41–50 of 54 posts
So what's the long term policy / law that will come out of Ebola testing via the TSA? Since these activities never go away they just become unquestionable policy. Long term maybe it's finger print scanning, blood, saliva.
This is CBP and CDC, not TSA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way does the US have the best medical care in the world? http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthca...
In this way, among others.... http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> "You can also just pop and Ibuprofen and lie your way through" Why would anyone do that?
To indulge in a bit of perhaps undeserved paranoia: What were/are the messages coming from the treatment and outcome of the patient in Texas? On the one hand, a highly fatal disease and typical, systemic mishandling. On the other, an indication that travelling to the U.S. won't save you. I have no evidence that the latter message was deliberately manufactured (implying all sorts of terrible things). But I'm certain t…
I was thinking about that the other day; taking the need for a visa into account, it's unlikely the deceased patient in Texas traveled to the U.S. in response to exposure.
So basically, the only reason to do this—acknowledged by researchers after more ambitious programs of this kind—is to reassure the public. It's theater, meant to calm irrational, emotional concerns. Unlike the TSA, people aren't even pretending otherwise! To me, this is a great illustration of why we need strong, consistent rights and limitations on government action: it's not just a check on government abuse, or abu…
In the United States, a public hysteria would likely do more damage than the virus itself so this is a good idea even if it is just security theatre. I've heard that phrase uttered several times in this thread already. Do you guys all read the same libertarian blog or something? It's about to be flu season. They don't want hospitals to be overcrowded with paranoid patients because that means if somebody actually does…
The fact that this policy is intrusive, expensive and yet demonstrably irrational (at least on the part of the public) is pretty self-evident. The idea that we need some method, whether legal or social or both, to control irrational responses like this is a pretty a pretty natural conclusion after that.
Perhaps the idea that the government should not react due to irrational popular pressure is somehow libertarian, but really, it seems pretty non-ideological. Not wanting intrusions and restrictions on individuals just because a bunch of people are overly panicky is very reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is CBP and CDC, not TSA.
Yeah but what's three more letters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the United States, a public hysteria would likely do more damage than the virus itself so this is a good idea even if it is just security theatre. I've heard that phrase uttered several times in this thread already. Do you guys all read the same libertarian blog or something? It's about to be flu season. They don't want hospitals to be overcrowded with paranoid patients because that means if somebody actually does…
No need for a blog, I can think for myself, thanks. The fact that this policy is intrusive, expensive and yet demonstrably irrational (at least on the part of the public) is pretty self-evident. The idea that we need some method, whether legal or social or both, to control irrational responses like this is a pretty a pretty natural conclusion after that. Perhaps the idea that the government should not react due to ir…
Expensive: More expensive than not doing it, sure. There's only about ~150 people entering the U.S. daily from the Liberia+Sierra Leone+Guinea. The screens will be performed using digital thermometers. The cost should be relatively low.
Demonstrably Irrational: It's not really irrational to take the potential for public hysteria surrounding this issue very seriously. If people believe that we're just letting at-risk people travel freely between W. Africa and the United States then things are going to get very nasty the moment Patient 1 shows up (P0 died a few days ago). CDC (Frieden) admits that the checks might make people feel safer but the real focus needs to be on containment in Africa. Everything else is going to be a half measure by comparison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To indulge in a bit of perhaps undeserved paranoia: What were/are the messages coming from the treatment and outcome of the patient in Texas? On the one hand, a highly fatal disease and typical, systemic mishandling. On the other, an indication that travelling to the U.S. won't save you. I have no evidence that the latter message was deliberately manufactured (implying all sorts of terrible things). But I'm certain t…
A citizen of one of the countries where there is an outbreak would need a US visa to even get on the plane. I was thinking about that the other day; taking the need for a visa into account, it's unlikely the deceased patient in Texas traveled to the U.S. in response to exposure.
He helped a neighbor thought to be suffering complications from pregnancy -- she was in her 7th month -- getting a cab and perhaps also accompanying her to the hospital or care center; I don't recall the details on the latter part.
The general population will not be making a rush over, on airplanes. But a subset who is eligible and capable might.
Personally, from the reporting, it seems to me that the man in Texas was a good samaritan and deserving of whatever help the U.S. might be able to provide. I further consider the threatened prosecution (by Liberia, and now I read perhaps also by others) not only unkind but counter-productive -- in general, I gather, such actions force further underground and prompt people to hide potentially threatening symptoms and conditions.
Screening for temperatures is a good first step but since a person might not be symptomatic at the time the temperature is being taken, temperature taking won't be enough. I think the Government should go further and embark on enlightenment campaigns. These campaigns would involve listing the symptoms of Ebola, advising people who exhibit such symptoms to visit the nearest hospital, explaining in very clear terms how…
Honestly that sounds like a very constructive suggestion. However it might be a little bit too early for it given the few cases outside of Africa. There's a thin line between sewing panic and providing the public with constructive information. If they released that kind of stuff right now, people would become super paranoid and expect an outbreak any day. You'd see people going to the hospital with every single flu,…
We already have forced the moronic security theater of airport security to "protect" against a bunch of yahoos using box cutters as weapons. How worse could it get, anyways?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is little to no health care that can make a difference to a person already infected with Ebola, AFAIK, IANAD. Quarantine is the best thing you can do to prevent it getting further.
Supportive care makes a difference. It isn't a cure, but preventing dehydration at least means the infected person doesn't die of dehydration.
I don't know guys. But anything that doubles my survival rate sounds like a big difference to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Supportive care makes a difference. It isn't a cure, but preventing dehydration at least means the infected person doesn't die of dehydration.
Exactly! 70% mortality if disease is let to follow its course, 30-40% if supportive care is provided. I don't know guys. But anything that doubles my survival rate sounds like a big difference to me.