Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Ebola

This story illustrates pretty well how R nought doesn't tell you the whole story and can be misleading.

Even more misleading if there is even a small amount of truth in the following story. One would assume the value assigned to R nought would only be as accurate as the honesty in the number of reported cases.

http://www.infowars.com/medical-professional-health-authorit...

http://www.infowars.com/missouri-doctor-suspected-ebola-pati...

http://www.infowars.com/hospitals-threaten-to-fire-workers-f...

Brought to you by the site many here love to hate. Myself I look at all things I can and study to see what can be verified regardless of peoples opinion of the source. For example looking at the doctor mentioned in the story for useful grains of truth. Not hard if you ignore any bias by the writer of the story and study only the useful information. Infowars may have far too many conspiracy theories on the part of the writers yet they do discuss so many things you no longer see anywhere in mainstream media today. So many agendas exist on either side of the coin you must become expert at filtering out the grains of truth which do exist.

[Edited on 10-23-2014 by IrC]

Rosco Bodine - 23-10-2014 at 11:10

I think when you consider the federal law makes even research sample handling highly regulated and restricted to BSL-4 laboratory conditions for what is listed on the CDC website as being a class A bioterrorism agent .......and realize that this level of security applies to samples in test tubes .....the idea of a human subject walking around shedding virus is something unthinkable and unimaginably dangerous as a threat to public health, it is really something terrible to ponder the implications and potentially catastrophic consequences.
When that has been pretty much accepted for decades is the "real story" then it becomes very suspicious when overnight an entirely "rewritten" risk analysis and risk management is published by p.r. mouthpieces contradicting what is already good information well known. Political spin doctors are attempting to write a new narrative saying things are not really so bad about something the real story is it is really pretty terrible is an old story already very well known.
When people know they are being conned it doesn't inspire trust and confidence.

gregxy - 23-10-2014 at 13:29

while the inforwars website may be full of crackpots, this article
http://www.infowars.com/scientists-ebola-can-spread-by-air-i...
(mentioned earlier by IRC) which talks about how ebola may be more contagious in colder areas, simply cites reliable references.

On the positive side the vaccines are coming along quickly. I hope this is not hype.

Rosco Bodine - 23-10-2014 at 14:41

Uh Oh .....there may be a case in Harlem ......New York City is definitely not a good place for ebola

http://www.nydailynews.com/doctor-treated-ebola-patients-rus...

There are some similarities about HIV and ebola

http://www.westernjournalism.com/miraculous-liberian-doctor-...

Breaking News: The doctor in New York City has tested positive for ebola and he has been out and about town during the last twenty-four hours even visiting a bowling alley and taking various taxi cabs around town. He was supposed to be self quarantined but like another doctor who works for NBC news went off the reservation and breached quarantine. This is not good.

[Edited on 24-10-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

IrC - 23-10-2014 at 17:12

Uh Oh .....there may be a case in Harlem ......New York City is definitely not a good place for ebola

http://www.nydailynews.com/doctor-treated-ebola-patients-rus...

There are some similarities about HIV and ebola

http://www.westernjournalism.com/miraculous-liberian-doctor-...

Just watched news alert the doctor tested positive for Ebola. 10 days of cruising around the city, going bowling the day before, shopping and whatever else. Now I ask would not one expect a doctor who had been working with Ebola patients in Africa to be cognizant enough of the risk to self quarantine under such circumstances? Is anyone foolish enough to believe they cannot spread it until the day obvious symptoms appear? If so I call bullcrap on that. For all is known they could be spreading it 3 or 4 days before they start bleeding and vomiting. This PC madness of allowing people back in until proven safe will kill us all. Did someone just come from infected areas especially if working with it? Then stay the hell on an island such as Ellis for a month then call us. This is what people 100 years ago were smart enough to require and something as deadly as Ebola was not loose in the world. Amazing how people in the 21st century think they are more advanced than Victorian society yet this generation is comprised of the most ignorant morons history has ever known. More so because they had the information available and chose to ignore it.

Rosco you edited while I was quoting your post in it's original form. Oh well call it yet another notice of confirmation.

http://www.infowars.com/doctor-obamas-open-border-policy-fue...

http://www.infowars.com/u-s-army-ebola-goes-airborne-once-te...

http://www.infowars.com/will-media-ignore-doctors-reporting-...

http://www.infowars.com/white-house-emergency-alert-interrup...

[Edited on 10-24-2014 by IrC]

Rosco Bodine - 23-10-2014 at 17:18

Yeah CBS and others are reporting they have confirmed ebola in NYC now.

Isn't cultural diversity and unrestricted travel grand? Ummm ....no.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-outbreak-nyc-doctor-being-...

They are activating the emergency operations center in New York now so this is serious.

[Edited on 24-10-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

plante1999 - 23-10-2014 at 18:28

If it degenerate in a apocalyptic scenario, all the prepers out there (sort of me included) will finally be able to show off if they can survive.

Amos - 23-10-2014 at 18:28

Yeah CBS and others are reporting they have confirmed ebola in NYC now.

Isn't cultural diversity and unrestricted travel grand? Ummm ....no.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-outbreak-nyc-doctor-being-...

They are activating the emergency operations center in New York now so this is serious.

[Edited on 24-10-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

Honestly, I am happier that this guy decided to go and treat ebola patients than I am upset that he brought it back to the United States. The last guy that came to the United States and had the disease took far less precaution than this man, who quarantined himself as soon as he suspected he had it, and he only infected 2 poorly trained/informed people. New York's making sure they don't half-ass anything, and as a result, everything will most likely turn out a-okay. Yes, it's great that we can be so multicultural and have free travel and still get off nearly scot-free.

Edit: Oh, and apparently Amber Vinson has already tested Ebola-free just 9 days after her diagnosis, and Nina Pham is in good condition, well on her way to recovery. I can already feel our country collapsing.

[Edited on 10-24-2014 by No Tears Only Dreams Now]

Rosco Bodine - 23-10-2014 at 18:47

When it comes to security concerns including public health threats it is sober realism and caution that is rational and prudent, not the Pollyanna principle.

Ask anyone who has survived ebola if they would agree an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The answer is going to be "affirmative".

And remember ebola is hard to catch. See it is because it is so hard to catch that the doctor who caught it anyway dresses in protective gear like this at work. Here is a recent photo of the now infected doctor all dressed up in protective gear on account of ebola being so hard to catch.

Also four of the infected doctors friends have been quarantined and hundreds of other people are attempting to be identified and contacted, all of this being done of course because ebola is so hard to catch. See, since it is so hard to catch there is really nothing to worry about, obviously.

[Edited on 24-10-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

froot - 24-10-2014 at 01:35

It's removing that gear after a shift where the risk is greatest, especially after dealing with leaky patients.

Rosco Bodine - 24-10-2014 at 06:25

We gotta admire all these volunteer workers for epidemics without borders

Amos - 24-10-2014 at 07:04

We gotta admire all these volunteer workers for epidemics without borders

Yeah, they're probably all filthy liberals, too.

Rosco Bodine - 24-10-2014 at 08:20

I'm sure the liability lawyers will sort it all out with the inevitable lawsuits.

macckone - 24-10-2014 at 09:37

Rosco> the doctors in Liberia only wish they had protective gear
like that picture has. Sierra Leon is apparently better but by
all accounts the situation in Guinea is worse from a supply
perspective.

Most people are dressed more like this:
http://simusa.org/data/sites/1/LatestNews/2014/04-03-14_Ebol...

The most dangerous time for spreading Ebola is apparently
when the vomiting and bleeding starts. Although the disease
is hard to get (ie. casual contact isn't likely to do it) working with
patients that have reached the most contagious stage has to
be scary. Anyone willing to try and help infected people is a
hero, including the two nurses in Dallas that were infected.

The doctor in NYC was quite selfish in violating 'self-quarantine'
assuming the reports are true. Keeping in mind they may not
be true. This situation is still evolving and only 3 people have been quarantined in relation to the doctor.

Rosco Bodine - 24-10-2014 at 10:54

Where deadly contagious diseases are concerned it is reasonable that risk avoidance would create a corresponding riak aversion kind of mentality that would place more emphasis on prevention. Just the economic unviability of the more risk tolerant view should tip the scales in favor of caution.

Individuals can't be relied upon to exercise good judgement and act responsibly with something like ebola where even the medical doctors are showing a kind of recklessness and irresponsiblity which has consequential dangers and/or damages for others who are not consenting to that imposition. There really is a liability associated with actions that can reasonably be identified as reckless endangerment and it involves both liability at law as a crime, as well as liability in equity as a tort. Individuals can't just weigh the risks for others and then make the decision on their own what it is that they reckon to be acceptable risks for others. That is the kind of "selfishness" that is going on here when ebola or anything like it is being trifled with as a matter left entirely in the realm of the administrative discretion of others. What they estimate may be their "power" to decide for others over the objections of others is a dispute that is headed for a reckoning, and the reckless people who aren't enough risk averse are going to get a reality check on how it's going to be. Go ahead and watch and see how this unfolds and see if the lawyers don't file the lawsuits that will put a stop to this nonsense, where defective public health policies are subject to "product liability" lawsuits just like anything else that is a dangerous and defective product, or even if it simply wrongly causes unreimbursed damages and/or even deprives others of peace of mind and happiness.

