Posted on 10/29/2014 8:30:44 AM PDT by Ray76
You misunderstood me. You're talking about the ratio of people infected by each sick person, which is in the range of 1.5 to 2.0.
I was responding to Diogenesis' post, which showed the distribution of times from exposure until infected people exhibited symptoms in four different countries. His point is that the 21 day period doesn't catch all of the cases--somewhere between 92% and 97%, depending on country, so that even a 21 day quarantine isn't a guarantee that a person isn't carrying the disease.
Along with the probability distribution on each countries graph was the integral of that distribution, which has to equal one if you wait long enough--that's what is called a "cumulative distribution function." So, my comment was, basically that you have a tension between the length of the quarantine and the confidence you have that the quarantined person is really disease-free. There's an obvious tug of war between how long you keep someone who isn't exhibiting symptoms quarantined versus issues of how much it costs society and how hard it is on the person. Is a 95% confidence level enough? Or should it be 99.9%, in which case the quarantine would be at least 60 days. I dunno... I'm thinking.
Thanks for clearing my misunderstanding.
Originally that was true; R= 1.5, with the expectation that the disease will double every month (4 weeks).
However, WHO/CDC found out that R= 2.0, with the reality that the disease was duplicating every 18-21 days.
At one point, WHO hospitals were so overwhelmed that they were turning away 30% of people comming to them, as they had patients lining the corridors,
and increasing the number of beds in each room.
Those Ebola patients that were turned away had a 10%survival rate, and likely infectedfamily members who cared for them.
Those Ebola patients accepted at the hospitals had 30-40% survival rate which depended on the doctors, nurses, and HCW, and the supplies avialable (especially saline IV's).
See my reply to Ray76. We’re talking about two different things.
WHO's own statistics show that 12% , or one out of every eight victims dont show any symptoms until they are PAST that 21 day (alleged), out until 41 days.
Many tests for Ebola show false negatives ,but no known false positives.
I was eyeballing the curves. If it’s 88% instead of 95% at 21 days, I could well believe it.
Why risk the gamble?
_______________
Because they are playing a game that has not been named.
Hard logic of the situation today suggests that almost everyone who’s knowingly been in contact with Ebola and/or a West African is today lying when asked whether that is the case. Medical facilities are asking that of people coming into emergency rooms and going for routine blood work. People realize that an answer of “yes” is going to set off alarms, so it seems they are almost certainly are answering “no.” Even this doctor, who should be worrying about public health, lied.
I agree that during this Ebola situation we should not rely on sensationalized tabloid articles for our information.
The New York Post, which is usually a pretty reliable news publication - and quoted by other reputable news outlets such as Fox News - cited law enforcement sources who got their information from checking Spencer's credit card and metro card after he had assured authorities that he had not left his Harlem apartment.
The New York Post, citing law enforcement sources, reported that Dr. Craig Spencer initially told investigators that he had self-quarantined in his Harlem apartment. According to the paper, Spencer's story fell apart after investigators checked his credit-card statement and information from his Metrocard.
Spencer, 33, returned to New York from Guinea on Oct. 17 and was rushed to Bellevue Hospital Center on the morning of Oct. 23 with fatigue, nausea, and a 100-degree fever. In the intervening period, he traveled on three of the city's most heavily-trafficked subway lines, visited the High Line park and a Greenwich Village restaurant in lower Manhattan, and went for a three-mile run before going bowling at an alley in Brooklyn the day before he was hospitalized.
Spencer didn't admit the extent of his travels until a New York police officer "got on the phone and had to relay questions to him through the Health Department," the Post quoted a source as saying......
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/29/new-york-city-doctor-with-ebola-reportedly-lied-about-his-movements-in-city/ ___________________________________________
BTW, Wouldn't a metro card be a matter of public record?
Why would a Metrocard be a matter of public record?
Most people show symptoms within a week of exposure...and there aren't any new cases.
HYPE and FEAR. I'm more concerned about the flu and D-68 than I am Ebola....
HYPE and FEAR... you mean flu?
Flu has a much lower fatality rate than ebola yet the public is constantly told to take a flu shot.
ebola mortality rate 70% ( http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411100#t=article )
flu mortality rate 0.0005% ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/flu.htm )
Things like EZ passes are tied in with credit cards and are automatically replenished with certain pre - established dollar amounts vis a vis a credit card when they run low. Why not Metro cards?
I don't know if there are Metro cards that work similar to EZ Pass in New York City. But if there are, it would be very easy to trace where Dr. Spencer actually went during the time when he claimed to have been staying put in his Harlem apartment.
I am just trying to establish the credibility of sources cited.
Yes, they can track the use of Metrocards. It is possible to link a Metrocard to a credit card so that it auto-refills, but they can track them even if they are not linked. Each card is unique, and the MTA can identify where and when each card was swiped.
That aspect of the sources cited is credible, but was also publicly reported the day Dr. Spencer went to the hospital. There were initial reports that he was cooperating with medical investigators, and that the investigators (and NYPD) were looking to his Metrocard and credit card to precisely track his movements.
Until then, Spencer was maintaining the fiction that he had remained in his Harlem apartment during the whole time that he was allegedly "self-quarantining."
It occurs to me that the owners of the places Spencer visited ( i.e. the restaurant and the bowling alley, the cab etc. ) would have been able to corroborate with the data provided by the Metro and credit cards.
I am not always inclined to trust reports based on "anonymous sources," but in this case I am inclined to make an exception because of the detailed information and because of its matter of fact tone as contrasted with the rank politicization of the Ebola situation that we are seeing everywhere.
Politics don't mean diddley - squat to people who are dead or looking death in the eye.
IMHO, if the Spencer story is newsworthy is not merely because it represents a sensationalist "gotcha" moment on Dr. Spencer - although such sensationalism in certain segments of the news media is always an unfortunate possibility.
The Spencer story is primarily important in terms of informing the public how the authorities in a very large metropolis were able to successfully trace the persons with whom Spencer may have come into contact during the period when he was supposed to have been self-quarantined at his Harlem apartment.
“It occurs to me that the owners of the places Spencer visited ( i.e. the restaurant and the bowling alley, the cab etc. ) would have been able to corroborate with the data provided by the Metro and credit cards.”
Agreed, and they did corroborate it. The thing is, all of that information had previously been published, and publicly disclosed by the NYC mayor and health authorities. We already knew that the police & medical investigators had tracked his movements using his credit card, metrocard, and cell phone. The only new piece of information in the Post article is that Spencer did not initially cooperate with the investigation, but rather lied to authorities about his whereabouts. That is the one piece of new information, and that one piece was from the anonymous source.
I’m not saying it’s not true - for all I know, he lied. I’m just saying that I’m not ready to convict the guy in my mind, based only on a single anonymously-sourced report.
That sounds reasonable enough to me. It will be interesting to see how this story plays out.
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.