Not sure I understand why the US would risk this. Why not send a team and all needed equipment/drugs/supplies/doctors to the patient? The Link
On the positive side, it shows we have medical providers/institutions able to project incredible confidence in their abilities.
I think the real concern is people carrying Ebola getting on a commercial plane and flying here. I trust the methods taken for this doc and nurse much more than I trust the methods being used to prevent people with it from flying on regular commercial planes
I don't trust any of it. There's absolutely no reason to bring anyone on a commercial flight through a public airport to the US with that disease. Remember the bird flu? It was crazy the lengths we took to contain that and yet we just load these guys with one of if not the most deadly disease on the planet on a plane and fly them in? I wonder if those on the plane knew they were flying with ebola on board.
I'm sure that it is safe, but the wrong question is being asked. We should be asking why. The guy must be awfully important because it would have been much easier and much less expensive to send state of the art equipment to Africa than to bring an infected person to Atlanta.
Hospitals in general have great processes and procedures for managing spread of infection and disease. However, these processes and procedures rely upon human management. Hospitals are one of the most dangerous places you can be for catching a deadly bacteria or disease. Bringing one as dangerous and communicable as Ebola seems too great a risk.
Vol the plane that brought the doc her was a specially equipped Gulfstream so yes they all knew. But your point is good. How do we know people boarding a commercial plane do not have it or are carrying it. The screening method they are supposedly using looks pretty simple and easy to miss someone.
This was a specially equipped plane with a "bubble" inside and trained medical personnel. The ambulance that took them from the airport to the hospital in Atlanta was similarly equipped. My first thought as to why they wanted to bring them to this specially designed facility was to study the disease. Outside of working with the virus in a lab, this is likely the first time that most of the CDC doctors have been able to get hands on experience in treating a patient, especially one with the knowledge of a doctor.
But Vol to your point a female flying from Sierra Leone to the UK collapsed at Gatwick sweating and vomiting, later died. Caused a scare but authorities later said she did not have Ebola. Just a coincidence she was from the country with the most victims and exhibited some of the symptoms. How long before an infected person does make it into a Euro or USA? Of just as much concern should be the number of illegals from those countries who are sneaking in or even turning themselves in here is USA. CPB reported 71 from the 3 African nations have either been caught OR turned themselves in Jan 2014-July 2014/ Think they have stopped coming? You know down on that Border Reid says is secure.
I am still waiting to learn how these medico people got it. They all wore those hazmat looking suits In addition to the 2 American medicos I know there have been 6 nurses die from it and another doc.
My guess up to now on why take the risks to bring them here... serum study. Just saw on CNN a blip that says they will be taking a "secret serum." Thinking cap topic: Consider how it goes for a country that has a serum?...
That CNN link on the experimental drug shows how lucky those 2 were that they were Americans . I think anyone with Ebola would have agreed to a new drug no matter the risks. The sad part is even if it could be produced in mass quantities it doesn't look like it would be given to anyone in Africa infected.
Vol I understand your point, to keep Ebola there but with the incubation period being 2-21 days Ebola WILL get here. It is amazing that it hasn't so far that we know of there have been several cases around the country where it was suspected but so far they are saying none of the cases were Ebola. We have to trust they are telling the truth.
Nothing will save the two American's lives because there isn't a cure. Why risk every Americans lives in the meantime? Mich, you say I'm a bedwetter? I'd rather be cautious than always believe we are so insulated that nothing bad will ever happen. This is Russian roulette. You say it will come here anyway? It's been about 40 years and we've been pretty successful at keeping it out so far until we voluntarily brought it here.
MichTex: It is RVish to post a picture of a sink. You know it is just as easy to post a picture of a bottle of water. Treating a virus is easy. There is very little to it because very little is effective. Aside from some newer antivirals, the he main objective is to maintain core vital signs and wait it out. As an aside, I know the head of infectious disease at the CDC as I was an author on a grant with the CDC on a non-amplified method of single cell detection of MTB. Their level 4 containment area is pretty interesting as was meeting many of the senior managers in the division. Anyway, the purpose of bringing the virus here has to be to study it. We will get multiple samples. We will see how modern facilities alter mortality rates (although it won't be statistically significant). We will see how to improve our emergency response if an outbreak occurs in the US and how to better prepare for a random event like a passenger with the virus arriving at a US airport. I already know the answer, to the rhetorical question I asked earlier in this thread. My point was that none of the reporters to date have asked it. The question has been "Are we safe?" The question should be, "Why are we doing it?"
