6 ms·
US Will Screen Air Passengers for Signs of Ebola. Will It Work?
- Vivtek 12y agoOf course it will -- there is no terrorism any more, after all. Real answer: this is nothing more than security theater. The effective way to fight disease would be health care, and that's the one measure the United States will never take to fight any disease.
- worklogin 12y ago>The effective way to fight disease would be health care, and that's the one measure the United States will never take to fight any disease. What are you trying to say? That the US doesn't do health research? That the US doesn't have the best medical care in the world? That we haven't yet invented the magical cure to Ebola and shipped it to West Africa? Or are you trying to politicize a virus discussion into something about insurance?
- alexhawdon 12y agoI'm loathe to get involved as I know this is a very emotive subject to you friends over the pond, but from my various (largely anecdotal) readings on the subject I fear the view may be correct. I don't think it's unfair to say that there's a percentage of the population that is scared of incurring healthcare costs and that these people will not seek medical attention as pro-actively. With something like Ebola this is very bad news for their family, friends and community.
- bitJericho 12y agoIn what way does the US have the best medical care in the world? http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthca...
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- 7Figures2Commas 12y ago> We have an experimental treatment, and there are questions as to why it was used on two doctors flown back from Africa, but not on the patient in Dallas. What are you implying? The Dallas patient was given an experimental treatment, brincidofovir. This is the same drug that is reportedly being given to the NBC cameraman who was infected. There are other experimental treatments, including ZMapp and TKM-Ebola, that have been used. One report[1] suggested that TKM-Ebola was not given to the Dallas patient because of concerns that it could have made his condition worse, and ZMapp wasn't an option because there are no more supplies of it[2]. Furthermore, according to this article[3], "All non-human primate work done with any of the experimental treatments from any company have never extended beyond treatment four days post-infection." The Dallas patient was apparently 19 days into his infection when he presented. There is no evidence at this point that the experimental treatment you were referring to (ZMapp) "cured" the doctor and nurse flown back from Africa. To that point, the Spanish priest who was given ZMapp died. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/thomas-eric-duncan-ebola-patient-dallas-hospital/16798391/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/thomas-... [2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/1007/Why-didn-t-Texas-Ebola-patient-receive-experimental-drug-sooner-video http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/1007/Why-didn-t-Texas-Ebol... [3] http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2014/10/08/dallas-ebola-victim-passes-away-no-data-just-sadness/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2014/10/08/dallas-ebo...
- emodendroket 12y agoBut access would seem to be an important dimension to any effort to stop the spread of a pandemic, since pathogens do not discriminate by insured status.
- cheald 12y agoI'm curious why you'd undermine your point with a statement that is demonstrably false. Hyperbole doesn't do you any favors in trying to make a convincing argument. As measured by the CDC, mortality rates in the US have been on a steady downwards march more or less across the board for as long as we've been measuring them. Making those kinds of statements just makes you seem like an angry, irrational person with an axe to grind.
- dnautics 12y agoyou do realize that this is exactly what the OP asserts?
- TallGuyShort 12y agoThere is little to no health care that can make a difference to a person already infected with Ebola, AFAIK, IANAD. Quarantine is the best thing you can do to prevent it getting further.
- maxerickson 12y agoSupportive care makes a difference. It isn't a cure, but preventing dehydration at least means the infected person doesn't die of dehydration.
- crpatino 12y agoExactly! 70% mortality if disease is let to follow its course, 30-40% if supportive care is provided. I don't know guys. But anything that doubles my survival rate sounds like a big difference to me.
- TallGuyShort 12y agoBack to the original point, though, a 30-40% fatality rate is still not at the point that I would consider health care alone an effective response.
- crpatino 12y agoWhy not? Because is not perfect? Such is life. And still, I am sure those people that have received proper care and survived are grateful enough. Or are you arguing that additional measures are needed both at the individual and at the social/political level to prevent the worst outcomes. There I agree 100%.
- TallGuyShort 12y agoYes that's exactly what I'm arguing. The commenter to whom I replied initially was arguing against the need for other measures stating that "THE" solution was healthcare.
- jonifico 12y agoIt could be a good measurement, at least airport management (and government, sure) is doing something to avoid it. Whether people take responsibility or not is a completely different ball game.
- devindotcom 12y agoFor anyone thinking of glibly and irrelevantly pointing out the ineffective nature of TSA checkpoints, this is rather a more limited and intelligent program: "At the five US airports that receive most passengers from the three countries where Ebola is circulating, passengers will be singled out on the basis of their travel records; interviewed by means of a questionnaire; and have their temperature taken, to see if they have a fever."
- dublinben 12y agoIt's just as much security theater as TSA checkpoints. IR thermometers are pretty inaccurate[0] and not good at catching Ebola.[1] You can also just pop and Ibuprofen an lie your way through.[2] [0]http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/06/25/why-fever-screening-at-airport/ http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/06/25/why-fever-s... [1]https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/08/theres-really-no-way-screen-ebola-airports/90413/ https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/08/theres-really-... [2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/03/ebola-airport-screening_n_5925948.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/03/ebola-airport-scree...
- k-mcgrady 12y ago>> "You can also just pop and Ibuprofen and lie your way through" Why would anyone do that?
