Ebola in The USA

Shep Smith shames Fox: Ebola panic is ‘not worth ratings … and we all need to stop it’

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/shep-smith-shames-fox-ebola-panic-is-not-worth-ratings-and-we-all-need-to-stop-it/

Fox News host Shepard Smith scolded his network and other news colleagues on Wednesday, calling on them to stop inflaming fears of a “widespread panic” concerning potential Ebola cases in the U.S.

“We don’t have an outbreak,” Smith said. “We have two sick people from one dying man. And the rest of this should stop, because it’s not productive. And it’s not worth ratings, and it’s not worth politics, and we all need to stop it.”

Smith’s criticism appeared to be sparked by a report from correspondent Doug McKelway concerning Amber Vinson, the Texas health worker who was diagnosed with the virus after allegedly traveling with a fever of 99.5 degrees

“The National Institute of Health says that that constitutes a fever,” McKelway said, before making a tremendous gaffe. ir “Although it is below the threshold for Obama — for Ebola fever of 100.4 degrees. That shouldn’t raise any more doubts in theminds, Shep, but it is, as you’re seeing from widespread panic across the country.”

“Oh my God,” Smith replied. “Doug, I appreciate it. But I think we both know there’s no widespread panic across the country. But I think we know that, and I think we know that if there is ‘widespread panic,’ it’s not based in fact, and it’s not based in reason.”

Smith’s commentary stands in sharp contrast to remarks by several of his colleagues and comes on the heels of a disagreement between two other hosts. Earlier this week, O’Reilly Factor host Bill O’Reilly called for Centers for Disease Control host Tom Frieden to resign, an assessment Greta Van Susteren slammed as being “dead wrong.”

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Well some people would rather irrationally overreact than die. Laughing

1 Reply

Healthcare professionals all over the country are screaming from the roof tops

they have not been sufficiently trained on precautions for ebola and that the protective equipment they are provided is not sufficient.

Please listen to them. They know.

It doesn't matter if the CDC tells everyone in this country that every single hospital can safely handle a contamination.

They cannot. The proof for that is in TX and from the voices of nurses all over this country!

This is not a panicked post, but a call for some god damned common sense.

Stop blaming nurses, and stop sticking one heads in the sand that it is just one hospital. This country needs to get a handle on this asap. We are not prepared.

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

Quote:

“We don’t have an outbreak,” Smith said. “We have two sick people from one dying man. And the rest of this should stop, because it’s not productive. And it’s not worth ratings, and it’s not worth politics, and we all need to stop it.”

The only person at Fox News with any credibility whatsoever. It was Shep Smith who took on the Republican party to approve benefits for the 9-11 first responders after Jon Stewart brought it to the forefront.

0 Replies

@Alqaholic,

You are going to die. Irrationally overreacting won't change that.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

I generally don't read cut and paste stuff closely. The various opinions you have offered; including that Eubola is somehow unsuitable for survival in North America; that the CDC's unreadiness was a clear consequence of small (in % terms) cuts in the CDC's budgets done a few years ago; and that the contagions in the Dallas Hospital (which we now know occurred before the disease in the Liberian patients was diagnosed with Eubola) were surely the result of violations of standard protocols in the Dallas hospital - don't give the reader much confidence in your objectivity or critical thinking.

If our containment of this disease depends on the elimination of "all mistakes", then we are likely in serious danger. Few systems operate with continuous perfection everywhere.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

You are misstating the argument. No one is saying the containment of this disease requires the elimination of all mistakes. They are saying quite the contrary.

The containment of this disease only requires that cases are detected and isolated before they spread the disease to many other people. Due to the nature of the disease, particularly the fact that it doesn't spread from person to person easily (without direct contact with bodily fluids) and that it isn't contagious until there are symptom makes containing the disease in a society such as the US fairly easy.

The mistakes are tragic and unacceptable. No one is saying that there haven't been serious mistakes (particularly in the case of the nurses). But, even with the mistakes there is no danger of an ebola epidemic in the US.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I agree, though irrationally not reacting won't change that either.

0 Replies

Who said that the hospital staff at the Dallas Hospital was "fully vetted" ?

I can't find that quote except here.

More people in the USA will die from spider bites and bee stings than Ebola. This year.
The bet is $100.00 . Who's in?

Joe (Stop screaming and start breathing) Nation

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The containment of this disease only requires that cases are detected and isolated before they spread the disease to many other people. Due to the nature of the disease, particularly the fact that it doesn't spread from person to person easily (without direct contact with bodily fluids) and that it isn't contagious until there are symptom makes containing the disease in a society such as the US fairly easy.

