What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Ebola - all or nothing?

Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

Absent the medical merits, do people really not see that the "wimpy" thing to do would be to overreact? I'm always amazed at how people invert courage.

And anyway, this story has nothing to do with personal qualities like "courage." I know people anthropomorphize institutions all the time, but that has nothing to do with reality.
 
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

this argument boils down to calling it wimpy or calling it irresponsible. as I stated before, I'll trust science, the CDC and the military guidelines.
 
Timothy A said:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us...bolas-transmission-other-key-facts/ar-BBcPy9B

Let's not underplay the potential danger, caution is still the way to go. The worst thing we could do is be all hugs and kisses now and all of a sudden 90 days from now there's dozens of sick people and our government is too whimpy to take the proper action to contain it. By that time it might be too late.
Click to expand...

So when you read Chicken Little to your kids, what lesson do you impart on them? That they should be running around scared because they might get hit by a meteor falling out of the sky? (Which, at 700,000 to 1 odds, are far higher than dying from Ebola).
 
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

unofan said:
Which, at 700,000 to 1 odds, are far higher than dying from Ebola
Click to expand...

As somebody fighting along side you, let me give you the side eye. ;) The odds as calculated from present deaths are not the odds of dying from Ebola, they are only the odds of having died from Ebola. There is truth to the idea that a potential pandemic should be contained and that proper caution should be employed. That, in itself, is not fear-mongering.

Pragmatism ought to triumph over ideology, and the pragmatic approach here does put its thumb on the scale for excessive caution. This isn't something we want to go right down the middle on. The most important objections to Chicken Little-ism are not ideological civil liberty issues, they are pragmatic issues about hampering the relief effort by demonizing medical workers and limiting the travel of aid workers in and out of areas.

Most of the fear-mongering is going to dissipate after tonight -- it was electorally useful so it was employed. It will still be commercially useful for the media but it won't be receiving 24/7 amplification by partisan sources anymore.
 
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

unofan said:
So when you read Chicken Little to your kids, what lesson do you impart on them? That they should be running around scared because they might get hit by a meteor falling out of the sky? (Which, at 700,000 to 1 odds, are far higher than dying from Ebola).
Click to expand...

My kids don't go anywhere near an oak tree in the fall. ;)

My point simply was that the ebola situation is not so black and white as some think and a cautious approach should be heeded (and I did not think the gov was being cautious enough). The exponential spread in a very mobile society like ours should be respected.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...sYHYBA&usg=AFQjCNFAQzjWOLuvw5Vlhps9trKMKTJpqA

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...sYHYBA&usg=AFQjCNHrJL5gvsieLDnsMm2O6cOpG3KLKQ
 
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

I am all for cautious...but the way some talk you would think door to door salesman were peddling Ebola like Encyclopedias.
 
Timothy A said:
My kids don't go anywhere near an oak tree in the fall. ;)

My point simply was that the ebola situation is not so black and white as some think and a cautious approach should be heeded (and I did not think the gov was being cautious enough). The exponential spread in a very mobile society like ours should be respected.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...sYHYBA&usg=AFQjCNFAQzjWOLuvw5Vlhps9trKMKTJpqA

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...sYHYBA&usg=AFQjCNHrJL5gvsieLDnsMm2O6cOpG3KLKQ
Click to expand...

We've had world wide air travel and been a highly mobile society for as long as we've known about Ebola. That there hasn't been a pandemic already is pretty strong evidence that it won't spread like, say, the flu.
 
Last edited:
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

unofan said:
We've had world wide air travel and been a highly mobile society for as long as we've known about Ebola. That there hasn't been a pandemic already is pretty strong evidence that it won't spread like, say, the flu.
Click to expand...


Ebola is a pvssy in the world of pandemics.

Can't even own a 3rd world continent.
 
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

This is a pretty interesting read detailing what we know about the Ebola virus. It turns out, contrary to what has often been repeated here and elsewhere--we have a deep understanding of how it works. Really, the only area in which we still lack a good understanding is how exactly the virus typically jumps from its natural reservoir (mostly bats) to humans before each outbreak.
 