Lawyers are going to love filing all the lawsuits over damaged businesses, lost property values, emotional distress, and all the collateral damages that reach far beyond just the suffering of those who are actually infected due to the negligence and depraved indifference of those who are liable. They better have good insurance.

macckone - 24-10-2014 at 13:22

In most states you can't use the government for anything
beyond direct damages and in some state (Texas) even direct
damages are severely limited. In Texas for example damages
are limited to 100k and that applies per incident even if 20
people are killed. It also applies to anyone acting as an agent of
state county or local government. It also applies to hospitals
treating the indigent. Under federal law government employees
are immune to suit unless they violate agency rules.
The government itself is immune to suit except in cases of
gross negligence. Further lawsuits are limited to direct damages.
In Colorado hospitals themselves are basically immune to suit
but doctors are fair game. This varies a lot between states.

Chemosynthesis - 24-10-2014 at 22:36

I am really interested in what experimental treatments are being used in the U.S. cases, and when we may get enough data (Africa) to compare palliative rehydration therapy with blood transfusion, plasma antibodies, and antivirals.

gregxy - 25-10-2014 at 02:11

Anyone have an opinion on if the lamivudine works? There is one hit on pubmed of it and ebola, but I can't read the article.

Chemosynthesis - 25-10-2014 at 04:52

Anyone have an opinion on if the lamivudine works? There is one hit on pubmed of it and ebola, but I can't read the article.

There is absolutely no known mechanistic reason to expect any efficacy whatsoever. Ebola is an RNA virus, single stranded, similar to retroviruses (I mistakenly missed a "like" earlier in the thread, calling Ebolavirus a retrovirus... it is a filovirus, which can mutate similar to a retrovirus) including HIV, but it incorporates into the host genome differently.

The L protein is distinct from reverse transcriptase, which is lamivudine's target receptor in HIV and some hepatitis. There may be an off target effect in play here, but it seems highly dubious. This is why a clinical trial would be necessary to statistically convince people to start the process of radio ligand testing, purification, and/or assay development.

Antibody analysis for conserved sequences actually seems very promising from what I am reading. Some antibody regions appear conserved in all known Marburg/Ebola strains, apparently.

gregxy - 25-10-2014 at 09:16

Thanks for your response,

After more reading I see that ebola is a negative sense RNA virus.
Lamivudine is used to treat HIV and Hep-C which are positive sense RNA viruses. So the mechanism of integration into the host cell would be completely different.

Influenza is a negative sense RNA virus, so antivirals for influenza would be a better fit, but still unlikely to work since ebola and influenza are so different.

Developing an antiviral would be hard, but I guess more resistant to mutation since the enzymes that integrate the viral RNA into the cell would be more conserved than the envelope proteins.

It seems like developing vaccines these days should be almost a "cookie cutter" procedure due to the development of the sequencing and synthesis techniques. Yet there is no vaccine for HIV or Hep-C, i guess they mutate too fast? Does ebola mutate too fast to make a vaccine effective?

Looking for conserved sequences in the antibodies is really clever.

[Edited on 25-10-2014 by gregxy]

Russia

argyrium - 25-10-2014 at 09:38

add this to the mix.

http://tinyurl.com/ozn93ve

gregxy - 25-10-2014 at 11:09

I think they found the index 0 patient deep in Africa. While the Russians and probably the Americans worked with Ebola as a weapon, the outbreak seems consistent with a wild virus.

At first it seemed short sighted not to have developed a vaccine or antiviral ahead of time. However without knowing the precise strain this would be have been difficult to do.

Sarcasm:
The Haj finished on Oct 7th. If it didn't get spread there then we know the Israelis were not involved.

Chemosynthesis - 25-10-2014 at 12:09

At first it seemed short sighted not to have developed a vaccine or antiviral ahead of time. However without knowing the precise strain this would be have been difficult to do.

In addition to antigenic mutations, there is evidence that many viruses, including Ebola, interact with immune cell signaling and interfere with aspects of the human immune system, so sometimes a vaccine for a specific strain of a virus may not even be effective.

gregxy - 26-10-2014 at 11:34

For your bug-out bag:

SERM's (selective estrogen receptor modulator) have been shown to inhibit ebola mice and human cells in vito. 90% of mice survived on clomiphene. The drugs are easily available on the web as "research chemicals" Body builders use them to suppress negative effects of steroids.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955358/

The dose for mice is 60mg/Kg. Converting to a human dose based on
the body surface area model would be 350mg for a 70Kg human.
The typical dosing for the drug is 50 mg.

Its a very interesting article (by the US army). Who would have thought that a drug that effects an estrogen receptor would have anything to do with a disease like this? It also alludes to the special ebloas that have been developed (one that is fluorescent, one for mice etc) to understand how the disease works.

[Edited on 27-10-2014 by gregxy]

[Edited on 27-10-2014 by gregxy]

[Edited on 27-10-2014 by gregxy]

Rosco Bodine - 27-10-2014 at 08:04

My earlier prediction that a huge legal mess and litigation is going to be an aspect of management the public health threat presented by ebola is absolutely proving true. The lawyers have jumped into the middle of this with a tug of war now between the common sense risk averse population and security conscious leaders who are at odds with the reckless "nothin' to worry about" crowd of Pollyanna's who are the typical lying, cognitively challenged to the point of being plainly insane "liberals" who are simply in denial about the "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" aspect of sensible countermeasures to what could be their planting of the seeds for a pandemic.

In the liberal language that seeks to parse analysis of the ebola pandemic risk in terms that serve propaganda of liberal confirmation bias, the state propaganda ministries which are the main stream media propagandists are already reading their script using terminology to spin things in favor of "open borders" and favoring recklessly unrestricted personal liberties, not even subject to rational limits being imposed to protect society at large. This seems to be a truly ironic logical disconnect among that class of persons who would generally be arguing vigorously in support of whatever they think serves "the collective". I suppose that the idea of a "special class" of persons, in this case potential contagious disease carriers being correctly identified as a potential threat which must be managed accordingly with great caution, is something which the defective thinking of a liberal can't accept as a prudent exception for personal liberty that must be made in the interest of public health that is a bona fide public security exception.

There is often heard the liberal mantra that every person should be able to "do their own thing" whatever that may be so long as it isn't hurting someone else ....who cares? By extension it seems there is an absolutism about that liberal view uncomprimising even in the face of a danger that could kill people on an incalculable massive scale. The FACT of that danger can't be reconciled with the irrational liberal view, so now the proponents of that view resort to simply lying about the inherent danger as a response to the very public outcry.

The extensive medical and scientific literature about ebola has repeatedly classed ebola as a disease threat which is contagious and lethal enough to qualify it as a bioterrorism agent, an unequivocal BSL-4 containment protocol pathogen. There is not enough politically motivated quackery and propaganda whitewash to rewrite the history of what is known about ebola and make it seem okay to suddenly regard it as a lesser threat than exactly what it is.

Ebola is not a disease which is indigenous to North America, but is here only because it was imported............

like the Kudzu vine, and illegal aliens.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure......especially when there is no cure.

People too stupid to understand this are unfit for administrative and management positions of authority.

Breaking news: It seems New York may have another case of ebola in New York City at Bellevue, this time a child who is reportedly in bad shape

http://nypost.com/2014/10/27/5-year-old-boy-being-tested-for...

Now if this child tests positive, it is more than just a "breach of protocol" like the CDC would be describing for the exposure of nurses in Dallas, that would be already occurring for the family and others in the Bronx since this child was infectious before being brought to the hospital.
Since there is no effecting forecasting what persons coming into the country from a hot zone may already be infected or at what point they become infectious to others, the only countermeasure to that grave risk presented as an unknown is the use of isolation and quarantine. For any reasoning person this common sense conclusion is what is commonly known as a "no brainer".

Yet it seems to be a huge mystery and perplexity for the liberal mind. Now why would that be?

Other news shows that Italy, and reportedly Spain and Germany also, are implementing mandatory quarantine for U.S. troops returning to their bases from their relief mission in the ebola hot zones. Today in Italy, the U.S. commanding general of the ebola relief mission along with his contingent of troops, landed to a reception contingent of Italian authorities clad in full biohazard gear who met the general's aircraft and escorted the general and his troops to a quarantine facility where there will be enforced a 21 day detention for quarantine. Contrast this level of sensible caution shown by some european countries with the more reckless approach and policy of the CDC and U.S. administration, which opposes a mandatory quarantine and a travel ban. Sensible public health policies by more prudent and more cautious world leaders are not following the model of reckless abandon which seems to be more "stylish" to the liberal minds that declare what will be policy in the U.S.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-ebola-commander-...

[Edited on 27-10-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

IrC - 28-10-2014 at 05:34

http://www.infowars.com/ebola-can-survive-for-months-on-surf...

http://www.infowars.com/cdc-says-ebola-droplets-can-only-tra...

If only the sites considered conspiracy nuts are posting real, relevant to the point of being important news, then what do we call the sites that say none of this?

