- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Confirmed case of Ebola in New York City
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:16 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:16 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The Cruise Ship equation is a mere extension of CDC travel policy. The fact the CDC policy would ever allow a person to board a cruise ship if there was risk of Ebola exposure is breathtakingly dumb. Why? Because in the event of symptoms developing during the week long cruise, isolation/evacuation would be daunting.
So you want the gov to tell what they can and can't do, got it. I got a slight fever this morning to do I need to call the CDC before I wipe my arse? Hurry up and tell me because this coffee is working this am.
The CDC policies are there to prevent the spread of the disease, which as far as we know worked. However, God forbid somebody with the professional knowledge go above and beyond the CDC policy just to be safe.
There is no sense in arguing with you anymore. You are too blinded by your hate of the CDC and its director to even listen to reason or read the posts of someone who has a different view
. 
0
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:22 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
You really are exaggerating the chance of getting Ebola.
I am not the one shutting down bowling alleys, passenger jets, entire hospital emergency depts, scaring hell out of anyone of thousands who took the L-train Wednesday evening, etc.
You are either not listening, or not understanding what I am saying.
So do this. Think about what you heard the infectious disease doctor say, "the chances of spreading that way are very slim." She was 100% correct. Now extrapolate that statement, exactly word-for-word, to NC Tigah. It is what I've been saying from day 1.
BUT here is the caveat: The disease can be deadly, and rare as transmission may be, it is possible. Transmission under those circumstances is not probable, but it is possible. Your ID doctor knows it is possible. The CDC which claims it to be impossible, knows it is possible. That is why the CDC went about scaring several hundred Frontier Airline Passengers in "retracing" Vinson's steps. It is why the CDC is scaring a couple of thousand train passengers who may have ridden with or after the NYC doctor. It is why potentially infected folks should simply be quarantined. Not because the risk is high, but because it is present.
But if CDC policy regarding quarantine holds that it's "not necessary", then cut out the bullshite of blaming folks for "putting others at risk" when following that policy.
Either they are at risk to be contagious or they aren't.
(1) If they are at risk to be contagious, then change an idiotic, partially-protective, politically motivated CDC Policy.
(2) If they are not at risk to be contagious, then stop scaring hell out of travelers who may have had casual contact with asymptomatic Ebola infected people.
Either way, current CDC behavior is stupid.
It really is not that damn complicated.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:30 am to NC_Tigah
I'm not sure people understand the point you're driving at. I think I do and it makes a lot of sense.
The CDC's behavior after a reported case of Ebola does not match its public policy on the disease transmission.
The CDC's behavior after a reported case of Ebola does not match its public policy on the disease transmission.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:32 am to the808bass
quote:Thank you.
The CDC's behavior after a reported case of Ebola does not match its public policy on the disease transmission.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:32 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Either way, current CDC behavior is stupid.
Something tells me the CDC is under orders from above to concentrate more on the #1 disease, widespread panic, than the #2 disease, Ebola.
For the life of me I still can't understand why orders can't be put out to keep the people, coming in from the hot zones, in isolation in Africa for that 21 day period. I guess it's too simple for the CDC to invoke such a mandate.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:32 am to the808bass
That's right. What bothers me about all this is that this doctor allegedly has taken all appropriate precautions since coming back. So probably we are to assume that he took all precautions when he was in Africa, but he still got ebola. Add that to NC Tigers point, and there is cause for concern if you ask me.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:34 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
quote: Either way, current CDC behavior is stupid. Something tells me the CDC is under orders from above to concentrate more on the #1 disease, widespread panic, than the #2 disease, Ebola. For the life of me I still can't understand why orders can't be put out to keep the people, coming in from the hot zones, in isolation in Africa for that 21 day period. I guess it's too simple for the CDC to invoke such a mandate.
Nailed it, dude.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:39 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
For the life of me I still can't understand why orders can't be put out to keep the people, coming in from the hot zones, in isolation in Africa for that 21 day period. I guess it's too simple for the CDC to invoke such a mandate.
1. There is no need, based on scientific evidence. If they don't have symptoms they can't transmit the disease, so why punish them.
2. Logistics. NC_Tigah said last night about 150pp/day come into the US and Peter King in an interview last week said between 50-100 come into JFK alone. That is 4500 ppl/month. What are you going to do put a cop outside their residents or hotel.
3. It is just simple unamerican.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:51 am to WeeWee
quote:
What are you going to do put a cop outside their residents or hotel.
Or how about those 4000 soldiers over there build holding barracks to accommodate those people. Hell, it might even change some people's minds about going through the effort to get to the states.
This stuff about that they can't transmit without symptoms leads me to this question. Can you definitely say when the threshold is crossed from noninfectious to infectious? IOW, a guy could get on the plane, no symptoms. By the time he arrives to the U.S. he has started showing signs of the symptoms.
Why take that chance?
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:51 am to WeeWee
quote:
They are required to monitor their health and take appropriate actions when needed.
Do you see the reason we don't need to allow people to monitor their own symptoms with a virus that kills 70% of it's victims?
They have to put a warning label on a washing machine that says "do not put a person in machine"
The majority of the populous is dumb. Yet you want to allow them to monitor the spread of a deadly disease on their own.
on letting everyone know that you are one of the reasons for the many ignorant warning labels that are required. 
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:55 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:So you propose stationing soldiers outside their homes? Yeah, that's not a police state. Besides the fact that it would take about 15,000+ soldiers to minimally watch over 4,000 people 24/7.
