Why is the government saying so little about Ebola and prevention?

[Crono]

I'm still not meaning to be an alarmist, but from things I've read anyone active with sweaty palms could just touch an object they have in the last few hours, possibly days in some environments, and rub their eyes once or nose and get it.

Doctors that know what they are doing in full Hazmat suits have been contracting it, it is something to worry about in my mind.

Anytime you are walking into a contained environment with known infected persons, possibly insufficiently sterilized equipment (though you hope everyone is doing their job), etc there's going to be higher risk, even if you are careful.

 

[MongGrel]

It's election season. No time for this ebola bullshit.

/Thanks_Obama!

:hmm:

 

[Markbnj]

I would like to know exactly what sources of information you are listening to, watching, or reading. Because all the experts (read: not talking heads on television, but doctors and CDC officials) are saying much the same thing most of us in this thread are saying. And they are going on facts, not just assumptions that it's somehow possible for Ebola to become super contagious or whatever it is you are expecting. I just don't see the need for fear or over emphasizing Ebola over everything else. It's fear mongering is all it is, except in the areas in Africa where they do legitimately need more resources and help.

Like I said, I am reading and watching the same media you guys are. I have no inside sources of information, I don't read conspiracy websites, none of that shit.

I agree that virtually all expert voices are united now in saying we have nothing to worry about. In my experience they will usually say that right up until we do, so that in and of itself does not preempt my own thought processes. And those processes go something like this: it isn't airborne, but neither do you have to drink another person's lung phlegm to contract it; the first patient was in contact with the general population for some time before being quarantined; there is a lot of travel between the U.S. and affected countries; the delay in diagnosis during the symptomatic period means anyone who is infected and unidentified will remain so for a short time before being diagnosed and quarantined; and lastly, we're all human in that we touch each other, sneeze, cough, spit when we talk, forget to wash our hands, etc. Hell, I've been dismayed over the declined in public hygiene in the U.S. over the last twenty years, and whenever I have instructed my kids in hygiene issues I have always tried to put it in the context of how hard won our human advancements have been. We didn't find a book that told us to wash our hands and pipe sewage away. We did those things because lots of people died miserably and then we figured out why. So some messaging around how important personal hygiene and medical responsibility is doesn't seem out of place to me, and the idea that we can't say anything at all because to do so would be to admit that we aren't 100% certain it can't spread seems very silly.

 

[bradly1101]

My problem is with how TV 'doctors' seem to only want to allay our concerns. The don't give us enough credit for being able to have intelligent, constructive concern without going into mass hysteria or worse, an economic downturn.

While paying no attention to the domestic, dumbed-down media I set about searching for answers.

One BBC article stated that taxi-cabs in west Africa were infectious when they had previously been used by symptomatic people who often took them to get to the hospital.

So it sounds like a person's sweat can infect someone when it's away from the body - something I haven't heard the domestic media saying, but again I don't believe that they think we can handle it. My guess is that they know there will be an economic downturn if people have a concern about shared surfaces like that. They know it will keep some people at home. So be vigilant but don't be concerned enough that you'll spend less money. What a message. I think we can handle the truth.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not that anyone determined to panic will be reassured by science, but here goes.

Assessment of the Risk of Ebola Virus Transmission from Bodily Fluids and Fomites

Also my wife spoke with a doc who worked in Africa who explained how some of them got sick. They ran out of gloves.

 

[Markbnj]

Not that anyone determined to panic will be reassured by science, but here goes.

Assessment of the Risk of Ebola Virus Transmission from Bodily Fluids and Fomites

Also my wife spoke with a doc who worked in Africa who explained how some of them got sick. They ran out of gloves.

Did you mean to link to the body of the report rather than the top? I think the abstract is worth reading:

Although Ebola virus (EBOV) is transmitted by unprotected physical contact with infected persons, few data exist on which specific bodily fluids are infected or on the risk of fomite transmission. Therefore, we tested various clinical specimens from 26 laboratory-confirmed cases of Ebola hemorrhagic fever, as well as environmental specimens collected from an isolation ward, for the presence of EBOV. Virus was detected by culture and/or reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction in 16 of 54 clinical specimens (including saliva, stool, semen, breast milk, tears, nasal blood, and a skin swab) and in 2 of 33 environmental specimens.We conclude that EBOV is shed in a wide variety of bodily fluids during the acute period of illness but that the risk of transmission from fomites in an isolation ward and from convalescent patients is low when currently recommended infection control guidelines for the viral hemorrhagic fevers are followed.

