An American cruise ship has been refused permission to dock at the Mexican island of Cozumel due to fears one of its passengers could have been infected with Ebola.
The ship, Carnival Magic, left from Galverstone in Texas with a Dallas health worker who may have had contact with specimens from the first patient diagnosed with Ebola in the United States.
A Mexican port official said they decided against the ship's docking as a preventive measure against Ebola.
Earlier the ship had sailed to Belitz but authorities there had refused to allow the health worker to leave the ship, although other passengers were allowed to disembark.
The woman and her husband have been isolated on a cruise ship, but are showing no symptoms of the disease, the US state department said.
The Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital worker, who did not have direct contact with now-deceased Liberian patient Thomas Eric Duncan but could have processed his bodily fluids, left Sunday on a cruise from Galveston, state department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement.
The news added to growing concerns about the possible spread of Ebola in the United States after two nurses who cared for Mr Duncan contracted the deadly virus, which has killed more than 4,500 people, mostly in West Africa.
The health worker aboard the cruise ship has been self-monitoring since October 6 and has not developed a fever or other symptoms of Ebola, the State Department said.
self monitoring working.. - (
New Window )
What's on deck for tomorrow, financial planning from bossman?
What's on deck for tomorrow, financial planning from bossman?
LOL
1 person has died of this disease in the US. Reading BBI, you'd think half of NYC had died within the last week because of Ebola.
Again, props to the media & politicans playing on the worst fears of Americans. And yeah, do the travel ban, never mind that most health experts say it would be a horrendous idea.
Please continue mass hysteria.
"The experts' key objection is that a travel ban could prevent needed medical supplies, food and health care workers from reaching Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, the nations where the epidemic is at its worst. Without that aid, the deadly virus might spread to wider areas of Africa, making it even more of a threat to the U.S. and the world, experts say."
What's on deck for tomorrow, financial planning from bossman?
Actually, Ron Mexico has a lot of experience with infectious diseases.
And who says you can't send in supplies while not allowing people to leave? Or at least be tested and quarantined when they arrive?
Would they? I think the nurses would admit they were quite a bit more likely to contract than anyone else based on those parameters.
1 person has died of this disease in the US. Reading BBI, you'd think half of NYC had died within the last week because of Ebola.
Again, props to the media & politicans playing on the worst fears of Americans. And yeah, do the travel ban, never mind that most health experts say it would be a horrendous idea.
Please continue mass hysteria.
^^^This^^^
And who says you can't send in supplies while not allowing people to leave? Or at least be tested and quarantined when they arrive?
Do you realize what you're saying? I'll help you out.
It's ok to fly supplies in, but not ok to fly anyone out.
By definition, that means, that anyone that flies supplies in cannot fly back out. Further, any professional that flies in cannot get out for the foreseeable future. In that case, put yourself in the shoes of a nurse or doctor. You would agree to fly into the affected zone if you knew that there was no way to get back home, quite possibly for a long long time?
Please...
Quote:
have been affected are Spain and the US. Where Ebola was imported.
And who says you can't send in supplies while not allowing people to leave? Or at least be tested and quarantined when they arrive?
Do you realize what you're saying? I'll help you out.
It's ok to fly supplies in, but not ok to fly anyone out.
By definition, that means, that anyone that flies supplies in cannot fly back out. Further, any professional that flies in cannot get out for the foreseeable future. In that case, put yourself in the shoes of a nurse or doctor. You would agree to fly into the affected zone if you knew that there was no way to get back home, quite possibly for a long long time?
Please...
So monitoring the crews of a few cargo planes = monitoring every civilian flying commercially out of those countries? Is it hard to fathom a scenario where commercial passenger travel is shut down and aid is still delivered?
So far what we've heard from Frieden and CDC generally (not to mention its personnel giving the ok to Nurse #2 to fly????? WTF?????) does not engender confidence. So why should we now assume that the "bodily fluids contact" bright line is strictly speaking accurate? The two TPresbyHosp nurses were wearing protecting garb, but, oops, not quite in the right places. Is that the complete explanation?
sfgf, maybe your assessment (based on CDC inviolable truths) turns out to be right.
In my view of this, public policy determinations have to weigh the benefits of a policy vs. the risks of adoption/maintenance of such a policy. To me, the US and liberal Western objective of maintaining free and open borders and a goal of free flow of commerce must give way to the very high risk of spread of E here. It is as yet very early days in this. If it turns out we did not get this right, there is no going back. Let's be conservative (as in prudent and protective) on this to know that we have it under control before we parade the flag of what has been a very passive and arrogant response. This virus doesn't know or care the difference between an American flagged host vs. a Liberian/Sierra Leone/Guinea flagged host.
Quote:
have been affected are Spain and the US. Where Ebola was imported.
And who says you can't send in supplies while not allowing people to leave? Or at least be tested and quarantined when they arrive?
Do you realize what you're saying? I'll help you out.
It's ok to fly supplies in, but not ok to fly anyone out.
By definition, that means, that anyone that flies supplies in cannot fly back out. Further, any professional that flies in cannot get out for the foreseeable future. In that case, put yourself in the shoes of a nurse or doctor. You would agree to fly into the affected zone if you knew that there was no way to get back home, quite possibly for a long long time?
Please...
This isn't the Twilight Zone. You can fly crews in to render aid or bring supplies and those people can leave. Just don't allow people who live in these countries to enter the US. It's really not that hard. They need visas and have to go through customs. It's not exactly rocket science.
