Ebola in The USA

It is nice that you at least offered him the possibility of posting something relatively sane, even though his history indicates how impossible that would be.

I do try.

What this whole issue is really about is the Progressive notion that "experts" know what is best for us and should be heeded no matter what.

It's certainly what motivates max.

Sheep act that way too.

You've certainly hammered that one, get rid of the experts and appoint Billy Bob Joe Bob Merle Bob Billy Terwilliger the 23rd as head of disease control.

Aha!


Santa Cruz: UCSC researcher designs fast, low-cost Ebola test
By Kara Guzman
Santa Cruz Sentinel

POSTED: 11/04/2014 01:03:33 PM PST

SANTA CRUZ -- A quick, low-cost test for Ebola may be available within a few years, thanks to UC Santa Cruz researcher Ahmet Ali Yanik.

The assistant electrical engineering professor has built a model of a handheld sensor designed to quickly detect Ebola from a finger prick of blood. Similar to a pregnancy test, the device gives simple feedback on a small film: clear means no virus, nontransparent means infection. Once developed, the sensor's cost is estimated at $3 each, Yanik said.

The project, which has gained speed in the two months since Yanik began meeting with UCSC chemistry and biochemistry professor Jin Zhang, has a note of regret: it should have come sooner. Yanik proved the concept in 2010 with a similar device but had trouble finding partners to patent and develop it.

"They told me basically it didn't look lucrative in the long term because it was oriented toward point of care, which basically requires things to be cheap," said Yanik, who said he then dropped the work and focused on cancer studies instead.

This year's Ebola outbreak, which began in March in West Africa, is the largest in history. The count of confirmed cases has reached 7,632 across eight countries, with 4,920 deaths, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.

The problem with high fever viruses is that they mimic the flu, said Yanik. By the time those infected realize it's not the flu, it's too late -- not only for the patient, but also for containing the virus's spread.


"So the idea of making a point-of-care diagnostic tool, it helps you detect it early on, before you start to see those symptoms," Yanik said.

Unlike current detection tools which require expensive instruments and trained personnel, this device could easily be used in remote sites with little infrastructure, he said.

Using computer chip technology, Yanik created a metallic surface with tiny holes that affect the way the surface transmits light. When specific viruses attach to proteins on this surface, it stops transmitting light -- a shift detectable to the naked eye, he said.

Yanik, who joined UCSC's faculty in February, revived his project in September after meeting Zhang, who provides a missing piece.

Zhang said his lab has not yet begun work on the project but can likely help perfect the protein on the sensor's surface.

"What we want to do is put a molecule that it can recognize a biomarker on the virus, like it's a key in a lock," Zhang said.

Yanik said he's close to a prototype ready for development, and his lab is testing models with a pseudovirus unable to infect humans or animals. The exterior of the virus looks like Ebola, but the genetic material is different, he said.

The device is currently in testing with live Ebola viruses at one of the two U.S. labs that allow live viruses, he said.

Depending on funding and the development team's size, the device could be ready for use in sometime from one to three years, he said.

"It's better late than never, right?," Yanik said.

"So we don't know what the future is going to bring. We are hoping the Ebola crisis will be over soon, but if it's not, it could even be used for that," Yanik said.

Contact Kara Guzman at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @karambutan.

Absolutely right Finn. I don't get what your problem is with experts.

The experts, in this case, are the people who have advanced degrees in Medicine and science. They have studied viral diseases. They understand how cells work, how the immune system works. They have spent years doing research. They have treated and cured patients.

Scientific experts have cured, even eradicated, fatal diseases. They have nearly doubled the human life expectancy. They successfully operate on brains and hearts saving lives that would have never been possible to save at any other time in history. They keep babies alive that were born months prematurely.

Science works by having people dedicate their life to a specific specialty. And the people who have this knowledge are the best people to decide how to react to a disease outbreak.

This is an argument between medical science, and popular hysteria. I don't understand why anyone would choose ignorance and fear over expertise.

Yes, we should absolutely listen to the experts.

Mine is a record of dishonesty and incompetence.

