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

161–170 of 302 posts

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#161

Post by tempestn »

NearAP wrote: post #123
timr wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the current media frenzy "sensationalism"? Yes. Is there a risk here? Yes, a small one. I understand, but am frustrated by, the number of people who keep repeating "it's not airborne", as if this is some kind of definitive argument that a virus cannot spread here. Something like 80% of cold/flu infections happen via "bodily fluids" -- people snot on a surface, someone else touches the surface, then touch their fac…

> Have you been to Africa recently.. Considering that there are still regular flights from African countries to the US, that would be a large number of people. Maybe that screen should be applied only if you have developed a symptom like a high fever...?

Parent is suggesting that would be an effective screen for people with other symptoms. Hence, "If that screen loses its effectiveness, you start to have to worry about every patient presenting with a fever and diarrhea..."

So at the moment, this "screen" is an easy way to rule out Ebola in a patient with potentially Ebola-like symptoms. Obviously we wouldn't expect everyone who has recently been to Africa has Ebola. I didn't downvote you, but I expect this is the reason why you're getting downvotes, not a misunderstanding about your question.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#162

Post by URSpider94 »

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% mortality rate, and no verified treatment other than palliative care (even ZMAPP, the supposed magic bullet, did not save at least two patients who were treated).

I think we have good reason to be concerned.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#163

Post by phacops »

mrgriscom wrote: post #160
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…

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

you’d think HN would understand ‘going viral'

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#164

Post by guscost »

arrrg wrote: post #145
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

And? I’m not sure what the point is. The effect on the affected countries is still disastrous. Do you think having to fight Ebola on top of Malaria is harmless? Do you think it is worth considering whether a better response was and maybe still is possible to end this quickly (and be better prepared in the future)? Malaria is a huge disaster. The Ebola epidemic is, too, in the affected countries. (I couldn’t care less…

Sure, the Ebola epidemic is still a disaster for public health in the affected places. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

But it's a bit strange to see all this American media FUD after years and years of not a word about all the destruction caused by malaria (apart from that Bill Gates project), no?

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#165

Post by maxerickson »

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.

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

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#166

Post by etimberg »

callahad wrote: post #26
ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vaguely remember reading recently that that had actually never happened to any virus that wasn't airborne transmitted to begin with.

Well, there is this: "While all Ebola virus species have displayed the ability to be spread through airborne particles (aerosols) under research conditions, this type of spread has not been documented among humans in a real-world setting, such as a hospital or household." Cite: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/spb/mnpages/dispages/Fact_She... I could've sworn that Ebola-Reston was airborne-transmissible in real-world s…

Ebola has been theorized to be airborne by scientists at the National Microbiology laboratory in Winnipeg.

Cite from 2012: http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121115/srep00811/full/srep00...

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#167

Post by corin_ »

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.

Dogs are both cuter and easier for us English to relate to than Africans.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#168

Post by kenjackson »

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...

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#169

Post by SapphireSun »

Grazester wrote: post #117
function_seven wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, those after-hours bumps are quite pronounced. Now wondering if I should short them, go long, or keep my sanity and stay out altogether.

If you wanted to long this stock you should have been on board more two months now. You are a lot late to the party.

It's probably more appropriate to short it. Developed health systems aren't going to need ZMAPP to deal with ebola. Quarantine and a steady supply of sterile protective gear will do the trick.

Re: CDC confirms first Ebola case diagnosed in US

#170

Post by orbifold »

crpatino wrote: post #147
lee wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you can call it a disaster. The total number of cases, as reported by the CDC, is less than 7000 so far. I don't mean to be callous, but compare that number to the number of total deaths to Malaria or even the flu, and that number pales in comparison. I am not callous to say that we shouldn't care about the Ebola outbreak, but if you look at the numbers, directing that money to buy more mosquito nets…

Last week, the total number of cases was ~6500. One month ago it was ~3000. Two months ago it was ~1300. How do you call a process that duplicates itself every fixed unit of time (in this case, every ~3 weeks)? Of course, we should not fall into panic. Many factors will affect what ends up being the total effect of this outbreak in the mid to long term. But dismissing it as a non issue because "there are just a few t…

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.
Post reply on HN