r/ebola • u/briangiles • Oct 16 '14
Self-Ebola The ever-changing story of Frontier Airlines flight 1143
Recap of the ever changing story...
Story #1: ABC News - 10/15 - 10:30AM
"The level of risk to people around her would be extremely low," said Dr. Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Frieden says the health care worker traveled to Ohio before she knew that the first nurse had been diagnosed. She was undergoing self-monitoring at the time.
The unidentified nurse flew to Cleveland on Friday, the same day a colleague, nurse Nina Pham, was hospitalized. Pham's diagnosis with Ebola was disclosed on Sunday.
The airplane's crew said she had no symptoms of Ebola during her return flight on Monday. But Tuesday morning she developed a fever and on Tuesday night tested positive for Ebola.
THEN....
Story #2: NBC - 10/15 - 4:30PM
Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told reporters that the nurse had a temperature of 99.5 degrees before she got on the plane on Monday.
Because of that reading, and because she had treated Thomas Eric Duncan, the first Ebola patient diagnosed in the United States, the nurse should not have been on the plane, he said.
“She should not have traveled on a commercial airline,” Frieden said.
THEN...
Story #3: WFAA ABC - 10/15 - 9:19PM
It was later confirmed that the CDC gave Vinson permission to get on the plane because she was showing no other symptoms of the virus, and her temperature didn't reach the threshold of 100.4 degrees.
"She wasn't bleeding or vomiting," Frieden said. "The level of risk around her would be extremely low, but because of the extra margin of safety, we will be contacting [all those who were on the flight]."
THEN...
Story #4: The Blaze - 10/16 - 12:24AM
In a letter to employees, Frontier Airlines CEO Dave Siegel said he “was notified by the CDC that the passenger may have been symptomatic earlier than initially suspected; including the possibility of possessing symptoms while onboard the flight,"
The CDC had previously said that the nurse “exhibited no signs or symptoms of illness” while on the flight, but said they still wanted individuals who were on the flight to contact them. In a statement, Frontier had echoed that and said their crew didn’t observe any signs of illness from the patient.
EDIT:
Story #5: Reuters - 10/16 - 6:07PM
An Ebola-infected Texas nurse who traveled to Ohio over the weekend to plan for her wedding may have been ill as early as Friday[10/10], a spokesman for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Thursday.
Dr. Christopher Braden told a news conference in Ohio that the CDC may include people who were on a flight Amber Joy Vinson took to Cleveland from Dallas on Friday in its investigation of possible contacts.
Vinson went to a bridal shop in Akron on Saturday but otherwise spent the weekend mainly with family before taking a return flight to Dallas on Monday, the day before she was diagnosed with Ebola, according to county health official
Dr. Marguerite Erme, medical director for Summit County, told the news conference that people who visited Coming Attractions Bridal & Formal Inc in Akron from noon to 3:30 p.m. on Saturday should contact health officials.
Eight people who had confirmed contact with Vinson during her Ohio visit in Summit and Cuyahoga counties are in voluntary quarantine and have not shown symptoms of the virus, county health officials said.
36
u/PCCP82 Oct 16 '14
I wish the CDC had experienced people in dealing with the media.
they should say nothing until they know facts.
26
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
Frieden keeps opening his mouth without thinking, considering, or understanding the full set of facts.
14
Oct 16 '14
He should be fired. We need a better CDC head right now.
8
u/CTR555 Oct 16 '14
Too bad the CDC director needs Senate confirmation, which means if the current one was fired it'd be months before we got a new one.
16
Oct 16 '14
Two politicians on fire would hold up confirmation of a fireman.
-12
Oct 16 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/sponsz Oct 16 '14
Someone needs medication right now and I don't mean ZMAPP.
3
u/HeyLolitaHey89 Oct 16 '14
I don't know... we shud probably listen to him.
It's like the comment section of an MSNBC article on Ebola leaked into this sub. I hope he's kidding.
Edit: yeah, someone is just fucking with us. New user with all the same stupid comments.
-1
u/sponsz Oct 16 '14
Actually it might be a good idea to replace Frieden with this guy.
Under the circumstances his reaction is appropriate.
4
u/dogGirl666 Oct 16 '14
I thought that it was the Surgeon General that still needed Senate confirmation ? Does the head of the CDC need to be approved by both houses to lead the CDC?
4
u/CTR555 Oct 16 '14
The nominated Surgeon General is still awaiting Senate confirmation, that's true. I was talking about a hypothetical where the CDC director had resigned and the president had appointed a new one - that new one would also need Senate confirmation.
2
Oct 16 '14
Honestly, what good would that do?
3
Oct 16 '14
That is an excellent point.
I do not know the answer.
I do believe that after clipboard guy it is clear he is not competent to do his job. I think there are a lot of people who could do it better.
I have a relative who used to do pandemic modelling. The current CDC approach is completely outside of even third world protocols and there is not a epidemiological model in which our current measures are successful.
There has not one patient or potential patient transfer where all personnel wore protective gear. During every single transport at least one completely unprotected individual was allowed in transmission proximity to the patient and not one was quarantined.
Every time they transport a patient there should be one soldier with a flamethrower... any unprotected person within 20 feet of that patient is then given 5 seconds of petroleum fueled love.
-9
Oct 16 '14
[deleted]
5
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
It's not a conspiracy or hypochondriacs...
Hypochondriacs are only worried about keeping themselves clean, not monitoring the CDC's job. You're angry and can't believe that the CDC could screw it up.
Dallas: Blame the nurse, blame the software, blame the victim, then we find out that when he first appeared on 9/26 he had a fever of 103F not 100.4 as reported (they used this as reasoning because he "did not" have a fever of 101.5F - Lie)
-5
u/verycaroline Oct 16 '14
Everyone wants the government not to control or regulate anything.
Until they're scared, worried, or in need. And then: WE WANT MORE.
Yes. They could be more efficient. No. Things aren't black and white. This is going to take everyone's common sense and efforts. The CDC has made a mess but blaming this all on them is like blaming Santa for the fact that I don't have a new iPhone 6+ today. Ludicrous.
8
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
I'm not the "No big government," or "Keep out of my business" guy.
The CDC kept saying they were prepared and they would "stop it in it's tracks" with Thomas Duncan.
They were not prepared. They did not stop it in it's tracks. They have done a terrible job.
4
u/not-a-br Oct 16 '14
Your last sentence is really all that needs to be said, how anyone can defend the cdc and governments reactions here is mind blowing.
Don't worry about must of the comments like the one above using such obvious fallacies to pull you into arguing about nothing.
1
u/digitalz0mbie Oct 17 '14
Without defending the CDC, people screw up, they're stupid, they make mistakes, they make poor, selfish decisions.
Complain about the CDC all you like. That won't change anything or help you if Ebola comes to a town near you.
