservative guess at the true number) would get you to 1.4 million in January.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The CDC's worst case, last I heard, was 1.4 total million infected with Ebola in January. That was a "no new action" estimate in late September based on data through late August [1]. There has been considerable new action since late August (in part based on the report, or, to the extent that the action in some cases preceded the report, at least an understanding of the general principles behind it.) [1] http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6303a1.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6303a1.htm
  - smeyer 12y ago
    Your assumption for those numbers is that it will keep doubling everywhere it goes, correct? For example, Nigeria seems to have stamped it out in Lagos, refuting the idea that it automatically breaks out exponentially in "3rd World urban environments".
    - hga 12y ago
      Here's what I said, emphasis added: "what a disease like Ebola can do in a 3rd World urban environment" Nowhere did I say or ever imply that it "automatically breaks out exponentially" in such environments, just that in this outbreak, it has, and I would hope you would not deny it could in others.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    At some point, the danger of handling the bodies of those who die of Ebola will sink into the public consciousness there. The worst case scenario assumes no modification of burial practices. Note that the article dragonwriter linked says safe burials would have the outbreak ending soon after January: If, by late December 2014, approximately 70% of patients were placed either in ETUs or home or in a community setting such that there is a reduced risk for disease transmission (including safe burial when needed), then the epidemic in both countries would almost be ended by January 20, 2015
alexbecker 12y ago
You seem to be talking past each other. He/she is saying that Ebola is not a threat to the US, which is the scope of the legal mandate of the CDC.
- hga 12y ago
  Ah, perhaps so. However, one of the things I'm concerned about is what happens if or when it hits Latin America, which would then have very direct consequences on the US.

jerf 12y ago

The response to Ebola vs. the other things isn't that different. I see no reason to believe the CDC is caught flatfooted by "Ebola", which is indeed as you say a relatively minor issue that one could almost consider a practice warmup for the "real thing", but will suddenly be a well-oiled machine when the real crisis hits. That is not how human organizations work. If the CDC is suddenly able to handle Spanish-Influenza-Bird-Flu-2015 with stunning competence, it will only be because we got lucky and got a wakeup call with our complete unpreparedness for and blithering incompetence with Ebola. Unless, of course, enough people keep covering for the CDC because by golly, they're government so of course they're competent, ignore your lying eyes, in which case we will learn nothing and have the same CDC when the real crisis hits. And next time, it probably won't be Ebola. (Unless someone somewhere gets the bright idea of just how much havoc they could wreak with a simple trip through New York via Liberia... which will be vicious anti-government smearing right-wingnut fear mongering right up until the moment it happens....)

Fomite 12y ago

For someone talking about "Vanishingly unimportant concerns" to then go on about SARS, which has caused zero transmissions in years and never reached the point the current Ebola outbreak has reached is...curious.