• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Ebola...

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
For Christ's sake! She called the CDC to double check and they didn't err on the side of caution? The disease isn't scaring me as much as the plain stupidity of the powers that be in charge of this disease.
 
The three employees at Kent State have been put on paid leave for 21 days and will be monitored.

For 21 days of paid leave, I'll come in contact with someone who has ebola. :chuckle:

Can we leave trite political comments out of this. Fuck. Can we at least not be opportunistic about something for once so to spare the rest of us banal commentary.

You must be new here.
 
For Christ's sake! She called the CDC to double check and they didn't err on the side of caution? The disease isn't scaring me as much as the plain stupidity of the powers that be in charge of this disease.

She called them more than once which is the most concerning part. If she would have tried once and only once the CDC may have had some wiggle room on it but she called several times according to all reports

I've read about another personal experience from one of the passengers of the airline / same plan that she flew on ( not at the same time )

Here's my experience with them yesterday:

On Tuesday, October 14 I flew on Frontier flight 2042 from DFW to CLE, only eleven hours after Amber Vinson had traveled on the same plane from CLE to DFW. The following is an account of Frontier’s attempt to rush the turnaround of the plane on the night of October 12, which likely compromised the cleaning procedure, and the CDC’s response to my concerns about traveling on flight 2042.

News articles have stated that Frontier flight 1143 landed at 8:16 p.m. CST. My text message records indicate that Frontier had begun boarding the DFW to CLE flight (1142), on the same plane as 1143, prior to 8:33 p.m. CST. After a short wait, Frontier began deplaning the same passengers by 8:56 p.m. CST (per my text records). Frontier then announced that though they had tried to hurry the turnaround, the crew had "time out", and it would be illegal to continue flying that night, and the flight was then cancelled. Flight 2042 was created and scheduled for 7:45 a.m. CST the morning of October 14, using the plane from flight 1143, in order to accommodate the passengers of flight 1142 to CLE.


My concern is that Frontier has publicly claimed to have cleaned the airplane consistent with CDC guidelines, per their "normal procedures" (their quote), in the time between flights 1143 and 1142 however, the time available to do this was less than 17 minutes, which as the time from landing to when boarding was already in progress, and the turnaround was rushed in an attempt to avoid allowing the crew to "time out". Given the lack of time and the rushed nature of the turnaround, it seems unlikely to me that the CDC’s cleaning standards were adhered to.

I contacted the CDC yesterday at 12:40 p.m. EST at 800-232-4636 to inquire about any steps I should take, having been on flight 2042. I was redirected to 866-933-5295 (though I was told it would not be available until 1:00 p.m. EST), which I was told as a number specifically meant to address issues related to flight 1143. When I called that number at 2:13 p.m. EST and expressed my concerns about being on 2042 only eleven hours after Amber Vinson, the individual answering my call chuckled and said I had nothing to worry about. She took my phone number and checked with the medical expert present. Returning to the phone, she chuckled again and repeated that I had nothing to worry about because the plane had been cleaned and the virus couldn’t survive that long anyway. However, the CDC’s website states that Ebola can survive on dry surfaces for “several hours” and in bodily fluids at room temperature for up to several days.

So... we'll see.
 
Well if she was violating pre-existing guidelines they probably should have told her during her multiple calls to the CDC prior to getting on the flight..She was told her fever needed to be over 100 degrees to considered high risk.

Agree. That's was the mistake -- along with failing to communicate clearly that she shouldn't have gotten on the plane in the first place.

This is why she was considered "low risk" There were 75 people that helped treat Duncan for the 2 weeks he was there out of those 75 people 1 contracted the disease before Vinson (98.6% didn't contract it after 2 weeks)

After Vinson makes drops it to 73 t that changes to 97%. So 97% of the people that helped treat the man in Texas are fine

It doesn't matter how many people who were treating her didn't get the virus. It matters how many did. Two people got it, so the ROI for that case as of this moment is going to be at least 2.0. It may go up.

To put it differently, assume they knew that two people on the treatment team were going to develop ebola, and 73 weren't -- they just don't know exactly which ones. Do you ban all 75 from flights, or not? I say yes -- two people infected with ebola flying on a plane is two too many, and an unacceptable risk to spread the disease. I'm not blaming her, because we don't have enough facts to do that. But I am blaming the CDC for that fuckup.

