Texas Ebola patient dies

[GarfieldtheCat]

Repeating your own stupidity is pretty much your shtick. You aren't fooling anyone.

I've seen you rage against a worldwide progressive conspiracy so many times it's not funny. When people tell you things that make you sad you get mad. Instead of thinking you might be wrong you invent a conspiracy. Don't blame the rest of us for your insecurity.

You have to cut werepossum a lot of slack, he isn't the brightest poster and believes all those "friend of a friend" anonymous emails are true. After all, Werepossum learned all about Osama bin Laden from Oliver North!!!!

AT Post

Interesting fact: The first time I ever heard the name "Osama bin Ladin" was from North's lips. He called him the most evil man he knew (insert obligatory foaming moonbat Reagan joke here) and said he feared him. The liberals laughed at him . . .

When he is stupid enough to believe something so totally proven wrong, there isn't much else you can do. He really does believe all those conspiracy emails that the rest of us all laugh at and delete.

 

[bshole]

You have to cut werepossum a lot of slack, he isn't the brightest poster and believes all those "friend of a friend" anonymous emails are true. After all, Werepossum learned all about Osama bin Laden from Oliver North!!!!

.

Seriously dude, how the fuck can you remember a post made 4 years ago? That is a little disconcerting to say the least.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope, mockery again. Man, you suck at that.

And yes, of course I'm a treasure at Thanksgiving. Although being sadly afflicted with HDS, I doubt you'd much enjoy me.

I'm also the foamy liberal in our office. THAT ought to break your mind.

Although we have hired an open Obama supporter. Mostly for observation, but also for his AutoCAD skills.

Haha it does not blow my mind. It actually explains a lot of why you mistakenly believe you're some sort of centrist.

 

[xBiffx]

Seriously dude, how the fuck can you remember a post made 4 years ago? That is a little disconcerting to say the least.

I think the more important question is what relevance a four year old off topic post has. I mean, no one is ever expected to change their mind or reconsider a position in P&N, ever! :whiste:

The length he went to dig that one up is quite telling.

 

[werepossum]

You have to cut werepossum a lot of slack, he isn't the brightest poster and believes all those "friend of a friend" anonymous emails are true. After all, Werepossum learned all about Osama bin Laden from Oliver North!!!!

AT Post

When he is stupid enough to believe something so totally proven wrong, there isn't much else you can do. He really does believe all those conspiracy emails that the rest of us all laugh at and delete.

Shouldn't you be watching the ChelseaCam? Or is s/he sleeping?

Haha it does not blow my mind. It actually explains a lot of why you mistakenly believe you're some sort of centrist.

Don't believe I ever said I'm a centrist. What I HAVE said repeatedly is that I hold some left (usually far left) views and some right (usually far right) views, which is why it is so amusing when a solidly far left doctrinaire proggie like yourself calls me partisan.

It's also amusing when you ask why my post should bother you and then respond to it twice.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't believe I ever said I'm a centrist. What I HAVE said repeatedly is that I hold some left (usually far left) views and some right (usually far right) views, which is why it is so amusing when a solidly far left doctrinaire proggie like yourself calls me partisan.

If you think my views are 'solidly far left doctrinaire' then you haven't been paying attention.

I don't remember calling you partisan, although it's possible. I would say that you're a mostly far right person with a few heterogeneous views, but your ideology isn't the issue. What's far weirder about you is your delusional and bizarre conspiracy mongering. I can't even remember how many times you've tried to refer to progressives as some sort of nefarious force attempting to subvert society, and any time evidence comes out to support something you think the evil progressives are for you immediately lump the source into your ever-widening conspiracy.

It's always funny to see you come out and say 'I'm an even handed guy, but progressives are engaging in a worldwide conspiracy to edit wikipedia to make the articles trick people about economics definitions'

It's also amusing when you ask why my post should bother you and then respond to it twice.

Okay?

 

[werepossum]

If you think my views are 'solidly far left doctrinaire' then you haven't been paying attention.

I don't remember calling you partisan, although it's possible. I would say that you're a mostly far right person with a few heterogeneous views, but your ideology isn't the issue. What's far weirder about you is your delusional and bizarre conspiracy mongering. I can't even remember how many times you've tried to refer to progressives as some sort of nefarious force attempting to subvert society, and any time evidence comes out to support something you think the evil progressives are for you immediately lump the source into your ever-widening conspiracy.

