US advises against Ebola isolation

[webfact]

Ebola outbreak: US advises against quarantine

WASHINGTON: -- US health officials will actively monitor health workers who have treated Ebola patients in West Africa, under new rules.

Updated guidelines issued on Monday will require most medics to be checked for symptoms for 21 days but will not require quarantine or isolation.

The UN Secretary General has condemned enforced quarantine measures.

The current Ebola outbreak in West Africa has infected more than 10,000 people and killed almost 5,000.

The US announcement comes after a nurse who complained about her quarantine in New Jersey was allowed to return home.

Defying the new guidelines, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie defended the mandatory isolation imposed on Kaci Hickox as she returned home from Sierra Leone. He added: "That's what we will continue to do.

His stance conflicts with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who earlier said those seeking to help in affected areas "should not be subjected to restrictions that are not based on science".

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29792776


-- BBC 2014-10-28

[ClutchClark]

What exactly are the talking points "based on science" in both sides of the argument?

I have heard many arguments and maybe half are based on science.

Here is one scientific fact:

Ebola is spread through contact with an infected person's fluids, including external on the skin as well as in aerosol form from a sneeze or cough.

Ergo, preventing anyone contageous or at risk of contagion with Ebola from entering US soil would prevent the illness from spreading into the US.

Thats one scientific fact.

[NamKAheng]

What exactly are the talking points "based on science" in both sides of the argument?

I have heard many arguments and maybe half are based on science.

Here is one scientific fact:

Ebola is spread through contact with an infected person's fluids, including external on the skin as well as in aerosol form from a sneeze or cough.

Ergo, preventing anyone contageous or at risk of contagion with Ebola from entering US soil would prevent the illness from spreading into the US.

Thats one scientific fact.

Based on science, she did not have a fever and her blood test was clean of the Ebola virus, that is a proven science fact!

Better science than the politician who believe in creationism. You are watching to much Fox News.

[ClutchClark]

What exactly are the talking points "based on science" in both sides of the argument?

I have heard many arguments and maybe half are based on science.

Here is one scientific fact:

Ebola is spread through contact with an infected person's fluids, including external on the skin as well as in aerosol form from a sneeze or cough.

Ergo, preventing anyone contageous or at risk of contagion with Ebola from entering US soil would prevent the illness from spreading into the US.

Thats one scientific fact.

Based on science, she did not have a fever and her blood test was clean of the Ebola virus, that is a proven science fact!

Better science than the politician who believe in creationism. You are watching to much Fox News.

So the scientifically speaking the nurse you mention is not capable of displaying symptoms and becoming contagious AFTER her return to US soil?

OK, thats a relief because what I heard on FOX news is that she could begin to display symptoms as much as 3 weeks after her last exposure.

Thanks for clearing that up Doctor.

[bkkcanuck8]

What exactly are the talking points "based on science" in both sides of the argument?

I have heard many arguments and maybe half are based on science.

Here is one scientific fact:

Ebola is spread through contact with an infected person's fluids, including external on the skin as well as in aerosol form from a sneeze or cough.

Ergo, preventing anyone contageous or at risk of contagion with Ebola from entering US soil would prevent the illness from spreading into the US.

Thats one scientific fact.

Based on science, she did not have a fever and her blood test was clean of the Ebola virus, that is a proven science fact!

Better science than the politician who believe in creationism. You are watching to much Fox News.

If it were as simple as that - then why did they quarantine the family of Duncan in Dallas - and no complaints were logged by the President and the CDC at that time?

That family was quarantined because they "might" have come into contact with an ebola patient....

Edited October 28, 2014 by bkkcanuck8

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What exactly are the talking points "based on science" in both sides of the argument?

I have heard many arguments and maybe half are based on science.

Here is one scientific fact:

Ebola is spread through contact with an infected person's fluids, including external on the skin as well as in aerosol form from a sneeze or cough.

Ergo, preventing anyone contageous or at risk of contagion with Ebola from entering US soil would prevent the illness from spreading into the US.

Thats one scientific fact.

Shall we use science then in this discussion?

Ebola is spread through DIRECT CONTACT with fluids from an INFECTED PERSON where ebola is ACTIVE. Just as the spread of HIV is from an infected person where ebola is active. HIV is not communicable from a person who simply infected (ie., a carrier or in remission) with HIV. Ebola is not spread through the air - for survivability it requires a surface to survive, ie., an area not exposed to cell-killing oxygen. HIV is not spread through aerosols or sneezes, etc. either. Please don't argue that ebola COULD mutate into an airborne disease. That is only a supposition and not a scientific fact. Based on the fact that in over 40 years ebola has not mutated into an airborne disease any more than the much older HIV disease is proof.

