Ebola Forecast: Scientists Release Updated Projections and Tracking Maps 294
An anonymous reader writes Scientists of the Northeastern University, in collaboration with European scientists, developed a modeling approach aimed at assessing the progression of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa and its international spread under the assumption that the outbreak continues to evolve at the current pace. They also considered the impact of travel restrictions, and concluded that such restrictions may delay by only a few weeks the risk that the outbreak extends to new countries. Instead, travel bans could hamper the delivery of medical supplies and the deployment of specialized personnel to manage the epidemic. In the group's page, there's also an updated assessment of the probability of Ebola virus disease case importation in countries across the world, which was also invoked during the Congressional Ebola debate. The group also released a map with real-time tracking of conversations about Ebola on Twitter. Policy makers and first responders are the main target audience of the tool, which is able to show a series of potential warnings and events (mostly unconfirmed) related to Ebola spreading and case importation.
Works better for flu (Score:3)
Because panicky idiots with nothing to fear don't talk about the flu just because someone halfway across the country has it without symptoms yet.
Re: (Score:2)
I blame human nature.
Ebola, as an African phenomenon, was too normal xenophobes an exotic and encroaching problem from the outside. The notion that it could follow an infection pattern similar to other deadly diseases, and not spread wildly in places with good medical care, public health, and sanitation, might consciously occur to them, but since it's an "outsider" phenomenon, it bypasses any rationality present.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The nurse has tested negative for the Ebola virus. She has no symptoms. She is under no legally obligated quarantine. Why shouldn't she live her life as she pleases rather than a bunch of panicked out of their minds people think she should.
Sheesh! You would think that after the people that Thomas Eric Duncan lived with in Dallas before he was admitted to the hospital didn't contract Ebola people would realize just how hard it is to transmit and calm down. So far the only people to contract Ebola in thi
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think having her give up three weeks of her life it too much to ask in order to err on the side of caution. After all, she was willing to risk her life to help treat people with it. Compared to the risk of dying, this should be nothing to her.
Re: (Score:2)
She has no symptoms which means she is not contagious. If some of the people Thomas Eric Duncan lived with in Dallas had come down with Ebola I'd be more willing to consider a quarantine but it's obvious that Ebola is not as easily contagious as you seem to think.
Re: (Score:2)
"She has no symptoms which means she is not contagious"
But we won't know for sure for three weeks. 21 days is not a lot of ask of someone.
Re: (Score:2)
With the way she is behaving, it's obviously become a prestige issue for her so I don't think she could be trusted to report symptoms if she had them. Of course, if she's out to discredit the honour system of self-reporting she's certainly rather effective.
Re: (Score:3)
She's a fucking medical professional who's worked first hand with people who had and have died from Ebola. She knows exactly what Ebola can do to a person. Do you really think she cares so little for her own life that she would avoid reporting symptoms if they developed and possibly die from Ebola?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the MSF nurse who probably doesn't have Ebola took a bike ride.
Seriously.
Watch Reporters Chase The Maine 'Ebola Nurse' On Her Bike
Re: (Score:2)
It's STILL mother effing MAINE!!
Seriously.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Please do. I'm too lazy to bother keeping track, but I'd love to see a recap.
Politically correct travel restrictions claptrap (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Politically correct travel restrictions claptra (Score:4, Insightful)
You are aware that experts at both the CDC [thehill.com] and the World Health Organization [washingtonpost.com] are saying that is likely to make the outbreak worse, and they both recommend against travel restrictions?
So here we have every top medical organization, vs one random slashdot poster. Hmm. Dunning-Kruger much?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There hasn't been a travel ban that has been legal or made sense.
The quara
Re: (Score:3)
Your own links contradict you. The director of the CDC (who is an MD, not a scientist) said a travel ban could make things worse. The WHO supports travel restrictions and controls, such as closing all but major entry points and implementing screening for sick people, and continuing low-risk activities such as fuel and supply deliveries, but cautions that overly broad restrictions could be counterproductive.