Or how about those 4000 soldiers over there build holding barracks to accommodate those people. Hell, it might even change some people's minds about going through the effort to get to the states.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:59 am to mmcgrath
quote:
it would take about 15,000+ soldiers to minimally watch over 4,000 people 24/7
You're awesome with math. You must work for the government with ratios like that.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:08 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
This stuff about that they can't transmit without symptoms leads me to this question. Can you definitely say when the threshold is crossed from noninfectious to infectious? IOW, a guy could get on the plane, no symptoms. By the time he arrives to the U.S. he has started showing signs of the symptoms.
This x1000. We don't know what that threshold is. Is it a couple hours before the headache comes on? Is it an hour after the first vomit? Also, I'm having a hard time understanding how if a male has it and has sex with a female, even if he isn't showing symptoms, there isn't enough bodily fluids being transferred to give the disease. Remember, supposedly this is not in the blood like some other diseases, but actually in all bodily fluids.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:08 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
This stuff about that they can't transmit without symptoms leads me to this question. Can you definitely say when the threshold is crossed from noninfectious to infectious?
No, because it is a sliding scale. The CDC, WHO, and most experts agree that a fever over 100 or other symptoms such as vomiting appear is when it starts getting contagious, CDC uses 100.4 for example. However the person may be contagious but is not extremely contagious at that point. As the disease progresses they get more contagious. However that doesn't change anything, we don't know the exact point to when someone is contagious with the flu or the common cold.
quote:
a guy could get on the plane, no symptoms. By the time he arrives to the U.S. he has started showing signs of the symptoms.
Well first in order to get from one of the 3 ebola countries to the US someone has to go first to South Africa, Nigeria, or some other African nation. They scan for temp there, then again in NYC if you get on the direct flight to JFK, but most go to Paris or Brussels and they scan for symptoms there. The airlines are also scanning for symptoms and if someone developed symptoms the CDC could be notified and appropriate steps taken (see Boston and NYC last week).
quote:
Why take that chance?
You have a greater chance of catching the flu or common cold,which kills more ppl here in the US than ebola, on a plane. More ppl have died on a plane due to the plane going missing so why take the chance flying? If we had travel bans, mandatory quarantines, etc for every contagious disease we would be a police state that would make North Korea blush.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:10 am to mmcgrath
quote:
So you propose stationing soldiers outside their homes? Yeah, that's not a police state. Besides the fact that it would take about 15,000+ soldiers to minimally watch over 4,000 people 24/7.
Who said anything about watching their homes? I propose having one area where all people wanting to go to America have to reside to be monitored for 21 days. If they don't like it they can stay home.
15,000 soldiers?
These people aren't hardened criminals, just inconvenienced by a disease with a high mortality rate. I'll ask you one last question. Do you (consider the US mindset) feel safer knowing a person has gone thru their 21 day isolation and is declared Ebola free before getting on the plane or do you feel safer letting them come over here first and keeping your fingers crossed that all is A-OK after arriving here?
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:21 am to WeeWee
The flu has been around since before modern medicine and has been studied for many years. Ebola is still killing people without us understanding it. If you don't see the difference between those, I'm unsure what to say. Healthy adults have a great shot at beating the flu. We aren't sure about Ebola.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:26 am to GhostofJackson
quote:
Ebola is still killing people without us understanding it. If you don't see the difference between those, I'm unsure what to say. Healthy adults have a great shot at beating the flu. We aren't sure about Ebola.
Ebola has only killed one person here in the US and that is mainly because there was a 55 hour gap due to a misdiagnosis and him failing to check back in 24 hours later. In Africa they are dying because the healthcare facilities suck arse and the average time between symptoms appearing to the start of treatment is 4 days. They have very little chance of survival then.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:35 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Who said anything about watching their homes? I propose having one area where all people wanting to go to America have to reside to be monitored for 21 days. If they don't like it they can stay home
Yeah that is not unamerican at all. Just put someone on home arrest or prison basically without a trial. Yall do realize how crazy yall sound right?
quote:
5,000 soldiers? These people aren't hardened criminals, just inconvenienced by a disease with a high mortality rate.
That has no known chance of transmission from human to human (and they have been studying and observing it since 1976) when symptoms aren't present. When symptoms do hit they go to the hospital.
quote:
I'll ask you one last question. Do you (consider the US mindset) feel safer knowing a person has gone thru their 21 day isolation and is declared Ebola free before getting on the plane or do you feel safer letting them come over here first and keeping your fingers crossed that all is A-OK after arriving here?
I feel confident in saying that as long as they aren't showing symptoms nothing will be spread. 21 days is up from Duncan and he did spread it to anybody outside the hospital and those transmissions are being investigated by multiple agencies to see what went wrong.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:43 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
So probably we are to assume that he took all precautions when he was in Africa, but he still got ebola.
The first ebola patient was on Greta last night. He said he probably contracted it in the "waiting room" area, and not in the ebola treatment area of the hospital where he worked. Makes sense to me.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 8:47 am to WeeWee
quote:
Yeah that is not unamerican at all
Why are you trying to turn this into an American thing? Does Ebola only love the U.S. and thus won't be inflicted upon us because we are the good guys in all this? And another thing, Ebola is just now coming to America, basically one case at a time. I think it really hasn't gotten a toehold yet here. Not saying it will get epidemic here but multiple cases happening at once are just a matter of time imo. It will be interesting to see how it will be handled then but let's go ahead and take that chance since we are "well-equipped" to handle it?
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News