Being at risk of containgion is not a scientific risk, only an emotional feeling of risk. You can live with a person with active HIV and not become infected. The mere presence of an HIV person cannot spread HIV. Ebola is the same. By your analysis because everyone on the planet is "at risk" not matter how remote that risk is, the whole planet's population should be isolated individually and monitored. And who is going to minitor the monitor?

So please keep science in the forefront and uneducated suppositions to the rear.

[Friendly Stranger]

I was hoping when I read the title it would not be what I thought. Words escape me...

All I can say is why and how long do we have!

[Ulysses G.]

Based on science, she did not have a fever and her blood test was clean of the Ebola virus, that is a proven science fact!

Based on science she had a temperature of 101 degrees and a person who is carrying Ebola and replicating Ebola inside their blood will test negative for Ebola for up to six weeks. The test won't show a positive result until the virus has replicated to a sufficient quantity to be detectable. If a person's Ebola status could be diagnosed immediately by one test administered at any time, everyone could be either diagnosed or cleared on day one and there would be no reason to observe anyone for 21 days in the first place. Ebola can't be detected in a person's blood in its early stages. Therefore, the entire claim that "She tested NEGATIVE for Ebola!" is meaningless.

[JDGRUEN]

WHO recommendations for testing for Ebola virus disease and confirming a case

WHO is alarmed by media reports of suspected Ebola cases imported into new countries that are said, by government officials or ministries of health, to be discarded as “negative” within hours after the suspected case enters the country.

Such rapid determination of infection status is impossible, casting grave doubts on some of the official information that is being communicated to the public and the media.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/14-october-2014/en/

Edited October 28, 2014 by JDGRUEN

[chuckd]

From today's news. A rather chilling revelation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ebola can survive on surfaces for almost TWO MONTHS: Tests reveal certain strains survive for weeks when stored at low temperatures

Research claims certain strains of Ebola can remain on surfaces for 50 days

The number of confirmed Ebola cases passed the 10,000 mark over the weekend, despite efforts to curb its spread.

And while the disease typically dies on surfaces within hours, research has discovered it can survive for more than seven weeks under certain conditions.

During tests, the UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) found that the Zaire strain will live on samples stored on glass at low temperatures for as long as 50 days.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809803/Ebola-surfaces-TWO-months-Tests-reveal-certain-strains-survive-weeks-stored-low-temperatures.html#ixzz3HPBAntDa

[JDGRUEN]

WHO recommendations for testing for Ebola virus disease and confirming a case

• For early detection of Ebola virus in suspected or probable cases, detection of viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) or viral antigen are the recommended tests.

• Laboratory-confirmed cases must test positive for the presence of the Ebola virus, either by detection of viral RNA by RT-PCR, and/or by detection of Ebola antigen by a specific Antigen detection test, and/or by detection of immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies directed against Ebola.

• Two negative RT-PCR test results, at least 48 hours apart, are required for a clinically asymptomatic patient to be discharged from hospital, or for a suspected Ebola case to be discarded as testing negative for the virus.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/14-october-2014/en/

******************************************************************************************

Highly recommended reading for anyone posting opinions on Ebola...

About 15 detailed WHO reports on Ebola ...

Situation assessments: Ebola virus disease

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/en/

[ggt]

The proclamations coming out of Washington has become so predictable and laughable that it is now routine...

Any person with half a brain can see thru the smoke screen coming from the gov't on every issue...

If one takes the opposite position...to what Washington propaganda is producing...one will be closer to the truth in every circumstance...

Medical Science for Dummies...Err on the Side of Caution!

Edited October 28, 2014 by ggt

[quicky]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What exactly are the talking points "based on science" in both sides of the argument?

I have heard many arguments and maybe half are based on science.

Here is one scientific fact:

Ebola is spread through contact with an infected person's fluids, including external on the skin as well as in aerosol form from a sneeze or cough.

Ergo, preventing anyone contageous or at risk of contagion with Ebola from entering US soil would prevent the illness from spreading into the US.

Thats one scientific fact.

Shall we use science then in this discussion?

Ebola is spread through DIRECT CONTACT with fluids from an INFECTED PERSON where ebola is ACTIVE. Just as the spread of HIV is from an infected person where ebola is active. HIV is not communicable from a person who simply infected (ie., a carrier or in remission) with HIV. Ebola is not spread through the air - for survivability it requires a surface to survive, ie., an area not exposed to cell-killing oxygen. HIV is not spread through aerosols or sneezes, etc. either. Please don't argue that ebola COULD mutate into an airborne disease. That is only a supposition and not a scientific fact. Based on the fact that in over 40 years ebola has not mutated into an airborne disease any more than the much older HIV disease is proof.

Being at risk of containgion is not a scientific risk, only an emotional feeling of risk. You can live with a person with active HIV and not become infected. The mere presence of an HIV person cannot spread HIV. Ebola is the same. By your analysis because everyone on the planet is "at risk" not matter how remote that risk is, the whole planet's population should be isolated individually and monitored. And who is going to minitor the monitor?

