pattermj

While I am not amazed by the 58% number, it is still sad. I suspect there is a greater risk in dying from a plane accident than from Ebola (which people on here know is highly unlikely). As someone who has worked with BSL-4 pathogens including Ebola I can tell you it is one of the least worrisome for the US, even as a biologic weapon. Transmission is difficult and it is extremely rapid disease progression with contagious stages linked directly to clinical disease. A few cases will appear in the developed countries (EU, USA, Canada, Japan, Aus, etc) from people coming in from outbreak regions, this is to be expected. Due to the incubation period, the simple temp check can easily miss these people. I am waiting for them to implement a tool like Firebird (real-time PCR) at entrance for high risk individuals as it would provide pre-clinical identification of replicating virus (I am not affiliated with this company in any way, just feel that it is one of the few systems out there which would work in this situation). The risk of an infection occurring in the US is minimal but could definitely happen if someone doesn't go to a hospital, is late to going to a hospital, an accident occurs at a hospital, or (in the case of Dallas) a hospital turns someone away early in clinical disease. Even if this occurs, I strongly doubt a tertiary infection would occur. Once an exposure is identified, close contacts can be observed and any future spread contained. Of course there is always the chance some small group somehow has an exposure and this group refuses to seek medical treatment leading to spread within their small community, but this seems improbable to me. The main point is, within the US we have a medical infrastructure which can handle the limited number of cases we can expect to see transplanted here, as can most developed countries. The biggest risk we have is if we see a few transplants leading to mass hysteria and a flooding of our medical providers for no valid reason. But this isn't a risk of Ebola, simply of a stressed medical system. So in the end, travel, be merry, and don't see Ebola as a valid risk. Oh, and push your local/federal politicians to provide more funding for basic research, those of us in the field of research, especially high containment, always see an increase in situations like this but it is normally short term (public interest). If we want the ability to address these outbreaks with countermeasures, funding needs to be constantly available.

You want to go where?

Fortunately, this is not so likely in the short term. Ebola is an incapacitating disease. It would probably take weeks for someone to get from the infected part of West Africa to someplace where they could get on a boat to Malta or Italy. Long before they get on a boat, they are going to become symptomatic. Once they become symptomatic, it' game over for Ebola (to use your words). The infected are not going to be able to endure the rigors of this type of travel.

Now if we (that is, the world) don't contain this epidemic and it spreads throughout Africa, it will eventually get to Europe by this route, or more likely, a regular flight or ferry. But that will be quite a while from now and only if the world is irresponsible enough to nothing to stop the disease where it is currently spreading.

SoCal

Avoid going anywhere in Africa? Africa is a huge continent but to many Americans it's one country. Guinea (not Equatorial Guinea, which is a different country), Liberia and Sierra Leone are closer to Europe than to, say, South Africa and there are more people flying to Europe.

I wonder what flights to the U.S. those polled want canceled. There are non-stop flights from Lagos (not one of the targeted countries and more central than west Africa), but otherwise there are no direct flights from West Africa to the U.S. But few news reports state this. Avoid Macedonia and Australia? Better avoid the U.S., too. And Brazil (case reported yesterday; man arrived in Rio from Guinea, via Morocco).


How did someone get Ebola from cleaning a car? By coming into contact with bodily fluids? Has this been confirmed? A lot of rumors circulating, which is natural when people are scared.

We can see how health and sanitation conditions in other countries can affect us. I'd like to see more, not less, money go to other regions, especially to address health conditions before big outbreaks occur.

Sant

They were forced to stay in that apartment for several days. It took a few days to find a private company willing to disinfect the apartment.

SoCal

No reported cases in South Africa or Zambia, as you said. Fewer cases than in the U.S. And a long ways from Sierra Leone, etc. 3670 air miles from Freetown, Sierra Leone to Johannesburg. 2,940 from Freetown to Paris. 2,280 to Madrid. A lot more people travel from West Africa to Europe than to West Africa. Will you avoid Brazil (first case reported yesterday)?

GadgetFreak

Yea, I am aware of that. It wasn't what I was talking about.

iahphx

Do not make the mistake of reporting an "ebola case" just because somebody is hospitalized "with symptoms." There will now be 100 false alarms reported for every actual ebola case. That's just the way human beings behave during health scares.

CPRich

USAToday recently sent out the question in the OP to its travel panel. From previous experience, I expect the "yes, I'm frightened" answers to be selected and featured in an article any day now. Logical, fact-based responses (like mine and several above) will likely not get much ink.

If it bleeds, it leads.

I didn't have travel planned to the affected areas, so no, it doesn't impact my plans. I believe a thorough and comprehenive response is needed, but focused on the actual threat, not fear mongering. It's like tackling an ISIS threat with massive force in the area of battle, as opposed to advocating for landing troops in Egypt because there's a "problem in them A-rab countries"

You want to go where?

Excellent point. We can stop epidemics when they are small and far away or we can spend much more fighting them when they are larger and more likely to impact us directly. This makes good economic sense as well as being the ethical and moral thing to do.

AlohaDaveKennedy

Shame on you for not trusting your government to tell you the truth! Would the President ever lie to us? Ummm...I guess it depends on what your definition of lie is...

ajGoes

No they shouldn't, and no it isn't.

iahphx

I agree with you about "trusting" politicians. I disagree with you about trusting the medical community. It is pretty easy here to separate fact and fiction.

callum9999

While I agree with you that the hysteria is absurd, I also think you're being too nonchalant about it. The "risk we were dealing with" a few weeks ago was that it wouldn't really spread outside Western Africa at all. A few weeks before that it was that the worst was over and they were dealing with it. A few weeks before that it was it wouldn't cause any major disasters as it's so hard to spread.

As I said, the hysteria is absurd and cancelling a trip to Macedonia because someone is suspected of having ebola is ridiculous - but I am almost certain that before this situation is under control, someone in the West will catch it and it will be from a far more normal interaction than changing a victims diaper.

Dieuwer

Ebola already has spread through Africa. It has just not been reported.

Yes they should. Yes it is.

ajGoes

Well, like I said at the top of the thread: Ebola has made me think twice about travel in that I'm thinking it's going to be a bit nicer and cheaper. Your concerns are undoubtedly shared by many other potential travelers, so those of us who are not concerned will have the opportunity to fly on cheaper, less crowded flights.