If Ebola Arrives In The U.S., Stopping It May Rely On Controversial Tools

[Zorra]

Given the scope of the Ebola outbreak unfolding in Western Africa, it seems possible that a case will eventually emerge in the U.S. We could even see an isolated cluster of infections in an American city.

Considering the nature of the Ebola virus, and the medical infrastructure we have to combat its spread, the diagnosis of some cases on American soil shouldn’t be reason to panic. We have a plethora of tools and public health practices to readily combat its spread. Yet because the virus is so dangerous, and feared, its arrival in America would likely to trigger a robust response from our public health establishment.

For most Americans, it may be the first time they glimpse the tools that our government has staked out over the last decade, as preparation for public health emergencies like a pandemic flu, or even bioterrorism. Some of these authorities are wholly necessary. Others will prove controversial and worthy of closer scrutiny.

Chief among them are authority maintained by the Centers for Disease Control to quarantine Americans suspected of having a dangerous, communicable disease. In some cases, this includes the power to isolate people, and hold a healthy person against his will. The CDC’s quarantine authority has been strengthened in recent years. But we haven’t had sufficient debate about how to balance individual rights against public health in these circumstances. And when quarantine is even effective. We should revisit these issues before we find ourselves invoking these tools.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/08/12/if-ebola-arrives-in-america-some-controversial-tools-could-be-used-to-stop-it/

[longship]

1. Ebola is NOT pandemic influenza.

Not even close.

About Ebola...

1. It is not airborne or easily transmissible. In fact, only direct contact with bodily fluids transmit the disease, and not that easily.

2. The USA has a much better medical infrastructure than the African countries which are dealing with Ebola. That's why this outbreak is causing so much trouble. Plus, there are cultural issues there which interfere with containment of the infection.

3. The US CDC has been studying Ebola since its first outbreak. Hardly anybody knows more about it than the CDC. It's what they do.

If I were to have to choose between pandemic flu and Ebola coming here, I would unhesitatingly choose Ebola, as undoubtedly would the CDC. The likely difference would be tens of thousands of deaths, with the clear advantage (fewer deaths) going to Ebola.

[laundry_queen]

3. You are understating it a bit

direct contact with bodily fluids includes getting a droplet of saliva in your eye if someone sneezes. Or kissing someone who is sweaty. It's not HIV.

Secondly, we have the capacity to come up with a vaccine for pandemic flu in a relatively short amount of time. We had our test run with H1N1. Currently no proven treatment and no vaccine for Ebola.

So not as innocuous as you make it sound. No reason to panic at the moment either. I personally don't think the government would use those methods unless it got out of control, but I also don't think it would get out of control. Ebola, sadly, is the disease of poor people who lack sanitation.

[longship]

5. Here's the CDC Ebola page (for those interested)

Here: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/

And I agree that it is a big problem only because it is in Africa where there is distrust of western medicine and a multitude of cultural traditions which interfere with containment. Plus, their medical infrastructure utterly sucks.

But if Ebola makes it to these shores, it will not spread. (Actually, Ebola has been here for decades.)

[Capt. Obvious]

4. All it takes

is for some terrorist to approach someone at the CDC and say, "hey, how about I give you $1M for that vile of urine."

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/nm2atj/ebola-panic

[Zorra]

7. Did someone say that Ebola was pandemic flu?

I believe that the main idea expressed in the article is:

"What will happen if Ebola arrives in America?"

[longship]

8. The answer is, "Not much."

Very few people will die. Why? Because none of the problems in west Africa that allow Ebola to spread are extant in the USA. Plus thankfully, with care, and a proper medical infrastructure, Ebola is not easily infective.

Read about it here: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/

I would worry more about influenza which is often an airborne virus and kills tens of thousands when there's an outbreak. That's just the USA.

As Mark Crislip, (infectious disease MD) says to the respiration therapist at his hospital in the event of a flu outbreak, "That's my ventilator!" (Tongue planted firmly in cheek, as is Dr. Crislip's way.) I don't think he worries too much about Ebola. Nor should anybody here in the USA. Too much scare mongering. Too little about people who won't get the flu vaccine, which is a real problem.

[d_r]

2. its just a tool...nt

[hedgehog]

6. These measures are far more likely to be invoked over pandemic influenza

than they are ever to be for Ebola.

I don't think anyone other than the people who would impose a quarantine really knows what would be involved. I cn imagine, for example, that if a few people are sick/exposed, they may be isolated in the wing of a hospital. If more are sick/exposed, maybe school gyms come into use. At a certain point, I suspect people would be asked to remain at home and/or travel restrictions would come into play.

If there is ever a serious threat from disease, civil liberties are likely to be the last thing on anyone's mind. Personally, I would worry more about getting shot by a vigilante than getting quarantined by a health official.