Is Ebola making you think twice about travel?
Nov 11, 2014, 6:50 pm
#406
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: DCA or IAD (originally DUB)
Programs: UA 1K 1.8MM, Hertz PC, Marriott Platinum/Lifetime Gold
Posts: 7,657
Nov 13, 2014, 4:29 pm
#408
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Seattle
Programs: Delta DM; *A FO. UG since(1/1/15): 11/14
Posts: 683
Nov 13, 2014, 8:18 pm
#409
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,379
It seems eminently sensible policy to me. Preferably don't go to areas currently experiencing an epidemic of deadly disease, and if you do make sure you aren't infected before returning to campus.
While it is of course not an airbourne disease, I'd say the rapid spread of the disease proves it's not as benign as people once claimed it was. I remember back when this first started people were acting like in order to catch it you had to rub infected pus into a gaping open wound! An infected person on campus in all likelihood wouldn't infect anyone else, but why take the risk?
Nov 14, 2014, 4:50 am
#410
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Neither here nor there
Programs: UA Slvr, DL Slvr, AA plt, HH LTD, MR tit/LTP at least two of those buy 10 get 1 free coffee cards
Posts: 3,448
While it is of course not an airbourne disease, I'd say the rapid spread of the disease proves it's not as benign as people once claimed it was. I remember back when this first started people were acting like in order to catch it you had to rub infected pus into a gaping open wound! An infected person on campus in all likelihood wouldn't infect anyone else, but why take the risk?
For the record, the message regarding transmission hasn't changed. I have a copy of the 2007 Journal of Infectious Disease special Filovirus supplement in my bag right now. While survival rates and treatment modalities have changed, transmission hasn't. Then, as now, exposure to blood, stool or vomit of an ILL (not just febrile, but really sick) is required.
Nov 14, 2014, 5:37 am
#412
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,379
Wow. Some people still don't get it. Please do tell us what spread you're referring to that proves it "not as benign" as we were told. Is it the whole two people who have contracted it in the US? Both with significant occupational exposure to blood, feces and vomit.
For the record, the message regarding transmission hasn't changed. I have a copy of the 2007 Journal of Infectious Disease special Filovirus supplement in my bag right now. While survival rates and treatment modalities have changed, transmission hasn't. Then, as now, exposure to blood, stool or vomit of an ILL (not just febrile, but really sick) is required.
For the record, the message regarding transmission hasn't changed. I have a copy of the 2007 Journal of Infectious Disease special Filovirus supplement in my bag right now. While survival rates and treatment modalities have changed, transmission hasn't. Then, as now, exposure to blood, stool or vomit of an ILL (not just febrile, but really sick) is required.
I clearly said it wasn't airbourne and that the risk of someone spreading it on a campus was tiny, so take your moral indignation elsewhere...
Nov 14, 2014, 8:18 am
#413
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Neither here nor there
Programs: UA Slvr, DL Slvr, AA plt, HH LTD, MR tit/LTP at least two of those buy 10 get 1 free coffee cards
Posts: 3,448
My apologies if I seem indignant, but it stems from a frustration of reading and hearing folks say "why take the risk" regarding travel restrictions (keeping this travel focused, lest we end up in Omni), when in fact they are not taking a risk. They are taking no more of a risk than the upset parents of Ryan Whites classmates back in the 80s. "Why take the risk" based restrictions needlessly remove a significant number of potential volunteers, denying those 15,000 people a chance.
I went to a conference last week in the UK that while not Ebola focused, involved plenty of clinicians and researchers who have been fighting Ebola. The radical difference in public perception, even though the British tabloid press is as bad as the US, was quite refreshing. Hopefully that's maintained once the UK sees its first few Ebola cases. Cases that are totally anticipated to occur given the number of deployed staff.
Nov 14, 2014, 9:01 am
#414
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,379
15, 000 who share living spaces, who touch the recently deceased out of tradition and necessity, who have had, until now, no access to the type of care that has driven mortality rates down towards meningitis levels in the US.
My apologies if I seem indignant, but it stems from a frustration of reading and hearing folks say "why take the risk" regarding travel restrictions (keeping this travel focused, lest we end up in Omni), when in fact they are not taking a risk. They are taking no more of a risk than the upset parents of Ryan Whites classmates back in the 80s. "Why take the risk" based restrictions needlessly remove a significant number of potential volunteers, denying those 15,000 people a chance.
I went to a conference last week in the UK that while not Ebola focused, involved plenty of clinicians and researchers who have been fighting Ebola. The radical difference in public perception, even though the British tabloid press is as bad as the US, was quite refreshing. Hopefully that's maintained once the UK sees its first few Ebola cases. Cases that are totally anticipated to occur given the number of deployed staff.
