Obviously there is much misinformation out there, fear and gov lies. We should talk about down to earth real preps for potential ways to deal with it or any other virus. Is there a thread here or is this it? Advise.

You either avoid the virus, or risk going into public and getting the virus. You don't treat it at home, you go to the hospital.

Why are some against the mandatory 21 day quarantine?

Thread title + GD = 0/0 x




 

I don't know. Seems damn logical to me. Its a political thing, I'm sure.

 

Because the risk for widespread exposure is astronomically small.

Because it is completely ineffective.

Because Ebola does not spread in areas where people routinely crap in toilets and wash their hands?

Weshould quarantine everyone that comes within 10 feet of anyone suspected of it: You know anyone that has fever, fatigue, muscle pain, headache and sore throat.

Plus, it's almost on the back page of sensible media now.  If sensible media isn't an oxymoran.  

people,
Ebola is a virus that spreads exactly like the flu.

exactly like the flu.

let me say it again for the "it's of no concern to us, in this country" crowd

exactly like the flu.


If you've ever had the flu, you just as easily could have contracted Ebola.

Quarantine works.
N95 masks work.
Washing your hands constantly works.

Make PPE part of your Preps.

i agree completely.

it would never hurt to have 2 rolls of 4mil plastic and a case of duct tape on hand.  (duct tape doesn't keep well over 75degrees, btw)
a case of face masks per individual.
(in the extreme.... gas masks,lots of filters, tyvek suits, chem boots, etc)



I dont see a revolution being the issue in this country (economic or racial).
it will be the panic that sets in from a natural disaster or widespread epidemic...

the flu isn't airborne..
unless someone sneezes in your face.
which would also expose you (while maybe not infecting you) with Ebola.

if the flu were truly airborne, then every individual walking around a subway station or airport WOULD absolutely come down with it.



if doctors and nurses truly knew what spread the virus, I have a strong feeling that they would NOT be infected. (but that's not the case, is it?)

I'm a nurse. Are you going to pay my bills for 21 days?

Im a lawyer, are you going to pay due compensation to everyone you infect?

Serious thread is serious...

Ding ding ding.

If you catch it as a nurse then at the very least Worker's Comp should kick in; if you catch it because you make a hobby of traveling to third world shit holes, well include quarantine time in your vacation budget.

But if you are returning from an Ebola infected area and are symptomatic then it is rather selfish to just go on like nothing can happen.

I heard one of the lawyers for the nurse in NJ say, "She is a nurse. She knows how to take care of ebola patients. She did not get ebola."

Really? As opposed to the other doctors and nurses that have contracted? Get real. If you care for patients in an endemic area and then return home, I can't see how you would not at least quarantine yourself for 21 days. The media rushes to defend this nurse who is having her rights violated by being put under quarantine but then vilifies the doctor that got Ebola for going to the bowling alley and riding a subway after he got back. I mean, which is it? I guess if you can see into the future and KNOW you don't have it then you are having your rights violated, but if you are going to get it then you should be quarantined.

Yes it can spread here, but thankfully, usually by the time you are sick enough to spread it, you are sick enough to not be running to walmart and are seeking medical attention.

The people most at risk for contracting it are those who are caring for those infected and handling dead bodies.

And to the lawyer asking "are you going to pay due compensation to everyone you infect?" I realize you are were probably not being literal, but first of all that would be kind of tough to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. And generally speaking, you don't get paid by people who give you the flu, HIV, or TB. Your point however, I think, is that if a person knows they are at high risk for having Ebola (i.e. taken care of Ebola patients in an endemic area) then they should have enough courtesy and common sense to limit their contact with others until it is apparent that they do not have the illness.

I think it was TJ who said, "People in the US act like it is their right to infect others." No one can be bothered to keep their kids home from school or limit their travel or be inconvenienced in anyway.

I'm not really a lawyer (but I have stayed at a holiday in express recently).
I was merely pointing out that if someone is in the high risk group and ignores the warnings and knowingly interacts with the general public, they should be held accountable.
It's not that hard to determine where people go these days (cell phone call tracking, debit card receipts, rapid transit card transactions, etc)  

I agree completely that the American public is selfish and many actually believe that their convenience is protected under the constitution.
(you see it every day.. too many examples to even bother listing here)


I dont believe the healthcare workers know for certain how the virus is transmitted. (otherwise, they wouldn't be the primary individuals coming down with it here in the states)

Deal with ebola? you don't, it deals with you.

This was posted here before but since the topic has come up again, time for the link

http://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/2014/10/surfing-usa.html

point taken...

