Ebola Zaire Virus

Good evening everyone,

Since June 21st, while I have been posting various articles on Ebola Zaire Virus currently in Africa and while we might be discovering an appreciation as to the unique nature of this entity, it continues to take us on a journey down a new path for many areas of scientific research including, but not limited to Pharmacology, Virology, and Clinical Research - however, my interests lie in its Biology, Pathology, and Epidemiology.

In this regard, I would like to share an article on Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever Virus which I found quite thorough, interesting, and understandable. I am citing this article for educational purposes in hopes you find it interesting as well.

Many thanks,
Swan
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60667-8/fulltext

I would like to share this article by Scientific American as an additional insight into the disease progression of the Ebola Virus and posted it for those interested in the virus from an educational perspective.
Swan

Researchers often describe the battle between the Ebola virus and the humans it occasionally infects as a race—one that people win only if their immune systems manage to pull ahead before the virus destroys too many of their internal defenses. What they may not know is that the virus is a cheat.

The Ebola virus gives itself a head start when it first slips into a human body by disabling parts of the immune system that should be leading the charge against the invader. It hijacks the functions of certain defense warriors known as dendritic cells—whose primary function is to alert the immune system to the incoming threat. Other targets include monocytes and macrophages, types of white blood cells whose job is to absorb and clear away foreign organisms.

These are the first cells Ebola infects and bends to the process of making more Ebola viruses. The maneuver is the viral version of invading a country by hypnotizing the army and turning it against its own people. Then, having kicked the immune system’s feet out from under it, Ebola takes off in a run.

Seven Deadly Genes
Although it contains only seven genes, Ebola is an exquisitely effective killer of humans and other primates once it enters a body. Unlike the spiky sea urchin that is influenza, or the golf-ball shaped poliovirus, Ebola resembles noosed ropes under the electron microscopes used to capture viral images.

Classified as a filovirus, Ebola is one of two members of that family; the other is Marburg virus, named after the German city where it was first seen in researchers who caught it from imported non-human primates. Both pathogens are among the most lethal viruses that afflict people, but it is Ebola that has become the recognized and dreaded face of the filovirus family.

Few autopsies have been performed on people who have died from Ebola virus disease, because of the high risk posed by the procedures. In fact, a scientific review published in October 2014 identified only 30 human cases where an autopsy or post-mortem biopsies were performed. But here is what’s known about the way the disease takes off in the body: The early infection of–or recruitment of—the monocytes, macrophages and dendritic cells is believed to speed spread of the virus to the lymph nodes, liver, spleen and elsewhere in the body. In the liver, the presence of the virus appears to trigger a sharp decline of lymphocytes, white blood cells that help fight infections. The reason for their decline is unknown, but the result helps the virus; lymphocytes typically would increase in number in the face of an infection.

Decoy Strategy
Meanwhile, Ebola employs a second dastardly trick, another cheat. It releases large amounts of something called secreted glycoprotein – sGP – into the bloodstreams of its victims. A decoy, sGP looks like the glycoprotein on the exterior of the virus, GP, which should be the immune system’s chief target. By tricking the immune system into seeing it, not GP as the invader, sGP undermines the system’s ability to react effectively to stem the infection.

As the amount of virus in a person’s system starts to rise, symptoms begin to appear. They start with low-grade fever, which can come and go, and is sometimes missed. Severe headache and abdominal pain are followed by vomiting and diarrhea, ­which lead to profound loss of fluids.

Doctors at Emory University Hospital, who have treated four repatriated medical workers infected with Ebola in the current outbreak, found at times their patients excreted between six and eight liters of diarrhea a day – a loss that triggers electrolyte imbalances, says Marshall Lyon, an infectious disease physician on the Emory Ebola team. It has been known for some time that keeping Ebola patients hydrated is the main battle to be waged ­– at least until drugs proven to be effective are available. But the experience at Emory and other hospitals treating med-evaced health-care workers also suggests that when patients have profound diarrhea, replenishing electrolytes such as potassium may be something doctors should consider, even in low-resource settings where laboratory support is minimal and electrolyte levels cannot be monitored.

