General Discussion

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)

43. Problem is, self-monitoring isn't working to prevent exposures.

Fri Oct 24, 2014, 09:32 AM

Oct 2014

It just isn't. Eventually we will have a transmission from one of these, and it will be random and not picked up (because case definition does not allow for testing). That transmission will generate more cases, and it's not clear if we will stop it then, because the odds that the cases derive from exposure in a health care setting are pretty damned good.

That is what is happening in Africa in this outbreak.

Your point about expense is almost insane. It costs 400-500K to take care of an Ebola case without risk to the HCW. Quarantine costs are miniscule compared to that.

They've used quarantine for household members very successfully in Africa to stop transmission. Quarantine does work.

One nasty thing we have is that the virus is more persistent at lower ambient temps. Wipe your runny eyes and touch the door handle, and you may leave viable virus for three hours to perhaps three days.

You seem to be living in a fantasy world. A very low-risk event becomes a high risk event through the multiplication tables. The risk of casual transmission through surface to surface contact here is probably on the order of 1%. Direct contact between household members was calculated about 15% in Africa.

So because Duncan's contacts didn't become ill, you are assuming that proves it doesn't happen - and you are wrong. Get five of those and it will happen.

Get 1000 very low risk exposures and you get a non direct contact transmission. This is just a numbers game.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

70 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

There is no need to isolate for 21 days. Monitoring is sufficient [View all] morningfog Oct 2014 OP

Thank you. TDale313 Oct 2014 #1

Thanks! Nt Logical Oct 2014 #2

Very good points gwheezie Oct 2014 #3

Is it too much to suggest avoiding public transportation for unnecessary trips, Nye Bevan Oct 2014 #4

Yes. It is simply unnecessary. morningfog Oct 2014 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author ann--- Oct 2014 #52

Which part of Ebola not being spread by casual contact do you not understand? SheilaT Oct 2014 #61

It's my understanding that sweat is not full of virus until very late in the illness. kestrel91316 Oct 2014 #64

People with known physical contact with either the victim or the fluids TwilightGardener Oct 2014 #6

A day or mere hours from blowing chunks? Not really. morningfog Oct 2014 #7

Ebola Man, hours away from running a high fever and vomiting, coughs into his hand TwilightGardener Oct 2014 #8

No,no, no. It doesn't happen that way. morningfog Oct 2014 #9

^^^ this ^^^ TDale313 Oct 2014 #10

Yep. At that point her sweat alone could probably have done the job. kestrel91316 Oct 2014 #66

I fully understand that the disease progresses and becomes more contagious as time goes on, but TwilightGardener Oct 2014 #11

We don't know when someone becomes morningfog Oct 2014 #12

One of things I learned working communicable disease epidemiology HereSince1628 Oct 2014 #32

"We don't know when someone becomes theoretically contagious." Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #38

But, we do know when they are actually contagious. morningfog Oct 2014 #39

And, of course, we will make sure we can catch them up at the exact moment Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #40

The doctors who come back sick don't really know how or when they were infected. TwilightGardener Oct 2014 #47

We don't know when Pham was infected. morningfog Oct 2014 #50

Asymptomatic doesn't necessarily mean not infectious. They may not be TwilightGardener Oct 2014 #58

There has never, in Ebola's 40 year history, been a mystery case. Never. morningfog Oct 2014 #59

You make blanket statements and draw conclusions that I've never seen anywhere else. TwilightGardener Oct 2014 #62

It isn't my opinion. Doctors and scientists who have studied have come to these conclusions. morningfog Oct 2014 #63

Anyone with Ebola and a fever can PROGRESS to vomiting and if they're in public, pnwmom Oct 2014 #67

Health officials request everyone who has been potentially exposed to ebola boston bean Oct 2014 #13

THAT is not accurate. morningfog Oct 2014 #14

Your point is not in keeping with what Public Health Officials or the CDC are requesting. boston bean Oct 2014 #15

No it is not. The 100 people from Vinson's morningfog Oct 2014 #17

Public Health Officials disagree with you. boston bean Oct 2014 #19

Are The passengers of Vinson's flight barred from travel? morningfog Oct 2014 #20

You need to go and understand what is meant by "potentially exposed" to means boston bean Oct 2014 #22

I'll take that as a "no." morningfog Oct 2014 #24

I'll take it that you don't understand what is meant by health officials boston bean Oct 2014 #26

I am a lay person. To me, "potentially exposed" does not connote CLOSE contact, Demit Oct 2014 #36

Some are, yes. Your comments here don't agree with epidemiologist's guidances or the evidence. Yo_Mama Oct 2014 #29

I've read that study. It does not suggest that Ebola has been transmitted morningfog Oct 2014 #35

Spencer wasn't asymptomatic, which is why they are quarantining the direct contacts. Yo_Mama Oct 2014 #44

Why you are wrong: cali Oct 2014 #16

My point is, it is an unnecessary cost. morningfog Oct 2014 #18

Not asking people who have been potentially exposed to ebola to self isolate voluntarily boston bean Oct 2014 #21

Unfounded irrational fear. morningfog Oct 2014 #23

You are making unfounded declarations that are in stark contrast to what the health experts boston bean Oct 2014 #25

Total number of people infected in the US outside of a hosptial: Zero. morningfog Oct 2014 #30

Uh, I think you need to calm down, thinking I'm not as calm and cool as a cucumber. boston bean Oct 2014 #34

Again, you are wrong: morningfog Oct 2014 #37

Be careful not to confuse contagious with infectious. Demit Oct 2014 #41

I think the wedding planner group have until 11/7 to be sure. They had close contact. Sunlei Oct 2014 #45

I agree with reporting the temps of the med workers and travelers. morningfog Oct 2014 #46

Previously asymptomatic people can suddenly throw up and become symptomatic. pnwmom Oct 2014 #69

Oh, I agree with you there, but unnecessary cali Oct 2014 #33

Problem is, self-monitoring isn't working to prevent exposures. Yo_Mama Oct 2014 #43

Nobody really knows for sure. sendero Oct 2014 #27

Dr. Spencer's temperature was 100.3 when he reported smokey nj Oct 2014 #28

Even better. Good god, everybody, calm the fuck down. morningfog Oct 2014 #31

That's gonna make a lot of people's faces red. Demit Oct 2014 #42

103 is what was reported. LisaL Oct 2014 #49

Not at all. Demit Oct 2014 #56

It was reported by health officials. LisaL Oct 2014 #60

And now the disaster junkies know it's better to wait a beat Demit Oct 2014 #70

It's becoming a math problem seveneyes Oct 2014 #48

This message was self-deleted by its author ann--- Oct 2014 #51

There is no chance when no symptoms. For fuck's sake. morningfog Oct 2014 #53

This message was self-deleted by its author ann--- Oct 2014 #55

No, it was not okay to force Duncan's family into isolation. That is my point. morningfog Oct 2014 #57

I'm more worried about catching the flu. B Calm Oct 2014 #54

Dr. Snyder was told to self-isolate for 21 days, as was the rest of the crew. pnwmom Oct 2014 #65

I get what you're trying to do, but there are only 5 beds in the entire United States ecstatic Oct 2014 #68