100 people may have been exposed to Ebola via first U.S. patient, four are isolated


#1

[Permalink]


#2

ebola bad. STAR WARS font good.


#3

At this point the story is being driven by the usual cable news reporters yelling outlandishly stupid questions so they can get a soundbite to fill the dead air that is cable news.


#4

Charlie Brooker crosses live to himself to cover himself coming home to sit on his couch… live…


#5

Oh, he’s Liberian? I first read that as he was a librarian. Couldn’t figure out why that would matter…


#6

O shit - hiccups? I totally had those for a minute or so today.

I’m doomed.


#7

Reports from Liberia are that he may have been a trifle less than forthcoming about his exposure there.

I can sympathize with the ‘get the hell out of the plague hole’ incentives; but I’m guessing that (if true, or even sufficiently widely believed to be) surviving Ebola may only be the first in a series of mortality challenges for this guy…


#8

As much as the CDC wanted to prevent a general sense of HOLY SHIT EVERYBODY PANIC, I really feel that this is the one instance where sensationaliast media coverage is a public benefit.

For example, most people came away from the SARS epidemic feeling kind of like “Huh. Was that it? Seems like we may have unnecessarily inconvenienced a lot of people at the time…” But! Perhaps the lack of a spectacular death toll was precisely because everyone was freaking out?


#9

The CDC keeps backpedaling on things.

“It’s okay, Africa is over the ocean, we’ve taken adequate measures at airports and customs to prevent the infection spreading via air travel.”

“Turns out the disease has spread here via air travel - but don’t worry, only four other people were possibly exposed.”

“So… uhh… about that earlier number of four people… yeah… more like a hundred people. But we’ve totally got things under control! For real this time!”

Not inspiring a lot of confidence.


#10

Nobody cared about SARS as long as it was only killing Canadians.

Seriously though, SARS was probably a lot more threatening than ebola. SARS was wildly contagious like smallpox. And the death rate of ebola would probably be a lot closer to SARS if everything were equal and both were being treated in a hospital setting


#11

It was assumed from the start that cases would arrive via air. That’s why hospitals were supposed to be asking about travel in the affected region. I don’t think that anyone said that there were only for exposures either: they clearly found the others because they were looking for them. I see one clear screw up here; at the hospital,


#12

They have been talking about Ebola for thirty some odd years and NOTHING has been done to stop it. NOTHING! We find ways of putting pressure where it is profitable for a few and let Ebola remain unchecked. I propose, it is done on purpose. Maybe a new thing to use to curb population? Is there reason for political advantage?
It’s just sick.

The disease is horrible, yet it is being politicized for the benefit of the few. How can we know about a disease for so long and do nothing to stop it.

Because it’s a lie.


#13

From a Dawkinsian perspective, Ebola has historically been pretty shitty at promoting itself due to the extreme speed with which it kills its host relative to the rate of transmission. The biggest reason “no one cared” in the past (which is a bald-faced lie and a gross misrepresentation; dedicated healthcare professionals have clearly cared during prior outbreaks) is that it never had enough momentum to pose a significant health threat. Now it does, and this the calculus of small lives adds up more quickly.


#14

Yeah, my sister’s upstairs landlord ended up being quarantined with SARS - in the same house as my sister. A bit alarming at times.


#15

Sorry, misremembered the cited number. Not 4, but 12. Still kind of a big jump to 100 or so.


#16

SARS fatality rate: 9-12% Ebola fatality rate: 70-90%


#17

Ah, but they aren’t the media. “No one cared” in this case means “no one in the media.” The caring of dedicated professionals is beside the point, which is panicky stories on TV.


#18

Read the article again. Only 12-18 people were directly exposed to the sick guy, and that number hasn’t changed. The 100 people are the second-degree contacts – the contacts of the directly-exposed people. AFAIK the directly-exposed people haven’t shown symptoms, which means they aren’t and weren’t contagious. The CDC is just being extra-cautious in monitoring their contacts, too.

Unfortunately people hear “100 people being monitored” and think 100 people were directly exposed and panic.


#19

…because this is the first time there has been such a massive epidemic? It’s petty easy to prioritize when none of the previous outbreaks killed more than 300 people (compare that to, say, malaria). If you want to complain about something, complain about the woefully insufficient Western response this time around, rather than promoting some loony conspiracy theory.


#20

I bet the World Health Organization workers who stopped the first known outbreak in Zaire during 1976 and later that year in the Sudan would be kind of upset to hear someone say that.
Then there are the 8 aid workers murdered last month. But you go on an be upset. Clearly, since you are not aware of what’s being done, that must mean nothing is being done. NOTHING!