What exactly about this science did you find reassuring? I have never doubted that "the risk of transmission from fomites in an isolation ward and from convalescent patients is low when currently recommended infection control guidelines" are followed. That is hardly the danger scenario. If an infectious person is not in an isolation ward then what?

So what this boils down to, I think, is you're saying they are 100% certain that they have it contained and that there is no infection in the wild in the U.S. If they are 100% certain then no messaging is needed, I agree. If they are not 100% certain, then early messaging could be critical. So they must in fact be 100% certain, because otherwise why would you not default in favor of early action?

 

[sandorski]

The Media has it covered, but when it actually is a pressing issue, then the Government will begin issuing the appropriate information. Until it is necessary, it is actually more harmful to cause a panic.

 

[dmcowen674]

Why is the government saying so little about Ebola and prevention?

Squash order was given including the search engines.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What exactly about this science did you find reassuring

Question, are you one determined to panic? There are those who act as if EBOV has magical powers, or it might as well be. Note saliva breaks down virus quickly but some here think anyone in the presence of an active case is at risk. No. Now as far as a widespread outbreak? No. It's not happening here. Am I going to say that there will be no additional cases? Nope.

 

[Staples]

Seems that we are not worried because in the US, we have adequate sanitation thatwill keep it from growing into an epidemic.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Squash order was given including the search engines.

Damn those Reptilians!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Seems that we are not worried because in the US, we have adequate sanitation thatwill keep it from growing into an epidemic.

Bless you.

 

[Ichinisan]

Prevention? Limit contact with people. There's not much more to say.

 

[Markbnj]

Question, are you one determined to panic? There are those who act as if EBOV has magical powers, or it might as well be. Note saliva breaks down virus quickly but some here think anyone in the presence of an active case is at risk. No. Now as far as a widespread outbreak? No. It's not happening here. Am I going to say that there will be no additional cases? Nope.

Are you reading the same language in the same text I am reading? You linked that report, not me. I'll ask again: are you 100% certain that every infected person is known and observed or contained? If you are, then no worries. If you're not, then I don't see how that report is reassuring.

Also, this bullshit about what sources I'm reading, whether I'm the panicky sort, is just distracting. I'm reading, watching, and thinking, and discussing the results of that thought. That's all. I would say people panicking is one end of the spectrum, and the other is people saying there's nothing to worry about because that's what they think they've been told. I'm not at either of those extremes.

 

[disappoint]

It's not air born, just don't touch people or eat their brains!

Damn. I gotta go on a diet now?

 

[Hugo Drax]

Because they have no plan whatsoever.

If ebola strikes a big city like Manhattan we would be helpless. Between the fear of lawsuits, the burocracy, the people who only got jobs due to politics. Etc.. We would be doomed. Oh and the politics of course, congress would be frozen in political infighting, no decisions get made.

Look how case #1 already started on the wrong foot.

It would only take a few cases before the whole deck of cards fall.

 

[IronWing]

Why is the government saying so little about Ebola and prevention?

It's best left to the private sector. Once insurance companies start paying significant claims, ebola will be of concern. Let the markets handle public health.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Are you reading the same language in the same text I am reading? You linked that report, not me. I'll ask again: are you 100% certain that every infected person is known and observed or contained? If you are, then no worries. If you're not, then I don't see how that report is reassuring.

It isn't magic. Some people are ascribing a greater threat of transmission than actually is warranted. If you aren't one of those people then this doesn't apply to you. Am I 100% certain that all people in all places at all times in every possible way are contained? Of course not and in fact I've already stated that it wouldn't be surprising if this is seen again. Am I convinced that we're not going to see a widespread and uncontrollable epidemic as things stand? Yes. The virus doesn't jump all over people. It isn't indestructible. There is no reasonable mechanism where this virus can spread like it did in Africa.

I suppose it comes down to this. If the requirement is that you think you are unsafe unless someone can guarantee that it is physically impossible for someone to get Ebola in the US then you are welcome to think that way, however I would say that there is a non-zero chance that you won't be killed by a meteor before you could reply to this post. As far as "comfort" in the report, there is none for those who believe in the absolute power of contagion of this disease. If one is knowledgeable then it offers nothing new or amazing. For those who aren't sure about the particulars it's informational and for those who are fearful but can at least think it offers some assurance that it's just a disease, not supernatural. What you draw from it or not is pretty much your business.