It's always funny to see you come out and say 'I'm an even handed guy, but progressives are engaging in a worldwide conspiracy to edit wikipedia to make the articles trick people about economics definitions'



Okay?

Conspiracy is your term, not mine. My points are two - that proggies commonly push a far left progressive agenda, and that wikipedia is for idiots, by idiots, where any idiot can post and most seem to. I'd say it's heavily weighted toward the left simply because right side idiots have branched off into conservapedia and are thus less represented on wikipedia, but it remains "common knowledge". THAT is my issue with wikipedia in a nutshell. Where there are specific proggie conspiracies, such as Journo-list, I point those out as such. Otherwise it's merely by common sensibilities such as in the media or academia, not a conspiracy. An example on the right would be evangelical churches; they don't have to conspire to put out the same message because they are largely of the same political persuasion. You simply choose to label recognizing reality as "delusional and bizarre conspiracy mongering".

As an example: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...e-ignores-anti-obama-election/article/2555108

In less than two weeks, voters head to the polls in midterm elections that seem certain to yield strong Republican gains, if not outright control of the U.S. Senate. Such a political sea change is big news, but a new Media Research Center study finds that, in contrast to their enthusiastic coverage of the 2006 midterms when Democrats made big gains, the Big Three broadcast evening newscasts are all but ignoring this year’s political contests.

MRC analysts studied every election story on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from September 1 through October 20 in both 2006 (the midterm election in George W. Bush’s second term) and 2014 (the equivalent election under President Barack Obama). Even in a changing media landscape, Big Three evening newscasts are a principal news source for more than 23 million viewers, beating all of their broadcast and cable competition.

Our analysts found that, when Democrats were feeling good about their election prospects eight years ago, the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and ABC’s World News aired a combined 159 campaign stories (91 full reports and another 68 stories that mentioned the campaign). But during the same time period this year, those same newscasts have offered a paltry 25 stories (16 full reports and 9 mentions), a six-to-one disparity.

Amazingly, since September 1 ABC’s newly-renamed World News Tonight has yet to feature a single mention of this year’s campaign, let alone a full story. In contrast, eight years ago ABC’s World News aired 36 stories that discussed that year’s midterm campaign, including a weekly Thursday night feature that then-anchor Charlie Gibson promised would look at the “critical races.”

Back then, the elections were a major news topic; this year, a regular viewer of ABC’s evening newscast would have no indication that any were even taking place.

CBS and NBC have scarcely been more comprehensive. In 2006, CBS aired a total of 58 evening news stories that discussed the campaign, while NBC Nightly News aired 65 stories. This year, those numbers have fallen to just 14 and 11 as of October 20, declines of 76% and 83%, respectively.

Not a conspiracy, just recognizing a common agenda by people who march in lockstep and self-police their organizations to do the same. Organizations that are heavily proggie look at conservatives as an evangelical church would look at Satanists; nobody is going to hire any except as a lesson on what to avoid.

 

[fskimospy]

Conspiracy is your term, not mine.

It's what you're doing, whether you like it or not. The truth hurts sometimes.

My points are two - that proggies commonly push a far left progressive agenda,

No it isn't. You consistently claim that progressives are collectively engaging in deliberate deception. Don't try to cover up your past insanity.

and that wikipedia is for idiots, by idiots, where any idiot can post and most seem to.

If by "for idiots" you mean "validated as being as accurate as encyclopedias by empirical research".

I'd say it's heavily weighted toward the left simply because right side idiots have branched off into conservapedia and are thus less represented on wikipedia, but it remains "common knowledge". THAT is my issue with wikipedia in a nutshell.

And of course you have some evidence for this, right? Oh wait, you're werepossum. You just know it in your heart so it's true.

Where there are specific proggie conspiracies, such as Journo-list, I point those out as such. Otherwise it's merely by common sensibilities such as in the media or academia, not a conspiracy. An example on the right would be evangelical churches; they don't have to conspire to put out the same message because they are largely of the same political persuasion. You simply choose to label recognizing reality as "delusional and bizarre conspiracy mongering".

Except of course that actual empirical research into such a bias shows it doesn't exist. I guess common sense was wrong again, huh.