Back in the body, the accumulating damage in the liver leads to something called disseminated intravascular coagulation or DIC, where blood over-coagulates in some locations, but cannot thicken in others, creating a situation where blood vessels become leaky. That is what results in the bleeding – mostly internal – for which Ebola is known.

The leakiness of blood vessels compromises blood supply to key organs like the liver and the kidneys. Bausch employs the analogy of trying to use a hose full of holes to water your garden – the water does not get to where it is needed. Likewise, bacteria from the gastrointestinal tract can slip into the bloodstream, causing sepsis. The result in the worst cases: blood pressure plummets, vital organs begin to fail, the patient goes into shock and dies.

Where and How Much?
The speed and degree to which Ebola manages to overcome an individual depends on a couple of factors, scientists who study the virus say. If you are unlucky enough to be infected with Ebola, the amount (or dose) of virus to which you are exposed and the route by which the virus makes its way into your body could mean the difference between whether you live or die.

In the world of Ebola, less is better but even a very little is bad. Scientists have differing views on the sometimes cited claim that a single virion – just one virus – is sufficient to trigger infection. While that may, or may not be the true figure for the minimum infectious dose for humans, it is likely that infection can occur from contact with small amounts of virus, Bausch says.

How you get infected likely also plays a role in how sick you become. An exposure that delivers the virus into the blood stream ­– for example a needlestick injury, dreaded in the filovirus research world ­– is more damaging than when viruses are introduced via the mucus membranes surrounding the eyes, nose and in the mouth. Onset of symptoms is quickest with direct-to-blood exposures; they typically account for the short end of the incubation period range, two to 21 days. Most infections become apparent within eight to 10 days of exposure.

“If you get a direct injection with a lot of virus particles, I don’t think anything’s going to save you, because you’re just overwhelmed,” says Thomas Geisbert, a microbiologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. Geisbert notes that in the 1976 Ebola epidemic that brought the disease to the attention of the world, 85 people were known to have been infected through the reuse of contaminated syringes. All 85 died, along with nearly 200 others in and around Yambuku, in the former Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo).

Geisbert is one of the discoverers of an Ebola species known as Ebola Reston, unique among the five types of the viruses because it does not originate in Africa and so far it has not been seen to sicken people. Reston viruses come from the Philippines; on six occasions research monkeys imported from that country have triggered animal outbreaks. It has also been found in pigs, though the animals do not show signs of infection. Ebola Reston is lethal in primates.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-ebola-blindsides-the-bodys-defenses/

In other news:

Ebola outbreak: MSF confirms case decline in Liberia
Liberia has seen a significant reduction in the number of new Ebola cases, the medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) has confirmed.

One of its treatment centers in Liberia has no cases at all at the moment

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29957338

Taking Fruit Bats off the Dinner Menu Will Help Stop Ebola

The disease-carrying mammals are also essential to pollinating tropical plants in Africa and Asia.

Except at Halloween, when they appeal to our sense of the ghoulish, it’s never easy to get people to care about bats. Yes, they are mammals. Yes, in the case of fruit bats, they are cute, warm-eyed mammals at that, the sort of thing that makes seals, pandas, tigers, elephants, and other “charismatic megafauna” the poster children of conservation fund-raising campaigns.

But bats are decidedly not in this category. You might just persuade people that they aren’t the bloodsucking monsters of their nightmares by reminding them that only three of the 1,250 bat species in the world are vampire bats. (Even those three mostly lick blood from open wounds, rather than sucking blood, Dracula style.) But then the story really turns ugly, because bats, and particularly fruit bats, are also the most common source of new and terrifying diseases, including SARS, Nipah and Hendra viruses, Marburg and Lassa hemorrhagic fevers, and Ebola, which turned up this week in New York City.

Epidemics of emerging disease have a way of fostering rumors and hysterical overreaction. Much as in the Middle Ages, when cats went on trial for witchcraft, wildlife often serves as a handy scapegoat. During a 2012 outbreak in Uganda, for instance, the minister of tourism, of all people, announced a plan to cull wild animals in national parks.

“We shall eliminate animals suspected to be carrying viruses of Ebola and Marburg,” Maria Mutagamba boldly declared. Never mind that tourism, based almost entirely on wildlife, is one of Uganda’s leading sources of foreign revenue. A wildlife official quietly wondered just how Mutagamba planned to accomplish her cull, given that at the very least, tens of thousands of animals inhabit these parks and do not readily line up for blood tests.

