Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 302 posts

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#61

Post by chc »

jonrimmer wrote: post #34
gtaylor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably. Ebola spreads through bodily fluids. This isn't the major, world-ending epidemic that the apocalypse chasers are looking for.

If it mutates and becomes airborne, it might be. That's why containment is so important, even if it doesn't seem so threatening in its current form. Viruses constantly mutate, and every extra person they infect gives them a million more opportunities to do so. All it takes is one of those mutations to make the virus airborne, and we're in big trouble.

If AIDS mutates and becomes airborne, that would also be threatening. Ditto for hantavirus, hepatitis and millions of other diseases. Heck, imagine if black widow venom become airborne and victims started producing more airborne venom themselves! If you're willing to dip into the pool of things that are vanishingly unlikely, there are lots of extremely bad things that could happen.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#62

Post by noir_lord »

jonrimmer wrote: post #34
gtaylor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably. Ebola spreads through bodily fluids. This isn't the major, world-ending epidemic that the apocalypse chasers are looking for.

If it mutates and becomes airborne, it might be. That's why containment is so important, even if it doesn't seem so threatening in its current form. Viruses constantly mutate, and every extra person they infect gives them a million more opportunities to do so. All it takes is one of those mutations to make the virus airborne, and we're in big trouble.

> All it takes is one of those mutations to make the virus airborne, and we're in big trouble.

Except that the mutation to go from a fluid to airborne virus isn't one mutation it's lots of mutations and that is simple not what we see happening in general.

The common cold could mutate into a super deadly virus but it doesn't, Flu usually doesn't either but rarely does (you want to see a genuinely terrifying virus at work read the accounts of the 1918 Spanish Flu outbreak, that thing took down the young and strong in days).

Containment is important to prevent the spread via fluid contact.

This "if X then if Y then if C then if D then Global Collapse" scaremongering helps absolutely no one.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#63

Post by giarc »

nmjohn wrote: post #57

How are you all of you supposedly smart people (you're on hackernews - does that not mean anything anymore?) making such baseless and ignorant comments? If you don't have a degree in a related field or haven't spent any amount of time studying disease (and no, Pandemic the game does not count) you have NO BUSINESS making comments on the preparedness of the US healthcare system - or on how the disease may affect anyth…

People should be able to critically appraise the source of the comments.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#64

Post by DasIch »

giarc wrote: post #44
scragg wrote: post #41

We should be cautious and prepared for Ebola and not assume we can contain it. We use isolation chambers and a massive team of doctors in special rooms at the CDC just to take care of 2 people. I take a look at the hospitals in DFW and I doubt they can properly contain a handful of cases concurrently.

All hospitals can contain Ebola. This is not an airborne disease and therefore negative pressure isolation is not needed (unless performing aerosol generating procedures). All you need is a private room and proper PPE use and infection control procedures.

It may not be airborne but it's still highly infectious and you need proper facilities for that, a private room alone is not enough for that. A lot of hospitals, at least smaller ones, are unable to handle such diseases.

In any case containing a patient you know has ebola, is the least of the problems. Ebola symptoms are not exactly distinctive and if you don't have reason to suspect ebola, it may very well be able to spread before it can be contained.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#65

Post by trose »

jMyles wrote: post #56
andrewchambers wrote: post #49

I personally would be concerned if I was sat next to that person on the flight back home. Even if the fear is unrealistic. Don't tell me you would happily sitting and eating next to someone with confirmed ebola for 8 hours plus, because they haven't started showing symptoms at that very moment. I would at the very least go to a doctor to be sure.

...because during the flight you'd exchange bodily fluids? Or something?

Well people do tend to spit in minuscule amounts when they speak. The person could also cough and throw spit around. It wouldn't be entirely impossible to contract it by sitting near someone for several hours.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#66

Post by this_user »

dguaraglia wrote: post #43
pdeuchler wrote: post #42

I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that the mass hysteria and paranoia coming from this will cause far greater damage than any actual cases

Yup, time to buy some GSK shares...

TKMR, BCRX and SRPT are the tickers that you are looking for.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#67

Post by knodi123 »

jMyles wrote: post #56
andrewchambers wrote: post #49

I personally would be concerned if I was sat next to that person on the flight back home. Even if the fear is unrealistic. Don't tell me you would happily sitting and eating next to someone with confirmed ebola for 8 hours plus, because they haven't started showing symptoms at that very moment. I would at the very least go to a doctor to be sure.

...because during the flight you'd exchange bodily fluids? Or something?

Are you suggesting an ebola sneeze is a rare or harmless thing? That is the primary means of transmission.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#68

Post by noir_lord »

DasIch wrote: post #45
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?

Depends on how fast you are able to identify and isolate the patients. Unless there is reason to suspect ebola it's not exactly the first diagnosis that will come to mind. Most hospitals probably also don't have the necessary isolation facilities or at least not on standby. Ultimately though ebola is relatively easy to combat, collect the patients, put a fence around them, wait long enough and clean up what's left. T…

> don't have the necessary isolation facilities or at least not on standby.

What like a quiet room away from other patients?

That is the only "isolation facilities" you actually require alongside making the medical staff use gloves and face mask which I suspect when dealing with an Ebola patient they will remember to do..., it's fluid borne not airborne, you don't even need a negative pressure setup.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#70

Post by aroch »

giarc wrote: post #59
aroch wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most modern / renovated hospitals (last ~10-15 years) have designed their isolation rooms to be negative pressure anyway and standard patient rooms also operate under negative pressure because of how airhandling is setup (albeit a very light negative pressure)

Perhaps the US is different(I work in IPC in Canada), but most isolation rooms are not negative pressure capable. It is very expensive to design a room to accommodate negative pressure (separate air handling, HEPA filtered exhaust, sealing the room to the true ceiling). Most isolation rooms are designed to handle contact isolation patients, and therefore no negative pressure is needed.

I'm mostly familiar with ER design so I may be off, as far as what "normal" rooms are like. But from my recollection there was a push after 9/11 to move any new isolation rooms to negative pressure and there were subsidies in place to encourage that. There was also a push to redo airhandling for standard rooms to approximate negative pressure but with less stringent scrubbing.
Post reply on HN