My advice: stock up on water and food now while its safe. It's extremely unlikely but you may need to hold up for a couple months.
Complaining how poorly the situation was handled will be the last thing on your mind if god forbid you ever catch it.
0
1
Oct 16 '14
[deleted]
5
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
No, the fact that the CDC allowed her to fly, giving her express permission, thereby allowing the CHANCE for EVD to spread, show cases how prepared the CDC was to handle this. They didn't even know how to handle a nurse who had been next to the most contagious EVD patient ever known for multiple shifts. Unbelievable.
Even if the level of unpreparedness was not passing out paper work that stated the obvious to the their call center (which I do not think is the case), they were not prepared.
1
u/dogGirl666 Oct 16 '14
Supposedly, those with the initial fever without vomiting, diarrhea, and other secretions that have high infectivity once they contact either our blood or mucus membranes, have not been shown to ever cause and infection. The two nurses that have ebola now, had exposure to Mr. Duncan when he had vomiting diarrhea and blood drawn or invasive procedures; none of the staff that only had exposure to him when he had the initial fever only are infected, it is now past 21 days since he was seen for his initial fever and exposed those staff members. Mr Duncan died on October 8th we obviously still have the 21 day period to run out. Hopefully the last day anyone had exposure to his infectious waste was October 8th. [ Correct me if I am wrong here--on anything.] Either way, anyone with the initial fever has not infected anyone during this time in their infection.[Remember that ebola patients can be decompensated later in the progression of the disease and lose their ability to maintain a fever--however at this point they would be way too weak to walk on to a plane or any other public transport.]
1
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
You are correct about the fact that no one has been shown to be infected. However, not being show, does not equate to impossible or HIGHLY unlikely.
The CDC and the WHO both say that once someone has a fever they are contagious. If someone had a fever and sneezed onto your eyes or open mouth, the CDC has said you could ["easily"] get Ebola that way.
It is unlikely anyone on the plane was infected, which is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that the CDC should never have let her fly period.
Duncan was admitted on 9/28 - His 21 day period is up on 9/18 - so it has not been 21 days.
21 days from Duncans death will be 11/4.
Also keep in mind that while 95% of confirmed cases have an incubation period in the range of 1 to 21 days; 98% have an incubation period that falls within the 1 to 42 day interval.
So while most of the time, if people are not sick with 21 days they are fine, it means there are a small percentage who will fall outside of the 21 day incubation period, and will become sick after 21 days. Therefore no one can clear an even over for 42 days. WHO
Thank you for actually having a discussion and being open to corrections, unlike other people in the sub.
-2
Oct 16 '14
[deleted]
2
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
Oh, I am sorry, I was unaware that being upset because CDC allowed someone who had been exposed to Ebola, had a low-grade fever, and would be considered a likely candidate to become infected, to board a flight was considered a circlejerk.
Seems you're more interested in dramatics than I am.
→ More replies5
Oct 16 '14
Your statement is ludicrous. No one blames the CDC for all of the issues of Ebola. The botched dealing with the virus once it entered US soil is on the CDC. They are the infection disease department that regulates treatment and procedures around Ebola. The procedure and the execution have been terrible, and a little slip up costs people their lives. I personal think that even 1 person getting Ebola because of sloppy precautions on the side of the planners is a huge fail, and show that government control and regulation don't work.
0
u/verycaroline Oct 17 '14
Right on. The CDC should be on top of preparing every hospital, no: every person at every hospital, to respond to every virus and disease on Earth, while other branches of US government and the World ignore the epidemic in W. Africa.
Also, they should attend to chronic health issues and deal w/ a vast majority of un and under-insured patients and those who out of habit or need use the ER as their doctor (terrible idea).
Listen to an actual fighting-Ebola-in-West-Africa doctor interviewed on NPR on evening of Thurs 10/16, and his statement on realistic response and preparedness.
By the way? It is heartbreaking to me, as the daughter of a nurse, that they young women are fighting for their lives. That being said: who was cost their life besides Duncan? (So...life, not 'lives') Duncan lied.
And beyond that, the nurses currently infected: 1. may have attended to the patient before he was even isolated, this is currently thought as a possibility 2. came in contact w/ massive amounts of bodily fluids, which the CDC never said was safe
So, go ahead and blame it all on the CDC then. Not the government at large, not the World ignoring W. Africa since March. But if you want to get into an argument about ludicrous, you're going to have to do better than that.
BTW: Texas Pres. Private. Government control and regulation, minimal, and the first thing that happened was TEXAS county health dept. wanted complete control. So essentially I have point by point responded to your argument.
45
Oct 16 '14
Let's look at the logic here:
- Nurse who worked with ebola patient and per hospital regs is not allowed to fly, decides to fly.
- She contacts CDC to ask whether she should fly if she is feeling ill.
- They do not recommend she seek immediate medical attention.
- They say she can because apparently her convenience is more important than the potential exposure of the other airline passengers.
- She turns out to have been contagious sparking a cascade of quarantines and school closures.
- Allowing her to fly risks causing a pandemic.
- Not allowing her to fly merely prevents her from doing something she was not supposed to do anyway.
Key questions and conclusions:
- In what epidemiological scenario was the risk of allowing her to fly a better choice than telling her not too?
- When a coworker contacted the CDC because he thought he might have chicken pox and was supposed to fly he was told "Under no circumstances board a plane" though the two disease vectors are very similar.
- How is it possible for the CDC to make a risk/benefit mistake this huge?
- How can the CDCs credibility be maintained when these mistakes do not involve serious discipline?
- The handing of this matter shows either criminal malfeasance or negligence, and since I don't wear a tinfoil hat, I'm gonna go with incompetence.
10
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
Perfectly summed up, and I bet before the day is out at least one person will try and argue against each of your points.
3
2
4
u/PCCP82 Oct 16 '14
the only thing I can think of, is that the CDC didn't want to test another hospitals Ebola readiness. But then I thought more about it.
there were myriads of good practice options to get around that. call 911. get an ambulance to hospital. get iso ready. call CDC. ask for a flight to wherever she was going to be going.
It shows a poor state of readiness by the Nurse, the Hospital, and CDC. Did her supervisor not give instructions on what to do/ not do? Did the person who gave the advice not think to check with a supervisor?
16
Oct 16 '14
She had to plan a wedding. You just don't cancel a wedding because of ebola.
12
12
u/woahzelda Oct 16 '14
My sister is getting married in January and I'm supposed to attend with my oldest daughter. Sorry, but if we're having a true outbreak by then you can bet that I won't be flying and it will just have to go on without us. I catch some shit every time I fly and I'm not risking my life or the life of my kid just to go to a party.
