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.
It may very well have. Catch it early enough and, provided you're otherwise in good health, a steady feed of electrolytes and bed rest is usually enough to get you through it.
The hospital did drop the ball on the initial visit. I am not convinced that altered the outcome, though, especially in view of the discussion of viral load in Buzz's link.
Supportive care only works half the time, so I do not think you can say, "a steady feed of electrolytes and bed rest is usually enough to get you through it."
There are so many differences in the cases of Dr. Kent Brantly, Nancy Writebol and Dr. Rick Sacra and Thomas Duncan, and why the first three survived and the last one did not-
Duncan was exposed to a massive amount of virus, allowing ebola to spread and multiply quickly, the others were exposed to minute amounts, which means the virus had to replicate for some time to come up to the level that Duncan had.
When Duncan went to the hospital, it was not known that he had ebola, the hospital was not prepared to treat him, days were wasted (admittedly) before a correct diagnosis was made. The others were known to have ebola, were sent to hospitals that were prepared and equipped to treat them. Decisions had already been made and plans were in place for them, which were not in place for Duncan.
It is so absurd, so mind blowingly wrong, to accuse the hospital in Texas of not trying to save Mr. Duncan. IF they didn't want to save him, really, why not just quietly give him enough of some drug that would kill him early after the ebola diagnosis, before much expenditure? It is well known that there will be no autopsy on ebola patients who die, it is just too dangerous, so why would the hospital spend hundreds of thousands, perhaps upwards of a million dollars that they likely won't recoup, just to let him die later. It makes no sense at all.
Part of me wants for someone to broadcast something along the lines of, "Yes, we didn't treat the man the same way that we would treat a US citizen, and as a matter of fact, we will no longer admit any foreign ebola patients to a hospital for treatment, we will simply isolate you until you perish, so don't even think about coming to the US in order to get medical treatment if you suspect that you have ebola". Which, of course, would never happen, and the rational part of me knows that. That is the end of that rant, however, while it is inexcusable that the first visit to the ER ended in him being sent home, I will say that I am angered at the hubris of those who accuse the medical staff of malpractice based on racism in the care of Mr Duncan once that he was admitted.
Ok, just speculating here.
There are probably a lot of things that went on "behind the scenes" at the hospital to accomodate Thomas Duncan. I read he had almost all of an entire ward. That's a whole ward sealed off that could be used to treat other patients. I wonder if there were elective surgeries that had to be scheduled out, because when 50 healthcare staff are tending one patient, it leaves a facility a little short staffed. How many patients were discharged maybe one or two days early, because of this? And don't forget the medical team itself. One mistake, one breach in protocol, and they risked DEATH!
I feel for the grieving family, I'm sorry Duncan died, I'm sorry for the suffering in Africa right now, but we're in a public health crisis here. The hospital did the best they could and shouldn't be blamed over racism.
IF they didn't want to save him, really, why not just quietly give him enough of some drug that would kill him early after the ebola diagnosis, before much expenditure? It is well known that there will be no autopsy on ebola patients who die, it is just too dangerous, so why would the hospital spend hundreds of thousands, perhaps upwards of a million dollars that they likely won't recoup, just to let him die later.
The realization that no autopsies will ever be performed on ebola patients is very unsettling. All sorts of terrible things can happen when there is no accountability.
Some people just don't understand how powerful denial is when you are faced with your own mortality. I've said before, he was probably relieved when the hospital sent him home the first time. " thank God, it really just is the stomach flu."
These people, even those that have no sympathy for his death, share one feeling. Fear. It's in our backyard now and the denial we all had " it's far away" is being stripped.
I agree.
As Hopes said, he did buy his plane ticket to the US prior to helping the sick girl who later died. He did buy it prior to people dropping like flies all around him. This is the piece of evidence that I keep in mind when I start to feel too angry with him.
That being said, I don't buy for a SECOND that he didn't know he'd been exposed to a deadly disease. He was specifically asked, in his first ER visit, if he'd been around anyone with a serious or deadly disease, and he specifically said no. But with a fever of 103 and his recent travel history, which he revealed, he should have been kept there rather than released. This is where I think the ER really screwed up big time.
