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

261–270 of 302 posts

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#261

Post by yardie »

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…

Those policy makers are people too. And just like you they think "it's not that bad".

And on top of that when the CDC (the experts in this shit) is trying to make projections, they are discounted as spreading FUD!

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#262

Post by yardie »

cheald wrote: post #208
DanBC wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your expensive health care system may cause people to delay seeing a doctor, which means they might be symptomatic and spreading disease for a few days before being quarantined. A patient zero on a new york subway could infect a few people and they would be hard to trace. Although it's not probible it is scarier than "can't happen"

Do people in nations with socialized healthcare go to the doctor as soon as they develop a fever, or do they delay and see if it clears up on its own? I'm sure it's not the case for everyone, but when most people develop flu-like symptoms, they usually end up quarantining themselves for a few days while it resolves. If they can't do that, social etiquette dictates that they avoid physical contact and close proximity,…

I've worked in the US and France so can speak about both. In France I can self-certify that I am sick and quarantine myself at home. I can call a doctor to make a homecall and the pharmacy will deliver my meds on request.

In the US I've had colleagues that were told to go home. Even with overwhelming evidence that they should not be at work they came anyway. Unfortunately, some could not afford to be sick. Rather than take the personal financial hit they caused the entire operation to slow/stop as other workers called in sick.

Unfortunately social etiquette in the US means to show you are productive even with sickness. "See how productive I am, I've got the flu and I'm still doing this presentation!"

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#263

Post by __david__ »

DanBC wrote: post #143
arrrg wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donations are always tricky and effectively allocating resources to aid is hard … but can you at least recognise that similarly sized catastrophes get much more attention and money? More than 3,000 people dead, potentially more, and many of the affected places don’t have enough resources to deal with it in a satisfactory manner. That’s the situation here. This could have been controlled better, probably.

Recently an arsonist alledgedly set fire to a dog shelter in the UK. They raised over £1m in a few days. > The blaze, which was tackled by more than 30 firefighters, killed about 60 animals. > Within 24 hours, more than £1m pounds had been raised to help around 150 surviving dogs. This happened while Ebola was happening.

So what? Those are completely different situations. One is a human doing intentional harm to a bunch of innocent creatures. The other is mother nature vs. mankind. One tugs at the heartstrings, fills us with protective emotions for the poor doggies. The other is just another natural disaster. "Thank goodness it didn't happen to me", we think. I don't find this surprising or depressing.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#264

Post by weego »

waps wrote: post #256
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…

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 sever…

I agree there could be a wide initial spread, but I really feel that it would be contained much more efficiently in, for example, the US or UK than is possible in the outbreak areas of Africa, so the outcome would be a lot less catastrophic.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#265

Post by tripzilch »

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…

> 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?

If you only care whether the disease is going to hit at home, or (even worse) only if it hits a "western country", then yeah.

Hundreds of thousands are dying, and it could hit millions.

I'm pretty certain it won't hit that bad "at home", maybe a few isolated cases, we have the infrastructure(s) to contain it adequately.

Not in Africa though. As you may recall, Africa is really really big (depending on map projection). May not literally count as a "pandemic", but this is a disaster of incredible proportions.

... and then there's people suggesting, only half-joking, to "nuke it from orbit". Would they suggest that if it was a "western country"?

It's fine to worry if you may get the disease yourself, personally. The answer is "no / highly improbable". But just because its wreaking havoc mainly in non-western countries, doesn't mean news about the terribleness and spread of this epidemic, that is going on right now (also it's not just some flu, it makes one bleed from their internal organs o_O), doesn't mean it's "hype" or "sensationalism". This is actual human drama and suffering at a massive scale. And it's probably going to get worse before it gets better.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#266

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

Karunamon wrote: post #39
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're also not infectious until you're symptomatic which makes it easier to identify and contain. Ultimately it should be manageable so long as people follow instructions.

I was about ready to ask that. The guy who's being treated wasn't symptomatic until days after he left the airport, which is encouraging to hear.

Apparently though he was symptomatic for a few days before going to hospital which is significantly not good.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#267

Post by orbifold »

crpatino wrote: post #241
orbifold wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm so that would mean assuming this rate of exponential growth that in ~150 days there would be ~ 1 million cases and roughly a year to reach 100 million. I wonder how well they can model travel patterns, then you could write down an ode for the disease on say a country level and couple them.

I am not saying that this will grow exponentially for ever. For what I know, disease expansion is modeled with a sigmoid curve: exponential at first, then slows down once a saturation level in the population is reached. According to Wikipedia, the total population of the 3 most affected countries - Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone - is roughly 20 millions. So there is at least that upper bound. The real risk of pande…

Well the sigmoid curve you are referring to would be for the case that patients who have contracted the virus and survived would be immune or die. In an SIR model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmental_models_in_epidemi...) that takes death rate and population number into account you would then expect a disease to either reach a disease free equilibrium or a endemic equilibrium. What I was suggesting is to couple those equations on the country level by modelling travel patterns (flow of Suscebtible Recovered Infected across borders), the result would most likely be that western countries would be able to reach a disease free equilibrium, as they have better recovery rates and lower infection rates, whereas ebola would remain endemic in africa.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#268

Post by robflynn »

phkahler wrote: post #141
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…

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.

I found that interesting as well. If I had just returned from an area where Ebola is currently spreading and started to feel ill, my first thought would be to head immediately to the hospital as a precaution.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#269

Post by hga »

DanBC wrote: post #251
dpcan wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Should", but healthcare workers are infamous for not doing this ... and washing your hands that often would damage your skin, perhaps too much to continue working in the field.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#270

Post by interdrift »

waps wrote: post #256
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…

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 sever…

I don't think it's possible for the virus to survive in a pool because of the Fluoride.
Post reply on HN