Re:Politically correct travel restrictions claptra (Score:4, Interesting)
So your point is that these people don't follow your advices (even if you are the top expert in epidemiology) and this as lead to a disastrous situation in the US
You mean the same experts who gave the OK for Amber Vinson to fly knowing she was exposed and had a fever?
How many people have been infected by contact with Amber Vinson?
Or the doctor who returned from Guinea who admitted he wasn't feeling good but decided to ride the subway multiple times, go bowling and eat out?
How many people have been infected by contact with this doctor?
Re:Politically correct travel restrictions claptra (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it that people in africa cannot follow science or these top expert's advice? Why is it that all 3 people mentioned above bt the GP have demonstrated that they cannot follow the science? Why is it that with everyone being an expert and the science already settled, is the outbreak still happening and people who know better are getting infected?
Here is the problem which is the same problem that happens in engineering, software development, sports, and quit a bit of other things in life as we know it. What works on paper, what works in theory, does not always work in practice. There are a number of reasons for this, a lot of them may not even be in your control. We just had a rocket explode on launch and i'm certain that everyone involved thought they did everything correctly, everything was right- until it was obvious it wasn't.
Almost- if not every state that requires a drivers license also requires the use of a seat belt for at least the driver when operating a car. Cars are completely safe and damage is rare when the rules are followed yet people mess it up all the time.
The experts can say anything they want. The mortality rate with Ebola is sky high compare to getting cancer and dieing from smoking yet we banchildren from doing it and restrict where people can smoke. Doing the bare minimum with Ebola is not rational considering the risks results in death more often than not. Statistically, you are less likely to die from a gunshot if a gun is shot around you than you are if you get Ebola. Quarentine is akin to wearing seatbelts, to laws against discharging firearms in certain areas, to smoking in certain areas, to wearing helmets while operating motorcycles.
Re: (Score:2)
The mortality rate with Ebola is sky high ...
So far the mortality rate for people in the United States who were detected with Ebola early in the disease and got immediate high quality care is zero. Thomas Eric Duncan was already very sick by the time he got admitted. Maybe the mortality rate in Africa has more do do with the lack of resources to provide the kind of care available in the US than it does with some absolute number.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern health care can improve chances significantly. As long as the half-dozen beds available for intensive care and organ support at a hospital aren't already busy.
If there was an actual outbreak with a significant number of infected needing treatment at the same time we'd do better than Africa with a few percent, and possibly a bit more by using antibodies from recovered infected which is probably easier to do in a modern setting, but barring actual cures it would fall apart completely faced with anythin
Re: (Score:2)
No, in the case of Ebola, it's not. It's equivalent to the TSA performing body cavity searches on grandmothers and toddlers. It's medical safety theater that accomplishes very little except to pacify clueless fools with no understanding of the science.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask again in a week. She only flew two weeks and three days ago, and IIRC, the plane was used for additional flights for a couple of days after that before they went through and sanitized everything, so the worst-case incubation period doesn't end until a week from yesterday.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mil staff understand incubation period and the need for quarantine on return.
The lack of bed space in negative-pressure rooms around the world is the interesting number to consider.
The number of transport pods ready, the filters, protective clothing in place and ready to use.
How many regional, teaching, state, city medical sites have the expert care ready? One bed? A few beds?
Re: (Score:2)
They are saying travel restrictions.
As in normal passenger flights are restricted. Why do you think that medical personnel and equipment would not be allowed in?
I keep hearing that talking point and wondered who could possible believe that a travel restriction would include military and medical personnel. But then here we are.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
This is related (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
If you can't even quarantine a single person, how's that going to work when you get hundreds, thousands and millions of people infected?
We're better off staying inside our basements.
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't even quarantine a single person, how's that going to work when you get hundreds, thousands and millions of people infected?