A better answer in an age of emerging diseases is not to interfere with the animals in the first place. But that often turns out to be surprisingly difficult too. For instance, a recent study in the journal EcoHealth looked at the appetite for straw-colored fruit bats as bush meat in the West African nation of Ghana. This species (Eidolon helvum) is known to carry a variety of diseases transmissible to humans, including henipaviruses, paramyxoviruses, lyssaviruses, and the big one, Ebola. Yet Ghanaians just in the southern part of the country hunt and eat about 128,000 of them every year. The species is in significant decline as a result.

The researchers found that bat hunters typically don’t use any sort of protective gear against bites or scratches, nor do they believe that they are at risk for any diseases. In some cases, when a large branch fell under the weight of its load of bats, rival hunters would fight for the catch, sometimes even lying down on top of bats to prevent others from taking them. People who ate bats commonly said they did because the meat tastes good when smoked or cooked as a kebab, or even when made into a soup with bat intestines. Bat meat also enjoys an improbable reputation as an especially healthy food (and low in cholesterol). It’s a subsistence food for some in the absence of other affordable protein sources. For others, it’s a luxury.

Ghana has managed to escape Ebola so far this year, but the alarming spread of the epidemic through five neighboring countries has the government rolling out a nationwide educational program.

That makes the new study particularly relevant, because it focused on the effectiveness of an educational program in changing people’s behavior. Such programs need to start by identifying people most likely to engage in the relevant behaviors, according to the study, and also take into account local perceptions and cultural beliefs that can affect management of an outbreak. The study tested a brief educational program that focused not just on the health risk of consuming bats but also on the environmental value of the bat population.

Bats are the primary pollinators of many tropical plants, and they disperse the seeds from fruit they eat. In Africa and Asia, that makes fruit bats “responsible for about 50 percent of the tropical rainforest there,” said Jonathan Epstein, a veterinary epidemiologist at EcoHealth Alliance, who did not participate in the study. It’s a double whammy: You can get sick to death from eating the bats, and the loss of the fruit bat population could hurt other aspects of the environment on which residents depend for their survival.

The program dramatically increased the percentage of people who believed that bats could make them sick or that bats could be environmentally beneficial. But only about 55 percent of those who hunted, butchered, or sold bats said the program was likely to change their behavior. As with cigarette smoking, unsafe sex, and a long list of other behaviors, “people can readily perceive risk and even intellectually acknowledge desire to reduce that risk,” the researchers reported, and yet not do anything about it.

While some laws limit bat hunting, the researchers also found that “essentially no one knew of the existing hunting laws in Ghana” and that “laws and fines alone are unlikely to induce change.” In the end, the study found, “there may not be a simple way to minimize the risks of zoonotic spillover from bats.”

Even if it is complex and expensive, the current epidemic makes it clear that stopping emerging diseases at the source remains the only way to prevent a pandemic here at home. What to do? When people depend on a food like bat meat for survival, said Epstein, “it’s not realistic to just take it away and not present an alternative.” A better way to minimize disease risk might be to extend the effort to instruct people in the vital importance of wearing protective gear while hunting, and of washing their hands thoroughly after preparing bats for the table.

One certain way not to protect ourselves is to cut funding to the very agencies that perform that kind of difficult training and monitoring around the world. That’s what happened as a result of last year’s government budget sequester, with its indiscriminate across-the-board budget cuts. The National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, which has led the United States’ intervention in West Africa, lost $13 million from its 2013 budget as a direct result. Now it’s estimated that it will cost at least $600 million—and thousands more lives—before we can stop this epidemic.

Taking Fruit Bats off the Dinner Menu Will Help Stop Ebola

But wait! "Bush meat" (Monkeys, Fruit bats any other large animals from the wild...) is one of the main sources of food in Liberia, so this entire article is proven false by... REALITY!

Taking Fruit Bats off the Dinner Menu Will Help Stop Ebola

The disease-carrying mammals are also essential to pollinating tropical plants in Africa and Asia.

