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.
Frieden's earliest public comments are consistent with it not being transmitted by droplets - and the CDC subsequently issued a poster explaining it is capable of being transmitted by droplets. So there certainly is "now" to it. Perhaps Frieden should have been more careful with his statements or perhaps it was intentional.
"Theoretically, wet and bigger droplets from a heavily infected individual, who has respiratory symptoms caused by other conditions or who vomits violently, could transmit the virus – over a short distance – to another nearby person. This could happen when virus-laden heavy droplets are directly propelled by coughing or sneezing (which does not mean airborne transmission) onto the mucus membranes or skin with cuts or abrasions of another person."
In view of all the furor about sweating Ebola victims on the subway, this is interesting:
"And while the DNA of an Ebola virus has been found in sweat, a 'whole, live virus' — one that could infect someone — has never been found in sweat, the WHO says."
Clearly the CDC has not changed its opinion on droplets, it is just trying to overcome the massive number of media articles that harp on Ebola being possibly airborne and scaring people to death.
“I favor it, because it’s not entirely clear that they can’t transmit the disease,” Beutler said, referring to asymptomatic healthcare workers like Kaci Hickox, a Doctors Without Borders nurse returning from treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone who was quarantined in New Jersey for 65 hours before being transported to her home state of Maine on Monday afternoon.
“It may not be absolutely true that those without symptoms can’t transmit the disease, because we don’t have the numbers to back that up,” said Beutler, “It could be people develop significant viremia [where viruses enter the bloodstream and gain access to the rest of the body], and become able to transmit the disease before they have a fever, even. People may have said that without symptoms you can’t transmit Ebola. I’m not sure about that being 100 percent true. There’s a lot of variation with viruses.”
Phewww. Finally, a breathe of fresh air. Let's bold some of the most important/telling things I and many others have been hammering over and over again:
"“It may not be absolutely true that those without symptoms can’t transmit the disease, because we don’t have the numbers to back that up,” said Beutler, “It could be people develop significant viremia [where viruses enter the bloodstream and gain access to the rest of the body], and become able to transmit the disease before they have a fever, even. People may have said that without symptoms you can’t transmit Ebola. I’m not sure about that being 100 percent true. There’s a lot of variation with viruses.”"
And the clouds parted and all was good.
For all those who are 100% sure what he says isn't true, carry on.
You are the one who does not get it. The law says you can quarantine upon showing good medically justified cause. There is no good medically justified cause for quarantine or at least no medical people are stepping forward to say what it is. Without that, the courts are going to find that it violates a person's constitutional rights. Unless you can get the doctor's to go along with your plan, it is not going to fly. What court is going to lock up someone for medical reasons when the medical people say they should not? Think about that.
Federal law specifies Ebola as a disease that justified quarantine:
"The Department or health officer may, by written order, isolate or quarantine any person who has been exposed to a communicable disease as medically or epidemiologically necessary to prevent the spread of the disease, providing such period of restriction shall not exceed the period of incubation of the disease." N.J.A.C. 8:57-1.11(c).
She was exposed to Ebola, there is no question. She can test positive up to 21 says after exposure. The law allows the Department of Health to quarantine her for no longer than the incubation period of 21 days. Christie follow New Jersey law exactly. Good luck with her lawsuit.
Phewww. Finally, a breathe of fresh air. Let's bold some of the most important/telling things I and many others have been hammering over and over again:
"“It may not be absolutely true that those without symptoms can’t transmit the disease, because we don’t have the numbers to back that up,” said Beutler, “It could be people develop significant viremia [where viruses enter the bloodstream and gain access to the rest of the body], and become able to transmit the disease before they have a fever, even. People may have said that without symptoms you can’t transmit Ebola. I’m not sure about that being 100 percent true. There’s a lot of variation with viruses.”"
And the clouds parted and all was good.
For all those who are 100% sure what he says isn't true, carry on.
"Theoretically, wet and bigger droplets from a heavily infected individual, who has respiratory symptoms caused by other conditions or who vomits violently, could transmit the virus – over a short distance – to another nearby person. This could happen when virus-laden heavy droplets are directly propelled by coughing or sneezing (which does not mean airborne transmission) onto the mucus membranes or skin with cuts or abrasions of another person."
In view of all the furor about sweating Ebola victims on the subway, this is interesting:
"And while the DNA of an Ebola virus has been found in sweat, a 'whole, live virus' — one that could infect someone — has never been found in sweat, the WHO says."