As an example: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...e-ignores-anti-obama-election/article/2555108

Ooh, a conservative advocacy magazine article reporting on a right wing advocacy group's "study"!

Learn about the Washington Examiner from your favorite source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

Learn about the MRC from your favorite source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center

I wonder why they chose to compare 2006 and 2014 instead of say, 2010 and 2014? Or included all three? Or included many more years in an attempt to do an actual study? We all know why of course, the data doesn't support their argument then. They make studies to tell easily duped people like you what you want to hear, that the world is conspiring against you.

Not a conspiracy, just recognizing a common agenda by people who march in lockstep and self-police their organizations to do the same. Organizations that are heavily proggie look at conservatives as an evangelical church would look at Satanists; nobody is going to hire any except as a lesson on what to avoid.

As we've gone over before, empirical evidence says otherwise. The fact that you continue to believe in these conspiracies even in the face of evidence is troubling.

 

[dank69]

Wow, never heard of Conservapedia until today. Clicked on dinosaur article for shits and giggles, here is the history of dinosaurs:

History of dinosaurs

Creation science asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day six of creation[5] approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus debunking the Theory of Evolution and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age and creation of the earth.

Creation science posits that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the Garden of Eden) eating only plants[6]; that pairs of each dinosaur kind were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning[7]; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood[8]; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.[9] At least 300 distinct genera of dinosaur have been identified.[10]

Archaeological, fossil, and documentary evidence supports the logical conclusion that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the Bible does not use the word "dinosaur." However, there are numerous references throughout the biblical account. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are clearly references to dinosaurs,[11] [12] although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. However, the Biblical descriptions do not fit those creatures, note that hippopotamuses and elephants do not have a "tail like a cedar". Furthermore, even if the terms did refer to other animals, this does not necessarily invalidate the existence of dinosaurs. The Creation account was not intended as a comprehensive list of all animals God created - it does not for instance state explicitly that He created the ferret. However, Genesis does state that God created all animals, which would include any not mentioned by name.

Yup, Wikipedia needs these guys to balance everything back out.

 

[werepossum]

It's what you're doing, whether you like it or not. The truth hurts sometimes.

No it isn't. You consistently claim that progressives are collectively engaging in deliberate deception. Don't try to cover up your past insanity.

If by "for idiots" you mean "validated as being as accurate as encyclopedias by empirical research".

And of course you have some evidence for this, right? Oh wait, you're werepossum. You just know it in your heart so it's true.

Except of course that actual empirical research into such a bias shows it doesn't exist. I guess common sense was wrong again, huh.

Ooh, a conservative advocacy magazine article reporting on a right wing advocacy group's "study"!

Learn about the Washington Examiner from your favorite source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

Learn about the MRC from your favorite source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center

I wonder why they chose to compare 2006 and 2014 instead of say, 2010 and 2014? Or included all three? Or included many more years in an attempt to do an actual study? We all know why of course, the data doesn't support their argument then. They make studies to tell easily duped people like you what you want to hear, that the world is conspiring against you.

As we've gone over before, empirical evidence says otherwise. The fact that you continue to believe in these conspiracies even in the face of evidence is troubling.

lol More "empirical studies", eh? I wonder if these too can be explained with Donkey Kong levels.

The MRC compared 2006 to 2014 because they are directly analogous. 2006 was Bush's second mid-term election, and the balance of power was visibly shifting from Republican to Democrat. The networks were breathless and heavily reported the pending election. 2014 is Obama's second mid-term election, and the balance of power is visibly shifting from Democrat to Republican. Now the networks can scarcely be bothered to even mention the elections and your answer is to criticize those who dare mention the difference.

I grow bored, so I'll give you the last word.

 

[werepossum]

Wow, never heard of Conservapedia until today. Clicked on dinosaur article for shits and giggles, here is the history of dinosaurs:

Yup, Wikipedia needs these guys to balance everything back out.

Conservapedia is not to be missed - although eventually one grows embarrassed to give them the advertising page hits just for cheap laughs. But before that embarrassment kicks in, it's pure gold on every topic.

 

[fskimospy]

lol More "empirical studies", eh? I wonder if these too can be explained with Donkey Kong levels.

