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

291–300 of 302 posts

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#291

Post by hga »

clarky07 wrote: post #284
tripzilch wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 h…

>Hundreds of thousands are dying, and it could hit millions. 3000 have died so far. 6500 have been infected. It certainly could grow much bigger, but it hasn't yet.

~3,000 are known to have died, officially.

There are roughly three reasons this outbreak became so big: different location (West vs. Central Africa), it took a while for the differential diagnosis (the much less deadly Lasa Fever is endemic in the area, but doesn't cause hiccups), and when the foreigners arrived in force, the locals hid. The WHO et. al. actually thought it was under control, before it couldn't be hid anymore.

Educated guesses would put actual fatalities in the 10s of thousands; 100s is possible, but I don't get the impression it's quite there yet. But with exponential growth, 1 case infecting an average of 3 others by one estimate, there's no way it isn't going to get that bad in West Africa.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#292

Post by hga »

bripeace wrote: post #286
mrgriscom wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost as if people don't understand the concept of exponential growth...

People understand exponential growth, but the US is not conducive to spread of Ebola. The problems found in Africa that prevent effective management of the situation do not exist here: Lack of hospitals, suspicion of outsiders/doctors, general hygiene, etc.

And different burial practices, including I gather different from Central Africa, generally speaking.

The CDC just issued instructions for U.S. funeral homes.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#293

Post by tripzilch »

clarky07 wrote: post #284
tripzilch wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 h…

>Hundreds of thousands are dying, and it could hit millions. 3000 have died so far. 6500 have been infected. It certainly could grow much bigger, but it hasn't yet.

Sorry, my mistake. I confused the predictions with the current numbers.

Doesn't take away from my main point, really, but apologies for the untrue and unnecessary hyperbole :)

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#294

Post by hga »

hga wrote: post #291
clarky07 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Hundreds of thousands are dying, and it could hit millions. 3000 have died so far. 6500 have been infected. It certainly could grow much bigger, but it hasn't yet.

~3,000 are known to have died, officially . There are roughly three reasons this outbreak became so big: different location (West vs. Central Africa), it took a while for the differential diagnosis (the much less deadly Lasa Fever is endemic in the area, but doesn't cause hiccups), and when the foreigners arrived in force, the locals hid. The WHO et. al. actually thought it was under control, before it couldn't be hi…

And now I see that under the incompetent, sacked Minister in charge in Sierra Leone deaths were systematically uncounted: http://promedmail.org/direct.php?id=20140930.2817719

tl;dr: Blood samples were taken in villages, laboratory confirmed, but none of these deaths were counted unless the patient actually made it to a treatment center. Much needs revision, which is not a priority right now.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#295

Post by arrrg »

SpaceManNabs wrote: post #179
arrrg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am having a hard time understanding why people keep saying that donations are the way to go to solve this issue. From what I have seen, many rural communities are rejecting and acting against foreign assistance. I am not sure of the circumstances in urban settings, but I read that they are just as superstitious. How can we help those that do not want our help, especially when it is deadly to help either because of…

To be honest, I’m not sure how effective these targeted donations are at all. My point was more that in this case, while scary (and probably unrealistic) scenarios of the West somehow being affected were a popular pastime (and seemingly the main frame to view this disaster), hardly anyone seems to actually care about those who are affected by it. (I personally don’t think, for example, that I know better than a charity how to best allocate resources and I think targeted donations tied to a specific cause are quite irresponsible.)

Also, there may have been unique complications that make fighting the spread harder, though we don’t really know how widespread those are and were. They make for good stories, but are they the whole picture? I very much doubt that.

Additionally, it seems to me that even if those troubles were widespread it was possible to a) do something against them with more money (mostly in terms of improving communication about the virus) and b) make up for other deficiencies in resources (like a lack of space and beds and personal).

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#296

Post by mark-r »

santosha wrote: post #37
jonrimmer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can make the exact same statement about every other deadly virus, though. Why is ebola any different?

Because there is evidence that there were airborne strains of it in the past.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#297

Post by crpatino »

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.

This is not completely accurate. The guy went to the hospital on the 26th, was misdiagnosed and sent home on antibiotics. Then he was taken to a different hospital by ambulance 2 days later when he obviously got worse instead of better.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#298

Post by __david__ »

balfirevic wrote: post #275
__david__ wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't find this surprising or depressing. What? It might not be surprising, but how is it not depressing?

I don't see it as depressing or heartening—it's just the way we humans tend to react to things. Why do you find it depressing?

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#300

Post by waps »

interdrift wrote: post #270
waps wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I haven't yet seen a paper claiming either way. It spreads through fluids, so likely it can remain stable in chlorinated water for at least a few seconds.
Post reply on HN