|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Oct 3, 2014 10:10:03 GMT -5
Further updates on the infected patient in Dallas have come out. He was sent home from the hospital a couple of times because they didn't test for ebola. This was blamed in part on the computerized record system used in the hospital where the nurses' notes are on a separate system from the one the doctors use. So the nurses' notations that the patient had been to Liberia didn't show up on the doctor's computer records for him. Also, the patient lied about contact with someone who'd been sick or died in that region. It later came out that he had helped a pregnant woman who was vomiting and convulsing into a taxi to go to the hospital. Sadly she later died.
So far, this one isolated case seems to be a fluke as opposed to the beginning of an epidemic in the states. Definitely something to be aware of, but as long as you take reasonable precautions (wash your hands, use sanitizer when you can't wash them, etc), not something to panic about. The major concern and panic should be for the people in Africa ebola is ravaging, not for the comparitively safe people in the states.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2014 10:31:36 GMT -5
The only surefire preventive for ebola is eating bananas. Lots & lots of bananas.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Oct 3, 2014 11:38:51 GMT -5
The only surefire preventive for ebola is eating bananas. Lots & lots of bananas. Ebola or bananas? Tough choice. Wait, I know. To save all those poor people in Africa, let's send them all of our bananas. It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 3, 2014 19:29:28 GMT -5
Further updates on the infected patient in Dallas have come out. He was sent home from the hospital a couple of times because they didn't test for ebola. This was blamed in part on the computerized record system used in the hospital where the nurses' notes are on a separate system from the one the doctors use. So the nurses' notations that the patient had been to Liberia didn't show up on the doctor's computer records for him. Also, the patient lied about contact with someone who'd been sick or died in that region. It later came out that he had helped a pregnant woman who was vomiting and convulsing into a taxi to go to the hospital. Sadly she later died. So far, this one isolated case seems to be a fluke as opposed to the beginning of an epidemic in the states. Definitely something to be aware of, but as long as you take reasonable precautions (wash your hands, use sanitizer when you can't wash them, etc), not something to panic about. The major concern and panic should be for the people in Africa ebola is ravaging, not for the comparitively safe people in the states. Very much this, here in the states its almost completely a non-issue; there may be a few isolated incidents like the case in Dallas and the possible case in DC but it's unlikely to spread as wildly as it has in Africa simply because our healthcare system is so different. |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Oct 3, 2014 23:45:12 GMT -5
Absolutely not. These decisions are best left to medical professionals and not the paranoid and unqualified. |
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 16,451 
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 4, 2014 7:37:14 GMT -5
Ebola is spectacular because of its gross effects on the physiology of the patients: the clotting factors in the blood amalgamate, leading to a reduced blood flow in the smaller vessels and to organ damage; meanwhile, the paucity of these factors in the rest of the veinous system means the patient can suffer important bleeding (and is covered by fragile pustules to boot). No wonder Hollywood and Tom Clancy love it. But let us not forget that although it is a serious disease, Ebola will cause far, far fewer deaths than automobiles, alcohol, guns and cigarettes. All of which we seem to tolerate quite easily.
Besides, there are already good candidate vaccines (and anti-sera) being tested as we speak.
It will be fun to see the anti-vaxxers weigh their fear of vaccines against their fear of Ebola!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Oct 5, 2014 9:41:54 GMT -5
Ebola is spectacular because of its gross effects on the physiology of the patients: the clotting factors in the blood amalgamate, leading to a reduced blood flow in the smaller vessels and to organ damage; meanwhile, the paucity of these factors in the rest of the veinous system means the patient can suffer important bleeding (and is covered by fragile pustules to boot). No wonder Hollywood and Tom Clancy love it. But let us not forget that although it is a serious disease, Ebola will cause far, far fewer deaths than automobiles, alcohol, guns and cigarettes. All of which we seem to tolerate quite easily. Besides, there are already good candidate vaccines (and anti-sera) being tested as we speak. It will be fun to see the anti-vaxxers weigh their fear of vaccines against their fear of Ebola!!! Given the prevalence of ant-vaxxers in the US and now a confirmed case of Ebola... do you think countries should quarantine off the US and not accept US travelers? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 11:38:44 GMT -5
As someone who hates traveling, I vote "yes."
