Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry to inform you but there is no treatment for Ebola, son.
Malaria is treatable, Ebola is not. Perspective, indeed.
As for the aid worker that was infected with the disease... Do you honestly think that Nancy Writebol and Kent Brantly did not follow proper protocol and possess the necessary equipment to ensure their safety?
Ebola is not curable; it is treatable. The survivors have been treated with supportive measures such as rehydration and antibiotics for secondary infections. If the facilities are available, they can be placed on a ventilator for respiratory distress or have dialysis for kidney failure.
It's similar to treating someone with any severe viral illness, such as flu.
The Americans were obviously victims of some break in protective protocol. The gear they use is primitive. No one knows exactly how they contracted the virus. However, they did have close contact with infected patients. They were up close and personal with the virus.
Edited to add: As greywar said, the experimental treatment appears promising, though it is obviously not going to be available for widespread use any time soon.
You obviously havent been keeping up on the experimental drug used to treat the Ebola patients in the US that appears to work quite well so far......son
The one that was announced yesterday? Your assessment would seem a little premature considering it was administered less than 24 hours ago, kiddo. Thanks for playing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Ebola is not curable; it is treatable. The survivors have been treated with supportive measures such as rehydration and antibiotics for secondary infections. If the facilities are available, they can be placed on a ventilator for respiratory distress or have dialysis for kidney failure.
It's similar to treating someone with any severe viral illness, such as flu.
No ebolavirus-specific treatment exists. Treatment is primarily supportive in nature and includes minimizing invasive procedures, balancing fluids and electrolytes to counter dehydration, administration of anticoagulants early in infection to prevent or control disseminated intravascular coagulation, administration of procoagulants late in infection to control bleeding, maintaining oxygen levels, pain management, and the use of medications to treat bacterial or fungal secondary infections. Early treatment may increase the chance of survival. A number of experimental treatments are being studied.
I'm sorry, that "treatment" doesn't sound too promising to me, especially with the caveat that early "treatment" may not even have any effect whatsoever. Mortality rates are still very high, regardless.
Quote:
The Americans were obviously victims of some break in protective protocol. The gear they use is primitive. No one knows exactly how they contracted the virus. However, they did have close contact with infected patients. They were up close and personal with the virus.
Up close and personal like sitting beside an Ebola host on an economy-class transatlantic flight to New York?
The one that was announced yesterday? Your assessment would seem a little premature considering it was administered less than 24 hours ago, kiddo. Thanks for playing!
....
Considering that before the drug was administered the patients were reported on deaths door and growing worse by the moment - and after the treatment their condition improved dramatically (one of the patients in particular) - it may not be premature at all.
"....Within an hour of receiving the medication, Brantly's condition dramatically improved. He began breathing easier; the rash over his trunk faded away. One of his doctors described the events as "miraculous."
By the next morning, Brantly was able to take a shower on his own before getting on a specially designed Gulfstream air ambulance jet to be evacuated to the United States..."
And it wasn't "24 hours ago" - more like 3 days ago now. Upon arrival in the U.S. he was able to WALK into the hospital - a HUGE improvement for someone that was on deaths door 3 days ago.
The one that was announced yesterday? Your assessment would seem a little premature considering it was administered less than 24 hours ago, kiddo. Thanks for playing!
No ebolavirus-specific treatment exists. Treatment is primarily supportive in nature and includes minimizing invasive procedures, balancing fluids and electrolytes to counter dehydration, administration of anticoagulants early in infection to prevent or control disseminated intravascular coagulation, administration of procoagulants late in infection to control bleeding, maintaining oxygen levels, pain management, and the use of medications to treat bacterial or fungal secondary infections. Early treatment may increase the chance of survival. A number of experimental treatments are being studied.
I'm sorry, that "treatment" doesn't sound too promising to me, especially with the caveat that early "treatment" may not even have any effect whatsoever. Mortality rates are still very high, regardless.
Up close and personal like sitting beside an Ebola host on an economy-class transatlantic flight to New York?
There was marked improvement in the condition of both patients after the treatment. I consider that promising.
Your link describes the same thing I said: Treatment is supportive. Lack of ebolavirus-specific treatment does not mean no treatment at all.
Up close and personal means providing medical care to people seriously ill with ebola.
There was marked improvement in the condition of both patients after the treatment. I consider that promising.
Your link describes the same thing I said: Treatment is supportive. Lack of ebolavirus-specific treatment does not mean no treatment at all.
Actually, the quote I provided said "no treatment exists". I'm not sure how many ways you can interpret that. Yes, you can treat secondary infections, administer coagulants to prevent hemorrhaging and provide IV to stop dehydration, but none of these actions will necessarily do anything to actually save the life of the patient. The underlying virus has no known treatment.
As for the experimental drug, we'll see how well it corrects this condition. Brantly seems to be responding well to it. Writebol, not so much. The question remains whether Brantly's recovery was directly caused by the drug or not. He may just be in the lucky 30%.
Quote:
Up close and personal means providing medical care to people seriously ill with ebola.
Unless they were crawling into bed with their patients, I don't know how much more "up close and personal" you can get to someone, especially considering these were American aid workers taking every precaution to prevent exposure to the virus. I take it you have never flown economy before.
Of course, why bother treating people, just kill them and be done with it. Hope the doctor doesn't say the same thing to you the next time you go in for a routine procedure.
There's absolutely nothing rational about advocating for flat out murdering people, especially when the casualty rate is around 50-55%, not 90% like you are erroneously claiming.
Yes kill them then burn them to stop the outbreak. Common sense ever enter your mind?
Compassion and empathy are the very things that have allowed human beings to thrive. We thrive because we are social creatures. Compassion and empathy are the nuts and bolts of socialization. Without them, we are monsters who will "napalm" each other to complete destruction.
You take in some ebola effected folks then...........fly em over and take care of em hero. Just unreal how people support ebola. If ebola ran for office they would vote for it.
Of course the government doesn't want panic, however I have not seen any evidence that they are "lying" to people. There are those with irrational fears who seem to think that if the government doesn't say "lock it down, lock it all down or you're all going to die", then they are somehow being misled or the truth is being withheld from them.
But the truth is, for as much as the media has hyped it, this disease really isn't as bad as some claim. Its devastating in a third world nation with an overworked healthcare system that is having to turn patients away, where they cleanse dead bodies by hand, exposing themselves to blood and feces, both of which can the transmit the virus, its an entirely different scenario in a first world setting, particularly for a disease that you have to get up close and personal with an infected individual to contract it.
Na not a bad disease just one with no cure that could infect anyone. You go ahead and get it and show us how to cure yourself.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,620 posts, read 12,698,333 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
You take in some ebola effected folks then...........fly em over and take care of em hero. Just unreal how people support ebola. If ebola ran for office they would vote for it.
maybe the Ebola outbreak is getting even for all the wild life being poached in Africa..
the way I see it is some virus is what's going to really cull the human race. not nukes, not war, not famine, not a meteor impact, tsunami, hurricanes floods none of those ..it will be at the microscopic level that will drive humanity to its knees..
Ah yes ebola is getting even.................lol
That makes no friggen sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
