Texas Ebola patient dies

Page 22 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
16,081
8,680
136
Whooo-weeeee. I can just see the seething stare down going on right at this very moment between the nurses, hospital management AND the CDC. The blame game and cover-ups is in full swing with no end in sight.

And it looks like Obama is going to try to referee this tragic melee. Good luck with that Barry.
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,379
96
86
Whooo-weeeee. I can just see the seething stare down going on right at this very moment between the nurses, hospital management AND the CDC. The blame game and cover-ups is in full swing with no end in sight.

And it looks like Obama is going to try to referee this tragic melee. Good luck with that Barry.

Welcome to modern bureaucracy. No one does anything, just a bunch of people passing the blame back and forth.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
I think the real issue is that Americans in general and Texans in this case are just ignorant of what's going on in the world until it smacks them in the face. So when a guy comes from Liberia with a 103 fever, the response appears to be "What's Liberia? Cool story bro. Here is a Tylenol."
When he is finally diagnosed with Ebola, it's as if they have no clue about what others have been doing in Africa for months, and no curiosity about how to properly put on and take off protective gear. Even though PBS had a Frontline documentary on Ebola more than a month ago. But that's boring foreign news stuff, wouldn't want to interrupt my football to watch that. It's basically, we are Americans, we know everything, what do those third world doctors know about anything.
So we are reinventing the bicycle, even though other countries have already learned the hard lessons for us. Nigeria in particular, has already contained a similar Ebola outbreak. But how many in the US even know what they did to do so?

BTW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANUI4uT3xJI
 
Last edited:

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,379
96
86
I think the real issue is that Americans in general and Texans in this case are just ignorant of what's going on in the world until it smacks them in the face. So when a guy comes from Liberia with a 103 fever, the response appears to be "What's Liberia? Cool story bro. Here is a Tylenol."
When he is finally diagnosed with Ebola, it's as if they have no clue about what others have been doing in Africa for months, and no curiosity about how to properly put on and take off protective gear. Even though PBS had a Frontline documentary on Ebola more than a month ago. But that's boring foreign news stuff, wouldn't want to interrupt my football to watch that. It's basically, we are Americans, we know everything, what do those third world doctors know about anything.
So we are reinventing the bicycle, even though other countries have already learned the hard lessons for us. Nigeria in particular, has already contained a similar Ebola outbreak. But how many in the US even know what they did to do so?

BTW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANUI4uT3xJI


Americans weren't concerned because the CDC was too busy telling them that they cant catch the disease unless they get a faceful of explosive diarrhea from an active infection, instead of trying to teach people proper precautions.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,797
572
126
For as much shit as Democrats talk, the level of cognitive dissonance in that crowd is astounding.

As much shit as you talk your level of stupidity and lack of concern for what the world will be like in about 30 years for your offspring is nothing short of incredibly stupefying and absolutely abhorrent.

You moron, some foreigner living under a socialist healthcare system is complaining that the free market didn't do enough to stop Ebola. Why didn't your beloved European socialist systems step and solve it? If socialized medicine is so superior, why was the free market expected to save the day? And if socialized European healthcare didn't have the ability to stop Ebola, what will happen when the US follows suit?

You bleeding idiot. It's that the pharmaceutical industry has been put too much in the hands of for profit business. The free market motivations of such businesses pretty much preclude that for profit pharmaceutical industry will not preemptively prepare for outbreaks such as this current one. And while wealthy countries in Africa do have a socialized healthcare component not every country in Africa is wealthy and developed.
Outbreaks of Ebola have occurred in poorer areas of that continent and those required outside aid. Until there haven't been cases of travelers from Africa infecting people outside with concerns that it could spread even further. Your arguments speak of complete idiocy.

These outbreaks of Ebola that cropped up previously over the past decades have fortunately burned themselves out with comparatively smaller death tolls.
Unfortunately, different circumstances in this outbreak led to thousands dead and counting as well as concerns about travelers infecting citizens of other countries.

This shows the need for public funding of pharmaceutical research instead of trusting more and more of it to for profit industry. There are experimental treatments and vaccines for Ebola. Perhaps if fewer people subscribed to your laissez fucked economic views and accepted the possibility of a need for public funding into vaccine research on diseases like Ebola this outbreak wouldn't have a death toll in the thousands.

As for the increase in absolute dollars in federal spending how much of that went to the CDC and related government agencies. I seriously doubt that increases in government agency spending were equal across the board.
For example military spending definitely increased at a much higher pace than spending in some other areas in the same time period.
It would be interesting to see how those numbers look adjusted for inflation it might look something like the image below.