So please keep science in the forefront and uneducated suppositions to the rear.

If you're going to try to look and sound educated then you should try to use similar diseases, comparing HIV with Ebola and the transmission of either is like comparing apples to watermelons, Ebola is NOT the same, not even close.

The death rate, and treatment to extend life of HIV is not even close to that of Ebola thus the need to have the added measures, living with an HIV infected person vs living with an Ebola infected person the risk of getting Ebola are greater and a HIV infected person is not going to give you HIV through sneezing, an Ebola infected person can, that's a scientific fact.

From the CDC

Ebola

"Although coughing and sneezing are not common symptoms of Ebola, if a symptomatic patient with Ebola coughs or sneezes on someone, and saliva or mucus come into contact with that person’s eyes, nose or mouth, these fluids may transmit the disease."

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/qas.html

HIV

"HIV is not an airborne or food-borne virus, and it does not live long outside the body. HIV can be found in the blood, semen, or vaginal fluid of an infected person."

So it seems your facts are a bit out dated, it proves ebola can be transmitted through air and it has been known for sometime HIV can not.

It is also a fact that doing nothing almost guarantees an outbrake.

So please keep science in the forefront and uneducated suppositions to the rear, because uneducated suppositions like yours can be deadly.

[JDGRUEN]

From today's news. A rather chilling revelation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ebola can survive on surfaces for almost TWO MONTHS: Tests reveal certain strains survive for weeks when stored at low temperatures

Research claims certain strains of Ebola can remain on surfaces for 50 days

The number of confirmed Ebola cases passed the 10,000 mark over the weekend, despite efforts to curb its spread.

And while the disease typically dies on surfaces within hours, research has discovered it can survive for more than seven weeks under certain conditions.

During tests, the UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) found that the Zaire strain will live on samples stored on glass at low temperatures for as long as 50 days.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809803/Ebola-surfaces-TWO-months-Tests-reveal-certain-strains-survive-weeks-stored-low-temperatures.html#ixzz3HPBAntDa

It has also been published that low temperatures such a Winter Temperatures cause the Ebola Virus to remain viable longer.

[quicky]

What exactly are the talking points "based on science" in both sides of the argument?

I have heard many arguments and maybe half are based on science.

Here is one scientific fact:

Ebola is spread through contact with an infected person's fluids, including external on the skin as well as in aerosol form from a sneeze or cough.

Ergo, preventing anyone contageous or at risk of contagion with Ebola from entering US soil would prevent the illness from spreading into the US.

Thats one scientific fact.

Based on science, she did not have a fever and her blood test was clean of the Ebola virus, that is a proven science fact!

Better science than the politician who believe in creationism. You are watching to much Fox News.

Based on science it is a fact that the disease doesn't show up right away, thus the need to quarantine, that is a proven scientific fact!

Maybe you should consider watching FOX news otherwise you are only getting one side of the story, and clearly you have been watching some left wing jibberish spewing whatever the government tells them to, because you clearly have the wrong side of the story. It's a fact being a puppet only goes well for the puppet master maybe you need a little creationism because your science is junk.

[johnarth]

they basically want a pandemic to start in the US ................all part of a population cull thats been on the agenda for years now

you could be right, but all counties seem to be following the us. I think there is a hole in the wall, in other words there is another way of catching the virus, what about the humble old toilet seat?

[JDGRUEN]

The obama Administration mouthpieces have been ordered IMO to push hard to preserve the concept of Open Borders... not allowing closing of borders to anyone - Ebola or otherwise... and minimize the connection of immigrants and disease... all done so as to not reflect badly on obama's promise to unconstitutionally declare Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in the coming weeks.

The only hope that the U.S. has of stopping the arrival of potentially infected Ebola people from Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia is when the Democrats lose control of the U.S. Senate in early November. Americans would then have some chance of the U.S. Congress (both Houses) will force a bill on obama to sign into law banning the issuance of entrance visas to the people of the countries listed. There are several ways this could be done.

And while they are doing that maybe the Congress could fashion a bill that would bring some rationality to the process of administering Quarantine on returning Medical Aid workers. It can be done with civility and dignity to all concerned.

Edited October 28, 2014 by JDGRUEN

[oneday]

What exactly are the talking points "based on science" in both sides of the argument?

I have heard many arguments and maybe half are based on science.

Here is one scientific fact:

Ebola is spread through contact with an infected person's fluids, including external on the skin as well as in aerosol form from a sneeze or cough.

Ergo, preventing anyone contageous or at risk of contagion with Ebola from entering US soil would prevent the illness from spreading into the US.

Thats one scientific fact.

Shall we use science then in this discussion?