+1 and then some.
We would welcome the ship with open arms.
Quote:
They're smarter than Obama
+1 and then some.
We would welcome the ship with open arms.
And he would personally conduct all their gay marriages while giving them free healthcare. I get it.
Not arguing one way or another for "closing the borders", but this is absolutely not an example of "doing the sensible thing" and closing the borders- this is complety apples to oranges.
That's gotta be the dumbest post in the history of this site. And that's saying something considering the nonsense we've had to endure this week on here.
Would you guys be cool with your kids sitting next to someone with Ebola on a plane? Even if that person wasnt symptomatic? Seriousl, you guys would just be cool with this? And you would do this all in of the people of Sierra Leone? Come on.
Quote:
In comment 11925831 buford said:
Quote:
have been affected are Spain and the US. Where Ebola was imported.
And who says you can't send in supplies while not allowing people to leave? Or at least be tested and quarantined when they arrive?
Do you realize what you're saying? I'll help you out.
It's ok to fly supplies in, but not ok to fly anyone out.
By definition, that means, that anyone that flies supplies in cannot fly back out. Further, any professional that flies in cannot get out for the foreseeable future. In that case, put yourself in the shoes of a nurse or doctor. You would agree to fly into the affected zone if you knew that there was no way to get back home, quite possibly for a long long time?
Please...
This isn't the Twilight Zone. You can fly crews in to render aid or bring supplies and those people can leave. Just don't allow people who live in these countries to enter the US. It's really not that hard. They need visas and have to go through customs. It's not exactly rocket science.
So you want to make sure he average Joe from Western Africa can't come into the country but health care workers that were exposed to the active virus are free to come and go.
Ok, got it. And if you cannot see the ludicrous nature of the position I surely cannot help.
Needs a sexier name.
--
1 person flew into the United States and infected two people. One of those persons flew on a commercial airliner to and from major metropolitan areas. That person was said to have been feeling sick PRIOR to the return flight.
The plane was never cleaned and was kept in use for 5 further flights.
Do you know how many people have to be traced from just 1 sick person entering the country? Already over 200 directly related to just the two nurses. Not counting the Duncan family/friends (26 tracked?). Network effect, baby.
And WHY Ebola nurses are taking fucking vacations and not being told to stay in town during the potential incubation period is appalling.
Nigeria got very lucky due to VERY aggressive disease tracing and monitoring. Lagos would've been a firestorm.
(And the death rate is around 50% in Africa - let's get some numbers straight).
--
Super surprised at least the wife/girlfriend didn't catch it - she was caring for Duncan while he was sick and it was well documented she came into contact with at least his sweat. Lord knows what else when caring for a sick relative.
The idea isn't to seal off these countries, but rather to control who comes in and out. We are sending 3900 troops there. They are not going to have contact with Ebola patients, although they might have contact with people in Ebola. But we will know who these people are and who the troops are. So when these troops are ready to come back, they can be tracked or even quarantined before they return. Same with anyone else.
Right now it's a crap shoot. People can be entering in the country not showing any symptoms but become sick later, as Duncan did. As the administrator of the hospital said, if someone shows up with a sign saying 'I have Ebola', they know what to do. But if people just show up at ERs and they don't know who they are, where they have been, then that is the problem.
The CDCs argument that we can't stop people from coming in because that stops all aid to those countries isn't convincing anyone, except maybe you.
Ding ding ding we have a winner
What a dumbass. This is the second or third time you've tried to manufacture a racial argument or aspect to the discussion where none exists. Give it a rest.
The idea isn't to seal off these countries, but rather to control who comes in and out. We are sending 3900 troops there. They are not going to have contact with Ebola patients, although they might have contact with people in Ebola. But we will know who these people are and who the troops are. So when these troops are ready to come back, they can be tracked or even quarantined before they return. Same with anyone else.
Right now it's a crap shoot. People can be entering in the country not showing any symptoms but become sick later, as Duncan did. As the administrator of the hospital said, if someone shows up with a sign saying 'I have Ebola', they know what to do. But if people just show up at ERs and they don't know who they are, where they have been, then that is the problem.
The CDCs argument that we can't stop people from coming in because that stops all aid to those countries isn't convincing anyone, except maybe you.
Your stated position makes complete sense. My mistake was imputing the total prohibition on travel argument being advanced by many to you.
Control and monitoring makes sense. An outright ban on travel to and from does not.
I apologize.
I think most people agree that the likelihood of an outbreak here or any individual getting infected is extremely low. But much f that depends on people doing the right thing. In this case, the hospital worker was a massive FAIL.
She knew that she was in a contact group and had to self-monitor. Implicit in that, especially given the Pham case, is that there was some potential, even if low, to contract the disease. So, IMO, it's the height of irresponsibility to place yourself in an enclosed spaced with hundreds of other people during the monitoring period. Further, knowing that the enclosed space had threadbare medical facilities and also that she was essentially trapped with the other passengers with little easy escape, yet doing it anyway, shows she is woefully stupid.
I'm sure that she didn't want to b out the money paid for the ticket and sure the likelihood is low...but she was in a risk group. And what happened, happened. Thank God that she wasn't Pham. The economic hurt to Carnival, the potential health risk to everyone was not worth getting on the ship in the first place.
If you're in a group that has to self-monitor, than geez use some common sense about your activities during that period. That's air, ship travel, and other activities where you can't easily get to a hospital if things go south. That's not panic; it's common sense.