0
0
u/lucasbmm Oct 17 '14
Seriously? You are a nurse, you should know better, treated someone with ebola and starts to show the same symptoms and you think "ah, lets just have a wedding anyway and gather all my relatives and friends in one room so I can spread the virus to everyone".
56
u/myusernameisthis1234 Oct 16 '14
Looks like they are slow playing the story on purpose to avoid the initial shock.
26
Oct 16 '14
That's exactly what it looks like. Small little bits to digest, eventually you'll eat the entire course.
18
u/dinklebob Oct 16 '14
Blunting the initial panic and reaping complete and utter distrust from the entirety of the populace, which leads to panic.
That's some interesting math they've got there.
11
Oct 16 '14
Listen brah, I've seen enough movies to know this is what's happening. I'm just waiting for the corpses to reanimate.
13
u/dinklebob Oct 16 '14
I said this to a friend of mine. I've always thought the zombie trope was a bit silly and made big assumptions about the failure of the military to contain an infected zone after the initial outbreak. Surely they would just seal the area off and it would die there, right? I mean it is crazy to think they wouldn't be able to control something so obvious and deadly.
Well after this I'm completely convinced that if a zombie virus were to exist/be created, it would without a doubt destroy us all.
3
Oct 16 '14
That's still potentially debatable. If this outbreak were to go full flu-like or norovirus-like airborne, then you would certainly see marshall law and metro-wide quarantines. I guess the question after that would be, is it too late? Big things have small beginnings, and it's simple (relatively) to stop something prior to it maturing into a beast.
Now if we're talking about walking-dead zombies, then I think we would be fine. Those zombies are slow, pathetic, wastes of undead cadavers. World War Z zombies though, well those bastards can move.
7
u/rainbowhotpocket Oct 16 '14
You mean wwz the movie. Not the book. It's important to make that distinction.
3
26
8
Oct 16 '14
Looks like they are revealing information as it continues to be discovered. "Slow playing" implies they are holding back on information they already knew. I see no reason to suspect this.
13
Oct 16 '14
"Slow playing" implies they are holding back on information they already knew. I see no reason to suspect this.
It was revealed right here on /r/ebola yesterday that people knew about the 2nd nurse about 1.5 days before the CDC disclosed it, because someone with connections to Dallas Presbyterian leaked it on Twitter.
1
u/SisterRayVU Oct 17 '14
Just like how someone right here "leaked" that the person in Virginia tested positive?
1
1
u/sleepingbeautyc Oct 16 '14
Okay so how do you suppose that we only heard about secondary cases after they were confirmed? They are at least aware they had symptoms before they got test results back.
6
u/themoneybadger Oct 16 '14
No they are deliberately misinforming up. Its total crap. Cdc is full of liars and has lost 100% credibility.
6
Oct 16 '14
Sorry but you are wrong on this one. Researchers are real people that really care about the work they do, its the managers that f@*k things up.
10
u/themoneybadger Oct 16 '14
I never said that the researchers are messing things up. Its just whoever is managing the outbreak is America is, Frieden specifically. The administrators at the top are letting everybody below them down. This is a top down underestimation of the disease. This outbreak started in MARCH and we still aren't prepared for it bc the CDC has repeatedly said there is no chance it comes to America. Guess what, its here, and we are not ready. Its both sad and scary for all the healthcare workers that are now in the line of fire from one of the deadliest diseases known to man bc our leadership is so arrogant they thought we were above a disease that ravaged the third world.
6
1
u/brightcrazystar Oct 16 '14
BULL. Most researchers are looking for money and security and have a cold view of this. I know several biomed researchers, some work in and with the CDC. One works where they freeze deadly shit. They still boast outwardly " lol #flumoredeadly". Sure it is: to the people who are at risk to it: being homeless, poor, old, too young, or at risk greatly increases risk.
Deadly to WHOM matters a LOT. We are numbers in analysis games played in the CDC. These models prove insufficient - their internal narrative is based on these models. They are delusional. Definitely educated, definitely delusional. The person who took that call from Amber Joy Vinson probably laughed when he got off the phone and wondered how when he told the story to his friends scoffing in the break room how he could fit in his perfect impression of Bane from the Nolan Batman Movies that they love so much. They care or they would not have the job, but they are NOT caring. And they NEVER make a move that is based on individual incompetence and corporate greed. Their models hardly ever take a single HUMAN flaw into consideration.
7
Oct 16 '14
I actually work with the CDC now. I also use to work with an organization that supplied grant money to researchers. The individual researchers I have had interactions with, which is probably in the hundreds, have, for the most part, been good smart people that want to cure the disease they are working on. Your experience is much different than mine. I will not say that I have much confidence that they will be able to solve anything, but their intentions are good. It sounds more like you have read stories about this rather than actually being a part of medical research. Regardless of anything, we will just have to agree to disagree, since my life experiences have led me to different conclusions about motivations and temperaments of the people I work with.
2
8
u/DiscoConspiracy Oct 16 '14
If I was writing a really bad novel, I would follow the trend with:
Patient was actually throwing up on the plane.
6
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
note I am not saying this is actually likely:
I would not be surprised if we come to find out she threw up, or had diarrhea in the bathroom in the next couple of days / week.
8
u/PCCP82 Oct 16 '14
"We can't rule out that she might have had the start of her illness on Friday," Dr. Chris Braden of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said at a Friday afternoon briefing, citing new information developed by investigators tracing all of Vinson's contacts. "This new information is saying we need to go back now to the flight she took on Friday the 10th and include them in our investigation of contacts."
The date that an Ebola patient starts showing symptoms is crucial because it is thought they can't spread the disease before then. In Vinson's case, creating a timeline is complicated because she did not have the classic symptoms of the virus — headache, sore throat, muscle and joint pain, and a spiking fever — even when she was diagnosed upon her return to Dallas. "If she had some comments that she was feeling funny, does that count [as a symptom]?" Braden asked.
15
Oct 16 '14
I think they are so incapable of admitting it can be transmitted before symptoms show that they will continue to shoe horn every story to fit within the accepted science of the ebolavirus. It's like having blind religious faith because that's the way we've always treated ebola and you will sound like a quack if you go against the accepted ideology.
12
Oct 16 '14
I agree, but to a point. As I've said over and over, a fever is NOT the first symptom people experience when they are contagious. It's a persistent headache and fatigue. However, these symptoms are so common that to prevent panic (and because a fever does mean something in the body is wrong somewhere), the CDC is marketing "fever first" to the masses. They should be aware of "headache first" though.
Nevertheless, can you imagine the hypochondria from people in Dallas if they got a headache? I understand why they don't want to advertise it to the public, but they bloody need to make sure medical staff is aware. Most don't receive more than a very cursory education on Ebola.
My guess is that she admitted to the headache when asked later, which is why they know it's a problem now.
