My understanding of some Ebola facts: It is difficult to transfer, not contagious until a person is clearly ill , symptomatic. The symptoms ,early on, mimic a number of other illnesses, which are not fatal. There is no cure regardless of the severity of those symptoms at the time of diagnosis.Ebola will spread faster in under developed countries because recognition and therefore isolation will be a quicker response in a more developed country , like the USA.The cure rate will be no better in the USA v Western Africa , just the quicker response to isolate the infected and prevent further spread of the disease. I get lost in the argument that leads from the symptoms being the same as many common illnesses in early stages , to the conclusion that it will be diagnosed faster in the USA , and isolated . Outside of some screening of travelers from a country with a current epidemic , how is the early diagnosis going to be made? If the incubation time is up to 21 days and the symptoms could appear to be a harmless virus , and Ebola is contagious when symptomatic , though only through contact with bodily fluids ( i.e. a sneeze) where is the easy part of the epidemic prevention in a developed nation? The CDC announcements of no risk of an Ebola outbreak in America ( I am not writing about the two patients en route to Atalanta ) seem really dependent on every person who may be infected to immediately seek medical attention and screening . I dont think people with minor virus like symptoms will seek treatment until a more dramatic symptom kicks into play.By then , dont the arguments against spread of Ebola in a developed country vanish ? Of course , I have no answers , just questions.
Posted on: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:05:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015