The MRC compared 2006 to 2014 because they are directly analogous. 2006 was Bush's second mid-term election, and the balance of power was visibly shifting from Republican to Democrat. The networks were breathless and heavily reported the pending election. 2014 is Obama's second mid-term election, and the balance of power is visibly shifting from Democrat to Republican. Now the networks can scarcely be bothered to even mention the elections and your answer is to criticize those who dare mention the difference.

I grow bored, so I'll give you the last word.

2006 was a wave election that led to Democrats taking over both houses of congress after being shut out for several years. When that happened in 2010 the media was breathless and reported heavily on it. If the media was biased in this way, why did they report on the 2010 elections so much? Or is the media only biased in second term midterm elections and not first term midterms?

lol.

MRC is hoping that people are too stupid to notice that they deliberately leave out years that don't fit their narrative. Looks like it worked with you! Not that you care much about facts anyway.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow, never heard of Conservapedia until today. Clicked on dinosaur article for shits and giggles, here is the history of dinosaurs:

Yup, Wikipedia needs these guys to balance everything back out.

My favorite articles are anything having to do with liberals. They read like werepossum wrote them, haha.

 

[Zorba]

Exit screening for people displaying symptoms and travel bans are two entirely different things.

Also, you are once again misrepresenting what Vox wrote. Considering your attempts to attack them for misrepresenting things, this is ironic.

The vox article: http://www.vox.com/2014/10/3/6891297/why-airport-testing-wont-stop-ebola-from-coming-to-the-us



One of the main paragraphs is how people are already being screened for symptoms in the way your article describes before they get to the US. At no point do they say those screenings are useless, they say that duplicating them here isn't helpful.

So in addition to suggesting that you actually read the academic articles you're talking about, I would suggest you actually read the online articles you are attempting to critique. Shades of Texashiker, indeed.

Lets see, you post this link: http://www.vox.com/2014/10/18/6994413/research-travel-bans-ebola-virus-outbreak Which says screening are ineffective. I respond about what is said in that story, then you post a link to a completely different story and claim I am misrepresenting Vox.

Here is a partial quote from your original link:

Still, a Canadian study of public-health measures to combat SARS found that airport screening was a waste of money and human resources: it didn't pick up a single case of the disease.

Again, you fail to comprehend basic journal article league and you accuse me of misunderstanding it. And the source you are using is a website that is an opinion page with a clear bias/agenda. I see it as no different than quoting Sean Hannity, there may be some truth to what he says, but there is so much spin and bias it is easier to just dismiss him as a creditable source.

 

[fskimospy]

Lets see, you post this link: http://www.vox.com/2014/10/18/6994413/research-travel-bans-ebola-virus-outbreak Which says screening are ineffective. I respond about what is said in that story, then you post a link to a completely different story and claim I am misrepresenting Vox.

Yes, they said airport screening HERE was ineffective in both pieces. You then linked an article saying that airport screening in directly affected areas might be useful. This may have been an accidental misrepresentation of what they said, but it was definitely a misrepresentation.

Again, you fail to comprehend basic journal article league and you accuse me of misunderstanding it. And the source you are using is a website that is an opinion page with a clear bias/agenda. I see it as no different than quoting Sean Hannity, there may be some truth to what he says, but there is so much spin and bias it is easier to just dismiss him as a creditable source.

I've understood them all quite well. You didn't read the articles very closely and accused them of misrepresenting their sources. Bad form.

 

[Zorba]

Your quote:

Although the mechanisms driving the seasonality of influenza epidemics are still not well understood, our findings do suggest that fluctuations in airline travel have an impact on large-scale spread of influenza. At the regional level, our results suggest an important influence of international air travel on influenza timing as well as an influence of domestic air travel on influenza spread in the US. However, for the global influenza pandemic widely believed to be inevitable [41], the efficacy of travel advisories, flight restrictions, or even complete flight bans as a control measure is still uncertain. Though our results suggest a possible benefit of airline travel restrictions, without early detection and immediate action, such measures may be ineffective at stemming the spread or mitigating the impact of an oncoming pandemic [42]. Furthermore, even with a significant travel ban, the rapid rate of influenza spread might still outpace the capability to manufacture and distribute large amounts of vaccine matched to the new variant [43]. Policy-makers will also need to consider and balance the social, constitutional, legal, economic, and logistic consequences of such quarantine measures [44,45].

