Sierra Leone had already embarked a while ago on an unprecedented, almost medieval, quarantine of large swaths of the country, trapping a third of its citizens in their home districts. Travel between districts is restricted, and there are curfews within districts in an attempt to limit contact between people, but it is wreaking havoc with the economy and daily living.

According to this NYT's article, the government has now made it national policy that it acknowledges it can't help everyone and that people should take care of people with Ebola at home. Basically, it means that most people with Ebola there are on their own.


The case of the Spanish nurse illustrates how one simple accident can lead to infection. Well, the reality is, so many people with Ebola have been tended to at home anyway which unfortunately has led to many more infections.

As long as Ebola rages in West Africa, it will continue to be a recurring threat over here. As we enter cold and flu season in the Northern Hemisphere and fevers and other symptoms become more common, I just hope the fear factor doesn't go off the chart.

True. Woke up this am to news that a health care worker at the Dallas Hospital has tested positive for Ebola:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/12...tive-for-ebola/

I expect we will be hearing a lot about this in the next few days.

Okay, now it really is here -- time to get serious. Medical personnel need to review their equipment and procedures, and we may need to adjust the definition of airborne to include the droplets from sneezing. Full face respirators and triple redundancy may become standard practice, just like the Cleaning Guys. Complacency may be a killer ...

Another term to be concerned with is "Hubris": overbearing pride or presumption. Many in conservative media have used it to describe a certain politician, but it may also apply to the US medical establishment. We have great pride in our medical system and due to that pride we may be presuming that we can control this third world disease.

It might be time to rethink that presumption. It's here and it's not contained, time for the "full-face respirators and Level B Saranac suits" like those contractors in Dallas; maybe they weren't over-cautious, maybe they had it right. Then again, their incubation period isn't up yet...

The article An Ebola Outbreak Would Be Advantageous For Globalists is concerning. I'll leave it there with no further comment.

The coming season for influenza and colds plus the reluctance to go on sick leave for fairly minor symptoms may add to the risk.
Ebola is not really on the radar in our society.
I still think that it´s not time to panic about it yet.

The dogma that fever is a reliable indicator of the onset of Ebola symptoms, and therefore, the onset of infectiousness, in all infected people is finally being challenged in a mainstream article. It has been questioned from the beginning in the alternative press, but seems to be reaching the mainstream press now.

A Dutch physician treating Ebola in Sierra Leone said:
Five of his nursing assistants became infected. Four of them died.

If it's true that a subset of Ebola patients do not present with fever, then that throws a lot of policies into question, whether it is determining which secondary contact of an Ebola case is considered at high risk and require quarantine, to the effectiveness of temperature screening at airports and border crossings.

There is a new press release put out by the WHO today that has some food for thought in it that I have not seen elsewhere.

First, just a general statement about the situation in West Africa:

In the section called "Incubation period" is the following paragraph:

So...in this new West African outbreak, there were/are some Ebola cases that appeared more than 21 days after infection? That's news to me! So is quarantine for 21 days sufficient? When the CDC's Dr. Tom Frieden says on TV that "...even a single infection is unacceptable" then this news makes you wonder about the 21-day guideline.

And finally, there's the statement:

Except for Mr Duncan and Ms Pham, all the other "possible" Ebola cases in various locations in the US have been declared to be "negative," many within a short period of time. Have we been given a false sense of security by these rapid declarations? Presumably, the travel histories have ruled out most potential cases quickly, but if any of them had questionable histories, has rapid negative announcements been premature? Again, food for thought.

Thanks for making sub-threads on this topic, Martin. I'll try to post accordingly.

Amid the hubbub, I must take a moment to say this: I'm grateful that the folks here at ETS are more measured in their approach to this developing situation compared to those on other forums; hopefully the new threads will help those who are seeking up-to-date, reliable information.

In this day and age of instant communication via social media, it's vital that people remember that they need to discern what is known, and what is speculation. While a disease like Ebola is very frightening and indeed a true threat, spreading unsubstantiated rumors or links from conspiracy websites will only worsen the situation.


--M

And I ask of all of us, please, keep up the efforts to Keep Calm and Carry On by example. Question sources. Ask for evidence. Always, ask for the evidence.

Interesting ... Dallas Hospital had Ebola Screening Machine military using in Africa

Another possible source of information:
MNT Ebola News