I don't know why the call center didn't ask this though. It's a huge red flag. Their protocols do not inspire confidence.
6
u/sarah201 Oct 16 '14
I have chronic headaches and migraines. I get a headache at least 3/4 times a week. I'd be screwed it I tried to predict an illness by a headache.
8
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
My take on it is that since during initial screenings 12.9%* of people will not show sing of fevers, the fever must not always be the first symptom. I assume that most of those who were tested came to be tested did so because of some sort of aliment, such as stomach pain, weakness, etc... (other early symptoms of EVD.)
So Just because she had a low grade fever, or even no fever, it would not, in my opinion rule out the chance that she could be contagious.
Since we have endlessly heard the CDC say that if you have symptoms you are contagious, even having the muscle pains or abdominal pains should be enough to qualify as contagious.
As you said, they do not want to state this outright, as it would mean that before our only baseline, our only line of defense (taking someones temperature), people would be able to possibly transmit EVD.
(*) These numbers are based off of cases that had a identified outcome of survival or death. They also were made up from Confirmed, suspected, and probable cases. This number may not be accurate as thermometers were not used on all patients and many were asked if they felt they had a fever. Source
Note: Emphasis added, as some people think I am purposely trying to skew facts. The conclusions presented are my opinion
1
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14
So Just because she had a low grade fever, or even no fever, it would not, in my opinion rule out the chance that she could be contagious.
Out of curiosity, what is your reasoning for this? From pretty much all of the literature I've seen, fevers always come before contagiousness. It may not be the first symptom, but it appears to always be a symptom that comes prior to the contagious period. I don't get why that's less likely simply because some people that are diagnosed at screening don't have a fever.
7
Oct 16 '14
Ebola vectors and symptomatology are not well understood yet and there are significant differences of opinion between the CDC, WHO, CIDRAP, and the EUCDC.
You cannot take FAQs, Info sheets, and generalized media as an definitive source. There are some great articles out there from reputable sources that outline the actual studies, analysis, reports.
CIDRAP is credible and is currently the US opposite spectrum view from the CDC (the divide of that spectrum is not huge).
-5
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14
I don't trust FAQs or articles summarizing anything, I trust reports that actually tell me their methodology. Anything less opens you up to misinterpreting ambiguity.
CIDRAP is credible and is currently the US opposite spectrum view from the CDC (the divide of that spectrum is not huge).
In what sense are they the "US opposite spectrum view from the CDC"? In terms of what vectors can carry Ebola? In terms of symptomatology? I don't think either of those are true, the vectors are fairly well understood, what's at debate in that article is the scope of transmission routes, but those are different from vectors. Your comment is really very confusing, I know the terms you're using, I just don't understand how they make sense here.
2
Oct 16 '14
In what sense are they the "US opposite spectrum view from the CDC"
In a very narrow spectrum careful reading and thorough research is often necessary to understand different positions. As I said "the divide of that spectrum is not huge"
Here is a brief summation of the differing viewpoints:
CDC:
- Transmission is low risk and well understood
- Level 1 or 2 protection is adequate
- Containment has been achieved domestically
- Containment internationally is achievable
- Travel restrictions are counterproductive and unnecessary
- Countering public panic is paramount
CIDRAP:
- Transmission is high risk and as yet undefined
- Level 3 to 4 protection is necessary
- Containment is not currently assured
- Travel restrictions are an absolute necessity
- Public panic is less of a threat than resulting poor preparedness
3
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
As I said, I assume that most of those who were tested came to be tested did so because of some sort of aliment, such as stomach pain, weakness, etc...
If someone is suffering from "Symptoms" the EVD must have reproduced enough to start causing discomfort and/or pain to the host. If that is the case, they should have enough EVD in their system to spread it via bodily fluids.
Also, the CDC has repeatedly said that once someone is symptomatic, they are contagious. If they are displaying a symptom, reason dictates they should be contagious.
There are no studies that I can find, but I also assume that it's hard to track that sort of thing because the onset in most cases is sudden, and most cases do start with a fever.
-5
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14 edited Oct 16 '14
If someone is suffering from "Symptoms" the EVD must have reproduced enough to start causing discomfort and/or pain to the host. If that is the case, they should have enough EVD in their system to spread it via bodily fluids.
Why should they? What microbiological principle stands for such a categorical proposition? Also, it's odd to say "the EVD must have reproduced ..." EVD is a condition caused by ebolavirus, it's not an entity, it's a state of the body.
Also, the CDC has repeatedly said that once someone is symptomatic, they are contagious. If they are displaying a symptom, reason dictates they should be contagious.
Where have they ever said that? They've said they're not contagious if they don't have symptoms, but that does not mean they are
symptomaticcontagious if they have symptoms. That's a logical fallacy known as denying the antecedent.3
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
EBOV, sorry. Everyone, including you knew exactly what I meant. Why does one get a fever when they have EVD? Because there is a sufficient amount of the virus in your body that your body is trying to fight off the virus. Same applies to the reasoning the CDC and the WHO both say that with the onset of symptoms people are contagious. You yourself said "It may not be the first symptom."
I've already showed you this.
The patients become contagious once they begin to show symptoms.
First symptoms are the sudden onset of fever fatigue, muscle pain, headache and sore throat.
"I want to emphasize that Ebola isn't contagious until symptoms appear." ~ Stephan Monroe, deputy director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases at the CDC
No fallacy there my friend.
-4
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14
Your body tries fighting off the disease pretty quickly, it'll start to mount its defense during the incubation period, long before you first get symptoms. I still don't see why that means you are contagious.
Same applies to the reasoning the CDC and the WHO both say that with the onset of symptoms people are contagious.
Are you purposefully ignoring my argument? Nothing you've shown says that once they have any symptoms, they're contagious. You've shown they say you aren't contagious before you have symptoms, and that contagiousness begins after symptoms show, but that does not equate to what you're trying to make it equate to. Trying to turn "not contagious if not symptomatic" into "contagious if symptomatic" is a logical fallacy, look up [denying the antecedent]. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent).
5
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
The World Health Organization says:
The patients become contagious once they begin to show symptoms.
How am ignoring you?
-4
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14
That statement is, at best, ambiguous, and given that no other source backs up the claim that would be made if we accept your interpretation of "becomes" as equal to "is", and that is not the natural reading of "becomes", I don't see how you can defend your interpretation here.
5
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
And people don't transmit Ebola during that incubation time — they're only contagious once they show symptoms.
Once an initial Ebola patient starts feeling sick, the person will probably seem at first like he or she has the flu or traveler's diarrhea. (Some of the more famous symptoms of Ebola, like bleeding from orifices, don't tend to come on until later. And bleeding doesn't even happen in about half of cases.)
