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.
Here’s an overlooked factor that could have contributed to her White House-backed release: Hickox is an official CDC Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) officer who performed work for the CDC in recent months.
Hickox was listed as an “EIS officer” for the CDC in program materials for a CDC course she taught in July 2014. Hickox taught an April 29 session called “Contact Investigation of Health Care Personnel Exposed to Maternal and Neonatal Tuberculosis—Clark County, Nevada, 2013″ at the conference (p. 3).
America doesn’t seem to have any definitive and workable plan of action. We have a CDC director who is actually expecting us to believe that banning flights will cause more Americans to get Ebola and a President who refuses to take that simple common sense action.
In the eyes of many there is an agenda in play. As completely unfathomable as it might seem to some, many believe that Ebola is being spread intentionally within our borders.
Did you notice that it shows Las Vegas, Nevada as her home location, yet she now lives in Maine.
As a nursing student at John Hopkins she and an MD advocated for making medications that are a result of publicly funded research available to the third world which is the opposite of advocating against policies for creating life saving drugs.
Her resume; John Hopkins, a fellowship with CDC and work with Doctors without Borders is darn impressive.
She was released from quarantine because there was no medical reason to detain her, she had no fever and tested negative for Ebola, twice. For her sake, I hope a third test will not become necessary.
Isolating her in the bubble was really bad form.
As far as an agenda goes, do you say the same for all of Europe, Australia, most of Asia and Canada?
Sound more like a UN/WHO thing to me.
Last edited by middle-aged mom; 10-29-2014 at 02:06 PM..
Yes, they have, and two different lines of research have emerged.
Some people may be genetically resistant to the disease. At least one gene is associated with possible complete resistance and others with less severe disease. That may explain why there are people who apparently can have Ebola and never have any symptoms from it. They just have antibodies to the virus in their blood.
Others have tried to identify why some people survive and others do not. Survivors show higher levels of markers of the general immune response to the infection. That could just mean they were healthier, or there might be a genetic basis for that, too.
Needless to say, there are likely to be some journal reports on the experiences with the patients treated here in the US. Perhaps they will be looking at these two issues.
I hope they are looking for asymptomatic infections in the people who were close to Mr. Duncan early in his illness. That would explain the apparent lack of transmission to people who were possibly highly exposed.
Can an asymptomatic infection carrier ever shed virus or do only symptomatic carriers shed? I know the CDC has made it pretty common knowledge that one must be actively symptomatic to be infectious but I haven't heard anything at all about the possibility of asymptomatic carriers.
"And we also know that the higher the viral load that you get infected with, the more severe your disease is likely to be."
Nothing is going to change your mind about the CDC's remarks. You've got your interpretation. I've got mine.
I would ask Dr Buetler if Ebola is contagious prior to the patient becoming symptomatic, why then hasn't the virus infected more people? With a 21-day incubation period, an asymptomatic contagion spread of a viral outbreak that's been going on since late December 2013 (which is when the child they've identified as the first victim of this outbreak, patient zero, died) would have infected far more than 10,000 people, especially once it reached a densely populated area like Monrovia. The math doesn't support Dr Buetler's "possibility".
And even if Ebola were contagious prior to symptoms, the virus still has to find an entry into its new host. It can't be absorbed through the skin.
Sure, I read that! It doesn't speak to how contagious one is, though. Contagion is a whole different category. Many diseases, like flu, are contagious for days before symptoms develop. You have to get a certain viral load before the symptoms break through, but you can be contagious before that (with flu).
The incubation period of Ebola is 2-21 days. And you're confusing contagiousness with "attack rate", that is, the number of people exposed who get sick. You're assuming that everyone who is exposed gets sick. Now I'm willing to believe, just from observation, that the attack rate is low.
According to the theory du jour, the virus gets into the body by touching one's face, to push one's hair out of the way, or to push up one's glasses, or whatever.
And the Atlantic is not a scientific source, although that's an interesting article.
I think it's a mistake to patently dismiss the will of the people. To call them all 'massively misinformed' is a bit presumptuous. I think there has been some serious missteps in handling the Ebola quarantine or don't quarantine issue but I also would not presume to be derisive of our citizens either. It is unusual so many people are agreeing on this issue and speaks to a risk adverse population more than anything else.
I disagree with you. The will of the people is often immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong.
I'm not derisive of our citizens at all. It's not unusual to find people agreeing, when their agreement is based on fear, not knowledge. Fear can be a powerful motivator. And guess what, I fear Ebola, too!! It's a scary disease. But I don't let fear overrule reason. Policy should be based on facts, not fear.