Rosco Bodine - 28-10-2014 at 07:48

When you look at the decontamination activities which involved hosing off buildings and parking lots with strong bleach and removing contents of residences .....furniture, clothing, personal belongings, carpeting, ect. and burning those materials .....it becomes evident that what the health authorities know about ebola and what is being told to the public as a psychological propaganda operation intended to avoid a panic.....is quite a contrasting set of different information. The government and the propaganda ministry / news media are blowing sunshine up peoples' asses about the actual danger of ebola because they are trying to prevent a panic, and trying to reduce the blow back from the people against the reckless policies of stupid administrators whose incompetency for making medical decisions for others is being showcased in an embarrassingly public way. Ebola is being brought to America by the same imbeciles who brought Obamacare, and a threat to public health is presented by each as a center stage performance of government incompetence and hubris.

IrC - 28-10-2014 at 10:40

A warned informed public will more often take steps to reduce the spread out of mere self preservation. An ignorant of the facts public will be spreading Ebola out of ignorance, lack of knowledge on how better to protect oneself and misunderstanding each specific risk-incident. In effect the government is creating the danger.

macckone - 28-10-2014 at 17:15

Irc> the first paper is misrepresented in that it say the virus can survive in fluids at reduced temperatures for up to 50 days. Ie a blood soaked sheet at 29F. The surface survival time without substantial fluid is negligible according to the paper. The basic surface survival time is related to fluid evaporation. A pool of blood will be contagious for days but a small droplet may be minutes. Oxidation also plays a role here. An oxygen free environment prolongs the virus life.

The second article isn't Ebola specific. See the first paper for survival time. Note that it is related to evaporation rate. For smaller aerosols, the droplets may travel but without sufficient hydration and rapid oxidation the virus dies. So in a sneeze the virus is fighting against travel time of the droplets. Also coughing does not provide the same spreading power as sneezing but the droplets are larger and more likely to allow the virus to survive some distance. Also note that there are no documented cases of aerosol transmission (vs droplet). Not that it can't happen it just seems rare given the data.

S.C. Wack - 28-10-2014 at 17:58

My earlier prediction that a huge legal mess and litigation is going to be an aspect of management the public health threat presented by ebola is absolutely proving true. The lawyers have jumped into the middle of this with a tug of war now between the common sense risk averse population and security conscious leaders who are at odds with the reckless "nothin' to worry about" crowd of Pollyanna's who are the typical lying, cognitively challenged to the point of being plainly insane "liberals" who are simply in denial about the "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/28/health-ebola-usa-e...

Oct 28 (Reuters) - A father sued a Connecticut elementary school on Tuesday, saying his 7-year-old daughter was discriminated against and banned from school for 21 days based on irrational fears of Ebola because she attended a wedding in Nigeria.

Stephen Opayemi filed the lawsuit in federal court in New Haven, Connecticut. He asked a judge to order the schools in Milford, Connecticut, to immediately permit his daughter to return to her third-grade class...

The Connecticut third-grader, Ikeoluwa Opayemi, traveled to and from Lagos, Nigeria, between Oct. 2 and Oct. 13, according to the lawsuit. Her father, a native of Nigeria, also went.

Jonathan Berchem, the Milford city attorney, said he had not seen the suit and could not comment on it. Elizabeth Feser, the school superintendent, did not return a call requesting comment but said in an email she had not been served with the suit.

African communities in the United States have reported an increasing amount of ostracism since the Ebola epidemic began. At least two speeches by Liberians have been canceled by U.S. universities, and a college in Texas refused admission to Nigerian students over worries about the virus...

Opayemi's suit was filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The law prohibits discrimination based on someone having a physical or mental impairment, or on the belief that someone has such an impairment.

Milford officials refused the father's offer to have both himself and his daughter screened for Ebola, the suit says.

According to the suit, a city health official said in an Oct. 15 meeting that the risk of the girl infecting anyone was minor but that she ought to be quarantined because of rumors, panic and the climate of the school...

Of course the kid will enjoy the time off and everything's going to be rainbows and sunshine all around
of course more so if the whole family was quietly euthanized instead and their house torched
we've done the math
fearfearfear

I'd prefer going back to red commie fear days when no one thought anything about kids in the back of a 60 mph pickup, much less them wearing seat belts. If that makes me liberal then apparently I'm another one of "them".

IrC - 28-10-2014 at 19:30

Quote: Originally posted by S.C. Wack

I'd prefer going back to red commie fear days when no one thought anything about kids in the back of a 60 mph pickup, much less them wearing seat belts. If that makes me liberal then apparently I'm another one of "them".

Not a liberal, just another normal 60's American, is how I grew up. Is how everyone I know over 45 grew up. Nothing wrong with that I loved those years and way of living. At least I did not say it makes you an Arkansas redneck (they grew up the same way as well).

Rosco Bodine - 29-10-2014 at 02:57

Quote: Originally posted by S.C. Wack

Those ridiculous red commie fear days were really something huh. All that arms race madness of the past century was just paranoia. Now that all us more modern and enlightened folks realize how delusional all that national security stuff of the duck and cover days were, we can surely see that all our nuclear submarines and ICBM's and other defense systems are foolish anachronisms and relics that should be decommissioned now they are recognized as useless and embarrassing monuments to an obsolete twentieth century bourgeoisie mentality. ........really, ya think?

IrC - 29-10-2014 at 06:52

After carefully thinking back to times from the 50's to the 70's, trying to really remember moments, the day, what I was thinking, and so on I conclude I do not remember much in the way of world ending fear. Sure we thought about it every so often but overall I was far less worried about the future back then. Far greater stress and concern over world events today. People used to just live and be happy. Now we have to be bombarded daily with Ebola, ISIS, PC, the rise yet again of communism here in the states, drive by shootings, flash mobs, you name it we have it here and now. None of it existed in most peoples minds back then. Quite simply a much less stressful time in history.

So what if Khrushchev would get mad drunk and aides had to keep the button from him. At least we were not bombarded 365/24/7 with hundreds of news sites telling thousands of doom and gloom stories. People did not talk amongst themselves globally and I am convinced the more they do the worse this unending crap gets. So much for the internet being a miracle of invention, more like a doom-speaking nightmare. If anything the net has given the voices of global insanity the power to unite and push their agenda in ever increasing ways.

I miss the happy go lucky quiet days of 99 red balloons, we were so much safer by far back then than we are now.

Rosco Bodine - 29-10-2014 at 10:25

What I foresee coming in the future, already arriving in the present is very disturbing. I predict that the radical fanatical delusional tribalism of blacks and muslims will end them up with a decisive reckoning like the fate of jews in WWII Germany, and the same fate may await hordes of illegal aliens and dysfunctional "immigrants" along with their liberal left enablers who are global village new world order mental defectives sharing a dystopian delusion about the never existing "brotherhood of man" that is straight from the John Lennon song Imagine. Yeah, wouldn't it be such a nice delusional musing to imagine.

But the not so minor problem is the real world never was and likely never will be that way, and the promising "formula" for achieving anything near to such an imagined uptopia of peace and altruistic harmony is certainly NOT the delusional model pitched by moral relativists or moral regressives who are liberal progressives proselytizing secular humanism. There is a failure in that model to understand that there actually are things that are real about human nature and life on earth that are actually set apart as good or evil, absolutes that are not moral abstractions, and that such things as moral values and conduct actually are associated in kind with another reality of judgment that is a heaven above and a hell below, even if those "supernatural" things are stipulated associations realized in the here and now or the hereafter. Morality is simply not an invent your own standard project where every hippie is tasked with a life mission to do their own thing, nor are consequences for error only imagined. A world already long existed before each and every one of those incorrect theorists arrived, and it is a world where a lot more things are already well established, than any one of them may "imagine". In the apt words of Shakespeare there is more to heaven and earth than any of them have ever dreamt in their imaginings.

Storm clouds are gathering. Where is the silver lining?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DjdJydl-ds

<iframe sandbox width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/4DjdJydl-ds?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

macckone - 29-10-2014 at 14:07

Latest, Maine governor apparently doesn't believe in medical tests.
The nurse who was released from quarantine in NJ after testing
negative for ebola is now threatened with quarantine in Maine.
This is definitely another case of panic and politics being anti-science.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/maine-...

Rosco Bodine - 29-10-2014 at 15:10

Preliminary tests that show negative for ebola performed too soon after exposure are inconclusive, and are repeated later because later tests may show positive due to the varying incubation period. That is exactly why the mandatory 21-42 day quarantine is an entirely sensible and prudent measure. This makes good sense just like a travel ban makes sense, at least to a reasonable person. Idiots never pass the reasonable person test, which is what makes them idiots. There should be no voluntary self-monitored quarantine because it has already been demonstrated by "health care professionals" that they are just like the same idiots who propose that option and lack the integrity and self-discipline and will to quarantine themselves so they readily lie about violating that quarantine. Liars are unworthy of being trusted because of obvious reasons. That is the way morally and/or mentally unfit untrustworthy persons behave because they either don't care, or it is their insane intent to be a danger to themselves and others, or they lack the mental competency to recognize the danger. Supervised, mandatory quarantine is the necessity, dealing with idiots who need to be treated like the idiots they are, having decisions they are unfit to make be made for them by other persons who are competent. What can be said for adults who require adult supervision because they act like stupid and reckless irresponsible children?