It effects WHEN the disease shows up, not IF the disease shows up. If your argument is that your only goal is for Ebola to show up a few weeks or months later then I guess you have a point. I hardly see how that's what we're talking about though.

Here I'll try to break this one down for you piece by piece:

"our findings do suggest that fluctuations in airline travel have an impact on large-scale spread of influenza." - This means that traveling, by air, does have a statistically significant impact on the spread of the Flu.

"At the regional level, our results suggest an important influence of international air travel on influenza timing as well as an influence of domestic air travel on influenza spread in the US." - International air travel has an statistically significant impact on the timing Flu outbreak. And that domestic travel has an impact on spread. Remember this was based on a 3 day stoppage of air travel.

"However, for the global influenza pandemic widely believed to be inevitable [41], the efficacy of travel advisories, flight restrictions, or even complete flight bans as a control measure is still uncertain." - Uncertain means this study has not presented the evidence to say if they would or would not be effective against an influenza pandemic. That does not mean ineffective. It is also important to remember the differences in transmission between the flu and Ebola.

"Though our results suggest a possible benefit of airline travel restrictions, without early detection and immediate action, such measures may be ineffective at stemming the spread or mitigating the impact of an oncoming pandemic [42]." - There study shows there may be a benefit to airline travel restrictions (so the data leans to effective, not ineffective). But there are limitations, like you must put them into place early and immediately. If you wait until after an outbreak begins, travel restrictions may become ineffective (duh).

"Furthermore, even with a significant travel ban, the rapid rate of influenza spread might still outpace the capability to manufacture and distribute large amounts of vaccine matched to the new variant [43]." - This is saying, even if a travel ban was used, it may not buy you enough time to vaccinate everyone. The flip side is it may buy you enough time, although they lean towards not enough they were not conclusive. Remember they are talking about an influenza pandemic, which has a much different transmission mechanism and rate than Ebola.

I am still missing how this says travel bans are ineffective.

 

[Zorba]

I've understood them all quite well. You didn't read the articles very closely and accused them of misrepresenting their sources. Bad form.

Ok, I'll ask again, please show me were those articles claim travel bans are ineffective, if done before a local outbreak occurs.

The implication of the Vox story is that travel bans are completely ineffective, then follow the same playbook as Fox News to string together a handful of points. I guess everything they said in #2 is correct, but they are clearly trying to imply something else:

"Temporary flight bans and decreases in air travel following 9/11 provided a natural experiment in the impact of travel on seasonal influenza. Researchers found the reduced movement of people didn't stop the flu; it only delayed it by a couple of weeks and led to a prolonged flu season. So the researchers didn't find that restricting air travel prevented flu spread; only that it delayed it." - Not bad for 3 day ban on air travel. This also ignores everything else in the article.

"What's more, the researchers didn't test whether this delay reduced flu cases or saved lives. But a look at the CDC data shows that flu deaths actually massively spiked during the 2001-2002 flu season, rising from about 3,900 the year before to more than 13,000 post-9/11. This isn't to say that 9/11 had anything to do with the increase in flu deaths, but rather that travel bans didn't seem to prevent them." - First, there was no travel ban targeted at stopping the flu, so this whole point is pointless. But they are trying to imply the three day travel ban caused more deaths. Notice they only compared two years, that is red flag of bias, if you look at the death from 76 to 06, you'll see 04 and 05 had higher death totals and that 01 had a different type of flu than 2000. link

 

[fskimospy]

Here I'll try to break this one down for you piece by piece:

"our findings do suggest that fluctuations in airline travel have an impact on large-scale spread of influenza." - This means that traveling, by air, does have a statistically significant impact on the spread of the Flu.

This is taken out of context of the remainder of the paragraph that explains how it affects the flu. - through timing.

"At the regional level, our results suggest an important influence of international air travel on influenza timing as well as an influence of domestic air travel on influenza spread in the US." - International air travel has an statistically significant impact on the timing Flu outbreak. And that domestic travel has an impact on spread. Remember this was based on a 3 day stoppage of air travel.

So international travel was not shown to have an impact on the spread. Glad we agree on this. This is a statement that travel bans like the ones being discussed would not be effective.