- pasbesoin 12y agoTo indulge in a bit of perhaps undeserved paranoia: What were/are the messages coming from the treatment and outcome of the patient in Texas? On the one hand, a highly fatal disease and typical, systemic mishandling. On the other, an indication that travelling to the U.S. won't save you. I have no evidence that the latter message was deliberately manufactured (implying all sorts of terrible things). But I'm certain there were and are people in positions of authority thinking about this.
- maxerickson 12y ago
- pearjuice 12y agoAm I the only one who wants a Betteridge's-law-filter on HN? Simply ban all submissions which are not "Ask HN" with a question mark at the end. I am getting sick of these submissions merely intended to scrape votes which have no value whatsoever.
- Someone1234 12y agoIt will work in the same way the TSA works: It will make people FEEL like the government is taking action. Which is really what it aims to do and nothing more... Aside from that it will likely pick up more false positives than it will actual Ebola cases (e.g. common flu, someone getting too hot after running from the aircraft with a heavy bag to beat the queues, etc), Ebola can go asymptomatic for over a week within which time it will be undetectable. Keep in mind that several African states are already checking people as they leave. So for this US measure to work someone would have to go from asymptomatic to symptomatic within the time it takes from flying out of an Ebola infected area and arriving at their destination (e.g. 12 hr period). I already feel bad for all of the people who will be incorrectly quarantined under this scheme just because they have regular flue. They will be caught up in a state overreaction similar to "shoe inspections" and "no liquids above 150mm" nonsense of the past ten years.
- NearAP 12y agoScreening for temperatures is a good first step but since a person might not be symptomatic at the time the temperature is being taken, temperature taking won't be enough. I think the Government should go further and embark on enlightenment campaigns. These campaigns would involve listing the symptoms of Ebola, advising people who exhibit such symptoms to visit the nearest hospital, explaining in very clear terms how people can contact Ebola (there is a shocking amount of misinformation about how Ebola is contracted out there) and also listing some of the basic ways people can help prevent the spread of the disease (like washing of hands with sanitizers). Basically, borrow a leaf from what the Nigerian Government did which brought Ebola to a halt after a Liberian brought Ebola to Lagos, a city whose population is more than the entire population of Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone combined (those are the 3 countries hardest hit by Ebola).
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Someone1234 12y agoHonestly that sounds like a very constructive suggestion. However it might be a little bit too early for it given the few cases outside of Africa. There's a thin line between sewing panic and providing the public with constructive information. If they released that kind of stuff right now, people would become super paranoid and expect an outbreak any day. You'd see people going to the hospital with every single flu, cold, or similar that they have.
- crpatino 12y agoIt is very likely that thousands of people are going to die this year alone, because the elected officers that are supposed to protect them are more concerned with "preventing panics" than with implementing actual measures to contain and stop the epidemic. We already have forced the moronic security theater of airport security to "protect" against a bunch of yahoos using box cutters as weapons. How worse could it get, anyways?
- tikhonj 12y agoSo basically, the only reason to do this—acknowledged by researchers after more ambitious programs of this kind—is to reassure the public. It's theater, meant to calm irrational, emotional concerns. Unlike the TSA, people aren't even pretending otherwise! To me, this is a great illustration of why we need strong, consistent rights and limitations on government action: it's not just a check on government abuse, or abuse by certain minority movements or even malicious abuse by the majority—it's also a check against popular emotional responses like this. It's a way of forcing ourselves to stop, reconsider and perhaps avoid acting poorly in a knee-jerk reaction. (Also, thinking about it, it's a solid committment strategy: if these rights and restrictions are clear and unambiguous, we can use that when negotiating both with other countries and within our own government.)
- thathonkey 12y agoIn the United States, a public hysteria would likely do more damage than the virus itself so this is a good idea even if it is just security theatre. I've heard that phrase uttered several times in this thread already. Do you guys all read the same libertarian blog or something? It's about to be flu season. They don't want hospitals to be overcrowded with paranoid patients because that means if somebody actually does have the virus they're less likely to get the proper attention. Etc. Not to mention all the people suffering from other problems. Such a strain on our healthcare system must be avoided at all costs. This is a good thing, even if it is just a jumping off point.
- tikhonj 12y agoNo need for a blog, I can think for myself, thanks. The fact that this policy is intrusive, expensive and yet demonstrably irrational (at least on the part of the public) is pretty self-evident. The idea that we need some method, whether legal or social or both, to control irrational responses like this is a pretty a pretty natural conclusion after that. Perhaps the idea that the government should not react due to irrational popular pressure is somehow libertarian, but really, it seems pretty non-ideological. Not wanting intrusions and restrictions on individuals just because a bunch of people are overly panicky is very reasonable.
- tindrlabs 12y agoSo what's the long term policy / law that will come out of Ebola testing via the TSA? Since these activities never go away they just become unquestionable policy. Long term maybe it's finger print scanning, blood, saliva.
- maxerickson 12y agoThis is CBP and CDC, not TSA.
- tindrlabs 12y agoYeah but what's three more letters?
- maxerickson 12y agoThose agencies both have wider mandates, so they won't want to continue to expend resources on pointless screening. Much of the criticism of the TSA is rooted in the fact that it exists to expend resources on screening (maybe with some arguing about whether 'pointless' belongs in the statement).
- stonemetal 12y agoOf course it won't work. It wouldn't have prevented the incident it is a reaction to. Why would anyone think it would prevent any future incident similar to the first one?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y agoYes it will work. Partial success has benefits. So if you miss 3% or even 50%, you're making less work for those who have to contain those who get through.