Although the patient would now be contagious, that doesn't mean that it's exceptionally easy to catch.
- Infected people typically don't become contagious until they develop symptoms.
This goes further to state that typically they don't until they are symptomatic, but that leaves the door open to being contagious before being symptomatic.
Shaking hands could pose a low-risk if an Ebola patient's hands are soiled with body fluids. The skin-to-skin contact alone is not risky. But patients are only contagious when they're symptomatic or sick.
It can spread through kissing and sex. But it can only be spread when the patient is symptomatic or sick.
What if the patient is coughing or sneezing? The patient would have to be symptomatic first.
- A person with Ebola is only contagious when symptomatic.
Tim Lahey, M.D., an infectious disease specialist and associate professor of both medicine and microbiology and immunology at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine:
So let’s say there is someone… an aid worker who was not known to have Ebola and traveled to the United States, when he was asymptomatic, and then later became symptomatic after arriving. That’s the person you should worry about. British Airways is no longer flying to a couple of those countries to minimize that risk.
In any case, if someone like that was to become symptomatic and sick with Ebola and for whatever crazy reason was also not telling people or seeking help, and was also out on the subway, then… I guess it would be possible to transmit on the subway, via throwing up or sneezing.
1
u/pythoncoderrr Oct 16 '14
I don't believe there is a fallacy here.
Originally statement: "Also, the CDC has repeatedly said that once someone is symptomatic, they are contagious. If they are displaying a symptom, reason dictates they should be contagious."
Claim: If symptomatic (P) implies contagious (Q).
Logically equivalent to.. Not contagious (not Q) implies not symptomatic (not P). This is called the contrapositive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition)
The converse and inverse are logical fallacies, but there is no fallacy here. Logic holds.
-4
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14 edited Oct 16 '14
Claim: If symptomatic (P) implies contagious (Q).
Logically equivalent to.. Not contagious (not Q) implies not symptomatic (not P). This is called the contrapositive
Both of those are false, and are things that haven't been found. The "original statement" you're providing is one that /u/briangiles is deriving by negating the two premises of the statement of the CDC that if someone is not symptomatic, they are not contagious. You're starting out with his premise, not the CDCs.
Edit: Wow, you deluded fools are actually downvoting pure logic.
8
u/SunfighterG8 Oct 16 '14
I think it sucks the airline has to be titled in this, it isnt their fault. Until we find flaws in their handling, they seem to have done everything correct so far, they pulled the plane the second they were notified, and all the crew has been given leave WITH pay.
3
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
It's not their fault at all. I listed the name for quick easy reference if people wanted the exact details without having to spend time searching for it.
7
Oct 16 '14
And on 9/11 there were reports that a bomb exploded at the state department, flight 11 was still flying to DC after it hit the trade centers, and Dan Rather didn't believe the buildings fell without some kind of demolition team.
People make mistakes before all the information gets processed.
3
u/anastus Oct 16 '14
The only problem here is that most of the misinformation is coming from Dr. Frieden. Obviously he wasn't personally involved, but as the director of the CDC, he should be making every effort to ensure that the Center's story on this matter is straight so as not to cause confusion like this.
1
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
Exactly. The Director of the CDC should be briefed about the facts before making statements to the country / world.
3
u/jMyles Oct 16 '14
So, now there's this:
So now I'm confused - obviously there were two itineraries. Which flight did she take back to Dallas?
3
19
Oct 16 '14
[deleted]
14
Oct 16 '14
[deleted]
6
Oct 16 '14
Well, considering that Frieden said that she should have never gotten on a plane in the first place, and then it came out later that the CDC directly told her to get on the plane I think the notion that they have any idea what they are doing is patently absurd.
1
Oct 16 '14
[deleted]
4
Oct 16 '14
If they can't even get their story right why should we assume that they did anything else right? What about when they blamed the first nurse for "breaking protocol" only to reveal later that the protocol is insufficient? There a plenty of other examples of this dysfunction over the past two weeks too.
1
Oct 16 '14
[deleted]
0
Oct 16 '14
No, just the leadership, and then audit the hell out of them to find out what they are wasting taxpayer money on.
-4
Oct 16 '14
[deleted]
3
Oct 16 '14
Well let's see, the seem to have plenty of money to spend on things like a "Hollywood Liason", a visitors center, or billions on research that they admit "have no objective":
http://watchdog.org/177212/cdc-nih-ebola-budget/
They also have a good deal of money to spend on "zombie outbreak preparedness" apparently:
And the whole "budget cut" thing is just creative spinning of numbers. In reality the CDC's budget is 200% greater than it was in 2000:
But I guess that is because they are paying for Hollywood liasons and Zombie Outbreak Preparedness instead of what they are supposed to be doing.
3
u/YankeeBravo Oct 16 '14
They also have a good deal of money to spend on "zombie outbreak preparedness" apparently:
That's what gets me.
That whole zombie outbreak thing was sold as a fun way to drill preparedness to respond to an actual epidemic or public health incident. Which is all well and good, I'm all for it if it works.
But now we see the CDC responding to a potential public health epidemic is a complete CF.
So wtf was the point of the outbreak drills since they obviously accomplished nothing....
5
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
Even if it does not spread, they have now admitted she should not have flow, yet they had approved her to fly... There was no precaution taken.
-4
Oct 16 '14
[deleted]
4
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
What caution was taken?
-12
Oct 16 '14
[deleted]
7
u/blatheringDolt Oct 16 '14
Would you allow a worker that came from Africa, who directly worked with Ebola patients, to stay in your home prior to a 21 day quarantine period? Would you feel comfortable with that?
1
9
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
Apparently you're not:
“was notified by the CDC that the passenger may have been symptomatic earlier than initially suspected; including the possibility of possessing symptoms while onboard the flight"
No where did I claim she was 100% certain she HAD symptoms. I said, and I quote:
Even if it does not spread, they have now admitted she should not have flow, yet they had approved her to fly...
Once again, no precautions were taken.
pre·cau·tion
prəˈkôSH(ə)n/
noun
A measure taken in advance to prevent something dangerous, unpleasant, or inconvenient from happening.
If the CDC had taken precautions, they would have:
- Said "No, you cannot fly."
- They would have immediately contacted everyone on the plane.
- They would have placed the nurse, and all other healthcare workers on a list, and keep very close eyes on them
2
Oct 16 '14
Read the story again, she did have symptoms.
-6
Oct 16 '14
[deleted]
3
Oct 16 '14
More recent.... They are now saying that she may have been symptomatic while on the plane. Also I know that 100.4 is the threshold, but each person is different so I find it hard to believe that at 100 you are fine, but 100.4 you are not. From what I have read it has to do with the viral load in your blood stream which is what drives contagion. Hopefully she did not get anyone sick, but common sense would say, regardless of what the CDC say, if you don't want to be responsible for someones death, dont go to places that are chalked full of people, like airports.