We're better off staying inside our basements.
That is exactly what people are going to do if this gets out of hand. Right now it isn't widespread enough for people to worry about actually getting it. However, if you get to the point where you start having dozens or hundreds of infections in many cities, you'll see everybody go into all-out zombie apocalypse mode.
I just don't get why we're being so lackadaisical about this. We have very few people at risk for spreading Ebola right now. Just pull out all the stops to contain things, and then we don't
Re:This is related (Score:5, Informative)
She is not "supposed to be quarantined" according to anyone except some idiot politicians trying to score political points and capitalize on fear. She has tested negative multiple times, has no symptoms, and the CDC has cleared her to go home. New Jersey governor said Monday that the CDC cleared nurse Kaci Hickox to go home during 21-day quarantine after she tested negative for Ebola [dailymail.co.uk]
It's just idiot politicians who have to be seen to be "doing something", regardless of whether that thing makes any sense.
Also CDC says returning Ebola medical workers should not be quarantined [chicagotribune.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
She has tested negative multiple times, has no symptoms, and the CDC has cleared her to go home.
"Testing negative" and "no symptoms" is essentially meaningless in this context. The virus may not be detectable in the blood, and the person may be asymptomatic, for a long time.
Frequent, early testing is useful for early diagnosis if she contracts the disease. But the fact that she has tested negative doesn't say anything about whether or not she needs to be quarantined.
Those who oppose any form of quarantine keep invoking "science" for their support, but then they also keep bringing up the fact that th
Re:This is related (Score:4, Informative)
The science, so far, suggests that people aren't shedding virus (infective) until they start developing symptoms. Or is there other research stating that people are infective while asymptomatic? The science of the situation changes as the researchers are getting a better understanding of this particular infection. It's an exciting time (so long as you're not infected, of course).
As an aside, why is science in quotes? Are we supposed to exchange that word for mysticism?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't debate that if she is asymptomatic then she probably isn't actively spreading the disease. The problem is that we don't have a lot of data around just what the risks are in the time between somebody starts actively spreading the disease and the time symptoms are first DETECTED (you can't take action prior to detection unless you quarantine pre-emptively). Note that I do not intend to imply an ordering of those two events, and as far as I'm aware there is no hard scientific data supporting that eit
Re: (Score:2)
That's not precisely correct. As I understand it, the symptoms of a virus are largely caused by the body's reaction to shedding (when cells explode and send viruses throughout the body), so with any virus, you do start shedding prior to when you show symptoms, by definition. In Ebola's case, there's not a lot of time between those two events, assuming your immune system is working normally, but
Re: (Score:3)
"Testing negative" and "no symptoms" is essentially meaningless in this context.
Sorry, but no, it's not meaningless. Do the current test methods provide a definitive answer as to whether or not someone is infected with the virus? No, the current methods are difficult and prone to cross-contamination and human error. However, you're forgetting that the general consensus is that someone infected is not considered to be contagious until they're symptomatic. Therefore "no symptoms" carries a lot of meaning.
Frequent, early testing is useful for early diagnosis if she contracts the disease. But the fact that she has tested negative doesn't say anything about whether or not she needs to be quarantined.
Wow. So you're saying that people should be quarantined without any evidence o
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but no, it's not meaningless. Do the current test methods provide a definitive answer as to whether or not someone is infected with the virus? No, the current methods are difficult and prone to cross-contamination and human error. However, you're forgetting that the general consensus is that someone infected is not considered to be contagious until they're symptomatic. Therefore "no symptoms" carries a lot of meaning.
The context, in this case, is the question of whether or not someone should be quarantined due to the potential to contract the disease. Testing and not showing symptoms does not tell you anything about that. It tells you whether they are at risk to spread the disease right now, not whether that risk will happen in the future. It is meaningless in the context that we're talking about.
Wow. So you're saying that people should be quarantined without any evidence of infection? Or maybe you think that anyone who has traveled to Africa should be quarantined?
