Ebola
#21
With The Resistance
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,191
Likes: 0
From: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
#22
Prime Minister/Moderator

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,187
Likes: 807
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
"I don't recall the last time, if ever, a dangerous pathogen escaped from CDC."
There have been a whole series of incidents, suspected incidents and the most recent one was just in July. A major screw up involving 86 people at the CDC.
Anthrax at the CDC: 86 workers possibly exposed - CNN.com
There have been a whole series of incidents, suspected incidents and the most recent one was just in July. A major screw up involving 86 people at the CDC.
Anthrax at the CDC: 86 workers possibly exposed - CNN.com
#23
With The Resistance
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,191
Likes: 0
From: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
#24
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Likes: 0
#25
I have noticed very amazed and shocked concerns by the U.S. medical community over the CDC’s decision to import (bring) the two persons with Ebola into the U.S. The decision to do this actualy does defy the CDC’s own policy regarding dealing with a disease of this nature.
I offer one comment from a Dr. that was gleaned from so very many health care professionals responding to this decision by the CDC:
Dr. Keith Raymond| Family Medicine 38
"I worked in Liberia last year. I learned more about Tropical Medicine in six months there than an ID doc learns in four years. It is entirely unclear and contra intuitive as to why the CDC considered importing a lethal disease into the US when their staff could assist the patient in Liberia. It defies their own policy. The Humanitarian missions by religious groups in the US is begrudged in Liberia out of poverty. This self aggrandizement doesn't have a lasting impact on Liberians. I spent my time teaching local staff and found that assistance to be more valuable than the direct care I provided. Again it confounds me that the TSA would allow someone with an untreatable illness to enter the US (short of supportive care). Placing the population at risk for an individual is a disservice to the community. There is wrong, then there is wrong, and then there is this."
I offer one comment from a Dr. that was gleaned from so very many health care professionals responding to this decision by the CDC:
Dr. Keith Raymond| Family Medicine 38
"I worked in Liberia last year. I learned more about Tropical Medicine in six months there than an ID doc learns in four years. It is entirely unclear and contra intuitive as to why the CDC considered importing a lethal disease into the US when their staff could assist the patient in Liberia. It defies their own policy. The Humanitarian missions by religious groups in the US is begrudged in Liberia out of poverty. This self aggrandizement doesn't have a lasting impact on Liberians. I spent my time teaching local staff and found that assistance to be more valuable than the direct care I provided. Again it confounds me that the TSA would allow someone with an untreatable illness to enter the US (short of supportive care). Placing the population at risk for an individual is a disservice to the community. There is wrong, then there is wrong, and then there is this."
#26
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Likes: 0
#27
Dr. Keith Raymond| Family Medicine 38
"I worked in Liberia last year. I learned more about Tropical Medicine in six months there than an ID doc learns in four years. It is entirely unclear and contra intuitive as to why the CDC considered importing a lethal disease into the US when their staff could assist the patient in Liberia. It defies their own policy. The Humanitarian missions by religious groups in the US is begrudged in Liberia out of poverty. This self aggrandizement doesn't have a lasting impact on Liberians. I spent my time teaching local staff and found that assistance to be more valuable than the direct care I provided. Again it confounds me that the TSA would allow someone with an untreatable illness to enter the US (short of supportive care). Placing the population at risk for an individual is a disservice to the community. There is wrong, then there is wrong, and then there is this."
In an case, it's not an "untreatable" illness, they are treating it, they may even have a cure or treatment that can allow the body to get the upper hand. I remember at first there wasn't enough of the serum for both doctors, so the younger guy deferred to the older lady and made sure she got it. It seems now they've both been treated.
As to "why bring them to the US", seriously? There are some pretty good hospitals, but in the 3rd world it's probably a lot easier to bring a patient to the US rather than bring the sophisticated monitoring equipment and sterile environment to him. Although they might be able to get similar results "in place", I'm sure they are much more certain of their ability to control the environment and treatment here in the US, hence, why they did that.
Once again, someone's been watching too many "Outbreak"-style movies.
#28
Hmm, pretty sure the TSA tries to protect us (the flying public) from terrorists getting on/using/attacking airlines, not private jets flying into the US, that's usually Custom's area of responsibility.
In an case, it's not an "untreatable" illness, they are treating it, they may even have a cure or treatment that can allow the body to get the upper hand. I remember at first there wasn't enough of the serum for both doctors, so the younger guy deferred to the older lady and made sure she got it. It seems now they've both been treated.
As to "why bring them to the US", seriously? There are some pretty good hospitals, but in the 3rd world it's probably a lot easier to bring a patient to the US rather than bring the sophisticated monitoring equipment and sterile environment to him. Although they might be able to get similar results "in place", I'm sure they are much more certain of their ability to control the environment and treatment here in the US, hence, why they did that.
Once again, someone's been watching too many "Outbreak"-style movies.
In an case, it's not an "untreatable" illness, they are treating it, they may even have a cure or treatment that can allow the body to get the upper hand. I remember at first there wasn't enough of the serum for both doctors, so the younger guy deferred to the older lady and made sure she got it. It seems now they've both been treated.
As to "why bring them to the US", seriously? There are some pretty good hospitals, but in the 3rd world it's probably a lot easier to bring a patient to the US rather than bring the sophisticated monitoring equipment and sterile environment to him. Although they might be able to get similar results "in place", I'm sure they are much more certain of their ability to control the environment and treatment here in the US, hence, why they did that.
Once again, someone's been watching too many "Outbreak"-style movies.

It’s cool to make general statements, I guess and allude to everything will be just fine and all. However, there are about a 1,000 victims and counting in several West African nations that I am sure are not so trusting and understand otherwise.
#29
#30
I think there is a grave misconception not just about this case but pretty much everyone's perspective of government activity. They are not gods. They are not "experts" at handling crisis, they don't know what the hell they're doing any more than we do.
They screw up as much, if not more, than we all do.
I don't like the risk involved of bringing anyone here with contagious diseases, even if "experts" are handling it. It sucks, but I'll make the call and sacrifice two lives for the sake of protecting 317+ million people.
They screw up as much, if not more, than we all do.
I don't like the risk involved of bringing anyone here with contagious diseases, even if "experts" are handling it. It sucks, but I'll make the call and sacrifice two lives for the sake of protecting 317+ million people.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



