TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:So making it to US does not necessarily improve your chance of survival

If I had a tinfoil hat, I would consider this a factor in his outcome.

Rest in peace.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/02/health/eb ... index.html
U.S. Ebola case: Searching for contacts
By Gary Tuchman, Jacque Wilson and Holly Yan, CNN
updated 10:53 AM EDT, Thu October 2, 2014

Dallas (CNN) -- Health officials are reaching out to as many as 100 people who may have had contact with the first Ebola patient diagnosed in the U.S., a spokeswoman with the Texas Department of State Health Services said Thursday.

These are people who are still being questioned because they may have crossed paths with the patient either at the hospital, at his apartment complex or in the community.

"Out of an abundance of caution, we're starting with this very wide net, including people who have had even brief encounters with the patient or the patient's home," spokeswoman Carrie Williams said. "The number will drop as we focus in on those whose contact may represent a potential risk of infection."

My guess is that health authorities will have in the end nipped this thing in the bud, containing it to just patient 1. But, that isn't going to avert a sort of general panic for a while. Much common sense is called for.

The people he interacted with from the day he first went to the hospital (maybe a day or two before that) to the day he was finally put in isolation... they were exposed and at risk. IMO, those people should all (everyone we can find) be placed in hospital isolation for 21 days. NOT "stay at home" isolation and have them running out for groceries or having the neighbors visit with them.

You have a point.....but it is entirely possible to get a little overblown in this.
<snip>
I previously posted that we shouldn't let political correctness get in the way of dealing with this, and that does speak to your point. But, I ALSO think that panic doesn't serve ANYBODY's interests, and that is what I was trying to get across.

Here is exactly my fear (see below)... playing out just down the road in Dallas. You have a small set of people who had close contact with the infected person during the time between when he first started showing symptoms and when he was isolated. Several of those people are children, and they attended school for some days before being instructed to remain at home, in self-isolation.

What did they do? They went out!!

Thankfully they didn't go to school (as far as has been reported), but, they left their in-home isolation and are now being "legally quarantined" (whatever that means).

This isn't a question of political correctness or overblowing things. Not at all. It's a public health and safety issue. If we quarantine 100 people (the number reported to have had contact) for 21 days, it costs us a few dollars. At the end of that time, some number may (hopefully none) turn up with Ebola. If those people were quarantined during the incubation period, we're 100% certain that nobody else was infected and the chain is broken. If they are not isolated, and one or more turns up with the virus, how many people have they exposed in the 1-3 weeks they were not isolated? And how many of those turn up with the virus?

The idea that anyone exposed to the virus would fail to isolate themselves voluntarily speaks very clearly to the necessity of isolation to be mandatory and enforced. 3 weeks of inconvenience and then it's over for this case. or.... we can be trusting and risk getting more people sick... It's not a difficult choice. Not at all. And it's certainly not any kind of overreaction. It's simply caution.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/0 ... latestnews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At a Dallas apartment where Duncan stayed after arriving Sept. 20, family members were legally quarantined Thursday after refusing to comply with Dallas health officials requests that they stay home.

If you were exposed, could you ever conceive of NOT following a request to stay home to ensure public safety?

The Annoyed Man wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/02/health/eb ... index.html
U.S. Ebola case: Searching for contacts
By Gary Tuchman, Jacque Wilson and Holly Yan, CNN
updated 10:53 AM EDT, Thu October 2, 2014

Dallas (CNN) -- Health officials are reaching out to as many as 100 people who may have had contact with the first Ebola patient diagnosed in the U.S., a spokeswoman with the Texas Department of State Health Services said Thursday.

These are people who are still being questioned because they may have crossed paths with the patient either at the hospital, at his apartment complex or in the community.

"Out of an abundance of caution, we're starting with this very wide net, including people who have had even brief encounters with the patient or the patient's home," spokeswoman Carrie Williams said. "The number will drop as we focus in on those whose contact may represent a potential risk of infection."

My guess is that health authorities will have in the end nipped this thing in the bud, containing it to just patient 1. But, that isn't going to avert a sort of general panic for a while. Much common sense is called for.

The people he interacted with from the day he first went to the hospital (maybe a day or two before that) to the day he was finally put in isolation... they were exposed and at risk. IMO, those people should all (everyone we can find) be placed in hospital isolation for 21 days. NOT "stay at home" isolation and have them running out for groceries or having the neighbors visit with them.

Keith B wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Keith B wrote:You're not going to get it off of a toilet seat.

It seems entirely plausible to me that the combination of an unclean toilet (diarrhea from an infected individual CAN contain the virus) and your bare bottom could (not "will" but "could" ) lead to transmission.

If you practice proper hygiene you are not going to sit in something like that. This IS the reason the 3rd world countries have epidemics though, as they live in very unsanitary conditions. I have seen some of these remote villages in South Africa and while they do the best they can, the conditions are deplorable. No clean water, no way to bathe or even properly wash hands, etc.

Agreed.

However, how many of us are always diligent about cleaning a public restroom toilet seat before sitting down?
I thought your quoted post above was a bit overly dismissive about the possibility of transmission in this way.
It CAN happen. The remoteness of that possibility is directly related to the number of infected individuals walking among us. Today, VERY remote.
But I would not be so quick to write off the possibility, especially if the number of cases here rises.

http://www.dw.de/how-does-ebola-spread/a-17870013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In order to become infected with the disease, people need to come into direct contact with bodily fluids - such as blood, urine, feces and sweat - that contain the virus, or touch a contaminated object. The virus is very resilient and can survive on various surfaces for a long time. It can be transferred via traces of bodily fluids on surfaces like toilet seats and tabletops.

It is my understanding that ebloa is easily killed with alcohol wipes and alcohol-based (>60%) hand sanitizer.
Consider keeping a few wipes with you in case you need to use a public restroom. Easier to avoid for the men than the ladies.

Keith B wrote:You're not going to get it off of a toilet seat.

It seems entirely plausible to me that the combination of an unclean toilet (diarrhea from an infected individual CAN contain the virus) and your bare bottom could (not "will" but "could" ) lead to transmission.

KD5NRH wrote:

Skiprr wrote:The result from the CDC's blood test is expected before 4:00 p.m. Central today. No additional identifying info on the patient, but it's a male and he traveled from Liberia.

Isn't ebola pretty transmissible for up to a week or more before onset of symptoms?

No... and... requires direct contact with bodily fluids.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ebola then spreads through human-to-human transmission via direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and with surfaces and materials (e.g. bedding, clothing) contaminated with these fluids.

Symptoms of Ebola virus disease

The incubation period, that is, the time interval from infection with the virus to onset of symptoms is 2 to 21 days. Humans are not infectious until they develop symptoms. First symptoms are the sudden onset of fever fatigue, muscle pain, headache and sore throat. This is followed by vomiting, diarrhoea, rash, symptoms of impaired kidney and liver function, and in some cases, both internal and external bleeding