That's about what is required to contain the common cold. Unfortunately it is easier to say than to do.

We had a single case in a hospital that (before it was diagnosed as Eubola) was transmitted to two additional workers - over a period of about a week, 32 repetitions of that would embrace 70% of the world's population in about four months. That too is an unlikely case, but it illustrates the power of exponential growth.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

We had a single case in a hospital that (before it was diagnosed as Eubola) was transmitted to two additional workers - over a period of about a week, 32 repetitions of that would embrace 70% of the world's population in about four months. That too is an unlikely case, but it illustrates the power of exponential growth.

Yes and there were two patients interacting with hundreds of people. One of these patients was on an airplane with a couple hundred fellow passengers. Yet, the only people who contracted the disease were medical professionals (who were doing the difficult job of caring for a dying patient in his last stages of the disease).

Clearly the common cold spreads a lot quicker than that.

Obviously we need to do a much better job of protecting medical personnel. This was an unacceptable accident. But the fact that it didn't spread at all in the public with hundreds of people who were in contact with these patients shows you that the experts are correct. This disease is not easily spread.

There is no exponential growth with ebola in the US. That's the whole point. (Do I need to give a math lesson on what the word 'exponential' means?)

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

. But the fact that it didn't spread at all in the public with hundreds of people who were in contact with these patients shows you that the experts are correct.

this quote shows you dont know what you are talking about. He has been dead for a week, the incubation period is up to 21 days. you do the math.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

OK Hawkeye. When zero people contract the disease, will you shut up? (There is a reason I am so confident... see if you can it out on your own.)

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

OK Hawkeye. When zero people contract the disease, will you shut up? (There is a reason I am so confident... think about it.)

the standard from the experts is that the outbreak is over when we go two incubation periods (42 days) with no new cases. I see no reason to amend that.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Let me ask again. When zero patients (out of more than a hundred people who came into contact with Eric Duncan) contract the disease, will you admit you are wrong? I will wait the 42 days if you want.

But I will tell you now, he did not infect anyone in the US (other than the nurses caring for him at the last stages of the disease).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Once we go 42 days with no new cases I will say that we have defeated the bugs that came ashore with Duncan. We are 40 days short as of now.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Vinson told CBS Dallas Fort Worth that she was feeling ill before boarding her flight. She had a low grade fever, but she said that officials told her it was okay to get on the plane. Vinson told CBS that she called the CDC several times with concerns.

Ebola is only contagious when a patient is symptomatic. Vinson's 99.5 F fever wasn't high enough to be considered a symptom.

The CDC confirmed to FOX 4 News that they gave Vinson the green light to fly. "Vinson was not told that she could not fly," a government spokesperson told NBC News

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/amber-vinson-cdc-ebola_n_5993486.html

Another indication that the CDC and the government in general is unprepared to lead the charge against Ebola. Maybe if they spent less time trying to manipulate us into clean living they would have more time to concentrate on their day job, the one we pay them to do.

Quote:

"She should not have traveled on a commercial airline," CDC director Tom Frieden told reporters during a conference call. "The CDC guidance in this setting outlines the need for what is called controlled movement. That can include a charter plane, that can include a car, but it does not include public transport."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/ebola-patient-shouldnt-ha_n_5990968.html

First the CDC as an agency needs to all get on the same sheet of music, then they can come back and attempt to tell us what to do and assure us that they have everything under control.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There is no exponential growth with ebola in the US. That's the whole point. (Do I need to give a math lesson on what the word 'exponential' means?)

Please do. I would be interested to know if you understand it at all.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function

For this ebola epidemic to have an exponential growth you need to have patient zero infect some number of patients and then each of those patients need to infect a similar number of patients who each infect a similar number of patients and so on and so on. This isn't happening.

The reason that this isn't happening is simple to understand.

Patient 0 infected zero people in public out of the more than 100 people he came into contact with (so there will be no exponential growth there).

Patient 0 infected two health care workers, neither of whom infected anyone else. There is no person infecting people infecting more people. There is no exponential growth.

The medical experts have said (based on their training, their experience and scientific research) that exponential grown is not a significant risk in the US. The fact that out of the more than hundred people who have been in contact with the 1st ebola patient (most more than the critical 21 days ago) not a single additional person has become infected.

The people who who actually understand the disease, who have worked with it, who have researched it and studied it, are saying there is no significant risk of an epidemic in the US.

I don't know why you think you know better. Our public policy should be driven by scientific expertise, not popular guesswork and irrational fear.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Here is some maths for you:

in order to get the bug killed we need for each infected person to infect less than 1 new person on average. Duncan infected at least 2.

That is a fail.

1 Reply

Ebola in The USA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know