Public-Health-Funding.png



TLDR: get your head out of your 4th point of contact or just STFU when you think of talking at me.


....
 
Last edited:

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
Americans weren't concerned because the CDC was too busy telling them that they cant catch the disease unless they get a faceful of explosive diarrhea from an active infection, instead of trying to teach people proper precautions.

CDC never said that. CDC classifies it as BSL-4 disease, the highest level, requiring a hazmat suit for handling.
This is not an unknown disease, it's been around for 40 years, and protocols for handling it are not new either. It's not a lack of medical knowledge overall, it's ignorance and lack of curiosity by the hospital staff in particular.
 

Pneumothorax

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2002
1,182
23
81
CDC never said that. CDC classifies it as BSL-4 disease, the highest level, requiring a hazmat suit for handling.
This is not an unknown disease, it's been around for 40 years, and protocols for handling it are not new either. It's not a lack of medical knowledge overall, it's ignorance and lack of curiosity by the hospital staff in particular.

Then the stupid CDC prick is to blame with his reassuring platitudes. Imagine if he said that Ebola is extremely contagious and requires a hazmat suit for patient care from the get go which you and both know is not what he said. In fact he was just advocating basic universal contact precautions which are a whole order of magnitude less protection. Only now are they tightening restrictions.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
Then the stupid CDC prick is to blame with his reassuring platitudes. Imagine if he said that Ebola is extremely contagious and requires a hazmat suit for patient care from the get go which you and both know is not what he said. In fact he was just advocating basic universal contact precautions which are a whole order of magnitude less protection. Only now are they tightening restrictions.

When he's talking to the general public, he is absolutely right that this is not a cause for panic, wearing a hazmat suit around, etc. The likelihood of an average American getting infected with Ebola is incredibly tiny. Less than one in 100 Million. Like getting hit by a meteorite.

Health care professionals treating actual or suspected Ebola patients are supposed to learn and follow protocols. You know, like professionals. If Dallas nurses are getting their Ebola training from watching CDC head talking to the American public as a whole on TV, everything is even dumber in Texas than I suspected.
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,306
4
81
Americans weren't concerned because the CDC was too busy telling them that they cant catch the disease unless they get a faceful of explosive diarrhea from an active infection, instead of trying to teach people proper precautions.

When you're a nurse dealing with an ebola patient, you're going to be getting facefuls of explosive diarrhea...
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Whatever you say tough guy. :rolleyes:

The funny part about his post is that it is a complete red-herring. Funding has very little to do with the inept decision making and lax behavior on protocols that were just ignored or not enforced in a serious enough manner to ensure no contamination occurred. No amount of money is going to fix plain old bad leadership. Hell, we could of pissed away hundreds of millions of more tax payer dollars into the CDC's budget but it would not fix the bad leadership and decisions being made by those who have handled this situation thus far in a very flawed manner.

Especially in regards to the protective gear setup (which the CDC has in spades), the needed methodical removal and decontamination procedures and observation and quarantining of staff who have come in contact with an infected patient. Of which these lapses in protocols in regards to the aforementioned ( especially with the decontamination process that needs to be very methodical as nations like Liberia have learned the hard way but have since corrected) are issues that cannot be fixed by just throwing more money at the CDC as these are issues involving human error made by "leaders" at the CDC and not an issue of a lack of resources.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,233
55,782
136
Then the stupid CDC prick is to blame with his reassuring platitudes. Imagine if he said that Ebola is extremely contagious and requires a hazmat suit for patient care from the get go which you and both know is not what he said. In fact he was just advocating basic universal contact precautions which are a whole order of magnitude less protection. Only now are they tightening restrictions.

How hard is this for people to understand? Easy to catch if you're a nurse treating Ebola patients, hard to catch if you're a person on the street. Since the general public is not comprised of nurses treating Ebola patients, it's hard to catch for most people.

You know it's bad when even Fox News has started to tell people they are being hysterical and irrational. That's right. Fox News is more reasonable than a bunch of people on here. Aren't you ashamed now? Haha.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Let's stir the pot. What happens if Ebola gets into central America? Sportage can blame Perry!
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
Ebola is almost always a tropical summer outbreak anyway so I'm betting it spreads poorly in the dry winter months.

From the outset I wasn't worried because its hard to spread and kills you dead before you can infect many other people. The common cold is common because you can still go to work and spread it around. The most dangerous ebola would be one with a 10-30% mortality rate.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
You bleeding idiot. It's that the pharmaceutical industry has been put too much in the hands of for profit business. The free market motivations of such businesses pretty much preclude that for profit pharmaceutical industry will not preemptively prepare for outbreaks such as this current one.