First, I didn't say that I support quarantining them. I do think that there are some sensible precautions that we should
Re: (Score:2)
And FYI, I'm not opposed to any form of quarantine, but doing so only with circumstantial evidence would be a Bad Thing.
The evidence is in your face. She worked with Ebola patients not just someone who happened to be in the country.
So you're saying that people should be quarantined without any evidence of infection?
Sounds like he is. Let us also keep in mind that quarantines work a whole lot better than their absence does. And would it really be better to endure the privations of a two or three Ebola epidemic in the States, for example, than impose a quarantine
Re: (Score:2)
Except "symptoms" itself is rarely a binary condition... they progress - from a point where there are no symptoms to the point where they are visibly exhibiting symptoms. Somewhere in between is inevitably going to be window of time where they may technically qualify as symptomatic, but it has not progressed to the poi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does - because if she is asymptomatic and do not test positive for the virus she cannot spread the disease and thus quarantine accomplishes nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the nurse's is supposed to be quaratined and instead is out for a bike ride http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli... [nbcnews.com]
Do you mean the person who doesn't have any symptoms and has tested negative to ebola at least once? That person?
Are you suggesting that people should be quarantined regardless of the science? If so that sounds awfully like a knee-jerk reaction with echoes of police state detainment for no reason at all.
Re:This is related (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you mean the person who doesn't have any symptoms and has tested negative to ebola at least once? That person?
That doesn't mean anything. You can test negative, and be asymptomatic, for a long time while still carrying the disease.
The position of actual scientists that oppose quarantines doesn't rely on whether somebody tested negative for ebola. It's based on whether somebody who is infected is likely to infect others when they become contagious.
Are you suggesting that people should be quarantined regardless of the science?
If you don't understand the science, why do you expect those you disagree with to understand it?
Re:This is related (Score:4, Informative)
Even if the nurse has Ebola, until she starts showing symptoms she won't pose any risk of infecting anyone else.
Even the people infected with Ebola in the US have so far only passed on the infection to people caring for them in later stages of the disease (when even more virus is shed). The one nurse who rode on an airplane while allegedly running a fever (I've heard conflicting reports) infected a grand total of 0 people.
So why should someone who is showing no symptoms and thus has a 0 risk of transmitting Ebola right now be forced into a 21 day quarantine?
Re: (Score:2)
So why should someone who is showing no symptoms and thus has a 0 risk of transmitting Ebola right now be forced into a 21 day quarantine?
Whether or not they are at risk of transmitting Ebola "right now" is not the question. It is whether they are at risk of transmitting Ebola in the future.
A certain contingent of people and politicians keep (probably intentionally) confusing those two issues. I don't even support a quarantine for all these people, but I don't think that it's possible to have an intelligent discussion on the matter when one side keeps bringing up misleading arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not they are at risk of transmitting Ebola "right now" is not the question. It is whether they are at risk of transmitting Ebola in the future.
I think the question is if she will be contained in time when she starts showing symptoms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is related (Score:4, Informative)
So require anyone returning from Ebola afflicted countries or caring for Ebola infected patients to report their temperature two times a day (which they do anyway) for a 21 day period. Any temperature above normal levels will result in a 5 day quarantine until it can be determined whether they have Ebola (in which case, they go into quarantined treatment) or whether they have something else (in which case, they are still monitored until the 21 days are up).
If you are worried about the nurse transmitting Ebola to random people she meets on the street, look at the Thomas Duncan case. He went into the ER feeling sick (which we now know was due to Ebola), was sent home, interacted with friends and family, went back to the hospital, and interacted with many doctors and nurses. The total number of Ebola transmissions in this case? Two nurses who took care of him during the times when he was VERY infectious and a minor breach in protocol could mean infection.
One of those nurses, in turn, flew on a plane and engaged in some other "normal life" activities before showing symptoms. Total number of people she infected with Ebola? Zero.