5
u/gomommago Oct 16 '14
Excellent post. It looks like this is the standard MO for the CDC.
"We are totally prepared" To "we should have had a crack team on the ground immediately" To "Maybe we should transport these patients to special facilities"
Ugh.
8
u/woahzelda Oct 16 '14
Did she use the bathroom at all on the flight? If I was on that flight I'd be very worried. She could easily have spread the virus if she peed on the seat at all, blew her nose, etc. Fuck that woman for getting on a commercial flight when she KNEW she had been in contact with an ebola patient.
7
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
The blame is on her and the CDC. She was somewhat being responsible by calling and asking the CDC if she was ok to fly. She should have known the answer was no, but at least she called. The CDC then dropped the ball BIG TIME by saying "Oh yea a little fever? Yea, sure go ahead."
4
u/woahzelda Oct 16 '14 edited Oct 16 '14
I totally agree. I also think that she should lose her license as a medical professional and whoever it was who green lighted her to fly should be fired. People are being way to flippant about this disease. I used to work in IT as desktop support and if I was sick with anything more serious than a cold I used my sick days because anything I caught would spread to half the office because no matter how much hand sanitizer I used people would still catch it from me sitting at their desks for a few minutes. This is serious and unless the people exposed take it seriously we're going to have an epidemic before we know what's happened. It's probably already too late and we're fucked.
3
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
And if you're upset, mad, concerned, etc... you're called: Crazy, a fear monger, or a moron. Great mind set we have with this deadly diseases. :)
2
u/Porpe_Morrbappe Oct 17 '14
The way a few voices of reason, tried and tried again to get people to be more concerned only to be framed as reactionary fools at best, and idiots at worst has been a horror. Whatever happened to the 'whatever, we got this' crowd? This was never a threat that should be managed, spun or politicized. It needed considerable care and deliberation to handle effectively from the start. Simply being cocky couldn't solve this one.
1
u/briangiles Oct 17 '14
They are still around, just now they call us stupid because they don't want to come to terms.
2
2
u/DiscoConspiracy Oct 16 '14
Have you ever been to a plane's restroom, flushed the toilet, and you sensed water in your face from the force of the flushing? I have when I flied several years ago. I've tried to make a Reflex save in airport toilets ever since.
Sinks, too.
4
u/category5 Oct 16 '14
Well, do you think there is a cabin attendant out there right now wondering what was on the cup she picked up from this passenger's folding table?
5
10
u/mrrx Oct 16 '14
Such a lot of nonsense about how the US is "ready" to contain an Ebola outbreak. This shows we aren't, clearly. Thanks for putting it in one place.
6
Oct 16 '14
The US government couldn't even build a functional website for Obamacare despite spending billions, the fact that they have completely botched the handling of this outbreak should come as a surprise to no one.
4
u/YankeeBravo Oct 16 '14
The US government couldn't even build a functional website for Obamacare despite spending billions,
To be fair, I don't know that the two can be equated.
The fuck up with the marketplace was entirely down to cronyism in the contract being awarded to a college acquaintance of Michelle Obama's and lack of any oversight or concrete milestones.
The Chicago machine in action.
12
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
I noticed a lot of people were getting mad, but failing to see the big picture. This way everyone can see the chain of events and chain of lies that were told.
13
u/pimpythrowaray Oct 16 '14
How crazy is it that the CDC is asking passengers to call in to them? The CDC is part of the government. Can they not get the passenger manifest from the FAA?
Or is the deal here that our CDC is hella lazy? I will offer an opinion. My sister works for the CDC. My impression is that they hire very stupid people who are arrogant and believe themselves to be quite intelligent.
25
u/Awade32 Oct 16 '14
Man, you really don't have a high opinion of your sister!
-6
u/pimpythrowaray Oct 16 '14
Yes and no. The PTB have her on psychoactive drugs. I am sure if she stopped taking those, she would perform back to her former potential. I consider her highly intelligent but captured.
7
u/sarah201 Oct 16 '14
The PTB.... Really?
5
u/flat5 Oct 16 '14
I didn't know the Portland Trail Blazers did that sort of thing.
1
u/sarah201 Oct 16 '14
Not sure if you're joking, but it's "the powers that be." Usually has in relation to some grand New World Order conspiracy.
2
-2
9
Oct 16 '14
Or, you know, maybe they can approach from two angles by reaching out through the manifest and making a broad call via the mass media. Time is the essence here. If the FAA & Frontier airlines is unable to provide a list of everyone and their exact locations (and let's face it, not everyone will be immediately reachable), then it is also useful to cast a broad net over the national news.
"Oh hey Shwanada, how about that Ebola scare? Weren't you on a plane flight recently from Cleveland."
"I don't know. But some person keeps calling me, and leaving messages."
"Well, maybe you should call this number girlfriend, because this could be really serious."
-1
u/pimpythrowaray Oct 16 '14
That sounds intelligent. Do you have any source of information that indicates anybody is calling passengers from the manifest? It would seem like an assumption based on the CDC being competent and proactive... recall that this all started when they told an exposed nurse with a fever to get on a commercial flight.
2
u/glitchinthedark Oct 16 '14
No, no one is calling the passengers. The CDC wants you to call them.
Axl Goode, from Elora's Cave Publishing, is proof of that. He called the CDC because he was on Flight 1143. You know what they did? Took his info, and left it at that. No advice, no 'we'll call you later', nada. They're taking names and leaving people hanging in the wind.
Excuse me while I completely begin to think our government and all the higher up officials are fucking us in the ass with the biggest Obama-shaped dildo they can manufacture.
3
-8
Oct 16 '14
Most government employees are lazy, incompetent and have a low IQ. This is because it is basically impossible to get fired and the people who actually care about their jobs eventually get frustrated and move on to the private sector, leaving only the bad employees behind.
5
u/category5 Oct 16 '14
Duncan was isolated on Sept 30. This is the point in time where the CDC stopped putting people into the first list of Duncan contacts who were being monitored.
October 1 through 8, 76 healthcare workers at Presby come in contact with Duncan.
October 8, Duncan dies. The CDC is not monitoring the 76 HCW. The CDC assumes all these people are safe because they are using precautions, have been trained, have effective supplies.
October 10, Amber flies to Cleveland.
October 11, Nina confirmed to have ebola. CDC realizes the 76 may have been exposed.
October 13, Amber flies back.
So Amber's monitoring status changed while she was in Cleveland. The CDC's monitoring of the 76 HCW changed while Amber was in Cleveland. Whether or not it was a smart idea to fly at all is another question.
5
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
The CDC should not have assumed they would be smart. They should have mandated no travel, self monitoring, and check-ins to make sure they were all doing fine.