You missed the point. NO ONE was committed to seriously working on an ebola vaccine. The whiner you pointed to hasn't done a damn thing, isn't holding his government accountable, but he sure knows how this works. Well let me explain what profit is. Income-costs = profit. Do you know what happens when costs>income? I'll tell you how to find out. Take all your income and spend more. Bring out your credit cards and max them out. You'd be a fool to do so but you expect other private citizens to do that and give a pass on this nutbag's government?

Pro tip:
There is not enough money to be "pharmaceutically proactive" in any meaningful sense. Sell your home and all your things and live in a box and it won't make a difference. There are other paradigms that might work but that requires monies contributed by a great many with no return on investment and neither Obama, nor your favorite national system will support them. Oh they'll complain about someone else, but intelligent planning isn't done on a large scale on this planet. We get "experts" who don't know how to begin to approach a problem but sure will blame someone else. We have statbots who don't understand that not every problem is amenable to the same solutions elsewhere, in fact not much thinking at all. So while there's a whole lot of improvement to be made calling for people to bankrupt themselves while sitting smugly blaming others for not doing what they wouldn't dream of for themselves.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Hospitals aren't doing so great financially under Obamacare you can pretty much 100% blame the ACA to be honest. If they had the money to train the staff on Ebola they'd have done it. Or if the government gave them a grant to do so, or something. But Nada. Just a press release from the CDC taped to the wall and a good luck smiley face. Obamacare plans reimburse like medicare does, AKA barely covers if not outright underpays below the real cost of treatment.

Seniors are going to get a nasty shock come January. Some Medicare D reimbursements are going to be under actual costs. If it takes a dollar to buy something but in return you get 90 cents you aren't going to find many takers. Consequently getting service isn't going to be easy for them. Naturally the "for profit" critters will wring their hands but no one can keep paying someone else for the "honor" of working for them forever.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
I'm thinking now might be a good time for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to review their mission statement.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,797
572
126
NO ONE was committed to seriously working on an ebola vaccine.~snip~Income-costs = profit~snip~

Ebola has been popping up every so often for a few decades. The fact that there has been some experimental drugs available to treat a few lucky victims of Ebola is indicative that yes it might very well have been possible to have vaccines (even if only in small amounts) available for use in the beginning stages of the current outbreak.

That's the point. There are serious diseases for which international investment in treatments for makes sense instead of waiting for an outbreak that occurs under extremely unfavorable circumstances. As you illustrated we can't depend on the pharmaceutical companies to do so out of the altruistic motivations and it's not very feasible to expect private citizens to do so.

Generally no one bats an eye over vast expenditures of resources to protect nations aggression from other nations. Diseases aren't concerned about the nationality of their victims. Yet it's considered a galling idea by some that a fraction of the aforementioned amount should spent on vaccines for deadly diseases which pop up on the radar then fortunately don't gain a foothold. The current outbreak illustrates the very real dangers of not pursuing research into such diseases.

Already, the experimental drug ZMapp, developed by Mapp, a small biopharmaceutical firm in the US, has been used to treat at least seven patients – four of them Westerners – and has shown promising results in trials on primates. Stocks have now run out, but Mapp has been handed $25m (£15m) by the US government to scale up production.

On Friday, the WHO met in Geneva to assess the options but concluded that despite the extraordinary measures, "new treatments or vaccines are not expected for widespread use before the end of 2014".

As well as the GSK/NIH vaccine, to be tested in healthy volunteers in Oxford within two weeks, a Canadian vaccine has also shown promise and is being tested in the US.

Professor Hill explained that the GSK/NIH vaccine, which is based on a strain of chimpanzee cold virus and known as ChAd3, was originally developed in the US for potential use against a bio-terror attack – and only existed because of high levels of funding allocated to vaccines designated for defence.

Asked why a fully tested and licensed vaccine had not been developed, Professor Hill said: "Well, who makes vaccines? Today, commercial vaccine supply is monopolised by four or five mega- companies – GSK, Sanofi, Merck, Pfizer – some of the biggest companies in the world.

"The problem with that is, even if you've got a way of making a vaccine, unless there's a big market, it's not worth the while of a mega-company …. There was no business case to make an Ebola vaccine for the people who needed it most: first because of the nature of the outbreak; second, the number of people likely to be affected was, until now, thought to be very small; and third, the fact that the people affected are in some of the poorest countries in the world and can't afford to pay for a new vaccine. It's a market failure."