If you take that 75 as base for the other 2 cases that were flown in before this that means 225 people treated the 3 ebola patients prior to the Texas Nurses contracting it

That is 223 out of 225 people that are fine (going off a base of 75 per patient)...that leaves 99.1% of the healthcare workers in our system that didn't contract the disease.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-nurse-called-cdc-several-times/

Why are you bringing other cases into this? Just for starters, the other two cases were treated at Emory, which is specially equipped for this. Dallas Presbyterian wasn't. And that still doesn't change the illogic of having people who are supposed to be under observation taking commercial flights.

I think your point about Nigeria is being overstated

I think your article made the point stronger. When the guy first arrived in Nigeria, they fucked up and 11 hospital workers got infected. But then, they stopped fucking up and did everything right, and managed to quash an outbreak that killed infected 19 people. Even Freiden thought we could learn from them to . The problem is, he didn't.

Nigeria Has Successfully Contained Ebola, US Hopes To Learn From Their Response

According to Nigeria's health ministry, the West African country has
officially claimed control over the Ebola outbreak ravaging nearby nations, USA Today reported. No new cases of the virus have been reported since Aug. 31. Nigeria's "extensive response to a single case of Ebola shows that control is possible with rapid, focused interventions," Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told the news source.

Nigeria's success has grabbed attention from U.S. officials hoping to prevent transmission of the virus in America, after Liberian Thomas Eric Duncan was diagnosed with Ebola in Dallas. On Wednesday,
Duncan, 42, died at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. The CDC is sending researchers to Lagos, Nigeria's largest city, to study how the country was able to control the disease.
The Guardian reported that the ongoing struggle to eradicate polio in Nigeria -- recently complicated
by Boko Haram's insurgency -- actually helped the country in thwarting Ebola. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation built an emergency command center in 2012 to survey the presence of polio in the region, and the existing system helped enable the country to proactively contain the spread of Ebola.
Utilizing emergency operations, healthcare personnel in Nigeria had confirmed 19 cases of Ebola, as well as one probable case, Reuters reported. By Sept. 24, officials had identified 894 contacts with those cases and conducted 18,500 visits with those who'd potentially been infected to check for Ebola symptoms. In the weeks since, no new cases have emerged.

 
So yes, it's hindsight and conjecture.

I won't disagree this could be conjecture, since we're getting lied to about what really happened from all sides.

But hindsight? That's completely wrong, I strongly opposed her boarding that flight even before knowing she tested positive for Ebola. Regardless of whether you want to blame a trained health care worker or the CDC for allowing her to board, someone made a terrible mistake. To quote a health care official from the story you posted, "someone dropped the ball."

You also disagreed with me that's common sense to keep her off a commercial flight, but here's another direct quote from the piece you posted-

"it's relatively easy to contain with common-sense public health measures: isolating those infected, limiting the exposure of health care workers, and tracking those who may have come in contact with them."

I'd argue limiting exposure to health care workers works in two ways; limiting their exposure to the infected, and then in turn limiting their exposure to the general public. The low risk argument is pointless, unless there's absolutely no risk they have ebola they shouldn't be unnecessarily exposing themselves to the general public.
 
I won't disagree this could be conjecture, since we're getting lied to about what really happened from all sides.

But hindsight? That's completely wrong, I strongly opposed her boarding that flight even before knowing she tested positive for Ebola. Regardless of whether you want to blame a trained health care worker or the CDC for allowing her to board, someone made a terrible mistake. To quote a health care official from the story you posted, "someone dropped the ball."

You also disagreed with me that's common sense to keep her off a commercial flight, but here's another direct quote from the piece you posted-

"it's relatively easy to contain with common-sense public health measures: isolating those infected, limiting the exposure of health care workers, and tracking those who may have come in contact with them."

I'd argue limiting exposure to health care workers works in two ways; limiting their exposure to the infected, and then in turn limiting their exposure to the general public. The low risk argument is pointless, unless there's absolutely no risk they have ebola they shouldn't be unnecessarily exposing themselves to the general public.


I didn't say it wasn't common sense. I said you can call it common sense if you want but it's still hindsight regardless of what you want to call it. Meaning even if it may seem like common sense we are still viewing the situation after it happened.

That is why it is hindsight because the event has already happened. Anything that these persons or agencies "should have" or "should not" have done are both sayings that are made when viewing the situation from a future perspective, or applying hindsight logic to the event.

Do I really have to re-post the definition of hindsight bias again?

I guess I do so I will post the definition below (I mean you strongly opposed her boarding before you knew she had ebola...that statement is a perfect textbook example of hindsight bias btw)

http://psychology.about.com/od/hindex/g/hindsight-bias.htm

Definition:

The term hindsight bias refers to the tendency people have to view events as more predictable than they really are. After an event, people often believe that they knew the outcome of the event before it actually happened. The phenomenon has been demonstrated in a number of different situations, including politics and sporting events. In experiments, people often recall their predictions before the event as much stronger than they actually were.