What should be done with "health care professionals" who violate quarantine and lie to authorities is their medical credentials should be revoked permanently (not suspended) and they should be criminally charged with gross medical malpractice / reckless endangerment / depraved indifference.
If they violate a quarantine at a detention location they should be shot dead on the spot. End of story.

[Edited on 30-10-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

macckone - 29-10-2014 at 21:57

Any early test can be inconclusive but within 72 hours the test is about 98% reliable. The nurse in question had left africa 3 days before she arrived in the US due to flight schedules. She was kept in quarantine for 4 days. No test is 100% accurate and the disease is not transmissible until a few hours of when symptoms appear. There is little doubt at this point that she is not infected. No health care professionals have said there is any possibility that she is infected. If she was 'symptomatic' as Chris Christie claimed then she would have tested positive unless there is the rare instance of a repeated false negative. I place the odds of that at about 1 in a billion.

IrC - 30-10-2014 at 05:09

macckone you spend far too much time gambling. In more than one post as it were. Especially if the odds can end other peoples lives. How about for a change we as a society decide to take zero chances with lives at stake? It is the arrogance of both the youth as well as far too many 'scientists' who think they know all there is to know, which create so much unnecessary danger to society.

Rosco Bodine - 30-10-2014 at 05:26

@macckone

If that is true it still isn't 72 hours and 98% reliability that is acceptable when weighed against the greater confidence provided by a quarantine. The entire goal is to prevent someone who has been exposed from importing the infection undetected and to get that safeguard as close to 100% reliable as possible.

The CDC spokesperson and public health officials and the aid workers themselves have ALL lied already about the dangers of ebola so there is no public confidence remaining, and that lack of confidence is being reflected by what has been conveyed by public health authorities, who have said explicitly there is an untrustworthiness as well as unknowns that are addressed only by the quarantine. Given the circumstances it is supicious that anyone would be defiant of the quarantine. Nothing I have said is related to Chris Christie or what is his information or judgment about how to handle anything.

Ebola may be just the most interesting disease ever for being made the relief mission effort of those who would accept or choose that mission as their calling, and would take upon themselves the risks that are involved. Those risks need to be compartmentalized and limited as much as possible to those who are taking the calculated risk. If those people have a problem with that reality, then they need to find a different calling that doesn't involve a shared risk with others who don't consent to the unnecessary shared risk being presented by untrustworthy people.

[Edited on 30-10-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

macckone - 30-10-2014 at 10:15

No test is 100% and ebola is not a danger to western society. HIV was pegged that way in the 90s and we are still here. These are not easy diseases to transmit. When you are a nurse and the patient is puking blood on you and you don't have adequate protection, then yes there is a serious danger of transmission. To the common person this isn't a real threat. The reality is ebola is loose in a cities of combined totals of millions of people but we have what, around 10 thousand suspected cases. The reality is the flu is much more dangerous.

It is very simple the nurse in question does not have ebola and even if she did she is not yet contagious. The suggestion here that she should have been shot is outrageous.

macckone - 30-10-2014 at 10:32

A quick reality check for the paranoid:

We have had 7 cases of ebola in the US.
3 brought in from africa on medical flights,
2 flew on commercial airlines to the US,
and two infected in dallas.

That gives a R naught of around .28.
Out of those only one has died, that gives a
death rate of 14%. Keeping in mind he was
initially refused medical care and his outcome
would have likely been better if he had not
been turned away.

This is not the epidemic that will end civilization
as we know it. In fact if we have more than
a dozen people die in the US, I would be very
surprised. Of all the things that are going to
kill americans this year, this will likely be
right up there with shark bites.

Rosco Bodine - 30-10-2014 at 10:36

You are wrong that ebola is not a danger to western society. You are also wrong that ebola is not an easy disease to transmit. Both of those assertions fly in the face of the protocols which have been long established for BOTH research and treatment involving ebola. As for HIV there have been at least hundreds of cases of HIV of undetermined unknown means of transmission where there were no risk factors identified as likely suspect for those who became infected anyway.

A person has a much better chance of surviving the flu than either ebola or HIV.
So far as the flu is concerned there should be much more concern for it also than there is enforced, and likewise for probably several other diseases as well so your argument is really going nowhere about ebola.

Neither do you or anyone else know for certain at this point that the nurse does not have ebola, only the probability is much lower, and grows still less as the time from exposure passes and she continues in good health and tests negative.

The suggestion that a person breaching quarantine should be shot is not outrageous. Neither is the suggestion that a biocontainment approved insane asylum should be built in an isolated location, or a quarantine ship where lunatics who won't abide quarantine because they are smarter than everybody else can while away the hours in self-admiration for what unappreciated heroes they are, and not cause needless waste of ammunition for sane persons who might be inclined to shoot them for walking about and mingling with crowds who likely don't want themselves put at risk for which the analysis is done by risk takers who can't tell the truth or be trusted.

gregxy - 30-10-2014 at 10:57

Last report I saw Ro for ebola in Africa was 2.4, up from 1.8. I think it went up when it entered the cities. However, they now say the rate in Liberia is dropping, they are not sure why, could be changes to burial practices or the sick stopped coming to hospitals.

Coming to the west direct from Africa should not be an issue. However if it gets started in Mexico or India....

Terrorism is a concern. A single lone-wolf could infect 10,000 if he got access to the virus and does not care about himself. This would overwhelm the US health care system.

Chemosynthesis - 30-10-2014 at 21:03

A quick reality check for the paranoid:

We have had 7 cases of ebola in the US.
3 brought in from africa on medical flights,
2 flew on commercial airlines to the US,
and two infected in dallas.

That gives a R naught of around .28.

I find a very real distinction between sample groups regarding someone who was transported in a special CDC plane directly to a clinical BSL-4 facility by personnel with prior BSL training, and someone who flew a commercial flight latent, symptomatic or prodromal. While a valid dataset, conflating the two into a rate of reproduction can give very different statistics even with large sample sizes, and is less informative for clinician or patient the more generalized the average becomes. The sample sizes we do have are small regardless of how you delineate patient/treatment groups, though the initial indications appear promising (though even if you want to take a 15% fatality rating, that is generally unheard of in a first world nation).

We don't often treat drug trial outcome data the same for all ages or both genders, nor disease targets between racial groups within biostatistics. There are very significant differences in disease prevalence, progression and toleration of treatments between groups of patients. It doesn't make sense to group the two here when our current low n, low statistical power doesn't allow very useful inferences either way, nor does it drastically change whatever conclusions someone is likely to make. Without valid statistics, there's no reason to call someone you disagree with either paranoid or apathetic, depending on what degree of caution you want to exercise.

Rosco Bodine - 31-10-2014 at 09:10

Happy Halloweeeeeeeeeeeen ! Eeeeeeek !
Trick or treat @ Typhoid Mary's

MrHomeScientist - 31-10-2014 at 09:33

How do these threads keep making it out of Whimsey?

macckone - 31-10-2014 at 09:46

The statistical sample is very small and hence unreliable but it is what it is.
If we were to take it to the extreme we could say that only african males are contagious in the US and they only infect non-white females. I think
the grouping of those that arrived both ways is valid because even in africa
the major spread of the virus is in a care setting or post death setting.

But the reality is that the medical consensus is that a person is not contagious until they are symptomatic. And the suggestion that it is ok to shoot people who are not symptomatic and have tested negative for the greater good is the very definition of paranoia.

SARS was deadly and much more contagious and yet that epidemic was not the end of civilization, nor did we quarantine travelers that were not symptomatic. And we certainly did not shoot people.

macckone - 31-10-2014 at 11:46

Maine judge refuses to issue quarantine order:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/health/us-ebola/index.html

In other news the CDC has updated its website to provide an explanation of the difference between airborne and droplet spread of the disease:

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/pdf/infections-spread-by-air-or...

Chemosynthesis - 31-10-2014 at 13:09

The statistical sample is very small and hence unreliable but it is what it is. If we were to take it to the extreme we could say that only african males are contagious in the US and they only infect non-white females. I think the grouping of those that arrived both ways is valid because even in africa the major spread of the virus is in a care setting or post death setting.

There is no mechanistic reasoning behind reducing statistics to the level of absurdity you suggest. I have actually had to publish on patient data analyses, and so I understand how important sampling is. There is no etiological reasoning to pull racial disparity in this case. There are real physical, epidemiological differences between the groups you are conflating, and no statistical significance gained from including patients who skew the numbers in favor of your views. Your conclusions may be valid, but there is no drastically powerful reason to believe so.

Only addressing the parts relevant between us, the two groupings are not that comparable because the patients transported here in isolation could have infected people in Africa before being placed in isolation on a special plane with infectious disease/Ebola specialists who are not indicative of standard medical care in the U.S. Some of the riskiest medical procedures (diagnosis via blood drawing) took place in Africa. Patients known to have Ebola have lab samples treated differently than suspected cases. Most medical personnel do not have adequate Ebola equipment nor Ebola training. Neither of these apply to the cases of confirmed patients being transported, very expensively, in isolation to the handful of special BSL-4 clinical facilities in the country staffed by personnel who were previously trained, well equipped, and fully aware of the patient history before treating.