Last edited:
GrinCDXX said:
This is a pretty interesting read detailing what we know about the Ebola virus. It turns out, contrary to what has often been repeated here and elsewhere, we have a deep understanding of how it works. Really, the only area that we still lack a good understanding is how exactly the virus typically jumps from its natural reservoir (mostly bats) to humans before each outbreak.
Click to expand...

Vampires?
 
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

GrinCDXX said:
This is a pretty interesting read detailing what we know about the Ebola virus. It turns out, contrary to what has often been repeated here and elsewhere--we have a deep understanding of how it works. Really, the only area that we still lack a good understanding is how exactly the virus typically jumps from its natural reservoir (mostly bats) to humans before each outbreak.
Click to expand...

I often find that when a scientist states there is "much more to learn" people often hear "we know nothing," which could not be further from the truth.

We are excellent at communicating within our community but absolutely **** poor at reaching out to the public. I find in medicine, a lot of the outrage and disappointment the public has with the medical community/medicine comes from unrealistic expectations rather than medical shortcomings. And as medical professionals, I think we should shoulder a decent dose of the blame and work to better guide the public.
 
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

Gurtholfin said:
Which can include on rounds. :p
Click to expand...

The beautiful double-edged sword of family centered rounds :). Explain things to a team of medical professionals in a way that anyone can understand. And every attending would like it a different way. If I had a dollar for every time I have been scolded for saying either febrile or fever (does not matter which one, they always want the other)....


I would still be $230,000 in debt.
 
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

WisconsinWildcard said:
The beautiful double-edged sword of family centered rounds :). Explain things to a team of medical professionals in a way that anyone can understand. And every attending would like it a different way. If I had a dollar for every time I have been scolded for saying either febrile or fever (does not matter which one, they always want the other)....


I would still be $230,000 in debt.
Click to expand...


It's funny coz on the other side I find myself trying to balance my use of the terms that I've learned. Do I use "emesis" and come off as someone who's trying to sound smart or do I say "blew chunks?" :D
 
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

Gurtholfin said:
It's funny coz on the other side I find myself trying to balance my use of the terms that I've learned. Do I use "emesis" and come off as someone who's trying to sound smart or do I say "blew chunks?" :D
Click to expand...

I prefer "blew chunks" as it can sometimes be more descriptive :)

It is a fine line to walk. As a physician, you do not want to talk over someone's head but at the same time, you do not want to insult them by speaking too simply. I tend to start very simplistic and let the patient or family member dictate if they would like a more complex explanation. It is also easier to speak to one or two people instead of a crowd; much easier to read.

The scientist in me has the most trouble with ambiguous or nuanced issues. A lot of cases are probable strokes but are unable to be found on the scan. From our perspective, it does not change our management in most situations so it just speculative and largely irrelevant on whether it is an infarct (stroke) or not. However, many people live in a binary world and "need to know!" one way or another. I then try to tailor my answer to whatever I feel provides the most benefit.
 
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?

GrinCDXX said:
This is a pretty interesting read detailing what we know about the Ebola virus. It turns out, contrary to what has often been repeated here and elsewhere--we have a deep understanding of how it works. Really, the only area in which we still lack a good understanding is how exactly the virus typically jumps from its natural reservoir (mostly bats) to humans before each outbreak.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this article. It is this section from it that seems to be of greatest concern to public health officials, and why they want to limit contact with people once infection overtly manifests itself:

Should Ebola manage to continue circulating in human hosts, however, it certainly has the potential to undergo significant adaptation. RNA polymerases like the one it uses to duplicate its genome are prone to generating new mutations .... on average, every new virus produced by a cell is likely to contain at least one mutation. Since an infected cell can produce thousands of viruses, Racaniello said that each infected cell could essentially produce a population of viruses where every single base in the genome was, on average, changed.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, it seems like the whole furor is going to die down now. Let's pray (even you atheists, okay?) that there are no new cases. It appears that the combination of intravenous fluids to infected people and avoiding contact with their bodily fluids will be sufficient both to help infected people recover and also to prevent the spread any further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top