As many commentators undoubtedly will say, additional cases are to be expected. However, it's a problem that both in Texas and Spain, the people infected have been health workers. Health workers that are supposedly well-protected and well-informed about Ebola specifically (at least the spanish nurse was, it's not clear in this case yet).
Now it's true that there are more bodily fluids in a hospital than outside, but given all the protection and procedures, is the difference so big that a health worker is at a much bigger risk than a person who happen to sit next to someone infected on a bus?
There are two cases as I see it. Either it's likely that other people, non-health workers, have been infected. We just don't know about it yet, or it has been decided that it's not in the public's interest to know. Or the protective measures are so bad, the disease so misunderstood or hard to protect against, that health workers effectively can't protect themselves against the risk.
Either case, it's a big problem. In the west too.
In that thread people were saying the health worker was infected before they knew Duncan had Ebola. In this thread, when it turns out that the health worker did know Duncan had Ebola, people are saying that it's obvious. Funny how these things work.
No one except mainstream US media is advocating panic. That doesn't mean it's not a serious issue that requires our attention. Saying "Ebola is overrated, more people die of X every year, don't panic ffs" doesn't add anything to the debate - it's neither controversial nor insightful.
To guide the discussion, here's a suggestion for people who disagree with me. Either argue why there are more than the two cases that I outlined, or argue for why either of the two cases aren't a problem in the coming weeks and months.
At the time you posted this, there were 1 or 3 other comments. Yet you still summarize, In this thread, when it turns out that the health worker did know Duncan had Ebola, people are saying that it's obvious.
Going one step further, none of the comments that were posted at the time you made that summary really said much about whether the worker knew that Duncan had Ebola.
> Now it's true that there are more bodily fluids in a hospital than outside, but given all the protection and procedures, is the difference so big that a health worker is at a much bigger risk than a person who happen to sit next to someone infected on a bus?
Yes, that's abolsutely true. Ebola spreads through contact with bodily fluids. Someone who not syptomatic (or in the early stages of their symptoms) does not produce much in the way of 'extra' bodily fluids, so the risk is quite small in terms of casual contacts. It's only when they become quite sick that they start produce massive amounts of infectious fluids, and that's when healthcare workers are most likely to come into contact with them. In fact, the sicker they become, the more fluids they produce, and the more care they need...
> There are two cases as I see it. Either it's likely that other people, non-health workers, have been infected. We just don't know about it yet, or it has been decided that it's not in the public's interest to know. Or the protective measures are so bad, the disease so misunderstood or hard to protect against, that health workers effectively can't protect themselves against the risk.
The third option (and the most likely one) is that people make mistakes. The protective measures work if used properly, but they have to be used properly _every time_. With half a dozen cases being treated in the US, I'm somewhat surprised we've only had one lapse leading to an infection so far. However, as long as the average number of healthcare workers infected per patient stays well below 1, we've got nothing to worry about.
It's less surprising if you factor in that the other cases were known to be Ebola before being medevacuated to one of the 4 hospitals that are set up for these sorts of diseases. Presumably they're more careful, and they had advance warning to get their acts together.
On one hand, health workers are wearing more protection - but on the other hand, they're in much more contact with their bodily fluids than a random passerby.
Even in family contacts the main vector of Ebola seems to be caregiving - you're likely not touching someone sitting next to you on a bus, much less wiping their bottom or cleaning their face from vomit.
As many commentators undoubtedly will say, additional cases are to be expected. However, it's a problem that both in Texas and Spain, the people infected have been health workers. Health workers that are supposedly well-protected and well-informed about Ebola specifically (at least the spanish nurse was, it's not clear in this case yet).
Now it's true that there are more bodily fluids in a hospital than outside, but given all the protection and procedures, is the difference so big that a health worker is at a much bigger risk than a person who happen to sit next to someone infected on a bus?
There are two cases as I see it. Either it's likely that other people, non-health workers, have been infected. We just don't know about it yet, or it has been decided that it's not in the public's interest to know. Or the protective measures are so bad, the disease so misunderstood or hard to protect against, that health workers effectively can't protect themselves against the risk.
Either case, it's a big problem. In the west too.
In that thread people were saying the health worker was infected before they knew Duncan had Ebola. In this thread, when it turns out that the health worker did know Duncan had Ebola, people are saying that it's obvious. Funny how these things work.
No one except mainstream US media is advocating panic. That doesn't mean it's not a serious issue that requires our attention. Saying "Ebola is overrated, more people die of X every year, don't panic ffs" doesn't add anything to the debate - it's neither controversial nor insightful.
To guide the discussion, here's a suggestion for people who disagree with me. Either argue why there are more than the two cases that I outlined, or argue for why either of the two cases aren't a problem in the coming weeks and months.