Clearly the CDC has not changed its opinion on droplets, it is just trying to overcome the massive number of media articles that harp on Ebola being possibly airborne and scaring people to death.
Perhaps people heard what they thought Dr. Frieden said rather than what he actually said.
We were specifically discussing what Frieden said, not what WHO has stated or what someone else put on a blog.
What Frieden actually said is you cannot get it sitting next to someone on a bus or on other public transportation, which would by implication necessary include droplet transmission by, for example, someone sitting next to you with ebola sneezing:
"Droplet spread happens when germs traveling inside droplets that are
coughed or sneezed from a sick person enter the eyes, nose, or mouth of
another person. Droplets travel short distances, less than 3 feet (1 meter)
from one person to another.
A person might also get infected by touching a surface or object that has
germs on it and then touching their mouth or nose.
Droplet spread diseases include: plague, Ebola."
So now it can be spread by droplets from someone with ebola coughing or sneezing less than 3 ft.
Hence the change in position based on Frieden's very public comments.
"Yet some scientists who have long studied Ebola say such assurances are premature — and they are concerned about what is not known about the strain now on the loose. It is an Ebola outbreak like none seen before, jumping from the bush to urban areas, giving the virus more opportunities to evolve as it passes through multiple human hosts.
Dr. C.J. Peters, who battled a 1989 outbreak of the virus among research monkeys housed in Virginia and who later led the CDC's most far-reaching study of Ebola's transmissibility in humans, said he would not rule out the possibility that it spreads through the air in tight quarters.
"We just don't have the data to exclude it," said Peters, who continues to research viral diseases at the University of Texas in Galveston.
Dr. Philip K. Russell, a virologist who oversaw Ebola research while heading the U.S. Army's Medical Research and Development Command, and who later led the government's massive stockpiling of smallpox vaccine after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, also said much was still to be learned. "Being dogmatic is, I think, ill-advised, because there are too many unknowns here."
If Ebola were to mutate on its path from human to human, said Russell and other scientists, its virulence might wane — or it might spread in ways not observed during past outbreaks, which were stopped after transmission among just two to three people, before the virus had a greater chance to evolve. The present outbreak in West Africa has killed approximately 3,400 people, and there is no medical cure for Ebola.
"I see the reasons to dampen down public fears," Russell said. "But scientifically, we're in the middle of the first experiment of multiple, serial passages of Ebola virus in man.... God knows what this virus is going to look like. I don't.""
I've come to the conclusion that public relations may not be Frieden's strong suit. I do have respect for spokesmen types because the really professional ones can navigate those word minefields a bit better than the average person - even a doctor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
Then you have the 24 hours news cycle parsing every single word. I don't really get into that game too much. I know I've meant to say one thing and said it in such a way that the meaning wasn't always clear so I give some latitude for people on that kind of stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR
Yes, I haven't been too harsh on Friedan. After all, I'm not a medical expert and have never claimed to be. I do get the sense that too many, including Friedan, and several posters on this message board, are passing on what they believe to be true as if it is dogma, 100% guaranteed and verified to be accurate when that cannot possibly be the case, a concern the doctor and medical researcher in my previous link seems to concur with.
Amen to the bold and underlined!
Like many people, I have misspoken many times, both here on CD and IRL. And I can understand even some small-time public officials making poorly worded statements from time to time. I remember feeling so empathetic to Sheriff John Stone, the Jefferson County, CO sherriff during Columbine, having to face the network TV reporters and all the other big kahunas of the media. But good grief! Frieden is the head of the freaking CDC! Part of his job is PR! He should know better than to say dumb stuff like the below: Four Ebola quotes that may come back to haunt CDC's Tom Frieden - LA Times
Take the Amber Vinson plane trip back to Dallas, for instance (#4). Now I don't remember if he was asked about the appropriateness of her flight, or if he introduced the subject himself, but Frieden obviously didn't have all the facts when he spoke. Instead of saying "We need to look into that", or some such, he goes out on a limb, p*ssing off Ms. Vinson who NPR says, plans to hire an attorney, and a lot of other people who felt she was unfairly criticized. If I can figure that out, why couldn't he? Isn't he used to holding press conferences, and having other dealings with the press?
We were specifically discussing what Frieden said, not what WHO has stated or what someone else put on a blog.