I've been within 6' of people with the flu many many times in my life (probably not hundreds, but more than 50 times)..
I've had the flu once.


in my mind, that's not airborne (although I understand it's a classification of contagion and not up to my personal interpretation).



since it's not airborne, you're telling me that you have no problem riding in a subway car with someone who is coughing/sneezing/etc?

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The CDC says something...1 week later they lied. Gov says something 4 days later they lied. Doctors/nurses says something 2 weeks later they lied. Who do/can you believe? Honestly I do not trust many people especially so call professionals anymore. It seem their version of the truth is not others version.

I want to quit relying on gov and "professionals" and try to sort thru the fear, panic and lies. Everyone has an agenda and it seems the wellfare of Americans is not part of it. My agenda is surviving the bullshit!!

I believe there is a middle ground between silly stupid ass panic and making fun of anyone who thinks they should prepare.

Since we're being serious here, no it isn't:
First reputable googled link explaining the difference (Mt Sinai hospital Microbiology department)


So, when the talking heads say that a disease isn't airborne transmittable, they are aren't talking about droplet infection, they are talking about true airborne transmission as defined above.  If something is droplet transmittable, they can easily get on a podium and say there is no airborne transmission and not be lying.
 
Sidenote:  anyone who really cares about airborne Ebola might want to read up on Reston.  CBS news story on Reston  It was a likely fine droplet spread ebola strain that was only contained by euthanizing the ENTIRE POPULATION infected.  Luckily, it was the only known strain to not affect humans (no one knew this at the time either BTW), merely the monkeys kept in DC.

Do we do that for any other virus/bacteria we carry in/on our persons? Some of which are hundreds/thousands of times more widespread.

Perhaps if he/she knew he/she was contagious and intentional/negligently infected others.

However the early symptoms are much like the after effects of a long night at the local pub, or a questionable batch of Sushi.

I was always under the impression that "airborne transmission" was essentially...

if you're in the same room, you've GOT IT!  


thank you for someone with the links and the interweb skilz coming to my defense..





we do for viruses that have a 10% survival rate.

According to the World Health Orginazation, it is historically only fatal in about 50% of cases and those only in 3rd world shit holes.

Airborn to me is you do NOT have to touch vomit/shit/piss/blood/mucus, etc. to get infected. Virus in droplets that rides the air inside a room I call "airborn". I UNDERSTAND it is technically NOT airborne, but nuance. If I can be waiting in a checkout line, the guy in front of me sneezes, I get ebola because I breathe, it is airborne enough for me.

so, 1 in 2 die..
that makes me feel much better.
[/not]


agreed. (pretty much)
that's why I said that it is passed exactly the same way that the Flu is passed.

Did some research and a video (link) about this recently. Some points to keep in mind if you want the short version:
1)Ebola can be transmitted through saliva, mucus, even sweat.
2)Ebola is perfectly capable of floating around in a droplet after someone sneezes or caughs.
3)Define airborne. In some circles of the medical comunity, they define contact as being less than 3 feet away, and they dont consider that aerosol transmission (which ebola is well capable of) dangerous past 1.5 meters.
The virus is very contagious, you can easily breathe the aerosol in, it can even get in through your eyes.
I dont get all the talk about mutation and ebola going airborn. Elevators, malls, airplanes, you're well within those 3 feet so many times.
FerFAL

I've been somewhat conflicted about the whole quarantine thing since it has such a high likelihood of being misused and/or arbitrarily inflicted with no thought given to consequences.

One thought I had, though, is that I can't see specifically in the Constitution anywhere that gives the Feral Government the authority to deprive anyone of their liberties without due process. So, technically speaking, a quarantine is unconstitutional on its face. However, with freedom comes responsibility and accountability. As some have pointed out, if you knowingly go out with a deadly, infectious disease, you should be subject to being charged with a crime. I recall some phraseology that is often used in the press, "the individual knew, or should have known, that they were a danger to the public". Doctors and nurses, particularly "front line" Ebola-care workers, should know better. Joe Blow, maybe not so much.

It would seem to me that one's precautions should be a function of both proximity to an outbreak and the magnitude of same. We don't currently have a lot of cases, nor are many nearby. If the spread progresses such that a significant number of people in a given area have started showing symptoms, then it would be advisable to bug-in for some significant length of time. Of course, long before that time, the hospitals in the area would have already been overwhelmed with both real and imaginary Ebola patients. I was reading that most hospitals would not be equipped for -one- highly contagious patient, others run out of capacity at a dozen. Either way, more than a small number of cases, and it becomes an unmanageable problem. Currently, I would think the regular precautions one takes to not get the flu - stay away from sick people and wash your hands a lot - should keep the likelihood of contracting the disease down significantly.

think the other direction..

people getting shot because they sneezed on someone..


individuals have rights and freedoms in so much as their pursuit or application of those rights and freedoms do not diminish the rights and freedoms of others.