We shouldn't be worried that this nurse will go to the supermarket and infect random people with Ebola. Especially not if she's not showing any symptoms. The politicians want you to panic so they can take some measures (regardless of whether those measures actually help), say they "did something" and "took action", and gather more votes for the next election campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be pedantic, those two nurses were the only Ebola cases resulting from that patient. It is possible to contract Ebola and remain asymptomatic, so there is probably a small chance of other transmission events besides those two, depending on how careful they've been at testing for antibodies.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting. I hadn't heard of the possibility of "getting Ebola" but not getting any symptoms. Considering that you apparently can't transmit the disease unless you get the symptoms, would these asymptomatic Ebola people be able to transmit it to other people?
In any event, the only people who came down with Ebola symptoms after contact with a person with Ebola were those two nurses. It indicates that non-asymptomatic transmission of the disease isn't an easy thing to do. You won't get Ebola because you
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't understand the science, why do you expect those you disagree with to understand it?
When I say science, I also mean to include ALL the science around Ebola as reported by groups like the CDC. So if you think that you know something that they don't, do tell.
Re: (Score:2)
When I say science, I also mean to include ALL the science around Ebola as reported by groups like the CDC. So if you think that you know something that they don't, do tell.
Let's see. You said:
Do you mean the person who doesn't have any symptoms and has tested negative to ebola at least once? That person?
Are you suggesting that people should be quarantined regardless of the science?
You seriously expect me to believe that you didn't want your "regardless of the science" question to refer to your statement about her not having symptoms and testing negative for ebola?
Come on. Man up and admit when you get something wrong. That would be, you know, the scientific attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously expect me to believe that you didn't want your "regardless of the science" question to refer to your statement about her not having symptoms and testing negative for ebola?
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Current science says she has no issue, and does not need to be quarantined.
Me saying "quarantined regardless of the science" is asking if you think that people should be quarantined even if the science says that they don't need to be,
Come on. Man up and admit when you get something wrong. That would be, you know, the scientific attitude.
There is no mistake on my part.
Re: This is related (Score:2)
That's not insightful.
If you cannot isolate infectious virus or amplify its genetic material from someone's bodily fluids, they are not infectious.
Making assertions based on panic is not reasonable. Maybe if the nurse wasn't treated like a criminal leper on coming home, she wouldn't be lashing out and would stay home.
Re: (Score:2)
If you cannot isolate infectious virus or amplify its genetic material from someone's bodily fluids, they are not infectious.
Making assertions based on panic is not reasonable.
You accuse me of making an assertion based on panic. What assertion is that? Do you deny that a person can be infected, and still test negative for ebola? If so, then you need to do some more research.
The purpose for the quarantine is so that people will be away from the public when they become infectious.
If you think that's unneeded or the wrong way to go about it, then fine. I actually agree. But stop trying to pretend that a negative test for ebola is relevant in this discussion. It's not.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the big deal. Facts we know about Ebola
1) If you are non-symptomatic, you cannot spread it.
So she decided to go for a bike ride with her BF after spending a bit of time in an isolation tent, testing negative multiple times, being released and going home.
Also, how many people were infected by the NY doctor? Or by Duncan after it was realized he had Ebola, as opposed to people that got it when he went to the ER for general purposes?
Re: (Score:2)
One of the nurse's is supposed to be quaratined and instead is out for a bike ride http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli... [nbcnews.com]
So what? She has no symptoms so she can't be contagious right now.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, work this out. Let's assume that this person:
- has Ebola and is contagious ....
- is riding her bike along a rural road, somehow shedding virus all over the place (maybe she cut her leg and doesn't realize it)
- then you come along with a full bladder
What in His Noodlieness' name are you doing that puts you at risk?