If a patient did transmit Ebola in Africa, but was transported to the U.S. in isolation and received special care, this skews both transmission and patient outcomes in the U.S. because it is inferring that a patient known to have Ebola will be treated by specialists the same way a suspected patient in an E.R. would be a random floor nurse. It also presumes that care in the limited BSL-4 clinical facilities is equivalent to elsewhere, not distinguishing the hospital in Texas. Obviously the outcome variation and nosocomial transmission indicates that this may not be the case, and so it must be tested with valid stastics before inferring a conclusion either way. Were I invited to review a paper drawing conclusions from such low numbered, non-paired samplings, I would reject it.

As for SARS, which is another matter, strict quarantine procedures were in place all over the world, including Canada, and travel bans were undertaken in Asian countries which reduced necessity of travel bans in the U.S.... though the WHO considered international travel bans, even issuing a travel advisory against visiting/egress from Toronto (where over 500 people were placed in quarantine+isolation at one point). The case numbers were also very different, and so comparing the two is very difficult. However, estimated costs for treating Ebola are much higher than SARS, and so expense should be considered. Luckily for me, I am not in the extrapolation business, so if the WHO or CDC estimates are wrong, they get to take responsibility. Hospitals are in tenuous financial positions.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/24/business/ebola-cost-warnin...

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY...

http://bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-07/bill-for-ebola-adds-up-...

http://businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-30/treatment-for-eb...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/05/24/sars.wrap/

[Edited on 31-10-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

macckone - 31-10-2014 at 13:49

Even if we exclude the three people who were brought to the US on medical flights we have an R naught of .5 which is well below the threshold for sustained transmission. That also gives us a fatality rate of .25. I would argue that Duncan may have lived if given treatment earlier. I admit the sample size is small but it is what it is.

It certainly doesn't warrant the shooting of people as advocated by one forum member.

Chemosynthesis - 31-10-2014 at 14:21

Even if we exclude the three people who were brought to the US on medical flights we have an R naught of .5 which is well below the threshold for sustained transmission. That also gives us a fatality rate of .25. I would argue that Duncan may have lived if given treatment earlier. I admit the sample size is small but it is what it is.

It certainly doesn't warrant the shooting of people as advocated by one forum member.

The sample size is not just small, it is insignificant. If you want to convince me otherwise you need calculate the statistical power and confidence intervals. You should also state whether you believe the data to be normal or non-parametric, and preferably error in making the choice.

As for whether a patient would have lived or not, that is pretty bold if he wasn't your patient and if you don't have broad case experience to draw from.

Whether or not people get shot is more of a moral argument between you two. I try to avoid those discussions as they are irreconcilable due to grounding in subjective value, not objective fact.

Rosco Bodine - 31-10-2014 at 16:04

Ebola Truthers are hard at work trying rewrite the actual facts about ebola to better conform with the stylish new world order "global village" propaganda meant to minimize risk awareness and risk aversion policies that are common sense, and attempt to reeducate people with a politically correct "socially enlightened" view.......while scientific and medical and prudent security concerns that are entirely valid and have been known for years, can just be damned.

CDC has propagandized the story about ebola in ways consistent with a political agenda to make the U.S. the world's ebola treatment clinic whether or not U.S. citizens approve of that idea or accept the risks it involves, the decision is being made for them without their consent just like so many other things where the hubris of incompetent government is without limit.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/10/vanished-cdc-deletes...

Canada and Australia have both now enacted travel bans because it is the sensible thing to do.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ebola-canada-suspending-visa...

[Edited on 1-11-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

gregxy - 31-10-2014 at 16:45

Airborne vs droplets:

If you read the reference I posted at the start of this thread you will see that
droplets quickly evaporate to become small airborne particles.

Maccone: From the reference you gave me you will see the virus survives drying and remains viable in air for 90 minutes.

Viral load in saliva is probably low until the later stages of the disease, is seems to prefer the lining of blood vessels. But during the later stages does appear in all bodily fluids.

IrC - 31-10-2014 at 17:18

He came from an Ebola infested area actually handling an Ebola stricken lady. Then when he gets here he does not tell them he likely had Ebola which he damn well knew. You cannot expect us to believe he was unaware of why all the people were dying around him or that he did not suspect Ebola was what he had. If he would have simply on the first visit stated clearly 'hey I think I have Ebola' telling them of his contact with people dying of it do you think they would have sent him home with antibiotics. Not to mention so callously exposing Americans to the disease. He got what he deserved. I do not know which member you speak of about shooting them but that would be wrong in most circumstances. If a person was claiming they had Ebola and saying I'm going to spit on you as they approached I know what I would do. So circumstances matter in such a discussion. It must be from a prior post I missed but you did not state which member you are talking about.

I do know your constant posts stating to the effect don't worry be happy there is zero danger, are detritus worthy to sum my opinion of your statements in a mild way.

Rosco Bodine - 31-10-2014 at 17:54

It was me who said that a person defying a mandatory quarantine for ebola should be shot dead on the spot. I stand by that assertion based upon understanding and training that a quarantine is meant to be an enforced cordon for isolation, likewise for a ship violating a quarantine the proper action is to sink it, aircraft ......shoot it down. An enforced quarantine is not a discussion.

FWIW I recently talked to a retired French Foreign Legion who had duty on a military cordon detail for ebola in Liberia and that is precisely what is done for people who violate and defy quarantine ......they get shot dead on the spot.....and it never makes the news .....just like a lot worse that happens never makes the news. And for the military on location ebola is considered airborne for all practical purposes.

[Edited on 1-11-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

IrC - 31-10-2014 at 18:54

It was me who said that a person defying a mandatory quarantine for ebola should be shot dead on the spot. I stand by that assertion based upon understanding and training that a quarantine is meant to be an enforced cordon for isolation, likewise for a ship violating a quarantine the proper action is to sink it, aircraft ......shoot it down. An enforced quarantine is not a discussion.

FWIW I recently talked to a retired French Foreign Legion who had duty on a military cordon detail for ebola in Liberia and that is precisely what is done for people who violate and defy quarantine ......they get shot dead on the spot.....and it never makes the news .....just like a lot worse that happens never makes the news. And for the military on location ebola is considered airborne for all practical purposes.]

In a situation such as that it only makes common sense. Dead is dead. Whether from a maniac charging with a gun or someone who cares nothing about the death they are spreading from Ebola. I repeat dead is dead regardless of the cause and in either case you are being put in danger by another. In dire pandemic circumstances where officials have with good cause ordered a quarantine to prevent loss of innocent life they should shoot anyone defying it, they will end up infecting people unless they are stopped. I see no difference between someone choosing to kill with a disease and someone with a weapon. Whats the difference? Either case is simple self defense and we have a right to protect ourselves from anyone seeking to do us harm.

Rosco Bodine - 31-10-2014 at 20:05

There are aspects about an ebola outbreak that can turn it into a military security issue that gets priority above any humanitarian or medical mission.
That won't be on the news because it is disagreeable with some people's social conscience to a point they can't handle and shouldn't know the truth about what gets done because it is what has to be done and that is something they aren't mentally equipped to handle, so it is kept from them.

The outbreak of ebola will be contained but you can be guaranteed some of the aspects of exactly how it was contained will be classified. There will be one story in the trusted journals. And that will be the part of the story that is published.

When thousands of troops from different countries are converging in an ebola outbreak area what is their mission is to slam shut the lid on pandoras box. And that's exactly what they will do.

China just announced it is sending 500 troops that are an elite army medical unit.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-31/china-to-send-elite-ar...

I think when you have a pathogen that is identified by world authorities as a class A bioterrorism agent, the point should not be missed that there is really no operational distinction ultimately about preventing transport of that threat regardless of whether it is contained in vials in an icebox or whether it is being knowingly or unknowingly transported by a mule in their own body and therein resides the security risk which can be exploited for nefarious purpose. It is likewise the same order of security concern as if someone was carrying a nuclear bomb hidden in their household furniture ......it becomes irrelevant whether they are aware of this or not when the security concern is preventing that device from being brought into a city. Whatever is needed to abate the risk becomes justified as a practical matter where the end justifies the means......and there definitely are exceptions where the job getting done no matter how it gets done is the imperative to the exclusion of all other considerations.......and ebola fits that description whether that fact is comfortable with some persons sensibilities or not is totally irrelevant.

interesting editorial here

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/67214#.VFThs7Q_...

It wasn't much publicized that the male living partner is a nursing student at a nearby college which suspended him from attending classes for the 21 day duration of the quarantine, reenforced by the nursing student body of the nursing college declaring they would stage a student walkout if Ted trespassed on campus during that period, and would basically shut down the university until he was removed from their midst.

It wasn't much publicized either that there is a petition drive by other registered nurses seeking that her license and credentials be revoked for a demonstrated lack of professionalism and poor judgment that reflects badly on the profession.

Kaci Hickox told among other things .....Don't come into town and don't leave town.

http://wagmtv.com/state-of-maine-document-reports-kaci-hicko...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/31/report-kaci-hickoxs-roomma...

Nobel prize winning medical doctor supports quarantine as sensible and prudent

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/30/nobel-prize-winning-physic...