Except at Halloween, when they appeal to our sense of the ghoulish, it’s never easy to get people to care about bats. Yes, they are mammals. Yes, in the case of fruit bats, they are cute, warm-eyed mammals at that, the sort of thing that makes seals, pandas, tigers, elephants, and other “charismatic megafauna” the poster children of conservation fund-raising campaigns.

But bats are decidedly not in this category. You might just persuade people that they aren’t the bloodsucking monsters of their nightmares by reminding them that only three of the 1,250 bat species in the world are vampire bats. (Even those three mostly lick blood from open wounds, rather than sucking blood, Dracula style.) But then the story really turns ugly, because bats, and particularly fruit bats, are also the most common source of new and terrifying diseases, including SARS, Nipah and Hendra viruses, Marburg and Lassa hemorrhagic fevers, and Ebola, which turned up this week in New York City.

Epidemics of emerging disease have a way of fostering rumors and hysterical overreaction. Much as in the Middle Ages, when cats went on trial for witchcraft, wildlife often serves as a handy scapegoat. During a 2012 outbreak in Uganda, for instance, the minister of tourism, of all people, announced a plan to cull wild animals in national parks.

“We shall eliminate animals suspected to be carrying viruses of Ebola and Marburg,” Maria Mutagamba boldly declared. Never mind that tourism, based almost entirely on wildlife, is one of Uganda’s leading sources of foreign revenue. A wildlife official quietly wondered just how Mutagamba planned to accomplish her cull, given that at the very least, tens of thousands of animals inhabit these parks and do not readily line up for blood tests.

A better answer in an age of emerging diseases is not to interfere with the animals in the first place. But that often turns out to be surprisingly difficult too. For instance, a recent study in the journal EcoHealth looked at the appetite for straw-colored fruit bats as bush meat in the West African nation of Ghana. This species (Eidolon helvum) is known to carry a variety of diseases transmissible to humans, including henipaviruses, paramyxoviruses, lyssaviruses, and the big one, Ebola. Yet Ghanaians just in the southern part of the country hunt and eat about 128,000 of them every year. The species is in significant decline as a result.

The researchers found that bat hunters typically don’t use any sort of protective gear against bites or scratches, nor do they believe that they are at risk for any diseases. In some cases, when a large branch fell under the weight of its load of bats, rival hunters would fight for the catch, sometimes even lying down on top of bats to prevent others from taking them. People who ate bats commonly said they did because the meat tastes good when smoked or cooked as a kebab, or even when made into a soup with bat intestines. Bat meat also enjoys an improbable reputation as an especially healthy food (and low in cholesterol). It’s a subsistence food for some in the absence of other affordable protein sources. For others, it’s a luxury.

Ghana has managed to escape Ebola so far this year, but the alarming spread of the epidemic through five neighboring countries has the government rolling out a nationwide educational program.

That makes the new study particularly relevant, because it focused on the effectiveness of an educational program in changing people’s behavior. Such programs need to start by identifying people most likely to engage in the relevant behaviors, according to the study, and also take into account local perceptions and cultural beliefs that can affect management of an outbreak. The study tested a brief educational program that focused not just on the health risk of consuming bats but also on the environmental value of the bat population.

Bats are the primary pollinators of many tropical plants, and they disperse the seeds from fruit they eat. In Africa and Asia, that makes fruit bats “responsible for about 50 percent of the tropical rainforest there,” said Jonathan Epstein, a veterinary epidemiologist at EcoHealth Alliance, who did not participate in the study. It’s a double whammy: You can get sick to death from eating the bats, and the loss of the fruit bat population could hurt other aspects of the environment on which residents depend for their survival.

The program dramatically increased the percentage of people who believed that bats could make them sick or that bats could be environmentally beneficial. But only about 55 percent of those who hunted, butchered, or sold bats said the program was likely to change their behavior. As with cigarette smoking, unsafe sex, and a long list of other behaviors, “people can readily perceive risk and even intellectually acknowledge desire to reduce that risk,” the researchers reported, and yet not do anything about it.

While some laws limit bat hunting, the researchers also found that “essentially no one knew of the existing hunting laws in Ghana” and that “laws and fines alone are unlikely to induce change.” In the end, the study found, “there may not be a simple way to minimize the risks of zoonotic spillover from bats.”