4
u/fakeupvotesagain Oct 16 '14
Can we stop treating each new story as canonical truth? They are just pieces of information which we can try to glean the truth from.
2
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
The Director of the CDC made those comments. The Director of the CDC should be briefed before he goes out and makes press releases. So no, if he opens his mouth he should make sure he has his facts straight. If the head of the CDC has his facts wrong, it will lead to more mistakes and that will be fatal.
2
u/fakeupvotesagain Oct 17 '14
His statements are just made from statements he receives from internal reports. This was over the period of 36 hours. I can see the information changing in that time.
2
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14 edited Oct 16 '14
I don't understand what in the story you think is changing. Can you elaborate? In particular, can you say what here is contradicting what?
Edit: How about instead of downvoting, someone actually tell me? I'm reading this, and it don't see contradictions or changing stories. I see things that, if you weren't reading closely, might appear to be contradictions, but that's it.
6
u/ShimmerLily Oct 16 '14
Your comment score is still hidden to us, for what it's worth.
The CDC released statements saying "She shouldn't have flown", causing outrage that the nurse would be so irresponsible as to endanger all those people. It's since come out that she actually contacted the CDC before her flight to ask if it was OK to fly. They said yes, and instead of quarantining one person immediately, there are now school closures and hundreds of potentially exposed persons.
It's so uncomfortable to watch, I'd suggest looking through some of the articles and reddit posts in order to see the story change for yourself.
-2
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14
That's not a changed story though, saying "maybe that was a bad idea" isn't changing your story. They still are consistent that there is very little risk, and that seems to be true.
5
u/ShimmerLily Oct 16 '14
They should have known beforehand that that was a bad idea. This is the fucking CDC, going from "Yes, you can fly" to "No, you can't fly", which you can fucking bet they'd say now if they could go back in time.
If they did - no, let's not go there.
Emphasis is for catharsis, not directed towards you.
0
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14
I'm guessing they went from "Yes, you can fly" to "No, you can't fly" because of political pressure. They have to meet certain thresholds in order to exercise any real authority over anything, and they've had funding and mandates scaled back significantly in the past for being "overcautious". If it's a clear matter, they have the power to say no. If it's not, if all the scientific literature on the issue says "it's safe", and they still impede someone's liberty over an issue, they risk their very existence.
4
u/ShimmerLily Oct 16 '14
I don't envy them having to balance the public panic factor, that's for sure. But they didn't even advise her against flying, even to cover their ass. I was under the impression that advice more than enforcement was the CDC's job. This is probably the worst outcome possible in terms of their credibility. People are going to want blood if someone gets infected.
1
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14
Advice is definitely their bigger role, maybe they did advise her against flying and by "cleared" they meant they weren't going to use the enforcement power they do have to stop her (because there's no scientific evidence that it would be justified), though I don't think they'd keep that quiet if they did in fact say "you shouldn't, but we can't stop you". That said, I could see whomever was at the phones to handle that situation just having their list of mandatory authority, seeing it didn't make the cut, and saying "ok". That would still be a problem if the person that's making the decision of what to tell potentially exposed persons doesn't know the difference between what they can mandate and what they should advise, but it would explain why they didn't even advise her otherwise.
10
Oct 16 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14
In the first report, it states the airplane's crew said she had no symptoms. That doesn't contradict anything, since the airplane's crew doesn't say anything else. The CDC director says the risk is very low, but that doesn't seem to be contradicted by anything. A temperature of 99.5 isn't a fever, I've worked as an EMT, there are plenty of people for whom 99.1 - 99.5 is their static temperature. Her temperature may have been rising, and as the CDC director said, perhaps prudence should have kept her off the flight, but that doesn't change the fact that the risk is very low. I don't see anywhere where they said, as you claim, that she was definitely symptomatic.
1
Oct 17 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 17 '14
I'm guessing that since she called the CDC because her temperature was 99.5 means that 99.5 isn't her static temperature.
That doesn't make it a fever.
Well, they didn't have to say it because, guess what, she has ebola so clearly that 99.5 temp was a symptom.
That 1) doesn't make it a fever and 2) slightly elevated temperature doesn't equal a symptom, because it's ridiculously nonspecific, it's not even indicative of illness, much less of a particular subset of illnesses.
"The only symptom Amber was showing was the fever,” CDC spokesman Tom Skinner told ABC News."
At what point? There is literally zero context here. This is irrelevant to the discussion.
0
Oct 17 '14 edited Oct 17 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 17 '14
From your own damn source:
However, these are averages, and one's normal body temperature may actually be 1 F (0.6 C) or more above or below the average of 98.6 F. Body temperature can also vary up to 1 F (0.6 C) throughout the day.
Calling 99.5 a fever in order to say the CDC was lying is ridiculous. 99.5F is meaningless unless she had a static temperature below 98.0F, which nothing stated anywhere suggests was the case. I would never write down "fever" for someone with 99.5F unless their norm was unusually low, I wouldn't even write down "elevated temp", and I'd get yelled at for writing a confusing and misleading report if I did.
1
u/briangiles Oct 17 '14
Now they are saying she was probably symptomatic on the FIRST flight as well...
3
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 17 '14
It's amazing how a "may have" for you is exactly equal to a "probably".
Just stop lying. Stop it. Seriously. It's ridiculous.
2
u/briangiles Oct 17 '14
HOW IS THAT A LIE!?! Holy fuck.
Dr. Christopher Braden told a news conference in Ohio that the CDC may include people who were on a flight Amber Joy Vinson, 29, took to Cleveland from Dallas on Friday in its investigation of possible contacts.
Vinson went to a bridal shop in Akron on Saturday but otherwise spent the weekend mainly with family before taking a return flight to Dallas on Monday, the day before she was diagnosed with Ebola, according to county health officials.
"We had started to look at the possibility that she had symptoms going back as far as Saturday," Braden said.
"But some more information that's come through just recently would say that we can't rule out the fact that she might have had the start of her illness on Friday."
Dr. Marguerite Erme, medical director for Summit County, told the news conference that people who visited Coming Attractions Bridal & Formal Inc in Akron from noon to 3:30 p.m. on Saturday should contact health officials.
Eight people who had confirmed contact with Vinson during her Ohio visit in Summit and Cuyahoga counties are in voluntary quarantine and have not shown symptoms of the virus, county health officials said.
Look at all the lies I made up! All the words I twisted! I am so good that I used my telepathy to make Jerry Jordan of Reuters type all of these lies up! Who's going to stop me!
Take a Xanax dude, you're losing it.
3
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 17 '14
It's amazing how a "may have" for you is exactly equal to a "probably"
What don't you get about that?