[Edited on 1-11-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

Rosco Bodine - 3-11-2014 at 06:00

Hypothesis: The deliberate importation of ebola, (and other diseases) by the "open borders" and "unrestricted travel" policies of the U.S. government is a calculated scheme for population reduction by means of biological warfare which is supported by a confidence ebola will disparately impact the elderly or those already living in less than perfect health, so the resultant mortality will be a population reduction producing a desirable outcome for the bottom line .....less social security payments for a reduced population of pensioners and less health care costs on account of the most burdensome demographic being dead from ebola, used as an expedient tool for removal of useless eaters who represent the greatest portion of "unfunded liabilities" that is burdensome to the budget.

There is less worry about the prospect of wholesale, genocidal scale killing perhaps eventually millions of people with an engineered pandemic if it is mostly that demographic most desirably targeted and most impacted which is most burdensome to government who will be killed. This scheme is a variant of eugenics, which is a deliberate, scientific and selective extermination. Quite an ingenious plan of budget deficit reduction. First, kill all the old and already sick people.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411680

http://americanthinker.com/articles/2014/10/understanding_ob...

http://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/2014/11/fear-mongering-n...

Chemosynthesis - 3-11-2014 at 06:39

How is that a falsifiable hypothesis?

MDR-TB would be a much better choice, in my opinion; high HIV and elderly fatality rate, airborne transmission in nursing homes and prisons, high recurrence, false positives in elderly, and a higher first line treatment complication rate of hepatoxicity in the 65+ age bracket, which is retirement age. Tuberculosis disproportionately affects the homeless who often neglect treatment. New antibiotics to fight tuberculosis are undergoing testing, but unavailable for several years.

http://m.bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/73-74/1/17.full

http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/tuberculosis/factsheets/mul...

http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/infectious_diseases...

And yes, Alex Jones and those whacky Pentagon think groups, for the right price, I consult.

Amos - 3-11-2014 at 06:55

Hey guys, anybody of you out there infected yet? No? Anyone in any of your hometowns? No? Really??? Okay, just checking.

Rosco Bodine - 3-11-2014 at 07:19

I did say ebola (and other diseases) to identify an agenda that is inherently a multipronged approach and a deliberate security breach.

I suppose that the "science" that is not skewed by political correctness could never be reconciled with analysis that could correctly identify a Machiavellian scheme for exactly what it is.........on its face.

Maybe instead of proposing this as a hypothesis it would be more fair to identify such speculation as a reasonable conclusion that may be drawn by inference. Others are free to draw their own conclusions as to which is more believable, that either [A] the apparently "senseless" policy is based upon the incompetent defective thinking of Pollyannas who truly believe their delusions or, in the alternative [B] that the decision makers know exactly what they are doing and have nefarious intent.

I vote [B]

9 dead and 50 paralyzed child victims in the U.S. of enterovirus imported from Central America by "refugee" illegal aliens transfer relocated across the U.S. over the protests of the citizen populations residing in the same locations of those outbreaks unaninously also vote [B]

Chemosynthesis - 3-11-2014 at 07:39

Quote: Originally posted by No Tears Only Dreams Now

Hey guys, anybody of you out there infected yet? No? Anyone in any of your hometowns? No? Really??? Okay, just checking.

Why check now when the CDC and WHO estimates go well into two additional months time? Doesn't add much new to discussion.

The problem with a lethal virus with non-human reservoir is that unless and until it goes the way of Smallpox or (soon) Polio, which is unlikely, there is always some threat posed to humans: the hypothetical "next time."

People in affected regions may have internet, so the rhetorical question tactic might not be the most considerate way to go in case someone reads the thread after searching for Ebola.

9 dead and 50 paralyzed child victims in the U.S. of enterovirus imported from Central America by "refugee" illegal aliens transfer relocated across the U.S. over the protests of the citizen populations residing in the same locations of those outbreaks unaninously also vote [B]

Not really a scientific claim if you can't cite it. There are other unflattering explanations that don't fall into that false dichotomy, but they aren't substantiatable in a scientific sense either.

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

Rosco Bodine - 3-11-2014 at 07:51

President Ebola and the propaganda ministry that is now the CDC are pursuing a plan to make the U.S. into a limited accomplishment model of another Sierra Leone. Ebola itself failed to get the memo in many places that mortality for a local population according to R nought should not be 100% ......so ebola not knowing any better from its viral directorate authority just proceeded to kill everyone there.

http://news.yahoo.com/leone-ebola-outbreak-catastrophic-aid-...

Rosco Bodine - 3-11-2014 at 07:58

Not really a scientific claim if you can't cite it. There are other unflattering explanations that don't fall into that false dichotomy, but they aren't substantiatable in a scientific sense either.

The scientific evidence jury is still out because the laboratories that would do the gene mapping to blow the whistle conclusively have their reserach grants at risk for publishing what would be an indictment of their patron.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/31/obamas-border-policy-fuele...

Chemosynthesis - 3-11-2014 at 08:21

The part where you ascribe motive and then speak for families of newly disabled children is what I find unscientific. Circumstantial arguments about immigration and disease can be made with science, but any more than that goes from statistics and facts to something else.

macckone - 3-11-2014 at 08:45

Closely related people in an extended family group are more likely to share immunological profiles. This means that a given population may have family groups where no one dies and family groups where everyone dies because of basic genetics. Without clean water and medical support more people will die then with medical support and proper hydration. R naught greater than one means it is likely everyone in a village can get it. Less than one means that transmission will generally cease before everyone gets it. Survival is very low without proper care. With proper care the survival rate goes up considerably. With the seven people treated in the US only one died and of course that one did not get as good of treatment as he could have. However as we see in sierra leone lack of care is very bad for survival rates. Once care takers in small villages get sick there is no one to get water or food for the sick. People then die from dehydration very quickly. In a hospital setting people almost never die from dehydration.

Chemosynthesis - 3-11-2014 at 09:02

R naught greater than one means it is likely everyone in a village can get it.

This might be pedantic, but this is not an accurate statement in actual patient populations. While it may home true, unless you specifically have a mechanistic reason to view patient population as homogenous with respect to transmission, there may be confounding variables such as genetics, diet, relative elevation/downstream or cleanliness.

R is just an average, and as long as the average transmission rate exceeds the number of immune or resistant people offsetting it, you can get misleading models extrapolated from this.

macckone - 3-11-2014 at 09:07

Not really a scientific claim if you can't cite it. There are other unflattering explanations that don't fall into that false dichotomy, but they aren't substantiatable in a scientific sense either.

There is still no actual scientific evidence as to where the current strain of Enterovirus D68 originated. Nor has a definitive link between this virus and the paralysis. Quite a few of the paralysis patients tested negative for the virus. However all of the patients that died of respiratory symptoms tested positive. One suspect is a co-infection of an as yet unidentified virus. Ie. people can get more than one virus at a time. Of course it is possible that the test for D68 is not testing properly for a mutated version in all patients. It should be noted that this virus regularly circulates in the US population so it is possible that the virus mutated in the US because no outbreaks in other countries have been identified. That isn't saying it couldn't have developed in asia or africa or latin america but right now it looks home grown.

macckone - 3-11-2014 at 09:29

R naught greater than one means it is likely everyone in a village can get it.

Yes, that is why I said can rather than will. In any given population genetics is a major factor in who gets something and who won't and more importantly in the ebola case, who lives and who dies. Actual transmission in the case of ebola is primarily (not totally) determined by blood exposure. In a small village in Sierra Leone, most people are probably related and will take care of their relatives, meaning the risk of transmission is much greater and the R naught is very high compared to a city environment where most people will avoid a sick person and where relatives may not be caring for a person. You are correct R naught is an average and it definitely differs between a city environment and a rural american environment and an african village environment. The reality is this disease attacks care takers not total strangers. That isn't saying you can't get it from a stranger but the risk is very low if you avoid people puking blood. Which again, most people avoid people puking blood unless there is a familial tie or they are health care providers.

One avenue of spread that isn't really being discussed as much in the Sierra Leone case is the funeral practices. In Liberia whole villages were infected by contact with dead people who were literally leaking ebola laden fluids. Something similar could be happening in Sierra Leone.

Rosco Bodine - 3-11-2014 at 09:50

If the enterovirus is homegrown then it is a bizarre coincidence for a sudden surge of cases that the mapped outbreak locations almost perfectly overlay with the timing and transhipment locations of illegal aliens. Substantial numbers of them did test postive for the same strain of enterovirus as did populations tested in their home countries. The data of course is not conclusive but the logical association for cause and effect is already there and this is old news. CDC is not addressing this AFAIK because there is another topic that is ebola that seems to be providing a convenient diversion. And enterovirus is not the only communicable disease that has been imported. The numbers of illegal aliens arriving sick with untreated communicable diseases could have and perhaps should have won them the designation of "medical refugees" seeking their fair share of obamacare, free medical care arranged in advance by executive order having its own standards specifying security concerns involving either health or criminal background would be waived. If you don't want disease and criminals coming into a country then you don't put out the red carpet and welcome it as an invited guest.

Chemosynthesis - 3-11-2014 at 10:30

Yes, that is why I said can rather than will.

Which doesn't take into account immunity, which is why I take issue with your phrasing. Someone immune to a strain of a disease can't get said strain, as I am sure you know. Similarly, resistant people are unlikely, not likely to get infected (relatively speaking). The R nought is a ratio or sometimes rate, like in chemical kinetics, and has no inherent bearing on the thermodynamics of a reaction, or in the case of epidemiology, total case number. Poor analogy.