Even if it is complex and expensive, the current epidemic makes it clear that stopping emerging diseases at the source remains the only way to prevent a pandemic here at home. What to do? When people depend on a food like bat meat for survival, said Epstein, “it’s not realistic to just take it away and not present an alternative.” A better way to minimize disease risk might be to extend the effort to instruct people in the vital importance of wearing protective gear while hunting, and of washing their hands thoroughly after preparing bats for the table.

One certain way not to protect ourselves is to cut funding to the very agencies that perform that kind of difficult training and monitoring around the world. That’s what happened as a result of last year’s government budget sequester, with its indiscriminate across-the-board budget cuts. The National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, which has led the United States’ intervention in West Africa, lost $13 million from its 2013 budget as a direct result. Now it’s estimated that it will cost at least $600 million—and thousands more lives—before we can stop this epidemic.

Thank you, Alana, for a very informative read!
Swan

Greetings everyone,

Swan

Americas
• Antigua and Barbuda on 17 October imposed an entry ban on nationals of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. The ban will also apply on anyone who travels to the country within 21 days of visiting any of the aforementioned nations.

• Belize announced on 18 October that it will stop issuing visas for nationals of Guinea, Liberia and Nigeria. Sierra Leone nationals, who do not need visas to enter Belize, will also be banned. In addition, travelers who have visited any of the aforementioned countries in the past 30 days will be prohibited from entering the country.

• Canada The authorities on 31 October suspended the issuance of visas to travelers who have recently visited West African countries affected by the Ebola virus. The action covers those who have travelled to Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone in the past three months.

• Colombia imposed an entry ban from 14 October on any traveler who has visited Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal or Sierra Leone in the past four weeks. The restriction would also reportedly apply to Colombian nationals.

• The Dominican Republic has banned entry to travelers who have been in the following countries in the past 30 days: Sierra Leone, Senegal, Liberia, Guinea, and Nigeria, as well as any countries that the World Health Organization has deemed to be affected by the Ebola virus.

• Guyana announced on 16 October that visas will not be issued to nationals from Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Nigeria. Furthermore, health officials will screen travelers who have visited these countries in the six weeks prior to their arrival in Guyana.

• Haiti has banned (PDF) entry to travelers who have been to Guinea, Liberia or Sierra Leone in the past 28 days. Travelers who have been to these countries more than 28 days before travel to Haiti must present a government-certified health certificate and the results of a blood test for the Ebola virus upon arrival. It is uncertain at this time how these measures will be carried out or enforced. International SOS is monitoring the situation.

• Jamaica imposed an entry ban from 16 October for travelers arriving from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, as well as those who have visited these countries within the four weeks prior to their arrival. In addition, any Jamaican national who travels to the aforementioned countries will be quarantined for 28 days on return.

• Panama on 22 October banned the entry of travelers who have visited Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone in the past 21 days. The ban will remain in place until the three countries are declared Ebola-free.

• St Kitts and Nevis have restricted the entry of nationals from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Similar measures will also be applied to travelers who have visited these countries in the 21 days prior to arrival.

• St Lucia has banned visitors from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. The government has also announced that, in addition to a visa, visitors from Nigeria will be required to present a recent medical certificate clearing them of the virus. No further details are available at this stage, though we are investigating further.

• St Maarten has said that visitors who have travelled to, from or through Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone in the past 21 days will be denied to enter or transit the country. Individuals returning from the above countries who live in St Maarten will be allowed to enter on condition that they agree to be quarantined for at least 21 days upon arrival.

• St Vincent and the Grenadines has banned visitors from Guinea, Nigeria and Sierra Leone.

• Suriname has banned entry to foreign travelers who have been to Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone in the past 21 days, unless they can present an ‘internationally recognised health certificate’ clearing them of the virus. No further details are available at this time.

• Trinidad and Tobago announced on 16 October that it would deny entry to nationals of Congo (DRC), Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. In addition, travelers who have visited any of the aforementioned countries in the past six weeks will be quarantined for 21 days upon arrival.