For example, researchers Martin Bolt and John Brink (1991) asked college students to predict how the U.S. Senate would vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Prior to the senate vote, 58-percent of the participants predicted that he would be confirmed. When students were polled again after Thomas was confirmed, 78-percent of the participants said that they thought Thomas would be approved.

The hindsight bias is often referred to as the "I-knew-it-all-along phenomenon."

As a psychology student, you may have also experienced the hindsight bias in your own studies. As you read your course texts, the information may seem easy. "Of course," you might think after reading the results of a study or experiment. "I knew that all along." When it comes to test time, however, the presence of many different answers on a multiple choice test may make you realize that you did not know the material quite as well as you thought you did. By being aware of this problem, you can develop good study habits to overcome the tendency to assume that you 'knew-it-all-along.'


It doesn't matter how many people who were treating her didn't get the virus. It matters how manydid. Two people got it, so the ROI for that case as of this moment is going to be at least 2.0. It may go up.

To put it differently, assume they knew that two people on the treatment team were going to develop ebola, and 73 weren't -- they just don't know exactly which ones. Do you ban all 75 from flights, or not? I say yes -- two people infected with ebola flying on a plane is two too many, and an unacceptable risk to spread the disease. I'm not blaming her, because we don't have enough facts to do that. But I am blaming the CDC for that fuckup.

It definitely matters how many people didn't get the virus. It matters because it includes the total amount of people who were potentially exposed to the virus during the course of the patients treatment. It allows for the calculations of probability and to estimate how easy the virus can be transmitted in a healthcare setting.

I was taking the total number of people that were treating the patient and showing the % of which were actually infected. I extrapolated it on a base of 75 healthcare workers to include the two previous carriers who were flown to the states (which would give a total of 225 healthcare workers in contact with an infected patient).

If you want to toss out the extrapolated portion then the probability of infection is 3% where as the probability to not become infected is 97%. I was not calculating rate of infection I was calculating the probability of it happening going froward. I was very clear about what I was doing and where these numbers came from.

If you want to go by rate of infection there is an actual mathematical model for that. It's called the apparent infection rate model, which I listed below. I highly doubt that if the proper numbers are plugged into the below formula you would get 2 as an answer for AROI:

889cb69e4e6b6e31553dae739e120881.png
 
I hate to sound like a stick in the mud, but joking about this is retarded.
 
I didn't say it wasn't common sense. I said you can call it common sense if you want but it's still hindsight regardless of what you want to call it. Meaning even if it may seem like common sense we are still viewing the situation after it happened.

That is why it is hindsight because the event has already happened. Anything that these persons or agencies "should have" or "should not" have done are both sayings that are made when viewing the situation from a future perspective, or applying hindsight logic to the event.

Do I really have to re-post the definition of hindsight bias again?

I guess I do so I will post the definition below (I mean you strongly opposed her boarding before you knew she had ebola...that statement is a perfect textbook example of hindsight bias btw)

http://psychology.about.com/od/hindex/g/hindsight-bias.htm






It definitely matters how many people didn't get the virus. It matters because it includes the total amount of people who were potentially exposed to the virus during the course of the patients treatment. It allows for the calculations of probability and to estimate how easy the virus can be transmitted in a healthcare setting.

I was taking the total number of people that were treating the patient and showing the % of which were actually infected. I extrapolated it on a base of 75 healthcare workers to include the two previous carriers who were flown to the states (which would give a total of 225 healthcare workers in contact with an infected patient).

If you want to toss out the extrapolated portion then the probability of infection is 3% where as the probability to not become infected is 97%. I was not calculating rate of infection I was calculating the probability of it happening going froward. I was very clear about what I was doing and where these numbers came from.

If you want to go by rate of infection there is an actual mathematical model for that. It's called the apparent infection rate model, which I listed below. I highly doubt that if the proper numbers are plugged into the below formula you would get 2 as an answer for AROI:

889cb69e4e6b6e31553dae739e120881.png
Wow. Thanks for laying out the definition of hindsight bias two times too many, the term is not lost on anyone that finished middle school.

I'm not claiming to be a genius by saying I opposed her boarding the plane, it's the basic principle of limiting exposure for anyone that's already been exposed to it. This is the only case of ebola that was contracted in the US, all 74 of the workers in Dallas that cared for Duncan shouldn't be traveling until the 21 day incubation period ends. The tiny chance that they had ebola should have been enough to keep them off any commercial flight, that's what you seem to completely ignoring.