It was a combination, I think, of his denial and fear, and possible deception, and the hospital's negligence, as well as perhaps a language or accent barrier. Let's keep in mind that prior to his death, the Liberian government felt that he was criminally deceitful on his exit paperwork and was going to press charges. So there's nothing in his demeanor or what I've heard that leads me to believe he was a paragon of virtue and honesty.
He was a poor, scared guy who hid some critical information from others, as well as himself, with tragic results, and now he's dead.
Personally, I think the hospital is somewhat at fault here, but so was Mr Duncan. Between the two, I don't think that the family really has a strong case, but perhaps there's something we don't know yet.
What's going to keep this from killing millions of people in the future?
Barring a massive intervention in the three countries where the disease is currently out of control - Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone - nothing is going to stop just such an eventuality.
The logarithmic progression of this disease is clear by looking at the time-frame of the fatalities.
December 2013: the current outbreak begins
April: fatalities top 100
August, second week: fatalities top 1000
September, first week: fatalities top 2000
September, fourth week: fatalities top 3000
October, second week: fatalities top 4000
The totals will pass 6000 and maybe 7000 before this month is out.
The big question is - how do the local borders hold when there are tens and then hundreds of thousands of infected people fleeing? To the Ivory Coast and Mauritania? What happens if it reaches Nigeria, population 175 million? What happens when there are so many infected that things like the recent case in Dallas are happening on a daily basis? Western medical infrastructure can control such situations and keep the R-Zero under 1. But if such cases hit Brazil, India, Indonesia?
The political and economic effects would ripple across the entire globe.
This is downright silly. It's video (and article) of hazmat team coming onto a US airways plane because a passenger SNEEZED and then joked saying he/she has ebola. That's sort of like how I joked to my husband when he saw a bruise on my food. The most ridiculous part about it is the person SNEEZED. That's not a symptom for goodness sake.
You don't have to have a visa to get into the US if you are a national of a country that takes part in the Visa Waiver Program. So not everyone, by a long shot, who travels from the effected nations needs a visa to get on a plane to America.
So in essence you would have to ban travel to everybody who was there, not just people who require visas for entry for your plan to have an impact.
Yes I made that point in my other post about how visas work.
Quote:
You can't get on a plane without a VISA to the USA (unless the two countries have reciprocal agreements or something). You get your VISA from the embassy. If they won't give you one you can't get on a plane.
And the Visa Waiver Program can just as easily be amended or suspended as necessary. And you STILL need your passport to use the Program.
Like I said in that post...this is an academic argument with many factors.
Here is the list of Visa Waiver countries. And PART of the requirements.
Quote:
The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows citizens of participating countries* to travel to the United States without a visa for stays of 90 days or less, when they meet all requirements explained below. Travelers must be eligible to use the VWP and have a valid Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) approval prior to travel.
If you are eligible to travel on the VWP, but prefer to have a visa in your passport, you may still apply for a visitor (B) visa.
WHY are people arguing this POINT - NITPICKING? YOU STILL NEED PAPERWORK YOU JUST DON"T SHOW UP IN BELGIUM OR WHEREVER AND HOP A PLANE! You can only HOP into the USA through our open land borders. (Yes I stipulate there may be some loosey goosey stuff with Mexico and Canada but I'm not interested in it enough to play Nancy Drew Immigration Expert)
Each Traveler Must have authorization under ESTA
In order to travel without a visa on the VWP, you must have authorization through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) prior to boarding a U.S. bound air or sea carrier. ESTA is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) automated web-based system to determine eligibility to travel without a visa to the United States for tourism or business. Visit the ESTA webpage on the CBP website for more detailed information, to apply for ESTA, and pay the fee.
Travel Must be on an Approved Carrier
If arriving by air or sea, you must be arriving on an approved air or sea carrier. You must also have a round trip ticket indicating return passage to a country* outside the United States.
BTW Duncan had a one way ticket and was not a Belgium national. Liberia is not on the list. Nor are other African countries. FWIW.
The realization that no autopsies will ever be performed on ebola patients is very unsettling. All sorts of terrible things can happen when there is no accountability.
Why would one do an autopsy, and expose an entire additional layer of personnel, when the diagnosis has been confirmed? Is it necessary to know the patient also had coronary artery disease or undiagnosed cancer?
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.
News, Ebola Death Toll Tops 4,000: WHO
(Yes I stipulate there may be some loosey goosey stuff with Mexico and Canada but I'm not interested in it enough to play Nancy Drew Immigration Expert)