On second thought, it's probably best not to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, shes outvriding her bike, cuts herself and bleeds a bit. An animal sniffs the blood and because infected, and because animals do not practice the same hygenes as humans, pass it along where it ends up infecting humans.
You don't think there is some powerful being in africa saying you need punished so here is an Ebola outbreak every 10 or 20 years do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Or she's out riding her bike, is side-swiped by a car or hits a tree and is rendered unconscious. She's bleeding or not breathing. Someone unknowingly gives her CPR or takes her to a hospital ...
Not that the scenario is overly likely and she's also apparently asymptomatic (she registered a fever at airport security but later did not have a fever when check by a nurse...
Re: (Score:2)
Then your fantasies would be correct for the first time. But ignoring any other impending supernatural disaster, can you positively say with accuracy that it is impossible for anyone else to get it if she happens to be a carrier without or just begining to show symptoms? Read the post beside yours if you need a more plausible scenario.
Hard to base decisions on this (Score:3)
I'm finding it hard to gain anything useful from the websites provided. This appears to be just about useless for us lay types. Since I consider myself tech and science literate I shudder to think about politicians trying to make policy decisions based on using it.
One bit of advice/insight several paragraphs in, travel restrictions only delay the arrival of cases in other countries. Delayed is really the real question. Overall peak severity given various travel restrictions seems more germane, both here and elsewhere. The concern seems to be that travel restrictions will be bad for the badly hit countries – it is unclear to me the will be bad in the short run for developed countries. That said, it it Africa turns into a festering pool of Ebola, then yes, very bad for us all.
There are so many conflicting priorities here I fear we will do far from the ideal. We need to protect our own citizens, we want to help others, maybe some don't want to help too much and see this as the final solution for Africa, but will hide their agenda under concern for those here.
I really was hoping to see better to understand trends based on combinations of aid and travel restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, exactly. I visited them all looking for some new insight into the factual state of what's going on with Ebola, and ended up just wasting my time. One of the sites has predictions that are over two weeks old. Useless. Another is tracking the social media discussion of Ebola by region (which regions are tweeting the most about Ebola). Useless. Another is a page regarding some statistical software package. Useless. The only real data is a paper modeling what impact flight restrictions might have, e
The future belongs to us! (Score:5, Funny)
The only way to reduce your own risk of being contaminated is to stay isolated.
Slashdot readers live in the basement and never go outside.
If ebola goes on a rampage world-wide, the only survivors will be people who stayed in isolation.
The future belongs to the nerds.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, /. is ham radio 2.0.
Look for the real stats (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Look for the real stats (Score:4, Interesting)
Meh.... Here's the thing ..... (Score:4, Insightful)
If our President initially came out, armed with scientific facts and results of studies like this one as the rationale for not imposing a travel ban, it would have gone over much better with the American people.
Instead, we've witnessed nothing but a "FUD campaign" - with a strong sense that nobody in charge really knows what the h*ll they're doing with this stuff. First, the hospital in Texas got blamed for screwing up and not following procedures. Then it was revealed they never received any official procedure in the first place for dealing with ebola.
There's conflicting information about how contagious the ebola virus is ... with claims that you can't get it without direct contact with the infected person's bodily fluids, but medical workers wearing hazmat suits while going near the people. (If people are supposed to believe their chances of getting the virus while on an airplane with an infected person are "pretty unlikely" -- then how is it we have concerns about hospital workers catching it, even after wearing protective suits and everything else? I don't think people are convinced you can have this BOTH ways at the same time.)
And sure ... people also recall the H1N1 "swine flu" situation and how that panned out in reality.
IMO, the travel ban would just be good common sense to impose -- while setting up some exceptions for medical staff legitimately traveling to/from the high risk areas for the purpose of aid. I *love* how the government makes it out to be an "all or nothing" proposition -- where we simply can't impose the ban without risking inability to provide medical assistance over there. Seriously?! You can't come up with scenarios allowing SELECTIVE travel for appropriate people and some extra steps they're required to go through upon re-entering the US?
