Ebola | Imamother

PinkFridge

Sun, Oct 12 2014, 2:16 pm

mille wrote:

Perhaps similar to the nurse in Spain who was diagnosed with ebola recently. She reported no accidental contact with the two priests under her care, both of whom recently died of ebola. I'm not calling her a liar -- but it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility of she falsified information also. Early reports stated that she did not go to a hospital as soon as her first symptom began while she was on vacation, and you'd think that if you were recently in contact with patients with ebola, no matter how rigid your containment procedures, and you get a fever... You'd probably want to check it out.

Practically though, I'm not worried. It's a very very different medical world in the US and other first world countries compared to West Africa. We have actual hospitals, we have containment procedures, we have rigid protocols that are followed... I don't think it will spread rapidly here. We also have the added benefit that it is not a cultural norm to kiss the dead as part of a burial rite, nor are we (in general) inherently afraid of doctors and medical technology so we insist on aiding our ill in the privacy of our own home (which includes coming into contact with bodily fluids), or "stealing" them back from the make-shift hospitals because we believe the doctors are making them sick.

I think I heard that one mid west state has 1000 isolation units. Is that enough? I think it is scary.
And like Marina, I feel for the people of Africa, including fears for this country. When I davened musaf I thought of the karbanos brought on behalf of the world. (There is a saying that had the countries of the world known what benefit the Bais Hamikdash brought them they would have guarded it with their lives.) All this said, I don't know if sending our troops there is the best use of the military. What about the UN and WHO first?

Scrabble123

Sun, Oct 12 2014, 3:07 pm

To the amother who does not understand why the borders cannot simply be closed (Chickpea): Closing borders is not as easy as it sounds. First of all, we're not talking about borders of complex, modern countries. Even if the US closed its borders to say Liberia, it wouldn't mean that Nigeria or Morocco would too. It would mean that people could travel to Nigeria from Liberia, and then to the USA. It would actually force people to "lie about where they have come from" because they would have to do whatever they can to make sure no one knows their starting point of travel was Liberia or another "banned country." It would make monitoring these people more difficult, and would discourage them from answering honestly on airport questionnaires. Furthermore, if these individuals later became sick in the US, they would not run to the hospital so quickly, and even if they did, it would discourage them from being upfront about their involvement in West African countries.

Closing borders would discourage the much needed aid workers from entering West Africa for fears of not knowing if they can return home (many of these nurses and doctors do 6 week shifts). Furthermore, it could lead to civil unrest and the collapse of the already weakened infrastructure both medically and financially of these countries which would only make the outbreak worse. Monitoring and medical checkups is the most practical way to handle this. People are not contagious before they are showing symptoms, and now that airports and people are aware of the symptoms (and monitoring them) it just doesn't seem rational to close borders. We're not talking about something airborne like MERS or SARS, and the risks and dangers of closing the borders outweigh the "so-called" benefits of simply "pacifying" the public and not importing a few more cases.

Pink Fridge: The military will be able to build medical facilities which are in dire demand right now. There is not enough space for all of the sick, which leads many without hospital beds. These sick return home only to be cared for by their families and neighbors, further spreading the disease. The military is able to assemble hospitals, testing centers, and waiting rooms faster than other organizations, and they are trained in chemical and biological warfare, which makes them an appropriate choice for handling a deadly virus. They can restore order to towns, protect others from rioters, and really get a handle on the situation. The troops are necessity, especially at this point when the cases are doubling and rising at an extremely fast rate in West Africa.

chickpea_salad

Mon, Oct 13 2014, 3:47 am

I am not disagreeing with you Scrabble123, I am just trying to wrap my head around this

1) borders - Several countries bordering with those that are infected have closed their borders. I think there is a lot of opportunity for crossing borders over land but to get to the US or Canada from West Africa you will need a passport and a visa to enter the country. How many West Africans have dual citizenship to a non-infected country AND an entry visa to the US? The Dallas man entered the country on a visa that had been applied for prior to the outbreak. I know the WHO has said that closing borders doesn't work, and I believe them (and you) but I am having a hard time understanding why.

2) Aid work - Military flights would not stop, they will be increasing until the epidemic is reversed. It is more cost effective to send Aid workers via commercial airlines but I doubt it is the safest option.

3) Infrastructure - This epidemic might have already caused enough damage to destabilize the region. That is not an excuse for causing more damage to their economies, you might be right about damaging the infrastructure, but it is something to keep in mind. Land borders are already closed, preventing cross border shipments. So the question is, how much is air flight necessary for the economies of the infected countries? I don't know the answer to that. There is shipping to consider as well...but was the man who came to Dallas on a US visa fulfilling a vital role in Liberia's economy?

4) pacifying the public - this is where personal feelings get involved, I am worried about healthcare workers, my family included. Most healthcare professionals work very hard at mitigating the dangers that come with the job - proper handwashing, protective equipment ect. But the ordinary protective equipment used by an A&E doctor or nurse would not be enough to prevent transmission, and that is where an infected person is most likely to end up. Also, while the suits worn once they know it is ebola are effective, TWO nurses have been infected in the west, and western doctors have been infected whilst in wAfrica. Everyone is quick to say that there was a breach of protocol, which obviously there was, but ebola is infectious enough that it is transmitted to people who are TRAINED in Ebola protocols. You can't expect a better adherence to protocols from ordinary doctors and nurses.

[edited because I forgot to erase the quote bit]

sky

Wed, Oct 15 2014, 11:36 am

Somehow it is hard to catch.
And yet health care officials are getting it, in a hospital setting where supposedly people are meticulous about washing their hands well, and here they are wearing full protective gear. If it is so easy to catch it when just wiping ones face, or removing the protective gear in the wrong order - that is scary.

I feel horrible for those in Africa affected. I recently read a piece about a 13 year old girl in an infected city and it was so sad. She was writing about how her classmates are getting pregnant and she was told to get married because there is no food, no money, lots of orphans, no school. It is heartbreaking.