"However, for the global influenza pandemic widely believed to be inevitable [41], the efficacy of travel advisories, flight restrictions, or even complete flight bans as a control measure is still uncertain." - Uncertain means this study has not presented the evidence to say if they would or would not be effective against an influenza pandemic. That does not mean ineffective. It is also important to remember the differences in transmission between the flu and Ebola.

Actually what they are saying there is an acknowledgement that transmission of the cannot be stopped by international flight bans. That's what 'inevitable' means. ie: travel bans are ineffective.

Of course it's important to remember the differences in transmission between the flu and Ebola.

"Though our results suggest a possible benefit of airline travel restrictions, without early detection and immediate action, such measures may be ineffective at stemming the spread or mitigating the impact of an oncoming pandemic [42]." - There study shows there may be a benefit to airline travel restrictions (so the data leans to effective, not ineffective).

But there are limitations, like you must put them into place early and immediately. If you wait until after an outbreak begins, travel restrictions may become ineffective (duh).

"Furthermore, even with a significant travel ban, the rapid rate of influenza spread might still outpace the capability to manufacture and distribute large amounts of vaccine matched to the new variant [43]." - This is saying, even if a travel ban was used, it may not buy you enough time to vaccinate everyone. The flip side is it may buy you enough time, although they lean towards not enough they were not conclusive. Remember they are talking about an influenza pandemic, which has a much different transmission mechanism and rate than Ebola.

Again, the benefits being realized are those that come from delayed timing. As I mentioned before, if you believe that having Ebola come to the US slightly later is a benefit that should be realized, that seems to be a reasonable position to hold. That is not the reason flight bans are being advocated for, however.

I am still missing how this says travel bans are ineffective.

Hopefully you see now?

 

[fskimospy]

If you're looking for a study they used that more directly references international travel there's this one of course:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016591

Conclusion:

Our analysis of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic shows that the observed decline in air travel to/from Mexico was of too small a magnitude to impact the international spread. Stricter regimes of travel reduction would have led to delays on the order of two weeks even in the optimistic case of early intervention. It is unlikely that given the ever-increasing mobility of people travel restrictions could be used effectively in a future pandemic event.

Like they said, the evidence is clear.

 

[shira]

Another potential imported case, this one a NY City physician, affiliated with Doctors Without Borders, who treated Ebola patients in West Africa until 10 days ago when he returned to the U.S. The physician developed symptoms earlier today and is now in isolation at Bellevue hospital for evaluation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...est-africa-being-evaluated-for-ebola/?hpid=z5

A New York health worker who recently returned to the United States from West Africa has been hospitalized in Manhattan and is being tested for Ebola, the city health department said in a statement.

The man, "who presented a fever and gastrointestinal symptoms," was transported on Thursday to Bellevue Hospital, the health department said. He was identified as a health-care worker "who returned to the U.S. within the past 21 days from one of the three countries currently facing the outbreak of this virus."

In its statement, the city health department said that after consulting with the hospital and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, officials "decided to conduct a test for the Ebola virus because of this patient’s recent travel history, pattern of symptoms, and past work."

The statement added that this patient, who was not identified, is also being evaluated "for other causes of illness, as these symptoms can also be consistent with salmonella, malaria, or the stomach flu."

Preliminary test results are expected in the next 12 hours, said the statement, which was issued shortly after 3 p.m. Eastern time.

A spokesman with Doctors Without Borders confirmed that one of their employees in New York City who had recently returned from working in an Ebola-affected country notified their office Thursday morning that they had developed a fever.

"As per the specific guidelines that Doctors Without Borders provides its staff on their return from Ebola assignments, the individual engaged in regular health monitoring and reported this development immediately," spokesman Tom Shenk said in a statement. "While at this stage there is no confirmation that the individual has contracted Ebola, Doctors Without Borders, in the interest of public safety and in accordance with its protocols, immediately notified the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, which is directly managing the individual’s care."

The statement said that "as a further precaution," a team of disease detectives has already begun "to actively trace all of the patient’s contacts to identify anyone who may be at potential risk."

CDC officials declined to comment.

According to NBC New York, the patient is a doctor who worked with an aid group on the front lines of the Ebola fight in West Africa. The doctor, NBC New York reported, "began to feel ill Thursday and called 911."