Re:Meh.... Here's the thing ..... (Score:4, Interesting)
This... seriously. Can anybody who allegedly knows the answer to this please explain how or why such a thing might be logistically impossible, or why it would still impact the ability to get emergency medical aid to the area? Because I certainly can't see any such reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically, you don't even need restrictions on traffic TO countries with outbreaks if you're being selective on which traffic you're permitting FROM the country. If you allow flights out for medical personnel who have been screened for infection the civilian traffic will dry up of its own accord. People aren't going to fly to Liberia to be stuck there. Some still may and catch a flight to Spain then hop over.
As far as I can tell, they're worried that restricting traffic to/from countries like Liberia wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, the current level of quarantine does seem to be working for now. I'd worry about the rest of Africa getting this disease before I'd worry about it getting established in a developed world country.
My view is that a real quarantine will be imposed sooner or later unless the exponential growth of the disease is reversed in the near future. There's
Re: (Score:2)
Once the regular traffic has reduced enough, airlines will will cancel the scheduled flights and reallocate the aircraft where where they can make some money. Medical traffic will have to find planes to charter just for themselves *and some way to pay for those flights* since they no longer have a full passenger load over which to amortize the costs
Re: (Score:2)
And I imagine they want planes filled both ways to maximize efficiency, revenue, profit, etc.
This is my problem with this whole issue. We're trying to save a buck when it comes down to it. Nobody wants to pay to properly quarantine and support people who have been exposed. Nobody wants there to be a drop in airline revenue, or trade.
It really seems like the #1 thing governments are afraid of is that people will stop going to the mall. That is not really the worst possible outcome here.
Everybody wants to save a few millions dollars by not treating problems like this at the source by applying "ov
Re: (Score:2)
re: hazmat gear (Score:2)
No arguments about this from me. But that doesn't change the fact that the whole thing runs counter to reassuring the public that they're at relatively low risk of catching the stuff if they wind up around someone who has the virus while on mass transit.
I get it.... If they're not at the stage where the vomiting and diarrhea begin, it's different. But those people are still a ticking time bomb in that regard. Do YOU want to be the guy sitting next to one of them on a plane, betting they won't START in w
Re: (Score:3)
Do YOU want to be the guy sitting next to one of them on a plane, betting they won't START in with the vomiting and coughing and so forth, until after you're safely away from them at the end of the flight?
Doesn't really matter to me, as long as they were diligent in checking their temperature/being checked. Ebola patients don't go from beginning of fever to vomiting in the span of any but the longest plane flights.
I think one of the big things the CDC should do, though, is mention that the joint pain and lethargy that a lot of the patients are experiencing are frequently a precursor to the fever. If someone in contact with an ebola patient has unusual joint pain (i.e. not a preexisting condition like a bad k
Calm the fuck down. (Score:4, Informative)
Really? An "ebola forecast?" That's the degree of paranoia you've allowed the cable news outlets to work you up into?
Give me a fucking break. First of all, unless you're currently sitting next to somebody with an active infection or you've just cut yourself dissecting an infected animal, the chances of ebola spreading through North America are virtually zero. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be precautions taken, of course...in fact those precautions are exactly why you _don't_ need to be worried, because they've proven quite effective. These same media outlets seem to liken a number of the African countries affected to being about as clean as a prison toilet...yeah, that's not biased at all. Like Newsweek printing a cover with a chimpanzee on the front talking about how ebola could make its way from Africa to the continental U.S. via "infected bushmeat." Seriously, that's something that an American news outlet actually printed. They're basically _telling_ you that your best chances of catching the thing would be subsisting on a diet of infected monkeys and you're _still_ fucking terrified. They did the same thing with SARS, they did the same thing with H1N1, they're doing the same thing with ebola...yet all three of them haven't killed as many people as the common flu does, every single year.
