To Centroids-
 
Re: The following article
 
Obama's half-baked policy toward ISIL is a direct result of his  simplistic
and poorly informed understanding of Islam  He is pro-Islam, as he  has
said repeatedly, but with Muslims fighting each other across the Mid  East
he is at a loss; that is not his model of how things should be. As a  result
US policy toward ISIL is a confused mess. Today's panel discussion
on C-Span, telecast from the Hudson Institute, makes this all too  clear.
 
Obama is also   -for understandable reasons, pro-African.   Now it seems as
if his also half-baked sentiments about Africans  (please do no offend  any 
of them
no matter what) is going to contribute to the spread of a deadly disease in 
 America.
 
To be sure, there is no 100% way to contain Ebola. However, it would seem  
to 
be smart to seek to limit it as much as possible. And one effective way to  
do this
would be to prohibit flights from "Ebola crisis countries" in West Africa.  
This could
be done with non-citizens easily, simply prohibit their entry to the USA.  
In the case
of US citizens seeking to return to America from Liberia, etc, what could  
be
required is a 21 day quarantine prior to re-admission to the country, to  
ensure
non-infection.
 
Obama refuses to do this.
 
I am not excusing  past Republican medical blunders. It was in the  Reagan 
era
when AIDs first broke out that a quarantine of the AIDS infected could  well
have limited the spread of the disease and prevented tens of thousands of  
deaths.
As we all know, because of homosexual temper tantrums and Reagan's
pro-homosexual views, there was no AIDS quarantine.
 
That was then.
 
Now another president is in office and another no-quarantine policy is in  
effect
and we will all pay the price sooner or later of Obama's warped  values.
 
Prediction:  Any Democrat who reads this will jump up  and down and
try to find some way to blame Republicans  and will deny (in a  clinical 
psychological sense) that Obama is to blame in any way.
 
That kind of reaction is contemptible.
 
When Republicans do the equivalent it is just as contemptible . But a  
Democrat
is in the WH in 2014 and Obama is today's problem, not George W Bush
or Ronald Reagan.    BHO, again and again shows himself to 
be an incompetent.
 
And he was the "savior" that multitudes voted for in 2008 and most of
those same people voted for again in 2012?  What goddamned  sickness
and stupidity.
 
 
My humble opinion
 
Billy
 
 
========================================
 
 
 
 
 
New Republic
October 17, 2014
 
An infectious disease specialist says the time for  half measures is over
 
By _Steven Beutler_ (http://www.newrepublic.com/authors/steven-beutler) 