While your speculation on villages in Sierra Leone seems sound, if unsubstantiated, relatively large cities are stricken as well. Cities with easy access to Red Cross and WHO body disposal teams. These confound your rationale:

http://aljazeera.com/story/2014923101918947105

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

Rosco Bodine - 3-11-2014 at 10:36

Off topic but related interest science fiction movie Elysium

One of the suggestions that makes most sense is to recruit and train the persons who have contracted and survived ebola and have developed a natural immunity, to be caregivers and burial details for the present and new ebola victims. Implement quarantines and watch the outbreak burn itself out.

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

Chemosynthesis - 3-11-2014 at 10:52

One of the suggestions that makes most sense is to recruit and train the persons who have contracted and survived ebola and have developed a natural immunity, to be caregivers and burial details for the present and new ebola victims. Implement quarantines and watch the outbreak burn itself out.

That sounds very effective, assuming the survivors don't have renal or hepatic damage. As long as their new antibodies weren't compromised by high viral titers (I thought one of the most interesting points in a paper you linked was viral load correlation to mortality), then an additional, if callous benefit would be that they could serve as indicators of immunological escape mutant strains of Ebola if an individual were accidentally infected a second time.

Rosco Bodine - 3-11-2014 at 10:54

If my rhetoric is provocative that is because it is meant to be.

An old axiom is that you can talk to a mule and get him to listen if you know the secret. First you have to smack him up side the head with a 2 by 4 to get his attention.

Chemosynthesis - 3-11-2014 at 11:17

I am questioning the appropriateness of the venue. I have been inside Whimsy, but I am under the impression that is more appropriate for a lot of the discussion in the thread, not just to single you out. I actually suspect the entire thread should be there since I don't see the connection to hobby science, but as long as it's not too much opinion or politics, I will partake.

Amos - 3-11-2014 at 11:43

President Ebola and the propaganda ministry that is now the CDC are pursuing a plan to make the U.S. into a limited accomplishment model of another Sierra Leone. Ebola itself failed to get the memo in many places that mortality for a local population according to R nought should not be 100% ......so ebola not knowing any better from its viral directorate authority just proceeded to kill everyone there.

http://news.yahoo.com/leone-ebola-outbreak-catastrophic-aid-...

Ha! 15,000 total deaths at the worst, and you say this? Sierra Leone's population isn't taking a hit (6 million), and it won't any time soon, even if it only gets worse. The outbreak is catastrophic because the country's infrastructure is beginning to dissolve, as they more or less never had one in the first place.

[Edited on 11-3-2014 by No Tears Only Dreams Now]

Rosco Bodine - 3-11-2014 at 12:03

Survivor plasma banks would be good also. There could be massive blood drives using equipment for separating the plasma with antibodies and returning the filtered platelets in saline and dextrose to the donor. The donors could be paid well and have incentive for repeated donations.

As I understand it ebola can fool the immune system temporarily so it does not trigger immediately so a strategy might be to find a dye or protein that binds with the ebola and makes it resemble something that does immediately trigger immune response. I suppose that is stating the obvious, but given the cultural environment it would seem likely there could even be a herbal remedy or dietary component that may be beneficial and could account for survivals for some and deaths for others, based on diet. There was some literature description of an estrogen related material that was protective against infection so it could be that an indigenous plant origin exists for something having a similar protective mechanism. Everyone would not seem to be equally at risk of infection for unknown reason, and not equally at risk to not survive, and what is the reason for that lesser vulnerability could be helpful to know.

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

Rosco Bodine - 3-11-2014 at 12:11

Quote: Originally posted by No Tears Only Dreams Now

Playing the devil's advocate tongue in cheek can serve a constructive purpose, but you seem to serve in earnest.

Singapore is now declaring travel restrictions, joining a long list of other countries, who are simply being rational actors.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/03/Singapo...

Another doctor dies from ebola

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/local-doctor-si...

Most recent information on the epidemic

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/inde...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6343a3.htm

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

macckone - 3-11-2014 at 15:22

The general gist of this thread is supposed to be tracking information on the ebola outbreak. I think this is a very relevant societal issue and a lot of legal action is taking place that is at odds with what most experts are recommending. The few experts on the other side could be right but I have my doubts. In any case, I see the whole thing as similar to what has happened regarding public perception of chemistry. ie. that everyone who does chemistry is somehow evil. A lot of the laws have been passed without any consideration of amateur chemist. Similarly politicians are taking action regarding ebola based on fear rather than science, such as banning flights from africa (there aren't any flights to the US from africa). And banning people from africa from travelling to the US (only a few countries have had any ebola cases).

I don't want to see this be a political thread. If it becomes too political it will have to be moved to whimsy (and I will have to get access) or some of the post will wind up in detrius, neither of which serves the purpose of keeping forum members informed.

Chemosynthesis - 3-11-2014 at 19:50

Similarly politicians are taking action regarding ebola based on fear rather than science, such as banning flights from africa (there aren't any flights to the US from africa). And banning people from africa from travelling to the US (only a few countries have had any ebola cases).

First, you must mean direct flights from West Africa, or the most afflicted regions. There are flights from the African continent to the U.S. There are also likely connecting flights that could could potentially be screened at boarding, with questionable efficacy.
http://www.asaptickets.com/cheap-flights-from-africa
http://www.skyscanner.com/transport/flights/za/us/cheapest-f...

If I take issue with Rosco attributing motive to government, I have to take issue to your attributing motive to (U.S?) politicians. Motive isn't knowable nor is it necessarily relevant to the facts of the law, which is an objective standard much more easily argued. Many other explanations than fear exist: ignorance, representing constituents' desires, placing the subjective value of American lives above foreigners', etc. To say a travel ban is not based on science isn't necessarily accurate, as segregating herd populations to prevent disease transmission is an animal medicine/ livestock epidemiological principle as I noted earlier. Here is an article where a Nobel laureate immunologist supports quarantine:http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/30/science-nobel-prize-winning-doctor-backs-christies-quarantine-plan/
Is he supporting quarantine out of fear rather than a subjective assessment of his scientific and medical background?

The appropriateness of the measure is what is suspect, rather than the basis on which it is made. To claim it's unscientific without assailing the methodology is poisoning the well, and not accurate. You know science doesn't make value calls. It works on data to establish probable fact, which can later be used to inform value judgements such as policy regarding the force continuum in maintaining a quarantine, travel restrictions, etc. The decision to implement a policy decision is not science, regardless of how colleges market their government classes now (political science). The reason I think this is probably a Whimsy thread is that I view the link to home science as very tenuous. Just because the legal system and politics can influence either doesn't mean there is a direct link between the two.

Interesting you view the thread as generally being on covering the transmission in a general sense. The way I read the thread, the OP started with a question on transmission in larger, poor cities, not necessarily to track the epidemic, nor for critiques on policies. We have CDC and WHO estimates, and not many facts.

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

Rosco Bodine - 4-11-2014 at 06:56

Maybe the Fermi paradox is easily enough explained. There were once in the distant past hundreds of advanced spacefaring extraterrestrial races in communication with earth eons ago, but ebola from earth wiped out every one of them.

Following extinction from an unforeseen existential threat it is too late to discover what you didn't know. Hindsight is only ever 20-20 when someone is left surviving to be looking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risks#Fermi...

Off topic but interesting science fiction movie The Andromeda Strain

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

gregxy - 4-11-2014 at 11:17

I grew up watching movies like Andromeda Strain and The Omega man, Planet of the Apes etc featuring post apocalyptic worlds....

Its not just the elderly that some would consider a burden. Automation has eliminated millions of jobs. The fair thing to do would be shorten working hours and distribute the labor. However many don't want to share. Fortunately birthrates are going down on their own.

Would the "powers that be" actively develop something that will kill off 70% of the population, I like to think not. Would they look the other way and let it happen, this is more likely.

jock88 - 4-11-2014 at 15:26

I wonder are there people out there who are naturally immune to ebola.

There are people who are zero % effected by aids and have been studied to try and see why etc.

Brain&Force - 4-11-2014 at 15:47

Huh, speaking of AIDS...

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/ebola-panic-looks-familia...

Chemosynthesis - 4-11-2014 at 23:01

Reads like a poorly written article to me. I see little if any actual science, and only one virologist quoted (half of what he had reported was speculation on psychology and economics). It's a little jarring for me to read an article that characterizes dissent as hysteria, an emotion, then relies on intangibles for its appeal. Intangible measurements such as psychopharmacology animal models have to rely on very controlled experiments repeatedly measuring correlated surrogate quantifiable, physical events, and I see no mimicry of that here. I think the author could have done a much better job conveying the basis of their stance. While it may turn out that a 21 day quarantine, hardly comparable to a lifetime of stigma, ends up overly cautious, portraying it as "unscientific" or "hysteria" still strikes me as horribly disingenuous; public policy is never scientific else it would be science, and there is a scientific basis for transmission during this window which may be curtailed through quarantine which has legal precedent (if questionable authority, though no one seems to care Typhoid Mary Mallon was isolated 30 years of her life in NY), and surely there are better examples of discrimination than school kid bullying.