Citing anonymous sources, NBC New York reported that the man "returned to New York from Guinea about 10 days ago." He was transported to the hospital from a building in Harlem, the station added.

In its statement, the city health department noted that Bellevue Hospital "is designated for the isolation, identification and treatment of potential Ebola patients by the City and State." Earlier this month, New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) designated Bellevue as one of eight hospitals in the state that could care for potential Ebola patients.

"New York City is taking all necessary precautions to ensure the health and safety of all New Yorkers," the health department statement said. "The chances of the average New Yorker contracting Ebola are extremely slim."

The deadly virus is spread by direct contact with the bodily fluids of a symptomatic Ebola patient.

 

[squarecut1]

North Korea has banned ALL tourists coming into the country, due to Ebola. I am not making this up

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/w...r-foreign-tourists-over-ebola-fears.html?_r=0

So perhaps this is a an indication of how wise travel bans are.

 

[RandallFlagg]

One thing I like to do when a scientific topic becomes political, is see what was being said before that topic became political.

If you read these, travel restrictions are the first thing to do. They only work early on to avoid pandemics.

Why? Because once the disease is entrenched on land, it moves via ground transmission faster than the trickle of individuals via air or sea. The point of travel bans is to delay it from getting to the point of ground transmission.


http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/12/309

Impact of the interventions
Among the three kinds of transport, disease spread was most effectively delayed by restriction on air travel. Air travel restriction delayed the FPT and FHPT by one week relative to the no-intervention control case (Table 1). The peak time might have been delayed by two weeks if a single 99% air travel restriction had been imposed (Figure 5C). The pandemic established in China six months following the first global import to Hong Kong; the strong land connection between the two countries significantly enhanced the number of imported cases.


And this from 2007 :

https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch9en/appl9en/ch9a3en.html

Once an outbreak becomes apparent, the global passenger transportation system, such as air travel and passenger rail, can quickly be shut down in whole or in part, either voluntarily (more likely if the outbreak is judged to be serious) or by the unwillingness of passengers to be exposed to risks. The latter is what happened during the SARS outbreak in 2003.



And this from the CDC :

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/13/7/06-0740_article

"If an influenza pandemic emerges, the first attempts to control its spread are likely to be made at its source, as suggested in recent modeling papers (6,7). However, if these strategies fail, individual governments will need to implement strategies to manage the pandemic when it arrives on their borders. In addition to well-publicized options for control, including antiviral prophylaxis and quarantine (6,7), travel restrictions, both external and internal, may play a role in reducing the geographic spread of the virus (8–11)"

 

[Pulsar]

Another potential imported case, this one a NY City physician, affiliated with Doctors Without Borders, who treated Ebola patients in West Africa until 10 days ago when he returned to the U.S. The physician developed symptoms earlier today and is now in isolation at Bellevue hospital for evaluation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...est-africa-being-evaluated-for-ebola/?hpid=z5

Pay close attention folks.

New York City is one of our most densely populated areas. This doctor, if stricken with Ebola, likely exposed thousands of people to it before the onset of symptoms.

If there is an outbreak in New York City, it is highly unlikely that any local level of quarantine is going to stop it.

As an afternote - their comment about it only being contractable while a patient is 'symptomatic' is bullshit. The virus is replicating well before outward signs present. You're simply far more likely to come in contact with it after the patient begins to cough / sneeze / vomit.

 

[squarecut1]

As an afternote - their comment about it only being contractable while a patient is 'symptomatic' is bullshit. The virus is replicating well before outward signs present. You're simply far more likely to come in contact with it after the patient begins to cough / sneeze / vomit.

Are you qualified to say that about Ebola?

 

[dmcowen674]

Another potential imported case, this one a NY City physician, affiliated with Doctors Without Borders, who treated Ebola patients in West Africa until 10 days ago when he returned to the U.S. The physician developed symptoms earlier today and is now in isolation at Bellevue hospital for evaluation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...est-africa-being-evaluated-for-ebola/?hpid=z5

He has been confirmed to have the Virus.

He has had a a lot of contact with people including taking cab rides all over the city.

Lovely.

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/...rus-nyc-doctor-recently-in-w-africa-1.9539114

What we know about New York City's Ebola patient:
• He landed at JFK Airport on Oct. 17
• He took the A train, L train, 1 train
• He went to a Brooklyn bowling alley