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 16,451
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 5, 2014 17:32:48 GMT -5
Ebola is spectacular because of its gross effects on the physiology of the patients: the clotting factors in the blood amalgamate, leading to a reduced blood flow in the smaller vessels and to organ damage; meanwhile, the paucity of these factors in the rest of the veinous system means the patient can suffer important bleeding (and is covered by fragile pustules to boot). No wonder Hollywood and Tom Clancy love it. But let us not forget that although it is a serious disease, Ebola will cause far, far fewer deaths than automobiles, alcohol, guns and cigarettes. All of which we seem to tolerate quite easily. Besides, there are already good candidate vaccines (and anti-sera) being tested as we speak. It will be fun to see the anti-vaxxers weigh their fear of vaccines against their fear of Ebola!!! Given the prevalence of ant-vaxxers in the US and now a confirmed case of Ebola... do you think countries should quarantine off the US and not accept US travelers? No, I don't think that would be very productive at this stage. A period of observation for people who have a fever when getting off a flight from Liberia would be a good idea, though, and that wasn't done with Mr. Duncan (even when he, of his own accord, reported to a clinic because he feared he might have Ebola). Throwing as much money at medical problems such as these as we are throwing at terrorists would also be a good idea! |
|
JLU51306
Junior Member
Jack of all trades - Master of none
Posts: 59
|
Post by JLU51306 on Oct 5, 2014 22:00:43 GMT -5
Absolutely not. These decisions are best left to medical professionals and not the paranoid and unqualified. My whole point is the "medical professionals" in majority of South African countries have done a flight ban, as well as the UK and France, why shouldn't we follow suit? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 2:39:19 GMT -5
Absolutely not. These decisions are best left to medical professionals and not the paranoid and unqualified. My whole point is the "medical professionals" in majority of South African countries have done a flight ban, as well as the UK and France, why shouldn't we follow suit? Did they do it based on an internet poll? |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,601
|
Post by Confessor on Oct 6, 2014 3:20:44 GMT -5
My whole point is the "medical professionals" in majority of South African countries have done a flight ban, as well as the UK and France, why shouldn't we follow suit? No, the UK have not done "a flight ban" based on the recomendations of medical professionals. As far as I'm aware, British Airways have suspended flights to Liberia and Sierra Leone, but BA isn't a state owned airline or anything. They're a public limited company with shareholders. There's nothing to stop other airlines coming from Liberia or other effected West African countries and landing here in the UK. |
|
JLU51306
Junior Member
Jack of all trades - Master of none
Posts: 59
|
Post by JLU51306 on Oct 6, 2014 6:09:02 GMT -5
My whole point is the "medical professionals" in majority of South African countries have done a flight ban, as well as the UK and France, why shouldn't we follow suit? No, the UK have not done "a flight ban" based on the recomendations of medical professionals. As far as I'm aware, British Airways have suspended flights to Liberia and Sierra Leone, but BA isn't a state owned airline or anything. They're a public limited company with shareholders. There's nothing to stop other airlines coming from Liberia or other effected West African countries and landing here in the UK. Well my bad, then. I must have misunderstood. I'm not trying to sound preachy, or opinionated on the matter. I just feel that, in my opinion, what could it hurt to prohibit non-essential passengers from traveling, possibly allowing for what would be an unnecessary spread of the virus that the CDC will have to try and contain. If there's some sort of logic I'm failing to see for why this could be bad, feel free to tell me (and I'm not trying to sound pretentious, I genuinely am curious to the other side of this discussion.) I don't mean to seem hysterical, annoying, or anything of the sort, and I apologize if I have been. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on Oct 6, 2014 7:42:33 GMT -5
No, the UK have not done "a flight ban" based on the recomendations of medical professionals. As far as I'm aware, British Airways have suspended flights to Liberia and Sierra Leone, but BA isn't a state owned airline or anything. They're a public limited company with shareholders. There's nothing to stop other airlines coming from Liberia or other effected West African countries and landing here in the UK. Well my bad, then. I must have misunderstood. I'm not trying to sound preachy, or opinionated on the matter. I just feel that, in my opinion, what could it hurt to prohibit non-essential passengers from traveling, possibly allowing for what would be an unnecessary spread of the virus that the CDC will have to try and contain. If there's some sort of logic I'm failing to see for why this could be bad, feel free to tell me (and I'm not trying to sound pretentious, I genuinely am curious to the other side of this discussion.) I don't mean to seem hysterical, annoying, or anything of the sort, and I apologize if I have been. No there is nothing wrong with getting British Airways mixed up as a state owned carrier. It used to be but was then privatised, yet kept the name and flag. You arent annoying at all - you are just concerned and that's perfectly natural. However, you do need to look at how ebola is transmitted. Unless you are very found of bushmeat, a heroin addict who is always short of needles, or have a particular predilection for exchanging bodily fluids with Liberians then you are going to be safe. It's not like the common cold, or influenza. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 6, 2014 8:05:15 GMT -5
|
|