When I was a child, bullying had no regard for facts or policy. I think all these "AIDS researchers and activists" (how many sociologists or non-scientist clinicians who were stuck as a middle author to a paper/grant for NIH funding?) would have a much stronger case for preventing or abolishing quarantine if the "decades of research" on Ebola were used in some manner to try and support their stance, which one of a subjective risk assessment rather than objective fact, as any policy decision is.

Some of those decades of research on Ebola have raised concerns amongst about aerosolization and potential airborne transmission. Is that concern somehow discriminatory and not founded on science? The CDC and independent NGOs seem to be in favor of widescale isolation/quarantine in Africa: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-will-it-take-...

In this case, the assumption is that only symptomatic cases are transmissible, but this has not been confirmed for all cases per the CDC. There is a new peer reviewed medical model of asymptomatic transmission via sneezing (link below), which makes concomitant influenza infection this holiday season a potential threat. Perhaps some statistics on the estimated likelihood of this transmission... which is is particularly disturbing given MIT's 20-foot hypothetical transmission range cited earlier... perhaps demonstrating methodological flaws or estimates on this being a minute concern would be more convincing to the public which is largely not scientifically educated.
http://wnd.com/2014/10/ebola-victims-without-symptoms-could-...

My understanding of the reasoning for quarantines is such; it is presumed fact that Ebola in this current iteration can manifest within 21 days. Quarantining an infectious disease carrier generally reduces their ability to transmit a disease. Therefore, anyone suspected of being infected with Ebola should quarantine for 21 days to demonstrate high likelihood of being non-infectious. This seems rational to me, but that doesn't make it entirely factual, encompassing, or ethical; except for factual accuracy, which I see no reason to doubt, these are either not scientific factors. While individuals may be contagious while asymptomatic, it seems accepted that anyone symptomatic is contagious, which fits known etiology of disease. Given this, in order to diagnose someone outside of quarantine, there is some potential risk that the infected person transmits Ebola unless immediately diagnosed and quarantined according to proper procedures. This is an inarguable, but possibly miniscule risk. Science doesn't answer what to do here. At some point, a person has to accept a margin of error or set a confidence interval, then expand that empirical observation into a behavioral response.

It's one thing to claim a quarantine doesn't work (if not mandatory), since a Nigerian Ebola patient contact fled quarantine and then became ill and infected others, and both Craig Spencer and Nancy Snyderman violated voluntary quarantine and apparently lied about it initially.

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/quarantin...

It's yet a different issue to claim that quarantine abroad can offset contagion risk here, which is potentially a model able extrapolation, though extrapolation is inherently risky. Currently, Ebola cases globally are exponentially increasing, despite tapering dramatically in Europe and the U.S.
http://ebolastats.com/

It's another to make an argument that the expense of quarantine is too costly to maintain, though the alternative is a completely unseen effect, completely unknown. However, scientific discourse relies on assertion of fact, statistical certainty, and methodological rigor. I still think we are lacking with regard to Ebola.

Perhaps the relatively new 21 day monitoring program for people flying in from Ebola outbreak zones will be seen as a more "scientific" compromise despite giving the state health authorities control over compliance, and operating under the same time window with volunteered contact information.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/ebola-airport-checks-...
I am not sure what would be more scientific about this federal program than a quarantine, but it is now the slow moving standard, perhaps anticipated to cost less and arguably more respectful of civil liberties if light on diagnostic requirements.

On quarantines and travel restrictions, sometimes animals shelters close to avoid spreading contagious diseases. I alluded to this in a previous post. When to do so is a value statement, not a scientific fact, and that type of judgment shouldn't be conflated with science. Applying this human beings with legal rights complicated the issue, but doesn't change that science only gives facts and not answers to decisions.

http://www.animalsheltering.org/resources/magazine/sep-oct-2...

[Edited on 5-11-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

Rosco Bodine - 5-11-2014 at 09:38

Would the "powers that be" actively develop something that will kill off 70% of the population, I like to think not. Would they look the other way and let it happen, this is more likely.

Wishful thinking is good. Pragamatic stewardship of a planet requires realistic management thinking and actions which reflect sound judgment.

Unhappily for the human race neither proposition about which you are skeptical is purely a hypothetical but that threshhold of having such technical capability which is an existential threat was already passed approximately forty years ago. One of the rational basis arguments for nuclear arms control treaties is that it is one of the more obvious global extinction category type threats, where even an unintentional misadventure ....a gross malfunction or sabotage event unleashing all that destructive arsenal.....could kill the entire planet earth ten times over.
There is no exception that Murphy's Law could not certainly include existential threats. Sometimes it happens that yes there are sufficient arsenals of various destructive agents available to get the job done of destroying an entire planet, as if it were the task of a "death star" like in Star Wars ......or something far more subtle and less foreseeable could exist which could produce the same result. Life is fragile but exists in a universe inclined to break things.

I reference again the Fermi paradox hypothesis which makes a good point about existential threats ......and the point should not be lost that those special type Black Swan Events leave no survivors to chronicle what occurred so there is no posterity then to entertain with knowledge about that history which leaves no student to study. It is not a trivial point, but is the entire point which thinkers lacking depth are missing. For there to be any legacy to benefit from anyones vast knowledge, it is necessary for a continuation and survival of the species to occur. It matters very little if you were just the smartest person ever if your vast knowledge is credited with the extinction of your species.

[Edited on 5-11-2014 by Rosco Bodine]

IrC - 6-11-2014 at 04:51

http://www.infowars.com/media-agrees-not-to-report-on-suspec...

Yet another headline on an NBC affiliate reports the number of persons being monitored for Ebola in NYC has tripled. Do they think it will go away if no one talks about it?

jock88 - 6-11-2014 at 06:50

You should never let scientific stuff get in the way of a good panic.

franklyn - 6-11-2014 at 09:13

Last count yesterday it was reported 347 people in New York are at risk from exposure and being monitored for symptoms. Even if no new cases appear , the problem of merely sequestering people at risk from exposure can be very disruptive to society in general if it chronically causes critical personnel shortages. Notice that this number although small is just the incidental consequence of a handful of people who developed disease. No actual cases or deaths have to occur for this to have an economic impact , as Rosco Bodine presciently observed a bit ago.
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=38579&...

.

Rosco Bodine - 6-11-2014 at 12:04

The conservative cost estimate is a minimum cost of 1 to 2 million dollars just for the treatment costs directly associated with one patient and that does not account for the collateral costs for consequential economic impact that have not even been tallied yet because those costs are still accruing. Ebola is a disease that is absolutely in the category health care expense that is "catastrophic cost" irregardless of the R nought or other statistical analysis about the purely medical data .....the economics are disastrous for the attendant contact tracing and sequestration of people and the retasking or shelving of persons, equipment, and real estate which must be isolated for exposure, decontamination and testing, monitoring costs, ect. .......before you even factor in the lost property values and accellerated depreciations for real estate and transportation vehicles.

Do you need an ebola friendly ambulance service or a cab or condominium?

Are you seeking treatment for your ebola but simply insist on a private room?

No problem. We specialize and offer unreasonable rates since the taxpayer picks up the bill, don't speak english? - have no insurance? - no problemo! See your ebola friendly housing, and transportation, and treatment service provider now ....Your friendly gringo witey U.S. taxpayer chump is picking up the bill.

gregxy - 6-11-2014 at 14:56

The prices of airline stocks seem unaffected.... I would think they would be a very sensitive leading indicator.

The best comparison is SARS. Ebola kills 50-70% Sars 10%, Incubation for Ebola 21 days, Sars 5 days. SARS was definitely air-born. SARS also sickened many health care providers (1 patient infected 99 in a hospital). SARS spread to HongKong, extremely dense, connected city. The growth rate is R^(T/Te). Everyone is concerned about R, but the incubation time Te has a much stronger effect than R, and Te for ebola is 4X longer. If SARS had an Ro=2, Ebola would need Ro=16 to match it. Plus with the shorter Te, there is less time to track and isolate contacts.

Considering how far it had spread, it is quite amazing that SARS was stopped. Conflicting factors might be that ebola may also be a water-born disease and ebola is easier and more effective for a terrorist to use.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 6-11-2014 at 16:27

The conservative cost estimate is a minimum cost of 1 to 2 million dollars just for the treatment costs directly associated with one patient

I believe that like I believe aspirin really does cost $250 a pill when dumped into a cup by a highly trained and qualified medtech.

macckone - 7-11-2014 at 12:08

Little known fact, because Ebola is classified as a public health emergency, your insurance doesn't have to pay.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 7-11-2014 at 14:16

Little known fact, because Ebola is classified as a public health emergency, your insurance doesn't have to pay.

Source? Health insurance? There's nothing in my policy that says "Not valid for treatment of scary diseases." They're not even allowed to restrict coverage of pre-existing conditions anymore. I'd be highly surprised if this were true.*

*in the US, anyway.

If you're talking about coverage for African Safari cancellation or whatnot, who buys that anyway?

macckone - 7-11-2014 at 14:35

It is part of the 1916 TB quarantine act.
The government pays the tab.

Did not have time to look up the exact reference.

[Edited on 7-11-2014 by macckone]

Chemosynthesis - 7-11-2014 at 20:59