People need to stop being afraid of their own shadows just because CNN and the government tell you to. I can sympathize, these people have been using your fear against you for decades. Communists, terrorists, "weapons of mass destruction" (incidentally, the US is sitting atop the largest pile of WMD's on the face of the earth, which they could willingly irradiate until the end of time if they actually pushed the button). The boogeyman of the day is ebola. They want you to be afraid because people who are afraid are easier to control, they're prone to making irrational decisions based on their gut feelings rather than, you know, actually thinking about it.
You want something to be worked up over, worry about heart disease...it's becoming so prevalent that odds are it's what _will_ kill you long before ebola ever does. We don't need an "ebola czar," we don't need an "ebola forecast." What we do need is for people to use their fucking heads for five seconds because if they did, they'd realize that there's a better chance of being struck by lightning than a plague of ebola decimating the entirely of North America. Stop playing into the hands of the media outlets. I gurantee you that if you stop "tuning in" so to speak, the ebola "issue" will disappear from the headlines so fast that you'd think it was a distant relative of Vanilla Ice. They don't give a fuck about ebola, or you for that matter, they give a fuck about the advertising space they're probably selling hand over fist these days.
travel restrictions != aid delivery restrictions (Score:3)
What an oversimplified analogy. Limiting certain people's travel from Western African countries doesn't mean limiting aid to those places.
Re: (Score:2)
What an oversimplified analogy. Limiting certain people's travel from Western African countries doesn't mean limiting aid to those places.
How do you think the aid actually gets to those places? Humanitarian agencies like MSF don't have their own fleets of planes. Sure, governments could arrange military transport, but then it would be on their timetable, and likely only when enough stuff/staff is ready to go to justify a flight. Not to mention the fact that setting up alternative arrangements would take time, delaying relief efforts.
I know, Dunning-Kruger and all, but it still amazes me how many people assume they know better than the exper
We will not know the extent of the outbreak.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Caution: Political BS machine at work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree with you. A previous poster also added things like:
November: Ebola, Economy, Election etc etc
December: You're not buying enough for Christmas! Think of the Billionaire's Children
Janurary: Next Avengers film, Diet tips, and next iProduct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Will it be as bad as the H1N1 pandemic?????? (Score:5, Interesting)
If anything there is concern that the government is not taking proper choices do to politics (such as restricting / checking people who travel to ebola and requiring that doctors spend 21 days (or so) at home or in a nice isolation ward at the hospital with TV and all the take out menus they want.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in NYC. No panic here. Not even close.
Re:Will it be as bad as the H1N1 pandemic?????? (Score:4)
'A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals and you know that.'
Re: (Score:2)
It's not their fault, they were not properly edumacated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I proofed this post and found that I wrote "proof read" instead of proofread. And, if I had let go through - would that be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But - in each of these cases we don't know when EXACTLY a person contracted ebola; nor is it EXACTLY 21 days to the minute.
So was the doctor who went bowling in Will
Re:To stop the spread of communism... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To stop the spread of communism... (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realise that the major part of the international effort has been civilian organisations like MSF? How do you think MSF get staff, supplies and equipment into and out of the affected zone? On regular scheduled airlines of course, they don't have their own fleet of planes.
Re: (Score:2)
Airlines are perfectly willing to charter planes to people who don't have their own. It's actually cheaper to do it that way if you're flying a decent number of people. Yeah, it might take some coordination among the various agencies. They should be doing that anyway.
Medical personal (Score:2)
because the crushing majority of people helping in Africa coming from US or europe voluntary up to now are actually civilian. You do not want to put in difficulty to bring in medical personal and materials to where it is eneded. Furthermore travel ban would cause more chaos by making people less traceable. Because people WILL find alternative. Alternative for which we may have no tracing.
Re: (Score:2)
a whole lot of hooblaa without actually saying in clear are we fucked or not
Murphy was an optimist. Just 'sayin.