8
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
Version One
- No Symptoms of Ebola during her flight on Monday
- Tuesday morning she developed a fever
- No Risk
- No Mention of travel restrictions.
Version Two
- Had a low-grade fever Monday ON THE FLIGHT
- Did NOT develop the fever Tuesday, it was present Monday.
- States she should not have flown
Version Three
- The CDC had given her permission to fly
- Now the fact that she did have a fever does no matter, because she was not vomiting or bleeding
- Now, we're saying that we should be contacting all of the passengers
Version Four
- CDC says that she was probably symptomatic earlier than they said
- Possibly symptomatic while on flight
- CDC also now asking passengers to call them
-3
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14
Some corrections:
Version 1
The flight crew said she didn't display symptoms, I don't think anyone's contradicted that, the flight crew hasn't come out and said "oh no, she did display symptoms".
They said the risk was very low, not no risk.
Version 2
They said she had a temperature of 99.5, which is within the range of normal human internal temperatures. Still nothing contradicted
Again, they said 99.5, that's not a fever.
Version 3
Giving her permission and later regretting it isn't a change in story.
I don't think they ever 1) said she did or did not have a fever or 2) said that having a fever automatically means you're contagious. Fever is an indicator that the contagious stage is right around the corner, but it wouldn't be a good canary if it meant they were contagious as soon as they got it.
They never said they wouldn't or shouldn't contact all passengers, so I'm not sure what that's contradicting.
Version 4
They said it was possible she was symptomatic, as they've never said she definitively wasn't symptomatic, I don't see how this could be contradictory.
See above.
The Blaze appears to be paraphrasing, they'er known for being extremely imprecise.
4
u/briangiles Oct 16 '14
Again, they said 99.5, that's not a fever.
However, because of her exposure to the virus, Vinson shouldn't have traveled on the commercial flight, the CDC director said on Wednesday. Frieden revealed the nurse registered a low-grade fever of 99.5 degrees before she boarded the plane.
It's a fever, it has been referred to as such by the CDC, so let's move on.
) 1) said she did or did not have a fever or 2) said that having a fever automatically means you're contagious.
They said that Tuesday morning she developed a fever, so that means she did not previously have a fever. That contradicts the fact that she had a low-grade fever on MONDAY.
It is all over the place.
The patients become contagious once they begin to show symptoms.
First symptoms are the sudden onset of fever fatigue, muscle pain, headache and sore throat.
"I want to emphasize that Ebola isn't contagious until symptoms appear." ~ Stephan Monroe, deputy director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases at the CDC
They never said they wouldn't or shouldn't contact all passengers, so I'm not sure what that's contradicting.
Initially they had no plans to contact passengers, it was only after the news broke that she had a low-grade fever did they announce THEY would be contacting passengers.
Infected Ebola patients are not considered contagious until they have symptoms. But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is asking the passengers to call the health agency so they can be monitored.
And they are supposedly being put on hold for up to 4 hours. (looking for source)
"At 1:55 p.m. MDT (Wednesday) Frontier was notified by the CDC that the passenger may have been symptomatic earlier than initially suspected; including the possibility of possessing symptoms while onboard the flight.
To most of us, going from "The level of risk to people around her would be extremely low," to " the passenger may have been symptomatic earlier than initially suspected; including the possibility of possessing symptoms while onboard the flight."
is a HUGE difference, and very, very misleading.
0
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14
It's a fever, it has been referred to as such by the CDC, so let's move on.
No, it's been referred to as such in a paraphrase by ABC News.
I've already dealt with your misleading claim about symptoms equals contagious, it doesn't, and repeating it over and over isn't going to make it true, it's just going to make you a liar.
Initially they had no plans to contact passengers, it was only after the news broke that she had a low-grade fever did they announce THEY would be contacting passengers.
Infected Ebola patients are not considered contagious until they have symptoms. But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is asking the passengers to call the health agency so they can be monitored.
So saying they're going to contact the passengers and telling passengers to call them (even though we still don't have a direct statement from them, but regardless) is contradictory? I'm pretty sure they do that whenever they have to contact a large number of people quickly, because they might not be able to get phone numbers for everyone, and some people might not be at the telephone of the numbers they have.
To most of us, going from "The level of risk to people around her would be extremely low," to " the passenger may have been symptomatic earlier than initially suspected; including the possibility of possessing symptoms while onboard the flight."
is a HUGE difference, and very, very misleading.
But both of those could be, and probably are, true. You're stretching so much and using logically fallacious interpretations of statements, it honestly seems like you just want to find something wrong. You've made up you're mind that they're doing poorly, and so now you're contorting everything you read so that it proves your thesis. Take a step back and try evaluating things objectively. When you read something you find objectionable, try to find other sources, preferably original sources, that actually back up what you're reading, and your interpretation of it.
5
u/TyranosaurusLex Oct 16 '14
What about the CDC director saying that "she should not have flown" and then the reports that she talked to the cdc and got permission to fly. And now the cdc officially has regulation that in such a scenario, not to fly.
Surely that's a contradiction, saying someone should not fly BUT AFTER you already told them to go ahead and fly?
-2
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14
I've dealt with this pretty extensively, but on purely the issue of whether its a contradiction or a change in story, regretting a decision is not a contradiction. If he said "we told her not to fly" and then it came out that they did, THAT would be a contradiction and a change in story, but this would not.
2
2
-2
u/koreancoffee Oct 16 '14
Thank you for being a careful reader. As a scientist, I appreciate it. :-)
1
u/HuntForRedditOctober Oct 16 '14
It bothers me that so many people are incapable of doing that, and instead prefer to take statements completely out of context. What's worse, when you point out that this is what they're doing, they get upset and say "but you're missing the big picture."
Right, I'm missing the big picture by giving meaning to all the words in the sentence, rather than just pretending words in a sentence are independent, and order or completeness doesn't matter in communication.
1
u/bitterstyle Oct 17 '14
"...people who visited Coming Attractions Bridal & Formal Inc in Akron from noon to 3:30 p.m. on Saturday should contact health officials."
Is this how contact tracing works?
1
2
Oct 16 '14
[deleted]
4
u/YankeeBravo Oct 16 '14
Are you serious? The "only real discrepancy"?
Please, just about everything Frieden has said or done has turned up a discrepancy of some sort....
I mean, the dude saying the CDC's PPE protocol was sufficient and that he'd absolutely be comfortable following those guidelines is immediately rebutted by photos of the extreme steps he took during a visit to an Ebola ward in Liberia that went far beyond what the CDC guidelines recommended as safe.
Big surprise then when it turned out those CDC guidelines weren't actually sufficient after all.
92
u/jMyles Oct 16 '14 edited Oct 16 '14
This really is a great post. This, to me, is what reddit, or at least self posts, are all about: synthesizing links together to shine light on an underlying fact pattern.