CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US • Hacker News Board

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#21

Post by atom-morgan » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 9:44 PM UTC

comrh wrote: post #4

Am I correct in assuming that cultural differences concerning death and the dead along with our healthcare system mean Ebola in America would be relatively containable?

To a certain extent, yes. We obviously have much better equipment but I say this only extends to handling a few "single" cases of Ebola in specific hospitals across the nation. However, now that Ebola is actually in the US, what precautionary measures do hospitals and healthcare workers take?

If I show up to a hospital in Texas right now with symptoms such as a high fever, sore throat, and diarrhea, do you treat me as as a normal patient or assume Ebola since it's now appeared within the US? These are extremely commons symptoms and once Ebola is here, which it is, handling patients is going to be much different which affects its likelihood to be contained.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#22

Post by georgemcbay » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 9:44 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #14

georgemcbay wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Theoretically this is correct. However (though I don't think this will be an issue for Ebola) before we get on any high cultural horse, let us stop to consider how many modern Americans have been perfectly willing to allow serious diseases like whooping cough to make a strong comeback because some Playboy model made lots of public claims which are demonstrably false.

Part of the problem there is the perception that those diseases aren't serious (and in cases like chicken pox, this can even be somewhat true). No such perception exists with Ebola, I'd say.

I agree mostly, which is why I mentioned I don't think that would play out with Ebola.

OTOH pancreatic cancer is pretty serious (though not communicable) and we still live in a culture where someone widely lauded as a once-in-an-era genius (and who had ample monetary resources to seek the absolute best medical health care in spite of how bad the economics of our health care system are) thought new age-y solutions were the way to go during the critical early stages.

I guess my basic point is that you don't have to be poverty stricken and living in the third world to make really poor decisions on health issues with severe consequences to yourself and sometimes others.

EDIT: I don't mind the multiple downvotes this post has got, I have plenty of karma to burn and it isn't worth anything, but please respond as well with some sort of rebuttal. No amount of undefended downvotes are going to change the fact that Steve Jobs made a really bad decision that any unbiased oncologist will tell you statistically killed him while he would otherwise still likely be alive (or at the very least, not dead from his cancer) today.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#23

Post by noir_lord » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 9:44 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #13

idlewords wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends in part on how willing you are to assume that the transmission mechanism won't evolve.

Or phasing that another way: It depends how willing you are to ignore the facts and invent unsupported "worst case scenario" scenarios. There is no factual reason why we should expect the transmission mechanism to suddenly evolve before our eyes. That's raw fear mongering. While Ebola is more deadly than Bird Flu, that kind of wild unsupported speculation is why so many people thought Bird Flu was far more dangerous…

> why so many people thought Bird Flu was far more dangerous than it actually was.

Indeed and when something genuinely lethal comes along lots of people will ignore it because of the scare mongering.

This isn't the wolf but one of them might be.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#24

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 9:46 PM UTC

angersock wrote: post #16

Was thinking about going to the state fair...nope nope nope.

Your big risks in going to the state fair are mostly related to fried grease products.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#25

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 9:47 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #13

idlewords wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends in part on how willing you are to assume that the transmission mechanism won't evolve.

Or phasing that another way: It depends how willing you are to ignore the facts and invent unsupported "worst case scenario" scenarios. There is no factual reason why we should expect the transmission mechanism to suddenly evolve before our eyes. That's raw fear mongering. While Ebola is more deadly than Bird Flu, that kind of wild unsupported speculation is why so many people thought Bird Flu was far more dangerous…

[deleted]

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#26

Post by callahad » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 9:48 PM UTC

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #12

idlewords wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends in part on how willing you are to assume that the transmission mechanism won't evolve.

I vaguely remember reading recently that that had actually never happened to any virus that wasn't airborne transmitted to begin with.

Well, there is this: "While all Ebola virus species have displayed the ability to be spread through airborne particles (aerosols) under research conditions, this type of spread has not been documented among humans in a real-world setting, such as a hospital or household."

Cite: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/spb/mnpages/dispages/Fact_She...

I could've sworn that Ebola-Reston was airborne-transmissible in real-world settings (albeit amongst non-human primates and swine), but I can't find a cite for that; I could just be misremembering things from Richard Preston's The Hot Zone.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#27

Post by MaysonL » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 9:48 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #14

georgemcbay wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Theoretically this is correct. However (though I don't think this will be an issue for Ebola) before we get on any high cultural horse, let us stop to consider how many modern Americans have been perfectly willing to allow serious diseases like whooping cough to make a strong comeback because some Playboy model made lots of public claims which are demonstrably false.

Part of the problem there is the perception that those diseases aren't serious (and in cases like chicken pox, this can even be somewhat true). No such perception exists with Ebola, I'd say.

As someone who's had an attack of shingles, saying that chicken pox isn't serious, is bullshit.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#28

Post by ZanyProgrammer » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 9:49 PM UTC

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #12

idlewords wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends in part on how willing you are to assume that the transmission mechanism won't evolve.

I vaguely remember reading recently that that had actually never happened to any virus that wasn't airborne transmitted to begin with.

I thought there was quite a bit of controversy with regards to whether Reston was airborne.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#29

Post by Alex3917 » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 9:50 PM UTC

comrh wrote: post #4

Am I correct in assuming that cultural differences concerning death and the dead along with our healthcare system mean Ebola in America would be relatively containable?

> Am I correct in assuming that cultural differences concerning death and the dead along with our healthcare system mean Ebola in America would be relatively containable?

Maybe, but in the US we also have all sorts of people who purposely spread HIV and other deadly diseases, so if that starts happening with ebola then all bets are off. Especially if it gets into the prison system, into the sex worker population, etc.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#30

Post by idlewords » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 9:50 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #13

idlewords wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends in part on how willing you are to assume that the transmission mechanism won't evolve.

Or phasing that another way: It depends how willing you are to ignore the facts and invent unsupported "worst case scenario" scenarios. There is no factual reason why we should expect the transmission mechanism to suddenly evolve before our eyes. That's raw fear mongering. While Ebola is more deadly than Bird Flu, that kind of wild unsupported speculation is why so many people thought Bird Flu was far more dangerous…

"The more time you give a virus to mutate and the more human-to-human transmission you see," she says, "the more opportunities you give it to fall upon some [mutation] that could make it more easily transmissible or more pathogenic."

- Pardis Sabeti, computational biologist at Harvard University

Source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/08/28/343734184/e...