I have no problem with experts per se, unless I am being told that I need to follow their direction without question.

Reliance on "experts" is at the core of Progressivism. It's anti-democratic, but more importantly the "experts" progressives want us to obey need to be ideological purists or devotees more than field experts.

There are a lot of people that can be designated experts in their field, but somehow the ones that progressives insist we rely upon must also be those that have demonstrated a devotion to progressivism. Look at the background of the head of the CDC. He certainly has medical chops but he has the job because he has bureaucratic chops.

That's crazy Finn. This is not a matter of politics (progressive or otherwise).

This is a matter of science. This is a virus that is well understood. The people you should be listening to are the epidemiologists and doctors in the field. I don't care about the politicians or bureaucrats any more than you do (unless they are repeating what the scientists are saying instead of acting politically).

The scientists aren't asking you to follow blindly. They are telling you what they know and how they know it. They are open about the research they have done and the progression of the disease.

They are telling you that the disease is not very contagious and that there is zero significant risk of an epidemic in the US.

**** the politics. Listen to the science. That's all I am asking.

President Obama also asked us to listen to "science" in a staged event at the White House, backed up by a large group of supposed doctors oddly wearing their white coats at the White House event. He was also criticizing the decision of the New Jersey and New York governments to quaranteen returning health care workers after the NY doctor came down with bthe disease. Earlier the same day the Defense Department (which works for that same president) announced a 21 day quaranteen for military personnel redurning from duty in the affected African countries, even though, they will not ne directly involved in treating Ebola patients (according to the government). Go figure !!

The point here is it is politicians and bureaucrats who are insisting that we follow the non existant "infallable dictates" of science, while the real scientists freely admit that they don't know for sure.

What is a "supposed doctor" ?

Scientists are saying quite definitively that there is zero significant threat of an Ebola epidemic in the US. Whatever Obama or military bureaucrats say or do is irrelevant to this discussion.

You are completely backwards. The politicians and bureaucrats have been ignoring the science and making **** up, egged on by an ignorant paranoid public. This is why we have idiocy like kids being kept from school for visiting Rwanda (which shows an incredible ignorance of geography as well as science).

The scientists have been very clear about what the facts are. It is politicians and bureaucrats and a scared public that are ignoring the science and making stuff up.

That's my point. We should listen to the science.

Of course it's a matter of politics. Everything that involves the government is a matter of politics.

Perhaps I've not been clear enough, but you obviously don't get my point. I have never argued that Ebola is going to spread like wild-fire across the nation.

We should listen to science. The question is should we listen to government scientists?

I have the strong impression that you know little and understand even less about science. Certainly saying, "there is zero chance of an bola epidemic in the U.S." is about as unscientific statement as one could make. Science is about differentiating between what you know and can verify by experience and what you merely expect.

A "supposed doctor" is an unnamed, unidentified individual standing behind an inept President who is using their appearance to give himself an undeserved aura of authority in advocating positions (quarantines are unnecessary), while at the same time departments of the government subordinate to this President are announcing exactly the same quarantines.

when the soldiers return from an OS duty and still in ther units all go back to a camp or R&R, the mil has chosen the first, then, after the quarantine, they will probably go to their families. I see no disconnect.
The civilan doctor was under no orders .
As this whole thing moves further on, the "WELL ALL BE KILLED" panic seems to be quelling no?

are you shitting me?

They are ******* scientists. You know... the ones who have taken the time to study medicine, learn about diseases, do research and treat patients. Why don't you want to listen to those guys Finn?

If you hate science experts so much, where the hell are you getting your information?

I don't think the "we will all be killed panic" you referred to was what really stirred up the public reaction. Instead it was the obviously thoughtless and bland assurances of a president, already known for deception and unreliability, that flew in the face of common sense and which were quickly overturned by new facts, that did the job.

Only idiots like the president and our poster here appear to believe in absolute certainty. Scientists know better than that.

No. Scientists do not know better than that. Apparently you and Finn know something that they don't know.

You are making **** up. This is so ridiculous it is frustrating.