I have a right to require that your possibly infected ass stays away from me and my children.

Regarding constitional rights and all, I hear you. I believe in personal freedoms so long as the exercise of those freedoms don't infringe on someone else's freedoms. There is precedent for obligatory medical treatment. Tuberculosis in the US is treated with direct observed therapy. If you don't take the meds, they will lock you up and give you the meds. Because you are putting the public at risk.

It is argument of the good of the one versus the good of the many. Not always a cut and dry issue.

Posted at the same time.

What he said.

and certainly a slippery slope.  trust me, I don't like arguing that individuals needs must succumb to the needs of the masses.

I'm right there with you, man.

The point is that influenza is not by definition airborne, it simply IS NOT.  You, and most people may consider the flu to be airborne, but it really isn't.  It is spread by droplet transmission, not airborne transmission.  So, don't assume that when someone says something is not airborne transmittable that it is not transmittable by droplet infection.  It is a minor difference in terminology that can be used to hide a large difference.  Make more sense?  (I'm sort of tired, long weekend camping with cub scouts)

CDC says that flu MAY be airborne:

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/clinical.htm?mobile=nocontent

The difference is the size of the particle involved, and how long it can stay suspended in the air.  Does someone actually have to cough on you, or can they cough in a room and you become infected when you enter the room later?

When comparing ebola to flu:

People with flu begin to shed virus the day before symptoms develop (children possibly several days).

It is believed that folks with ebola do not shed until symptomatic, but I very much doubt that has been well studied.  The truth probably is that you have a viral load which is fairly small, and because you are not coughing or sneezing, it is unlikely you will spread it.  If a person with early ebola infection had a cold simultaneously, and were coughing and sneezing, I think the risk of droplet transmission would be much higher.

More importantly, one of the central symptoms of flu is cough which promotes droplet spread.  In contrast, the most likely way you could contract ebola is through exposure to vomit or diarrhea.

How often are you near someone who coughs?
How often do you get someone else's vomit or diarrhea on you?

Although resporatory droplet transmission is possible with ebola, it is not common or likely given these facts.

If ebola was truly spread just like flu, we would have seen a worldwide pandemic by now.

As it is, we are seeing primarily a mounting local phenomenon.  There is a good chance it will spread through Africa.  We will likely continue to see sporadic cases related to travel, but most likely will not see a huge outbreak in the us involving thousands of people.

I was at a conference with Kent Brantly as well as several other physicians who have been spearheading the ebola response in Liberia 2 weeks ago, and wasn't worried a bit.  No one threw up on me, and I didn't get any diarrhea on me either.  

If I was caring for someone with advanced ebola- vomiting and diarrhea, I would be extremely cautious.  Would I come home each night?  Probably.  Would I limit my physical contact with my wife and kids?  Yes.  Would I be taking my temp several times a day?  Yep.

For those who are interested, they said the CDC believes that the actual number who have died is probably about three times the official number, and that the numbers will likely increase dramatically in the next few weeks in Liberia.



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

no.

So say I'm infected and I sneeze on money, door handles, subway....how long you suppose those droplets live for on surfaces?  Weeks?  Month?

hours to days.




yes

So you are saying that influenza, spreads worldwide and which typically infects 3-5 million people per year (with significant symptoms, the actual numbers of infection are much more) and kills 250,000 to 500,000 is spread the same way as ebola which has been spreading since December of last year and has infected possibly 30,000 and killed 15,000?

Does that make any sense?

Flu infects 100 (or perhaps 1000 if you count mild cases) times as many patients per year as ebola has in the last year.  Flu spreads worldwide each year, ebola has been limited to a few countries in west Africa for almost a year.  How is it they are the same?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Not for a year, since February.. in february, approximately less than 600 had the virus, now, a mere 8 months later, it's somewhere north of 30,000.

but to answer your question:
That is because Ebola has been contained due to its high mortality rate, typically anyone infected has been quarantined, monitored, etc.

people who have the flu (in a 1st world country) think nothing of "pushing through" and going to work, sporting events, riding public transit, etc. (which it why so many people suffer from it every year).

We dont treat the flu like we do Ebola (and we shouldn't)..




on a side note, you're seeing a perfect illustration of the Libral mantra here in the missionaries and healthcare personnel (the NJ nurse, specifically) who have gone over to W Africa to help.

