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

191–200 of 302 posts

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#191

Post by nl »

pdeuchler wrote: post #187
djcapelis wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * The number of cases of infected patients is fairly small. This is no longer true. We have no idea how many people are infected anymore because Liberia has too many patients to even keep track. They're literally thousands of beds short and it's actively doubling. The CDC estimate is 100k-1.4m by the end of the year. > * The vector of transmission is fluid exchange, so that reduces its ability to spread. To some de…

> "The U.S. government and international organizations recently announced commitments to support these measures. As these measures are rapidly implemented and sustained, the higher projections presented in this report become very unlikely." From the abstract of the report[0] you're citing. Essentially, it's rising exponentially (at smaller numbers) right now so of course if you extrapolate over long enough you're goi…

This is true, but it is still reasonable to discuss current infection rates.

As you note, we still haven't even engaged the outbreak with anything close to full force yet. Until we see the effects of that engagement it makes complete sense to look at what is happening right now, not what countermeasures might or might not achieve.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#192

Post by scragg »

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.

A private room? Lucky to get a bed in the hallway in some of these hospitals.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#193

Post by scragg »

nmjohn wrote: post #52
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.

Please don't spread fear when you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The probability of ebola spreading to any significant portion of the united states is virtually nil.

Sorry, I will spread complacency like yourself... that will make it all go away.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#194

Post by tjohns »

kenjackson wrote: post #168

If you were on a plane coming back from Europe and the guy in the seat next to you said he was just coming back from spending a year in Liberia, what would you do? Would you sit there and just make sure he didn't spit on you? Or would you go sit in the bathroom for the flight? Curious as to how people would react...

First, somebody from Liberia probably isn't infected. As bad as things are over there, it's still Second, if they're well enough to be on the plane, even if they're infected, they're probably not going to be spreading that infection. By the time an ebola patient becomes contagious, they're usually not well enough to travel.

And on top of all that, if they're actually contagious, I'd be worried about fomites generated while they're vomiting. Which they'd be doing in the lavatory.

So in the general case, I don't think I'd be too worried about sitting next to them. (And if they're actually sick enough to be vomiting, I'd recommend being somewhere other than the lavatory.)

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#195

Post by rasz_pl »

maxerickson wrote: post #165
phkahler wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most interesting is that this guy apparently became symptomatic 3-4 days before going to the hospital. Arrived on the 20th, felt sick on the 24th, went to hospital on 27th, was isolated on the 28th. How many people did he come in contact with? How many contacts are being traced? This may be very interesting, and I doubt it will stop at just the one case.

There is a good chance it will stop with his contacts though, as anybody he infected will likely be isolated before they become infectious.

except for that one monkey that bit him and then ran into the woods.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#196

Post by maxerickson »

ackalker wrote: post #180
arrrg wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The patient was tested in two different laboratories (CDC and another one in Texas). The test is “highly accurate”. It’s Ebola. Watch the video embedded in this to get the verbatim statement of the director of the CDC: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/01/health/airline-passenger-w...

'Was' obviously is in past tense. If there is high likelyhood of it being Ebola, the article should have made that clear in the very first (few) paragraphs, like stating that further tests are being done to strengthen the confirmation. Edit: Ah, I understand now that the CDC has a rather peculiar definition of "case" of illness, see giarc's comment below for a link.

The CNBC article was put up before the CDC press conference (and seems maybe a little slapped together).

arrrg is pointing you at a more recent article that obviates the need to parse up the CNBC article, in the video the director of the CDC states that the lab tests have confirmed it is Ebola.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#197

Post by tjohns »

URSpider94 wrote: post #162
lee wrote: post #75

Am I one of the minorities who believe that this hype about Ebola is more sensationalism and news than an actual pandemic we should be fearful for? Let's take a lot at what we can agree on: * The number of cases of infected patients is fairly small. * The vector of transmission is fluid exchange, so that reduces its ability to spread. * The virus doesn't appear to lie dormant, and is only contagious when the patient…

Despite what you write above, and the attention being paid to ebola, the infection is growing, not shrinking (each ebola patient infects, on average, more than one other person). Reasonable (not breathless) forecasts show the number of infected individuals growing to over 100,000 within a few months, and the CDC could see it growing to over a million cases by early 2015. Further, this is a disease with a 50% mortalit…

The CFR (case fatality rate) in this outbreak is actually closer to 71% once adjusted for time between case onset and resolution.

It only looks like 50% at first glance because people are catching the disease so quickly that the number of deaths hasn't had time to catch up.

Source: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411100

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#198

Post by joezydeco »

arrrg wrote: post #92
lee wrote: post #75

Am I one of the minorities who believe that this hype about Ebola is more sensationalism and news than an actual pandemic we should be fearful for? Let's take a lot at what we can agree on: * The number of cases of infected patients is fairly small. * The vector of transmission is fluid exchange, so that reduces its ability to spread. * The virus doesn't appear to lie dormant, and is only contagious when the patient…

The likelihood of any kind of pandemic is extremely low, sure. However, your dismissal of this epidemic and its impact is arrogant and disgusting. It’s still a disaster in the affected countries, with many knock-on effects. Also, it would have been better to spend more money earlier to prevent unnecessary deaths. This Ebola epidemic is actually something people hardly care about. Hardly anyone is donating, for exampl…

NPR's Planet Money had a podcast that tried to understand the difficulties of fundraising for a situation like the Ebola outbreak:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-...

The tl;dr is that people donate a lot more when they can tangibly understand that a disaster has happened and they make an emotional connection to the disaster (e.g. 9/11, Haitian Earthquake, etc).

When donors are asked to contribute money to prevent something, the emotional connection is a lot harder to make and funds are a lot harder to raise.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#199

Post by cmdrfred »

bsder wrote: post #148
guscost wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing the news stories never mention is that the death toll from malaria every day is comparable to the total deaths in this recent Ebola outbreak: http://www.malariaworld.org/lastweek

Oy, look up the word "contagious", please. This has the potential to make malaria look like a walk in the park.

In 2012, malaria caused an estimated 207 million clinical episodes, and 627,000 deaths.

Source: CDC.gov

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#200

Post by robomartin »

lee wrote: post #75

Am I one of the minorities who believe that this hype about Ebola is more sensationalism and news than an actual pandemic we should be fearful for? Let's take a lot at what we can agree on: * The number of cases of infected patients is fairly small. * The vector of transmission is fluid exchange, so that reduces its ability to spread. * The virus doesn't appear to lie dormant, and is only contagious when the patient…

No, no, it has to be taken very seriously before it spreads. This is the kind of thing that could completely upend the entire planet if not taken seriously. What would happen if the entire world had to self quarantine for three to four weeks and all transportation grounded for the same period of time. No, this is a huge deal.

I have long believed that some kind of bacteria or virus is going to take out all or a huge chunk of humanity at one point or another. Evolution is a heartless SOB. We could very well be one or two random mutations away from losing half the planet's human population. And, BTW, the mutations in question don't have to attack us. Imagine losing half the worldwide crops, cattle or fish.

Don't get me wrong, I don't lose any sleep over this and don't have a garage full of gas masks and HAZMAT materials. When/if it happens that stuff is likely to be absolutely useless.

I wonder if that's what might finally make the religious "get it". You go ahead and pray to your powerless imaginary intelligent creator. I'll choose science thank you.

Post reply on HN