Ebola: WHO Cites Cases With Longer Incubation Period of 42 Days (NOT 21!!!)

International Business Times ^

[TigerClaws]

As questions of how many people the second Dallas nurse infected during her journey to and from Dallas throw scary possibilities, a WHO situation assessment report gives more cause for concern by stating that the incubation period of the virus has been seen to extend to as long as 42 days in some cases.

It says that recent studies conducted in West Africa have demonstrated that 95% of confirmed cases have an incubation period in the range of 1 to 21 days; 98% have an incubation period that falls within the 1 to 42-day interval.

For WHO to declare an Ebola outbreak over, a country must pass through 42 days, with active surveillance supported by good diagnostic capacity and no new cases detected in the period.

[TigerClaws]

Yet Dallas is putting the possibly infected back in SCHOOLS today after 21 days:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/20/ebola-dallas-nigeria/17599981/

Obama is turning Americans in to lab test rats.

[Yaelle]

Tell all the hot dance clubs where the duncans partied last night.

[goodwithagun]

Yet there are FReepers still worshipping the CDC and claiming that Ebola science is settled.

[Texas Eagle]

Just as the hysteria is dying down, leave it to WHO to ramp it back up.

[thackney]

When you follow the link back to the WHO report, you find it does not match the claims in the article.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/14-october-2014/en/

The period of 42 days, with active case-finding in place, is twice the maximum incubation period for Ebola virus disease and is considered by WHO as sufficient to generate confidence in a declaration that an Ebola outbreak has ended.

[DJ Taylor]

What’s next?

Will we soon learn there are Ebola “carriers” who show no symptoms but can infect others as does HIV?

[amihow]

Thank you. The reason for 42 ‘days is that on day 21with no REPORTED cases out in boonies someone may have it and start wave of new infections? What should we do?

[rarestia]

Mandatory, involuntary quarantine of entire communities is what’s next.

Remember the DHS bought bulletproof checkpoint boxes a few years ago. I can already envision where they’ll be setting up the one outside my neighborhood.

[Gennie]

From the link:

Recent studies conducted in West Africa have demonstrated that 95% of confirmed cases have an incubation period in the range of 1 to 21 days; 98% have an incubation period that falls within the 1 to 42 day interval. WHO is therefore confident that detection of no new cases, with active surveillance in place, throughout this 42-day period means that an Ebola outbreak is indeed over.

While 95% are confirmed by 21 days, there are 3% that seem to fall ill after this 21 day period.

[thackney]

The reason for 42 ‘days is that on day 21with no REPORTED cases out in boonies someone may have it and start wave of new infections?

I understand that to be the case. It is just a reporting time frame before making an area claim of disease free. It is not a time frame shown linked to individuals.

[George from New England]

It would be feasible with the better standard of living in America that our bodies silently fight the infection better and makes an Ebola infection take longer to take hold, i.e. 42 days makes more sense than 21.

[Paine in the Neck]

Will we soon learn there are Ebola “carriers” who show no symptoms but can infect others as does HIV?

Works that way with typhoid, cf. Typhoid Mary.

[thackney]

That report then conflicts with its own writing in the paragraph before.

is twice the maximum incubation period

[George from New England]

Some suggest Vitamin C as a med that can benefit one that is with Ebola. So if people are taking the Vit C, what if Vitamin C does slow, but not stop, the Ebola growth ... Vitamin C might just be ‘an extender’ to an incubation period and while helping a person, it maybe making a mess with detection being delayed longer. ??

[Black Agnes]

There was a WHO graph published on several threads that indicates that the number of cases appearing AFTER 21 days is NOT zero.

There was an ‘epidemiological tail’ that extended to at least 28 days and likely beyond.

I didn’t bookmark that particular link so I’m looking for it.

Perhaps someone else can post it. I’m pinging pa engineer as I think he was the poster with the graph.

[Maringa]

I think that if there are no more new cases (rumors withstanding) after the 21 period is over (which for the most part will be done the week before the election...you are going to see a lot of government officials crowing about how the Republicans politicized and created undue panic. You will see a lot of congratulating for the jobs well done, etc....and the “we have learned a lot from this experience. We will implement new guidelines...etc.,etc. If the Republicans would just stop impeding our progress, and support what we are trying to do, etc...”

Just watch...this could be beneficial to the Democrats at the ballot box...They know how to turn bad situations for their advantage...

[Lazamataz]

I am so screwed.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“What should we do?”

Not panic every time some new report comes across the internet.

[jetson]

Just watch...this could be beneficial to the Democrats at the ballot box...They know how to turn bad situations for their advantage...

The Republicans better start coming up with a real strategy NOW to combat Ebola. Who ever takes over is going to have a mess on their hands.

[Art in Idaho]

This isn't rocket science. 5% of 100 = 5 people. . So 5% of 100 people may present after 21 days out to 42 days. So, all the people that currently are on a watch list, (not sure of the current number) 5% may develop late symptoms. What about "an abundance of caution" with these cases? Naw, not PC. . November 4th looks more and more interesting. .