He said that producing a vaccine for Ebola was "technically more doable" than making one for other challenging and more widespread diseases such as TB, HIV and malaria, which receive more funding. "There's a lesson here," he said. "If we had invested in an Ebola vaccine, had it sitting there as the outbreak comes, you could have nipped it in the bud, been able to vaccinate the region where it started. What happened in Guinea was that it got out of control and spread. If you invest in having a relatively small amount of vaccine, available in the right place, as soon as anything happens, you could save huge amounts of money, not to mention lives."

In the wake of the outbreak, governments should now work with the pharmaceutical industry to push through development of vaccines against "outbreak diseases" such as Ebola, as well as Sars, Marburg and Chikungunya, Professor Hill said, with the goal of establishing stockpiles in vulnerable countries.

In a trial in primates infected with Ebola, a single dose of ChAd3 protected all 16 animals. The human trials involve 60 healthy Britons and 80 healthy people in Mali and the Gambia. GSK is already fast-tracking development of the vaccine and hopes to have 10,000 doses available by the end of the year. If proved safe and effective, it would be given to health workers in the Ebola-hit countries. Hundreds have died in the current outbreak, and many are now refusing to come to work.




snide idiocy

As usual you can't even be bothered....
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Ebola has been popping up every so often for a few decades. The fact that there has been some experimental drugs available to treat a few lucky victims of Ebola is indicative that yes it might very well have been possible to have vaccines (even if only in small amounts) available for use in the beginning stages of the current outbreak.

That's the point. There are serious diseases for which international investment in treatments for makes sense instead of waiting for an outbreak that occurs under extremely unfavorable circumstances. As you illustrated we can't depend on the pharmaceutical companies to do so out of the altruistic motivations and it's not very feasible to expect private citizens to do so.

Generally no one bats an eye over vast expenditures of resources to protect nations aggression from other nations. Diseases aren't concerned about the nationality of their victims. Yet it's considered a galling idea by some that a fraction of the aforementioned amount should spent on vaccines for deadly diseases which pop up on the radar then fortunately don't gain a foothold. The current outbreak illustrates the very real dangers of not pursuing research into such diseases.

My frustration has to do with the idea that somehow private entities who cannot run deficits are somehow the bad guys here. There isn't a vaccine monopoly because the big companies keep others from doing what needs to be done. The problem is no one, GSK included, can spend a billion or more on every potentially deadly virus. They would be bankrupt for all the profit they now earn. That isn't their fault, and it isn't greed, it's math. So why doesn't this guy beat up on his own government who can run a deficit if need be? If you look at what Collins said (and I find it reasonable) there could have been an Ebola vaccine in all probability, and it would have been at a huge loss of course because that kind of research is a money pit. Granted Republicans are pretty much clueless, but I don't recall the Left expending half effort to really push for more than complaining about the Right. In fact it may surprise you to know that alternative paradigms for the development of medications was supported by the Bush administration and was supporting efforts that Obama promptly crushed and not one peep from the Dems. Those who are supposed to be the ones who really care, those who make a show of how bad private enterprise is (and in health care there are real problems and I'll be the first one to say so) turned out to be worse than Bush. Imagine that.

On matters of health care I find there's more talking about what someone else needs to do than actually doing, at least unless there's some political gain. Vaccines are no different.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
14,024
11,735
136
Hearing that there is serious concern lately that it's now capable of airborne transmission.

Something would seem to be different with this outbreak. Previous outbreaks had zero infections among the Dr.'s Without Borders group. There are like 16 from this one.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Something would seem to be different with this outbreak. Previous outbreaks had zero infections among the Dr.'s Without Borders group. There are like 16 from this one.

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. I just hope this doesn't play out and this thing doesn't go 100% airborne.

From the other Ebola thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36766916&postcount=171

Nature is consistent in that it will take advantage of anything it can for the sake of survival.

The more people that the virus infects and the more environments it is allowed to be exposed to, the more chances it has to possibly change/adapt/mutate.

Mother nature is a cold hearted bitch and probability is on her side.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,233
55,782
136
I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. I just hope this doesn't play out and this thing doesn't go 100% airborne.

From the other Ebola thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36766916&postcount=171

Told who so? There is still literally zero evidence for this whatsoever.

Can you explain why nature has neglected to take this route with any other virus despite vastly greater opportunities but you think such a thing is likely now?

I mean according to your idea we should have had airborne HIV and hepatitis years ago now.