 
Over the last several months, scientists at the Food and Drug  
Administration and World Health Organization have done an excellent job of  
educating 
the public about Ebola. They have provided a great deal of factual  
information and succeeded in preventing widespread overreaction and panic in 
the  U.S. 
and other developed countries. They emphasized the fact that Ebola is not  
spread through respiration, tried to reassure the public that air  travel 
remains safe, and they have outlined plans on how to deal with the  infection, 
plans which recognize the biological behavior of the disease.  
However, physicians who have been in practice for many years regarded with  
skepticism some earlier comments from various public health officials and 
even  President Obama that the odds of an Ebola outbreak in the United States 
are "_extremely low_ (http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/politics/obama-ebola/) 
."  Medicine can be a very humbling profession, and after more than 30 years 
of  practicing infectious-disease medicine, I have learned that the 
"unanticipated"  happens all too often, especially where microbes are involved. 
Over the last two  weeks, the rosy scenarios painted by the Centers for Disease 
Control have lost  their glow and started to unravel. 
The fact that Ebola is transmitted by bodily fluids and not by the  
respiratory route provides no guarantee that there won't be an outbreak in the  
U.S. or Europe. Consider other non-airborne diseases. Polio was responsible for 
 tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. In 1952, two years before a 
successful  vaccination program arrested it, there were over 60,000 cases 
reported. Cholera  was responsible for hundreds of thousands of cases in the 
U.S., 
although at a  time when sanitation practices were substandard. Vaccines and 
antibiotics have  largely eliminated typhoid in this country, but prior to 
their availability, it  caused considerable morbidity and mortality. 
Obviously, there are major  epidemiological differences between all these 
infections, but none of them are  generally spread by respiratory droplet—yet 
all of 
them  have been responsible for serious or even catastrophic outbreaks.  
Now, predictably, we have seen Ebola cases developing in the U.S. and 
Europe.  There is a real possibility that the numbers will proliferate more  
rapidly than expected. Here are four problems that could contribute to this: 
1) Emergency rooms are frequently too busy to establish a  correct 
diagnosis. This certainly has been true with other infectious diseases.  (I 
frequently see patients with sepsis sent out of the ER, only to return the  
next 
day.) Sick patients may stay in the waiting room for considerable periods  of 
time, and be placed in rooms with other patients before a diagnosis of Ebola  
is entertained. The problem that arose at the Dallas hospital ER will  
likely be repeated many times. And first responders, like paramedics, often  
don't have the luxury to triage patients properly before administering care.  
Furthermore, most community hospitals are not prepared to handle Ebola  
patients, and the required preparations are much more daunting than most  
people 
understand.  The U.S. healthcare system is capable of  absorbing and 
treating some Ebola cases, but outbreaks, when they occur,  will likely be 
centered 
in one community or another, so on a local level there  may not be enough 
intensive-care-unit beds or isolation rooms or  personnel to handle a 
moderate-sized cluster of patients. If this occurs  during an influenza 
outbreak, 
the problem will be magnified.   
2) Breaks in infection control policies within hospitals are  extremely 
common. At Texas Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, for example, the  patient was 
placed in a room with several other patients, and the staff did not  use 
the indicated protective gear. This could have happened at any hospital in  
the country.  
3) Although contact tracing is relatively easy with one  patient and one 
generation of contacts, it can become daunting or even  impossible if dozens 
of patients and three generations of contacts are involved.  Some contacts 
will simply never be recognized until after they become ill. Given  the long 
incubation period of Ebola—up to 21 days—it is not unreasonable to think 
this will happen. And Wednesday  we learned that one of the nurses caring for 
Duncan who was supposed to be under  "observation" was able to board a plane 
for Cleveland. It is not clear how  completely the other exposed individuals 
adhered to their isolation, but when  dealing with such large numbers of 
exposed individuals, there will likely be  violations which could potentially 
result in further transmission.  
4) Although it has frequently been stated that patients are  not contagious 
before they are sick, I wonder how absolute this is. Clearly they  are 
infected with the virus before they are sick. They are not shedding virus  be
cause they are not vomiting or having diarrhea, but can a patient spread it  
sexually before they are symptomatic? Or through a nosebleed?  
Until a vaccine or effective  antibiotics become available, it may be very 
difficult to stop this  outbreak in the U.S. now that it is here. There are 
ways to slow it down,  however, which will provide more time to develop that 
medicine and to prepare  hospitals to handle more cases. Quarantine is one 
tool that has been  successfully employed in the past; currently, it is 
being underutilized. I would  maintain that every individual traveling here 
from 
a country with an active  outbreak—currently Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, 
and  Nigeria—should be quarantined.  
This obviously will result in considerable inconvenience and some expense,  
and in this respect I realize that it sounds draconian. But the fact is, it 
will  prevent most importation of the disease. If the quarantine could be 
established  prior to travel, then virtually no cases would be imported from 
West Africa.  Ultimately, it will diminish the total number of people being 
quarantined and  being tracked, since there will be fewer contacts and less 
transmission.  And at the present time, with only 150 people trying to enter 
the country from  West Africa, it is still a feasible strategy. Of course, 
this strategy  becomes less powerful if it is not adopted worldwide, before 
an outbreak occurs  first in one new country, then another. Note that I am 
not advocating travel  bans. It is hard to disagree with Dr. Anthony Fauci, 
the National Institutes of  Health director of infectious diseases, and CDC 
Director Thomas Frieden when  they point out the necessity of engaging the 
outbreak at its source, and being  able to provide material support to the 
affected regions.  
President Obama has stated that we have "little room for error" in dealing  
with Ebola. But the airport screenings that have gone into effect will  
miss a large percentage of infected individuals, perhaps the majority of  them. 
Relying on these screenings to prevent importation of Ebola is a  huge 
error. A much more rigorous program is required to prevent,  or at least delay, 
a possible catastrophe. Ultimately, the development  of an effective vaccine 
will make these measures unnecessary; the CDC and WHO's  support in 
expediting the development of vaccines is enormously positive. In the  
meantime, we 
need to ask ourselves these questions: Even if there is only a 2  percent 
chance of an epidemic developing in the U.S., should we be relying on  
half-measures to prevent it? Should we accept the possibility that we are  
allowing new cases of Ebola to enter the country every day when we have the  
ability to prevent it? 
 
Dr. Steven Beutler is an infectious-disease specialist with more than 30  
years' experience. He has been chairman of infection control committees at  
several hospitals and is currently involved with Ebola preparedness at 
Redlands  Community Hospital in California. He graduated from University of 
Chicago  Medical School in 1977.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to