• The United States announced that beginning 22 October, any passengers beginning their travels in Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea will only be able to enter the country through the following airports: JFK International Airport (JFK, New York state), Newark International Airport (EWR, New Jersey), Dulles International Airport (IAD, Washington, DC), Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (ATL, Georgia) or Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD, Illinois).

Others
• Australia has suspended the issuance of visas to travelers from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Travelers from these countries who hold permanent visas can enter Australia if they have been quarantined for 21 days prior to arrival, while those who have received non-permanent visas and who have not departed for Australia will have their visas cancelled.
• North Korea has banned foreign tourists since 24 October over fears of Ebola; the ban applies to all entry points and border crossings. All other visitors will reportedly be required to spent 21 days in government-supervised quarantine, regardless of their country of origin or point of departure.
• Singapore: The authorities have announced that 5 November onwards nationals of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone will require visas to enter the country. The government also said that nationals of the three countries, as well as citizens of Congo (DRC) and Mali, will be screened for fever at all entry points. Other who have visited these countries recently will also be screened.

https://www.internationalsos.com/ebola/index.cfm?content_id=435

G' evening everyone:

In light of the information we've have been given regarding the Ebola Zaire Virus, I would like to ask your opinion(s) of the following?

Do you think that a Travel Ban should be issued for the USVI?

Do you think that the hospitals on the USVIs are capable of dealing with an Ebola Virus?

Many thanks,
Swan

1. No.

2. No.

1. Yes. it's the only way to be sure and protect the public.
2. No, it would be disasterous giving the limited resources and capabilities of our hospitals on all 3 islands. Especially on STJ and JFL in STX.

As the saying goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

1. Yes. it's the only way to be sure and protect the public.

so where do we ban flights from?

2. No, it would be disasterous giving the limited resources and capabilities of our hospitals on all 3 islands. Especially on STJ and JFL in STX.

how would it be disastrous?

if this were even REMOTELY the case we would have a serious outbreak in the states right now as they not only treated the cases they found there improperly, but also released them back into the public (several cases).

YET no outbreak because Ebola is not an overly contagious disease, it takes very specific circumstances to catch this virus.

You don't ban flights, you ban travelers just like the other destinations are doing. Read what swans posted above.

Some countries have imposed bans on flights coming from the affected outbreak areas

Given the capabilities of our hospitals, especially in light of the recent news article regarding waiting time at jfl for emergency room visits and their decertification, it probably wouldn't be a good thing to have Ebola Zaire in the Virgin Islands for the reasons I already mentioned above.

Nor am I going to further engage with you on the subject as I've had quite enough.

YET no outbreak because Ebola is not an overly contagious disease, it takes very specific circumstances to catch this virus.

Agreed. Spartygrad95 said it too - RO. From a standpoint of virulence, that puppy is a killer....but it's just not very contagious.

Still, it would be nice to know that the VI Gov and the hospitals have some sort of plan in place on the off chance that it shows up here.

There is a better chance of me convincing LF of the safety and good of vaccinations than the VI coming up with a comprehensive plan to deal with Ebola. That said, there is no need for a travel ban. How can you even remotely enforce it? Say you are an American citizen. Visit Liberia. Go back through US. Are not symptomatic. Fly here. No one is looking at travel visas. It's absurd to think you could ban people who may be infected and alarmist and unnecessary as well

After reading through the Oct.7th DOH Release on Ebola Virus and the Virgin Islands, I'm left with a couple of questions. Are there any more questions or concerns that might be posed to the powers that be? I'm sure we all have a few...

"....Health Commissioner Darice Plaskett reported today that the Department of Health is collaborating and communicating with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local Hospital Officials, Healthcare Partners and Emergency Medical Personnel to be prepared in the event of a local Ebola case. ...."

Question: How many 'collaborations/ meetings' has the DOH had with the CDC, et.al. since Oct.7th, regarding preparedness in the event of Ebola?

"....The Department of Health has taken proactive measures to ensure readiness by conducting clinical education on Ebola and issuing guidance to the district Hospitals, Healthcare Partners and Emergency Medical Personnel on early detection, safe clinical management, and infection control measures. Last week, the Department of Health led a multiagency meeting with officials from the Hospitals, Federally Qualify Health Centers, Customs and Border Protection to discuss steps that can be taken to prevent the spread of the disease, Plaskett said...."