My apologies if I seem indignant, but it stems from a frustration of reading and hearing folks say "why take the risk" regarding travel restrictions (keeping this travel focused, lest we end up in Omni), when in fact they are not taking a risk. They are taking no more of a risk than the upset parents of Ryan Whites classmates back in the 80s. "Why take the risk" based restrictions needlessly remove a significant number of potential volunteers, denying those 15,000 people a chance.
I went to a conference last week in the UK that while not Ebola focused, involved plenty of clinicians and researchers who have been fighting Ebola. The radical difference in public perception, even though the British tabloid press is as bad as the US, was quite refreshing. Hopefully that's maintained once the UK sees its first few Ebola cases. Cases that are totally anticipated to occur given the number of deployed staff.
Nov 14, 2014, 9:10 am
#415
Join Date: May 2004
Programs: BA blue, LH Senator, KQ (FB) gold
Posts: 8,215
I didn't see a single piece of misinformation in that - which bits are you talking about?
It seems eminently sensible policy to me. Preferably don't go to areas currently experiencing an epidemic of deadly disease, and if you do make sure you aren't infected before returning to campus.
While it is of course not an airbourne disease, I'd say the rapid spread of the disease proves it's not as benign as people once claimed it was. I remember back when this first started people were acting like in order to catch it you had to rub infected pus into a gaping open wound! An infected person on campus in all likelihood wouldn't infect anyone else, but why take the risk?
It seems eminently sensible policy to me. Preferably don't go to areas currently experiencing an epidemic of deadly disease, and if you do make sure you aren't infected before returning to campus.
While it is of course not an airbourne disease, I'd say the rapid spread of the disease proves it's not as benign as people once claimed it was. I remember back when this first started people were acting like in order to catch it you had to rub infected pus into a gaping open wound! An infected person on campus in all likelihood wouldn't infect anyone else, but why take the risk?
First, I agree that some of the policy does seem sensible. It wouldn't surprise me if the restrictions on University-sponsored travel were at least in part liability-based rather than public health-based. It certainly makes sense that the University is trying to make it clear that they (or their insurance) won't be paying the 50K plus for a medical evacuation.
Post-travel screening also makes sense. Note that they did not say they would require a 21-day isolation period, merely that they maintained the option to require it if the screening warranted such an isolation period. Certainly, anyone who had a close encounter with an Ebola victim without full protective gear would warrant an isolation period, as would anyone who showed symptoms consistent with Ebola - at least until it was ruled out.
However, your second paragraph has a lot wrong with it. You note that Ebola is not an airborne (note the spelling) disease, but then start talking about its rapid spread. Actually, the spread has not been at all rapid. It still has an R0 of about 2. Yes, many people in West Africa have been infected, but the first case showed up in December.
I don't think anyone has ever described Ebola as benign. It is a horrible disease and it is quite infectious when victims are fully symptomatic. What people have been arguing against is the assumption that one can easily catch it without close contact with symptomatic patients, and that even then, most who catch it get it from severely symptomatic patients.
Nov 14, 2014, 9:36 am
#416
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,379
Not wuite sure where to start with this.
First, I agree that some of the policy does seem sensible. It wouldn't surprise me if the restrictions on University-sponsored travel were at least in part liability-based rather than public health-based. It certainly makes sense that the University is trying to make it clear that they (or their insurance) won't be paying the 50K plus for a medical evacuation.
Post-travel screening also makes sense. Note that they did not say they would require a 21-day isolation period, merely that they maintained the option to require it if the screening warranted such an isolation period. Certainly, anyone who had a close encounter with an Ebola victim without full protective gear would warrant an isolation period, as would anyone who showed symptoms consistent with Ebola - at least until it was ruled out.
However, your second paragraph has a lot wrong with it. You note that Ebola is not an airborne (note the spelling) disease, but then start talking about its rapid spread. Actually, the spread has not been at all rapid. It still has an R0 of about 2. Yes, many people in West Africa have been infected, but the first case showed up in December.
I don't think anyone has ever described Ebola as benign. It is a horrible disease and it is quite infectious when victims are fully symptomatic. What people have been arguing against is the assumption that one can easily catch it without close contact with symptomatic patients, and that even then, most who catch it get it from severely symptomatic patients.
First, I agree that some of the policy does seem sensible. It wouldn't surprise me if the restrictions on University-sponsored travel were at least in part liability-based rather than public health-based. It certainly makes sense that the University is trying to make it clear that they (or their insurance) won't be paying the 50K plus for a medical evacuation.