What Frieden actually said is you cannot get it sitting next to someone on a bus or on other public transportation, which would by implication necessary include droplet transmission by, for example, someone sitting next to you with ebola sneezing:
"Droplet spread happens when germs traveling inside droplets that are
coughed or sneezed from a sick person enter the eyes, nose, or mouth of
another person. Droplets travel short distances, less than 3 feet (1 meter)
from one person to another.
A person might also get infected by touching a surface or object that has
germs on it and then touching their mouth or nose.
Droplet spread diseases include: plague, Ebola."
So now it can be spread by droplets from someone with ebola coughing or sneezing less than 3 ft.
Hence the change in position based on Frieden's very public comments.
Someone who is symptomatic with Ebola could spread it by droplets.
If asymptomatic Ebola victims were spreading it, West Africa would have even more victims than it does now. Duncan's family would have gotten sick. Sawyer was symptomatic and did not spread it on the plane or in the airports he went through.
The guy who discovered Ebola was actually the first to state that you do not catch it from someone with no symptoms just from riding the bus with him:
"I wouldn't be worried to sit next to someone with Ebola virus on the Tube as long as they don't vomit on you or something. This is an infection that requires very close contact."
“You need really close contact to become infected. So just being on the bus with someone with Ebola, that’s not a problem.”
Droplets from a symptomatic person: hazardous.
Sneeze from an asymptomatic person: not hazardous.
That is what the CDC has said all along.
The scientists, including the Nobel Prizewinner who are saying it could possibly happen from a sneeze from an asymptomatic person on a bus are going counter to the experience in the field. Someone needs to go back and ask him what is the probability that an asymptomatic person will spread Ebola.
The reason we do not want Ebola victims to actually be on the bus is because then we do have to trace their close contacts. That is easier if they are not out riding public transportation at the time they develop symptoms.
The scientists, including the Nobel Prizewinner who are saying it could possibly happen from a sneeze from an asymptomatic person on a bus are going counter to the experience in the field. Someone needs to go back and ask him what is the probability that an asymptomatic person will spread Ebola.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Droplets from a symptomatic person: hazardous.
That is what the CDC has said all along.
What the experts at the CDC said and what reality is may be 2 different things. We don't know. That's what the Nobel Prizewinner is saying. There are many unknowns in the world of viruses. And given the unknown nature, how can a probability be assigned, especially when all we have is past experience in something(a virus) that can change into something else and change the game 180 degrees very quickly?
I would guess using your train of thought, we should also talk to the other "Experts" at the CDC and ask the same question about what the probability is that a "Sneeze from an asymptomatic person: not hazardous." And the honest answer again should be "we don't know for certain", especially the future status which is now and beyond with 100% certainly.
For anyone that's lived a number of years on this planet, with a little digging back through history on so many varieties of topics, we can see how many times the "Experts" have been wrong in just about every field. So we are back to the starting point.....why not err on the side of caution, which is the point of the Nobel Prizewinner? He doesn't know. Nor does any other "Expert". And I think that should be the only take away point we need to know. That's not operating in a vacuum of fear. That's operating in the world of reality and playing it extra safe in the world of the unknown with a very dangerous Level-4 bio-hazard.
What the experts at the CDC said and what reality is may be 2 different things. We don't know. That's what the Nobel Prizewinner is saying. There are many unknowns in the world of viruses. And given the unknown nature, how can a probability be assigned, especially when all we have is past experience in something(a virus) that can change into something else and change the game 180 degrees very quickly?
I would guess using your train of thought, we should also talk to the other "Experts" at the CDC and ask the same question about what the probability is that a "Sneeze from an asymptomatic person: not hazardous." And the honest answer again should be "we don't know for certain", especially the future status which is now and beyond with 100% certainly.
For anyone that's lived a number of years on this planet, with a little digging back through history on so many varieties of topics, we can see how many times the "Experts" have been wrong in just about every field. So we are back to the starting point.....why not err on the side of caution, which is the point of the Nobel Prizewinner? He doesn't know. Nor does any other "Expert". And I think that should be the only take away point we need to know. That's not operating in a vacuum of fear. That's operating in the world of reality and playing it extra safe in the world of the unknown with a very dangerous Level-4 virus.
I prefer to play the probabilities. We will never be able to get a scientist to speak in terms of certainty, especially a research scientist. "We don't know" would not be a valid answer to a request for an estimate of the probability of catching Ebola from an asymptomatic person on a bus. The reality is that no one will ever say the probability is zero, but from experience with this and previous outbreaks it appears to be closer to zero than something orders of magnitude higher.
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.
Earlier article with ebola experts questioning official statements...