Question: Exactly what steps have been presented and what steps will be implemented to prevent the spread of disease.

Quote from Sparty:
"....There is a better chance of me convincing LF of the safety and good of vaccinations than the VI coming up with a comprehensive plan to deal with Ebola....."
I agree.
Swan

http://www.healthvi.org/news/press-releases/2014/10/health-alert-ebola.html

Given the capabilities of our hospitals, especially in light of the recent news article regarding waiting time at jfl for emergency room visits and their decertification, it probably wouldn't be a good thing to have Ebola Zaire in the Virgin Islands for the reasons I already mentioned above.

Here's a quote from a visource article on JFL Hospital dated Nov. 14
http://stthomassource.com/content/news/local-news/2014/11/13/jfl-hospital-board-discusses-progress

"Without proper staffing, it is difficult to provide timely and thorough care. “Fast tracking” varies daily, depending on patients and staffing. Dr. Anthony Ricketts, board president, asked about the waiting time in the ER and was told that in August and September 200 patients left JFL without treatment."

Given the capabilities of our hospitals, especially in light of the recent news article regarding waiting time at jfl for emergency room visits and their decertification, it probably wouldn't be a good thing to have Ebola Zaire in the Virgin Islands for the reasons I already mentioned above.

Here's a quote from a visource article on JFL Hospital dated Nov. 14
http://stthomassource.com/content/news/local-news/2014/11/13/jfl-hospital-board-discusses-progress

"Without proper staffing, it is difficult to provide timely and thorough care. “Fast tracking” varies daily, depending on patients and staffing. Dr. Anthony Ricketts, board president, asked about the waiting time in the ER and was told that in August and September 200 patients left JFL without treatment."

And from the article cited above:
"....“So now we need to be patient. We’re definitely on the right track,” Griffith said. He warned the board not to pay attention to “distractions....."

What 'distractions' are you talking about???

What 'distractions' are you talking about???

Ebola?

What 'distractions' are you talking about???

Ebola?

Ya mean kinda like this? 🙂

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/12/r_i_p_the_ebola_threat_how_a_toxic_narrative_served_its_political_purpose/

Ya mean kinda like this? 🙂

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/12/r_i_p_the_ebola_threat_how_a_toxic_narrative_served_its_political_purpose/

why, that is exactly what I've been saying for a few months now...

This is a Discernment lesson, not all you see on TV is trustworthy, same with reports from three letter agencies, if you are just now starting to see that I'm sorry. I went through this revelation on my first deployment to Iraq back in 2005, since then I've found that critical thinking and personal research often paint a MUCH different story than the one we are told by the television talking heads.

I hope that this doesn't become a "boy who cried wolf" situation.. Ebola fatigue is probably pretty high right now and what was feared before (and the opposite was happening) of under reporting may start to happen.

why, that is exactly what I've been saying for a few months now...

I've been hearing you just fine and my eyes have been open for a few decades 🙂

What 'distractions' are you talking about???

Ebola?

Ya mean kinda like this? 🙂

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/12/r_i_p_the_ebola_threat_how_a_toxic_narrative_served_its_political_purpose/

So, if Ebola is the distraction Dr.Griffith is referring to, then perhaps he and the governing board should also establish a "transfer patients to the mainland hospitals protocol" for any Ebola infected individual(s) who might land on island. Ship them out immediately! Any case on island would certainly pose a high degree of distraction. And by removing the afflicted, it would allow him and the board the opportunity to continue to move forward, unimpededly, in their attempt to rectify the numerous problem areas that plague the institutions....instead of being distracted by Ebola.

Nah, ebola isn't one of the distractions that Dr Griffith was referring to.

On the off chance that ebola is ever diagnosed here, without doubt, the Fed would step in. Having such a protocol in place makes sense though.

TOO EFFIN' FUNNY, Tammy! LOL

Some Ebola humor. I hope it doesn't offend anyone.
Disclaimer. I am 100% American with my ditch bag paced waiting for the Ebola Apocalypse. LOL!

I certainly don't find british humor offensive.. it's some of my favorite!

that one was great..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKFG7pW0ec4