Posted on 10/20/2014 12:14:08 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
A few weeks ago an emergency room doctor called our infectious disease physician group concerning a patient who had returned from Liberia and was having nausea and vomiting. Several of the patient's family members had died of Ebola.
As panic struck us, our decisive question was: When did he return from Liberia?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for screening and isolating patients for possible Ebola infection are clear: Any person who is presenting with symptoms (which include fever, headache, vomiting and stomach pain) along with a history of travel to West African countries including Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone within 21 days of symptom onset.
To our relief, the patient had arrived in America three months earlier, so we reassured the ER physician that the risk for Ebola was virtually zero. But what if he had arrived 23 days ago? Would it have been prudent to let the patient go home from the emergency room with anti-nausea medication, or would it be better to quarantine and evaluate him for Ebola?
For me, a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine detailing the first nine months of the 2014 epidemic in West Africa raises concern about the short, often-mentioned 21 post-exposure-day periods in the guidelines. In the journal's study of 4,507 probable and confirmed cases, "approximately 95 percent of the case patients had symptom onset within 21 days of exposure." If we do the math, this means that approximately 5 percent or 225 of the Ebola cases in West Africa had symptoms 21 days after exposure, as reported by the patient or caregiver.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
PING!
A little late to rethink it. A hundred plus people on the list were released at 12:00 midnite this morning. (REALLY amazing how a little virus has such a good internal clock.)
Too late. They already let a bunch of them go after the 21 days in Dallas.
“A little late to rethink it.”
That genie’s out of the bottle.
If dozens of infected are walking around while the virus incubates, about the best we can hope for is that they don’t become contagious until they start showing symptoms.
And isn’t that what we’ve been seeing so far? So-and-so seemed fine, was given a check-up and then checked-out—then they became feverish and began vomiting.
But, like trigger-happy cops being able to go home every evening to their families, the important thing is that no one coming here for the free ICU care—American healthcare, not broken but repaired anyway by the Obamanites—is inconvenienced or otherwise put out by the red death plague 2014, that they brought to our shores.
The CDC has had 38 years to prep for this event and they appear to be addressing it on a strictly ad hoc, “conventional wisdom” basis, while the WHO seems to be contradicting them daily.
21 days. Sure, whatever.
Yeah, we know CDC: you’re from the government and you’re here to help. All we ask is that you don’t `help’ too much and we might survive.
Boycott Hufffpo!
Yeah, I know it’s HuffPo, but it’s not like I’m posting a political commentary.
In Nigeria they did not ask contacts to only self-quarantine if they had been in contact with someone who had displayed symptoms of illness due to Ebola, but also if they merely had been in contact with someone that the Nigerian health service folks knew had been in contact with such a person. They built the complete chain of contact and asked folks to stay home, and sent health service surveyors to check up on them. They did not wait for Ebola ill patients to show up at clinics for help.
We are so screwed.
“21 days” is a statistical average. Some will fall outside of the mean, each direction.
From the article:
The level of certainty has to be tailored to the level of threat a disease poses. With Ebola’s 70 percent mortality rate and public health implications to health care workers and the general public, an exponential-fold higher level of certainty is necessary from the usual 95 percent.
Obama has mistaken an appropriate level of caution for panic.
Yes, some will fall outside the mean. Only 5 percent on average. Do we really want to risk even a few being allowed to spread this disease to the populace? Or even just one? People really should be quarantined the whole 40 days.
We are screwed. Just pray and be careful. The obols administration is bent on spreading this death.
Yeah, I know it’s “not a political commentary”, but it’s giving them ad revenue.
Boycott Huffpo!
The principle as established by observation is quarantine all possible cases of ebola for 21 days. But the specific details of the principle also depends on:
1) the context
2) the ultimate goal of the context
3) the standard of value
4) the beneficiary
If it was a 1 in 20 chance, I would be putting down a dollar every day!
Likewise. I majored in mathematics, studied probability theory and statistics etc. My wife and friends play the lotto despite my telling them it's a sucker's game. Funny thing is, many people won't gamble at casinos because they say you lose all your money at gambling; yet they play the lottery. I point out that a casino takes a small house percentage and your chances of winning are just a couple points under 50 percent. So yes, you lose more than half the time but your chances are almost 50-50 to win. Indeed, I win more often than I lose when gambling.
Regarding ebola, yes your chances of getting it are indeed slim to almost none. Now. But if it becomes an epidemic worldwide your chances of winning the ebola lottery will go way up. That's why I think the government should do everything possible to keep the odds in the millions to one against winning the game of death.
Post to me or FReep mail to be on/off the Bring Out Your Dead ping list.
The purpose of the “Bring Out Your Dead” ping list (formerly the “Ebola” ping list) is very early warning of emerging pandemics, as such it has a high false positive rate.
So far the false positive rate is 100%.
At some point we may well have a high mortality pandemic, and likely as not the “Bring Out Your Dead” threads will miss the beginning entirely.
*sigh* Such is life, and death...
As the author points out, a 95% certainty with a moderate to low outcome for failure is not the same as one with a hugely negative outcome such as an epidemic. Caution is therefore not only justified, but mandated. And that is precisely what the current administration has NOT shown.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.