*they want to help, and because their want is so noble, it is perfectly acceptable for them to inconvenience the rest of us, forcing risk of exposure upon us because they do not wish to be quarantined upon their return.

i say fuck that.
put them all on the same boat coming back over here and quarantine them at sea for 21 days.. if none of them gets sick, they can come ashore when they get here.  if any of them develop the disease, turn the boat around.

But then again you're saying it yourself when you use words like "unlikely". Look, I'm ok with "unlikely" if I'm risking getting flu. Unlikely is NOT good enough, at least not when my life and the life of my family comes into the equation, with something as deadly as ebola.
Information has been handled so poorly its clear why people keep getting infected. I get the  scientific jargon of airborne vs aerosol. The problem is that most people simply assume that something not being airborne means you simply cant get infected by particles floating in the air. That's what most people assume, that's what can easily get you killed. Its not just average joes making wrong assumptions, its the media, even "experts" repeating this deadly message. For crying out loud there's been "cnn" medical expers comparing the risk of HIV with Ebola, and it took the guy being inteviewd to state the obvious, that you cant get HIV through saliva while you can get Ebola through it. In many media outlets we've seen experts laughing out and bluntly stating "you cant get ebola just by sitting next to someone infected in an airplane, you need direct contact with bodily fluids". That pure 100% BULLSHIT! You can get ebola from sitting next to someone sick, or by walking into an elevator with someone sick. Is it unlikely? sure, but unlikely wont do me any good when I'm dead from ebola. All its needed is the sick person caughing in near proximity or in confined spaces and you can breathe it in or get it through your eyes. Aerosol transmission isnt an exact science, depending on temperature, humidity and air flow (very important in this case) a small droplet can float around in a room for hours, containing the virus. Likely? NO, not when you define likely as +50% chance, but with +70% mortality rate I'm just not risking it.
Anyone with a life worth saving simply will not come into contact with someone with ebola with nothing less than a Level A hazmat suit. Those brave doctors and nurses using laughable PPE? They do so out of pure courage (maybe ignorance in some cases) but that is NOT a way in which the virus is handled in labs, under much better controled circumstances.
I'm I just RANTING? No, the CDC says just this, if you can loolk though the politically correct bullcrap as of why some people's lives are worth protecting better than others. Simple matter is folks, there's no money to outfit all doctors and healthcare workers with the right equipment and training, so the compromise with what they have around. I dont like compromision with something that has sich high mortality rate:

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/hcp/safe-specimen-management.html



Hours, maybe even days depednding on humidty conditions. It dies once it dries up, but depending on the size of the sipt/saliva/mucus and the humidity and temps in may live for several hours or days.
Particles ranging from a few nanometers to a few centimiters come out of you when you sneeze or caugh. That's why its hard to say exactly how long it can live.

FerFAL

FerFAL - I HEAR YOU!



and more specifically..
according to THIS THREADs OP it can last 6-9 days outside of the body on surfaces (given favorable to optimal conditions)..

simply not true.

flu is an upper respiratory disease that causes forcefull coughing., expelling small droplets that hang in the air for long periods of time and has a robust protein membrain that keeps it viable on contact surfaces for days.

Ebola does neither of these things, as evidenced by the family members of Duncan living in the same appartment that did not get it, or the nurses traveling on airplanes with fever, or the doctor in NYC traveling on subways.

All of these infected individuals potentially exposed thousands of people and nobody has come down with it. You simply could not do that with flu.

It does mot spread the same. Simple fact.

Seriously, regarding Ebola...

Dont believe the hype. US owns the cure patent.

Seasonal flu is seasonal because many peopke have had exposure to a similiar flu previously and the immune system has a head start on how to fight it.

As compared to pandemic flu wich is pandemic because there is little to no immunity in the population and it spreads like wildfire.

Seasonal flu requires a large viral load ( exposure ) to get sick if you already have some immunity to it, which is why you don't always get sick being around people with it.

airborne transmission is still droplet transmission, it is just a function of droplet size and how robust the protein shell of the virus is determining how long the protein membrane can protect the virus in the environment keeping it viable.

all true, but tests have shown that the virus in not in expellable mucous or sweat until well into the symptomatic stage of the disease.

Somebody that just has a fever is probably not spreading it by couphing or sweat or saliva, as evidenced by test for the virus in those fliuds and the fact that nobody has gotten it from airplanes, subways, and living in the same apartment with someone that was not yet hospitalized.

something else to consider is that ebola has never been in a winter before. It has always been in a hot tropical environment that causes the virus to decay rapidly.

Winter is flu season because the flu virus stays viable on surfaces longer with lower levels of UV and colder temps.

How long ebola remains viable in winter has no historical perspective.....yet.