 

[gbeirn]

as for mutation rate, ebola is a RNA virus so the mutation rate is pretty much going to be sky high. RNA polymerases are highly error prone and it looks like the RNA genome is replicated twice by RNA polymerases in the life-cycle from infection to the production of new viable Ebola... so double the chances of mutation as one would expect from a single pass of RNA polymerase.

This is perhaps the scariest part of this whole outbreak in my opinion and the best reason to act quickly and prevent as many future cases as possible. Until now, past outbreaks have realitvely quickly burned themselves out with grabbing a foothold in the population. More infections mean more chances for mutations, slightly less lethal, longer transmission windows, who knows what. Certainly I don't believe in a humanity extinction event but perhaps we are looking at a more lethal HIV 2.0 if you will, some cases that mutate where humans become a good host for the virus.

 

[RelaxTheMind]

there is way more than 3 cases. for certain legal reasons i cannot say where when or who, but i am allowed to say that there are a lot more than 3.

 

[Paul98]

This is not an "omg you can get it by thinking about it" thread. I know, as well or better than most non-medical people, how the disease spreads. There is a period of time in the early stages when a patient is symptomatic and infectious, but potentially unaware that what they have is something other than a normal bug. That is the danger period.

Given that we can never know to a perfect certainty all the people that someone comes in contact with, or to put it more specifically, all the people that might conceivably come into contact with an infected person's precious bodily fluids through daily movements and activities, wouldn't some sort of prevention program make sense?

I'm talking about public awareness messages like staying home if you feel ill, practicing good sanitation and hygiene, seeing your doctor if you have symptoms that last more than x days. In other words, why aren't they acknowledging that there is an actual public health threat and using media to educate people on how to minimize it?

Because it isn't, all the media and you are doing is making up a threat that doesn't exist. Nearly everything you do is going to be far more dangerous than Ebola. Ebola shouldn't even be on your radar as you have no chance of getting it unless you are in Africa in one of the areas that has an outbreak. You should be far more worried about the flu or any diseases you can get in your part of the world.

 

[Markbnj]

I suppose it comes down to this. If the requirement is that you think you are unsafe unless someone can guarantee that it is physically impossible for someone to get Ebola in the US then you are welcome to think that way, however I would say that there is a non-zero chance that you won't be killed by a meteor before you could reply to this post.

This thread has nothing to do with my own sense of safety. It is about public health policy and whether preventive messaging is warranted yet. And despite two long replies you have yet to address the content of the report you linked. Based on even a cursory reading of it a logical person would come to the conclusion that whether or not infectious persons are contained in isolation wards or out among the general population is a significant question.

 

[ultimatebob]

What do you want the US government to do, exactly? Nobody is really getting sick yet, so it's a big early to do something crazy like release a "Ebola: Don't touch a friend" club song.

Seriously, look that up. It was actually a pretty popular song in Liberia.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This thread has nothing to do with my own sense of safety. It is about public health policy and whether preventive messaging is warranted yet. And despite two long replies you have yet to address the content of the report you linked. Based on even a cursory reading of it a logical person would come to the conclusion that whether or not infectious persons are contained in isolation wards or out among the general population is a significant question.

I'm not finding anywhere that infectious persons should be out among the general population.

I did find in the report

Other than in samples grossly contaminated with blood, EBOV was not found by any method on environmental surfaces and by RT-PCR on the skin of only 1 patient. These results suggest that environmental contamination and fomites are not frequent modes of transmission

That doesn't mean that EBOV can't be transmitted but some of the fearful don't seem to get the last bit.

Now I'd like to know where these infectious people are in the US population you seem to be afraid of. Where do you believe them to be lurking?

 

[Markbnj]

Nobody is really getting sick yet, so it's a big early to do something crazy like release a "Ebola: Don't touch a friend" club song.

Seriously, look that up. It was actually a pretty popular song in Liberia.

I don't know what "really getting sick yet" means, but however you mean it, it's impossible to prove. It's not like someone starts blinking red when they're infectious. That's the problem. There is a period of time during which they think all they have is a bug of some kind. That's fine if, and only if, the CDC is confident that it was able to identify anyone who may have come into contact with this guy.

But to answer the direct question: as a first step, at least education about what the early signs are and how to spot them. Maybe they are doing that in Dallas and other places. I don't know. I understand that there''s a huge effect from that sort of message, but the fact is it's here. It never has been before. If crossing our shores isn't crossing an important line, then what's next? Some x number of active cases? Once you have x active cases the thing is already getting away from you, since the curve is up.