Of course it will -- there is no terrorism any more, after all.
Real answer: this is nothing more than security theater. The effective way to fight disease would be health care, and that's the one measure the United States will never take to fight any disease.
I'm curious why you'd undermine your point with a statement that is demonstrably false. Hyperbole doesn't do you any favors in trying to make a convincing argument. As measured by the CDC, mortality rates in the US have been on a steady downwards march more or less across the board for as long as we've been measuring them.
Making those kinds of statements just makes you seem like an angry, irrational person with an axe to grind.
The effective way to fight disease would be health care, and that's the one measure the United States will never take to fight any disease.
What are you trying to say? That the US doesn't do health research? That the US doesn't have the best medical care in the world? That we haven't yet invented the magical cure to Ebola and shipped it to West Africa? Or are you trying to politicize a virus discussion into something about insurance?
I'm loathe to get involved as I know this is a very emotive subject to you friends over the pond, but from my various (largely anecdotal) readings on the subject I fear the view may be correct.
I don't think it's unfair to say that there's a percentage of the population that is scared of incurring healthcare costs and that these people will not seek medical attention as pro-actively. With something like Ebola this is very bad news for their family, friends and community.
We have an experimental treatment, and there are questions as to why it was used on two doctors flown back from Africa, but not on the patient in Dallas.
What are you implying?
The Dallas patient was given an experimental treatment, brincidofovir. This is the same drug that is reportedly being given to the NBC cameraman who was infected. There are other experimental treatments, including ZMapp and TKM-Ebola, that have been used.
One report[1] suggested that TKM-Ebola was not given to the Dallas patient because of concerns that it could have made his condition worse, and ZMapp wasn't an option because there are no more supplies of it[2].
Furthermore, according to this article[3], "All non-human primate work done with any of the experimental treatments from any company have never extended beyond treatment four days post-infection." The Dallas patient was apparently 19 days into his infection when he presented.
There is no evidence at this point that the experimental treatment you were referring to (ZMapp) "cured" the doctor and nurse flown back from Africa. To that point, the Spanish priest who was given ZMapp died.
But access would seem to be an important dimension to any effort to stop the spread of a pandemic, since pathogens do not discriminate by insured status.
There is little to no health care that can make a difference to a person already infected with Ebola, AFAIK, IANAD. Quarantine is the best thing you can do to prevent it getting further.
Why not? Because is not perfect? Such is life. And still, I am sure those people that have received proper care and survived are grateful enough.
Or are you arguing that additional measures are needed both at the individual and at the social/political level to prevent the worst outcomes. There I agree 100%.
Yes that's exactly what I'm arguing. The commenter to whom I replied initially was arguing against the need for other measures stating that "THE" solution was healthcare.
I didn't mean to kick off an argument, I just think it is useful to keep things clear. You have a good point about healthcare alone not solving the problem.
No - thanks for correcting me - I wasn't aware that proper treatment for the side-effects of the virus had such a big impact on the mortality rate. I certainly didn't mean to argue against healthcare, just against it as a sole solution, which we all seem to be in agreement on :)
Comments
Of course it will -- there is no terrorism any more, after all.
Real answer: this is nothing more than security theater. The effective way to fight disease would be health care, and that's the one measure the United States will never take to fight any disease.
I'm curious why you'd undermine your point with a statement that is demonstrably false. Hyperbole doesn't do you any favors in trying to make a convincing argument. As measured by the CDC, mortality rates in the US have been on a steady downwards march more or less across the board for as long as we've been measuring them.
Making those kinds of statements just makes you seem like an angry, irrational person with an axe to grind.
What are you trying to say? That the US doesn't do health research? That the US doesn't have the best medical care in the world? That we haven't yet invented the magical cure to Ebola and shipped it to West Africa? Or are you trying to politicize a virus discussion into something about insurance?
I'm loathe to get involved as I know this is a very emotive subject to you friends over the pond, but from my various (largely anecdotal) readings on the subject I fear the view may be correct.
I don't think it's unfair to say that there's a percentage of the population that is scared of incurring healthcare costs and that these people will not seek medical attention as pro-actively. With something like Ebola this is very bad news for their family, friends and community.
[deleted]
What are you implying?
The Dallas patient was given an experimental treatment, brincidofovir. This is the same drug that is reportedly being given to the NBC cameraman who was infected. There are other experimental treatments, including ZMapp and TKM-Ebola, that have been used.
One report[1] suggested that TKM-Ebola was not given to the Dallas patient because of concerns that it could have made his condition worse, and ZMapp wasn't an option because there are no more supplies of it[2].
Furthermore, according to this article[3], "All non-human primate work done with any of the experimental treatments from any company have never extended beyond treatment four days post-infection." The Dallas patient was apparently 19 days into his infection when he presented.
There is no evidence at this point that the experimental treatment you were referring to (ZMapp) "cured" the doctor and nurse flown back from Africa. To that point, the Spanish priest who was given ZMapp died.
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/thomas-...
[2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/1007/Why-didn-t-Texas-Ebol...
[3] http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2014/10/08/dallas-ebo...
In what way does the US have the best medical care in the world?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthca...
*if the patient can afford it / isn't bankrupted by the cost
In this way, among others....
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596
I wonder if the study includes those who died of cancer but were never diagnosed?
But access would seem to be an important dimension to any effort to stop the spread of a pandemic, since pathogens do not discriminate by insured status.
There is little to no health care that can make a difference to a person already infected with Ebola, AFAIK, IANAD. Quarantine is the best thing you can do to prevent it getting further.
Supportive care makes a difference. It isn't a cure, but preventing dehydration at least means the infected person doesn't die of dehydration.
Exactly! 70% mortality if disease is let to follow its course, 30-40% if supportive care is provided.
I don't know guys. But anything that doubles my survival rate sounds like a big difference to me.
Back to the original point, though, a 30-40% fatality rate is still not at the point that I would consider health care alone an effective response.
Why not? Because is not perfect? Such is life. And still, I am sure those people that have received proper care and survived are grateful enough.
Or are you arguing that additional measures are needed both at the individual and at the social/political level to prevent the worst outcomes. There I agree 100%.
Yes that's exactly what I'm arguing. The commenter to whom I replied initially was arguing against the need for other measures stating that "THE" solution was healthcare.
I didn't mean to kick off an argument, I just think it is useful to keep things clear. You have a good point about healthcare alone not solving the problem.
No - thanks for correcting me - I wasn't aware that proper treatment for the side-effects of the virus had such a big impact on the mortality rate. I certainly didn't mean to argue against healthcare, just against it as a sole solution, which we all seem to be in agreement on :)
you do realize that this is exactly what the OP asserts?