Post-travel screening also makes sense. Note that they did not say they would require a 21-day isolation period, merely that they maintained the option to require it if the screening warranted such an isolation period. Certainly, anyone who had a close encounter with an Ebola victim without full protective gear would warrant an isolation period, as would anyone who showed symptoms consistent with Ebola - at least until it was ruled out.
However, your second paragraph has a lot wrong with it. You note that Ebola is not an airborne (note the spelling) disease, but then start talking about its rapid spread. Actually, the spread has not been at all rapid. It still has an R0 of about 2. Yes, many people in West Africa have been infected, but the first case showed up in December.
I don't think anyone has ever described Ebola as benign. It is a horrible disease and it is quite infectious when victims are fully symptomatic. What people have been arguing against is the assumption that one can easily catch it without close contact with symptomatic patients, and that even then, most who catch it get it from severely symptomatic patients.
Secondly, as there is no specific definition of "rapidly", certainly not when used in this non-scientific context, this point is rather flippant. I, and I'm sure most (including the WHO on several occasions), would describe this as rapid.
Of course they haven't... Numerous people, including on this very site, however went on about how Ebola is so hard to spread that this would just fizzle out and not be a great issue. Regardless, my second paragraph doesn't remotely say that it is easy to catch it off someone - it, in fact, says the exact opposite... While you may see an unnecessary yet tiny risk of spreading it as acceptable, I think it's hardly surprising that the people who are tasked with looking after these people do not. I certainly struggle to see how you can describe it as "disgraceful over-reaction pandering to misinformation" - which is the quote I was objecting to with this post.
Nov 14, 2014, 12:58 pm
#417
Join Date: May 2004
Programs: BA blue, LH Senator, KQ (FB) gold
Posts: 8,215
Secondly, as there is no specific definition of "rapidly", certainly not when used in this non-scientific context, this point is rather flippant. I, and I'm sure most (including the WHO on several occasions), would describe this as rapid.
Of course they haven't... Numerous people, including on this very site, however went on about how Ebola is so hard to spread that this would just fizzle out and not be a great issue. Regardless, my second paragraph doesn't remotely say that it is easy to catch it off someone - it, in fact, says the exact opposite... While you may see an unnecessary yet tiny risk of spreading it as acceptable, I think it's hardly surprising that the people who are tasked with looking after these people do not. I certainly struggle to see how you can describe it as "disgraceful over-reaction pandering to misinformation" - which is the quote I was objecting to with this post.
Of course they haven't... Numerous people, including on this very site, however went on about how Ebola is so hard to spread that this would just fizzle out and not be a great issue. Regardless, my second paragraph doesn't remotely say that it is easy to catch it off someone - it, in fact, says the exact opposite... While you may see an unnecessary yet tiny risk of spreading it as acceptable, I think it's hardly surprising that the people who are tasked with looking after these people do not. I certainly struggle to see how you can describe it as "disgraceful over-reaction pandering to misinformation" - which is the quote I was objecting to with this post.
I do agree with you that I don't think the University's position is a "disgraceful overreaction" which, incidentally weren't my words (I don't think you were saying that they were but the turn of phrase you used could be interpreted that way), although I think the University could have said the same thing in a more nuanced way, which doesn't have the ring of panic.
Incidentally, I assumed the policy is one for the entire University, not merely the law school. Given that both universities in Durham, NC where the original poster of the policy is located have schools of Nursing and one has a Medical school, the possibility of both school-sponsored and volunteer activities in the field of medicine are plausible, and thus the policy seems more rational than it would if it had been produced solely for a law school.
I think that we actually are close to agreement on the actual substance of the discussion. Where we may differ is that I think of it in terms of a risk-benefit analysis, not an 'unnecessary risk' situation. If the risks are quite small, we shouldn't impose costs not commensurate with the real level of risk. I think we should take 'unnecessary risks' if the cost of mitigating that risk is high compared to the level of risk we are trying to manage.
Jan 7, 2015, 4:33 pm
#419
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
Good news with regard to travel to/from the hot zone. Last month DN (Asky) resumed their LFW-CKY-DKR service. This brings to five the number of commercial airlines serving airports in the hot zone (CKY, FNA, ROB):
AF: CMN-CKY
AT: CMN-CKY/FNA/ROB, ROB-FNA
DN: LFW-CKY-DKR
HF: ABJ-CKY/FNA/ROB
SN: BRU-CKY/FNA/ROB
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=c:purpl...mn,dkr,lfw,abj
Hopefully more to come.
AF: CMN-CKY
AT: CMN-CKY/FNA/ROB, ROB-FNA
DN: LFW-CKY-DKR
HF: ABJ-CKY/FNA/ROB
SN: BRU-CKY/FNA/ROB
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=c:purpl...mn,dkr,lfw,abj
Hopefully more to come.