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

251–260 of 302 posts

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#251

Post by DanBC »

dpcan wrote: post #250
HillRat wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me set your mind at ease: I was actually at the hospital in question all day today (disclaimer: non-medical personnel, just coincidence) and I was in more danger from the sushi at dinner than the Ebola in the ICU. Yes, there is a small chance of a multifocal outbreak, though CDC has moved quickly to identify and isolate potential contacts. There is an infinitesimal but still nonzero chance of an honest-to-god epi…

Unfortunately, this doesn't put me at ease. Of course being in the same building doesn't matter, and you may be fine. But if you were one of the doctors who saw him the first time he came in, and then proceeded to help other patients that day after assuming this guy just had the flu... well, that's another story. Or maybe if you rode in the same ambulance he did over the next couple days. The thing is, the number of…

> But if you were one of the doctors who saw him the first time he came in, and then proceeded to help other patients that day after assuming this guy just had the flu... well, that's another story.

He was infectious. That doctor should be wearing gloves and washing hands between each patient and that doctor would not be infectious until a few days after contact.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#252

Post by DanBC »

oofabz wrote: post #232
thenmar wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a socialized healthcare system have fewer resources?

The USA spends more on health care than socialized healthcare countries do. Therefore, socialized healthcare systems have less money, and money is an important resource.

That money is targetted to older people in the US. Diseases of older people include dementia, cancer, respiratory stuff, orthopedic stuff after falls, etc.

It's unlikely that either system is particularly set up for Ebola style infectious illness.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#253

Post by EtienneK »

davycro wrote: post #112

Could be worse. The pandemic will start if Ebola spreads to a low-resource country with a large urban population. Worst case, in my opinion, would be an Ebola case diagnosed in Johannesburg.

There were cases of Ebola here in Johannesburg in 1996 [1]. Seems like we did a good job of containing it then, since no other cases have been reported since.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease#mediaviewer...

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#254

Post by pmontra »

guscost wrote: post #119
001sky wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is missing the point. Ebola is a far more dangerous pathogen. I dont think this needs further explanation.

The death toll from malaria throughout history is orders and orders of magnitude beyond that of Ebola. I don't see how there is any way you can accurately describe it as "a far more dangerous pathogen."

Malaria kills more people than ebola (up to now) but cars kill twice as much as malaria does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...). You could blame me for comparing deaths by cars with deaths by pathogens but let me explain.

Malaria and ebola can't be compared, malaria and cars can. Malaria and ebola are transmitted in very different way. You get malaria if you live in areas where some species of mosquitos carry the malaria plasmodium. This means that it doesn't get you if you don't enter one of those areas. You can't get malaria in NYC. You can be hit by a car there because cars are definitely endemic in NYC as they are in most of the world.

I'm worried by malaria. I don't like the side effects of it prophylaxis and I don't want to risk getting sick (the prophylaxis are not completely effective) so I don't travel in areas where it's endemic. I sincerely hope we can make a vaccine against it.

I'm also worried by cars as anybody else and I take the usual measures (watch left and right before crossing a street, drive carefully) but there are few places to hide, right?

I'm much more worried by ebola because if it gets big enough there will be little we can do to stop it: it's going to overcome quarantines and get to us in our cities across the oceans and it kills with 50% efficiency. If we want to think about something that could send the human population back to 3 billion in a few years we shouldn't look at malaria or cars, but at ebola. That's why also to me this is "a far more dangerous pathogen." Let's concentrate on ebola now, we'll get back to malaria when we'll have fixed it.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#255

Post by rimantas »

enraged_camel wrote: post #129
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 CDC estimate is 100k-1.4m by the end of the year. No no, you see, the world has seven billion people, so 100k-1.4m is still a tiny portion and therefore it's all sensationalism! /s The fact of the matter is that the current ebola outbreak is a disaster of epic proportions. Whether it becomes a pandemic is irrelevant: it's already devastating several countries in Africa and is likely to move to other underdevelo…

Define "epic proportions", because it seems that your threshold for "epic" is way too low. 10x more people are killed on US roads each year.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#256

Post by waps »

enraged_camel wrote: post #129
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 CDC estimate is 100k-1.4m by the end of the year. No no, you see, the world has seven billion people, so 100k-1.4m is still a tiny portion and therefore it's all sensationalism! /s The fact of the matter is that the current ebola outbreak is a disaster of epic proportions. Whether it becomes a pandemic is irrelevant: it's already devastating several countries in Africa and is likely to move to other underdevelo…

It's easy to imagine scenarios that would have it spread in the US.

1) Scenario : some guy/girl lands in Florida, later that day goes for a swim in a big swimming pool with some 100+ people in it because it's a very hot day. Half of those people are on holiday and return to various places in the US before exhibiting symptoms.

2) Ebola is known for spreading fast in hospitals

3) Definitely diagnosing ebola takes several days

The problem with ebola (and all the MRSA variants, a number of which do spread through the air, and a few others) is that it can go from a few patients infected to turning hospitals into death traps in 2 weeks flat.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#257

Post by rimantas »

nether wrote: post #203
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

mass hysteria == internet posts about being scared Oh god the mayhem.

Turn on a radio sometimes.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#258

Post by sillysaurus3 »

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…

Scientists on Reddit seem to agree with you: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2hy3r9/science_ama...

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#259

Post by lutusp »

rimantas wrote: post #255
enraged_camel wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The CDC estimate is 100k-1.4m by the end of the year. No no, you see, the world has seven billion people, so 100k-1.4m is still a tiny portion and therefore it's all sensationalism! /s The fact of the matter is that the current ebola outbreak is a disaster of epic proportions. Whether it becomes a pandemic is irrelevant: it's already devastating several countries in Africa and is likely to move to other underdevelo…

Define "epic proportions", because it seems that your threshold for "epic" is way too low. 10x more people are killed on US roads each year.

The original claim would be hyperbolic, except that someone killed in a car crash doesn't increase the risk to other people on the road, but an Ebola infection certainly does. In the mathematics of exponential increase, a small initial amplification factor can produce very impressive results in a short time. Consider the hypothesis that just 1% of Ebola sufferers infect other people. Using this well-established mathematical method:

y' = y (1+p/100)^t

y = infected population % at time zero.

y' = infected population % at time t.

t = time in consistent units

p = percentage increase for one unit of time

So, if it takes a week for the infected population to increase by 1%, then:

http://i.imgur.com/TDPd7ug.png

IOW if after a week the infected population has increased by 1%, after a year (52 weeks) the infected population has increased by 67%. After 2 years (104 weeks) the infected population has increased to 281% of the original. And so forth.

This isn't true for car crashes, and the above is what is meant by an "exponential increase".

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#260

Post by yardie »

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…

Listen to this podcast[1] and get back to us. Compared to previous disasters this is a very slow moving disease, extremely contagious, and almost always fatal. And that is part of the problem. No one thinks it's a problem because it's all the way over there.

The CDC and other NGOs are trying to hype up its effects because people, and you are not in the minority, don't think it's a real problem. I know people who think it's corrupt African countries trying to get more aid money.

* 1 gets you 2, 2 gets you 4, 4 gets you 8, and 10 gets you 100. Exponential growth here. See, math is fun.

* How many times have you touched your face today? What else have you touched while outside. Victims don't have to physically bleed all over you. But imagine if just 1 infected person took the NY Subway.

* They become symptomatic and then what? Most people, when starting to feel sick, go to the supermarket and stock up on juice and vitamins. Possibly passing it along to coworkers, friends, and family. Only when they have overwhelming evidence that something is wrong do they head to the hospital. Meanwhile, the entire time, the virus is shedding.

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

Post reply on HN