Anyone with a functioning brain would agree with that, especially since they had already saw an outbreak in one of the other workers. Keep squawking about hindsight, it had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. If you really want to continue this conversation PM me, don't continue to waste everyone's time trying to prove what someone else was thinking.
 
Who gives two shits about their economies? I care more about the two American nurses lives than I do about the economy of Liberia. I have many family members who are nurses. This could have been them.

I think this gets overlooked by technocrats like Friedan. He's comparing a few people in the U.S. dying to what is happening in West Africa, when the truth is that the number deaths in West Africa doesn't diminish the loss of fewer people here. And considering how health care workers suffered so badly in West Africa, there's every reason for those people and their friends and families to be concerned. The idea that someone with Ebola symptoms could walk into any of our hospitals or clinics without warning, and have some poor staff member who hasn't been trained dealing with it, is frightening. "Well, I'm confident we'll be able to contain it if there is an outbreak" isn't much comfort to those on the front lines.

One thing that would help reduce that fear is to quit admitting ordinary people into this country who are coming from those countries, because you'd be greatly reducing the risk of another Mr. Duncan walking into some other treatment facility that may be even less prepared.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of paranoid:

Solon schools disinfects elementary, middle school as precaution against Ebola
-ef6ad431644faea0.jpg

SOLON, Ohio --Solon Middle School and Parkside Elementary are closed today as the districtdisinfects the building, as a precaution to protect students from Ebola.

A Solon Middle School employee flew on a Frontier Airlines plane Tuesday, the day after Dallas nurse Amber Joy Vinson flew back to Texas. Vinson, 29, who spent the weekend in Akron tested positive Ebola on Tuesday.

The airline has not confirmed if the plane the school employee was on is the same plane that the nurse flew on, Solon school's communications director Tamera Strom said.

"Obviously no one was in direct contact with the nurse," Strom said. "This is just the superintendent deciding to go a step further."

The district was not asked to disinfect the schools by any health official or organization. The school is following cleaning protocol from the Centers for Disease Control and Protection, Strom said, but she would not give details

Parents are asking questions and are concerned, Strom said.

"We want to do this right and thoroughly," she said. "It's new for everyone and people don't understand it."

School is also cancelled tomorrow for a district professional work day, which was already on the calendar before the news about Ebola broke.

The employee who flew on Frontier Airlines will not work at the school until the self-monitoring phase is over. Strom would not say whether the employee is a teacher.
source: http://www.cleveland.com/solon/index.ssf/2014/10/solon_schools_disinfects_two_f.html#incart_maj-story-1
 
Smart.

I'm not an attorney, but that's certainly a good look for liability.
 
It definitely matters how many people didn't get the virus. It matters because it includes the total amount of people who were potentially exposed to the virus during the course of the patients treatment. It allows for the calculations of probability and to estimate how easy the virus can be transmitted in a healthcare setting.

The rate itself doesn't matter unless you know how many people are involved in the treatment because what ultimately matters is that the number of people infected from a patient. Two people who treated him got the virus. Whether the treatment required only 10 people, making a 20% transmission rate, or whether 100 people helped treat him for a 2% rate, doesn't matter. What matters is that treating this guy produced two infected people.
If you want to toss out the extrapolated portion then the probability of infection is 3% where as the probability to not become infected is 97%. I was not calculating rate of infection I was calculating the
probability of it happening going froward. I was very clear about what I was doing and where these numbers came from.

If Ebola patients only required a couple of people, a lower rate would be more of a comfort. But it requires lots of people, so the odds of someone getting the infection go up. And from a societal perspective what matters is the final number.

If you want to go by rate of infection there is an actual mathematical model for that. It's called the apparent infection rate model, which I listed below. I highly doubt that if the proper numbers are plugged into the below formula you would get 2 as an answer for AROI:

889cb69e4e6b6e31553dae739e120881.png

It's not the rate of infection, but the R0, the "basic reproduction number" that matters. And that's defined as the expected number of secondary cases produced by a single infected person within a completely susceptible population. We're talking different populations in Emory v. Dallas. At Emory, the rate is 0. In Texas, it's at least 2.0. If it gets out into the general population then the calculations get a lot more difficult. And the rate can change over time, which is essentially what happened in Nigeria.
 
Heard on NPR a few minutes ago, she may not have been completely forthcoming with CDC. She was in cleveland to plan her wedding, and canceled events because she was too ill.

The thing is that when you contract a terminal illness, isn't the first stage Denial? We cant screw around with this thing. CDC is being to cocky about thier preparedness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KB

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top