The support for quarantines is not based on science. How do I know this? Because the first victim of this outbreak died in December 2013, and volunteers from all over the world have been traveling to the affected areas, helping to treat victims of this virus, and then traveling home, for months. So far, not one case of Ebola has been transmitted by one of these volunteers to anyone in their home countries. NOT ONE CASE. And suddenly, we have to quarantine them. Because we are "risk-adverse". What risk?? The protocols and guidelines have worked. THEY WORK. This Ebola outbreak is 10 months old. NOT ONE CASE of a volunteer bringing home and spreading the virus. NOT ONE CASE. That's a FACT. Nothing has changed during the past 6 weeks. Except that someone got infected in the United States. And people let fear overrule reason. And it became political. That's not good policy-making. That's political hay-making.
Did you notice that it shows Las Vegas, Nevada as her home location, yet she now lives in Maine.
As a nursing student at John Hopkins she and an MD advocated for making medications that are a result of publicly funded research available to the third world which is the opposite of advocating against policies for creating life saving drugs.
Her resume; John Hopkins, a fellowship with CDC and wok with Doctors without Borders is darn impressive.
She was released from quarantine because there was no medical reason to detain her, she had no fever and tested negative for Ebola, twice. For her sake, I hope a third test will not become necessary.
Isolating her in the bubble was really bad form.
As far as an agenda goes, do you say the same for all of Europe, Australia, most of Asia and Canada?
Sound more like a UN/WHO thing to me.
Well, she's still subject to quarantine in Maine though. So not exactly released totally from quarantine, only from the isolation she was in while in New Jersey. She's allowed in home quarantine in Maine, which she has stated she will break.
I don't think a test would show positive until and unless that person is actually shedding virus though. So not sure her negative test without any symptoms would necessarily put her in the clear.
Well, she's still subject to quarantine in Maine though. So not exactly released totally from quarantine, only from the isolation she was in while in New Jersey. She's allowed in home quarantine in Maine, which she has stated she will break.
I don't think a test would show positive until and unless that person is actually shedding virus though. So not sure her negative test without any symptoms would necessarily put her in the clear.
Brantly said he gave himself 2 tests and the first one came back negative.
2 days later his second test came back positive for Ebola.
I disagree with you. The will of the people is often immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong.
I'm not derisive of our citizens at all. It's not unusual to find people agreeing, when their agreement is based on fear, not knowledge. Fear can be a powerful motivator. And guess what, I fear Ebola, too!! It's a scary disease. But I don't let fear overrule reason. Policy should be based on facts, not fear.
The support for quarantines is not based on science. How do I know this? Because the first victim of this outbreak died in December 2013, and volunteers from all over the world have been traveling to the affected areas, helping to treat victims of this virus, and then traveling home, for months. So far, not one case of Ebola has been transmitted by one of these volunteers to anyone in their home countries. NOT ONE CASE. And suddenly, we have to quarantine them. Because we are "risk-adverse". What risk?? The protocols and guidelines have worked. THEY WORK. This Ebola outbreak is 10 months old. NOT ONE CASE of a volunteer bringing home and spreading the virus. NOT ONE CASE. That's a FACT. Nothing has changed during the past 6 weeks. Except that someone got infected in the United States. And people let fear overrule reason. And it became political. That's not good policy-making. That's political hay-making.
I don't know how you can say people are not informed. It's been on every news channel, covered ad nauseum. So, I think, even though they have heard the information, they are instead choosing a risk adverse position. Abundance of caution and all of that. Perhaps it's unnecessary but for analogy sake, it's a bit like trying to unring a bell. Once it's rung, it's rung.
Me, I also look at all of the contact tracing that becomes necessary once a patient, such as Dr. Spencer, becomes symptomatic. It's a bit of a waste or both personnel and funds when we could instead pay to have high risk individuals placed in at home quarantine instead. The contact tracing would be minimal in that case. So, there's several reasons I favor some quarantine for specific persons.
So are you saying that her having the Ebola was a sham ?
That she didn't have it but said she had it and so the Obola Administration could used her as a puppet to show the public that people infected with ebola are okay to be around.
But things went wrong when the governors said they would quarantine her and others coming from an Ebola zone.
She did not have Ebola.
She never said she had Ebola.
The time frame does not work for a sham, given her 2 day journey from Africa.
The electronic scanner used at the airport detected a fever. When a more accurate thermometer was used, she did not have a fever.
Forcible quarantine of someone, returning from the front lines in Africa, in a bubble was humiliating and outright ludicrous.
Two parked police cars outside your house, to protect you and to protect the citizens of Maine.
For this particular case. But each state has varying penalties for breaking quarantine.
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.