Ebola is spread through DIRECT CONTACT with fluids from an INFECTED PERSON where ebola is ACTIVE. Just as the spread of HIV is from an infected person where ebola is active. HIV is not communicable from a person who simply infected (ie., a carrier or in remission) with HIV. Ebola is not spread through the air - for survivability it requires a surface to survive, ie., an area not exposed to cell-killing oxygen. HIV is not spread through aerosols or sneezes, etc. either. Please don't argue that ebola COULD mutate into an airborne disease. That is only a supposition and not a scientific fact. Based on the fact that in over 40 years ebola has not mutated into an airborne disease any more than the much older HIV disease is proof.

Being at risk of containgion is not a scientific risk, only an emotional feeling of risk. You can live with a person with active HIV and not become infected. The mere presence of an HIV person cannot spread HIV. Ebola is the same. By your analysis because everyone on the planet is "at risk" not matter how remote that risk is, the whole planet's population should be isolated individually and monitored. And who is going to minitor the monitor?

So please keep science in the forefront and uneducated suppositions to the rear.

Comparing HIV to Ebola is ridiculous and reckless. Have you ever seen HIV spread like Ebola is spreading in Africa? I think not. I'm not a doctor, but it's fairly easy to draw a valid conclusion that Ebola is far more infectious than HIV. If it wasn't then doctors and nurses would not be coming back from Africa infected. We must assume these doctors and nurses took reasonable precautions and yet they got infected. That would have NEVER happened if they had been treating HIV infected patients. Ebola is obviously a completely different animal and though it is maybe difficult to get infected it is certainly far easier to get infected than getting infected with HIV.

From what I'm reading IT IS a reasonable request to quarantine people for 21 days. I would personally have NO PROBLEMS with being quarantined for 21 days. If the government wants to care for me, feed me and just give me some books to read and a TV for 21 days I'd say have at it...no problem. Anyone complaining and wanting to risk spreading Ebola is highly irresponsible and inconsiderate.

[JDGRUEN]

For those on this thread who are fixated on the phrase - "based on science" a.k.a. talking points of the obama Administration, then find the links here on this thread to the World Health Organizations Reports on Ebola... There you will find experienced science - directly experienced with Ebola...

Oh and for those who want to shoehorn in a comparison of the Ebola Epidemic/ Out Breaks... to HIV/AIDS - there is not valuable comparison to be made. HIV/AIDs is a disease of intentional exposure in an Intimate situation (sexual intercourse of one type or another)... By behavioral changes one can totally avoid exposure to HIV/AIDs...

Of course that is not possible with Ebola. The very short time between exposure and potential death with Ebola infection (at a 50% death rate) makes Ebola a drastically different circumstance. Conceivably with Ebola one could be sitting on a subway train with Dr. Spencer - in the first 20 minutes the doctor feels only mild nausea, aches and pains ... in the next 30 minutes on the subway ride the doctor feels violently ill and begins projectile vomiting all over everyone. That could easily been the scenario with Dr. Spencer instead of how it actually turned out. Had Dr. Spencer been confined by health and police authorities in a real quarantine - there would have been no risk to the greater public at large. Instead many many people all over New York had to be contacted -- advised and followed up on... all because some think it is not nice to quarantine someone - or oh - the honor system quarantine - that worked great.

It is the macro difference between Ebola and HIV/AIDs - not the micro differences that make a comparison useless as nothing much can be accomplished by discussing HIV/AIDs in the context of Ebola that would likely result in an improvement in the Ebola epidemic situation.

It is a distinction with a GREAT Difference.

[bkkcanuck8]

WHO recommendations for testing for Ebola virus disease and confirming a case

• For early detection of Ebola virus in suspected or probable cases, detection of viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) or viral antigen are the recommended tests.

• Laboratory-confirmed cases must test positive for the presence of the Ebola virus, either by detection of viral RNA by RT-PCR, and/or by detection of Ebola antigen by a specific Antigen detection test, and/or by detection of immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies directed against Ebola.

• Two negative RT-PCR test results, at least 48 hours apart, are required for a clinically asymptomatic patient to be discharged from hospital, or for a suspected Ebola case to be discarded as testing negative for the virus.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/14-october-2014/en/

******************************************************************************************

Highly recommended reading for anyone posting opinions on Ebola...

About 15 detailed WHO reports on Ebola ...

Situation assessments: Ebola virus disease

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/en/

My understanding is the two tests 48 hours apart are for patients that are to be discharged after surviving ebola infection (remission with antibodies). Two tests before a patient becomes symptomatic 48 hours apart does not clear the individual -- hence why the family was placed in 21 day quarantine. How long it takes for a test to become definitive depends on the virus - but based on the quarantine and incubation period - my guess it is 21 days (you could test negative for HIV for up to a year before testing positive -- though that year is pretty statistically insignificant. So even if they don't quarantine in a hospital - she/he should be as isolated as possible while being compassionate. Personally if it were me, I would pretty will isolate myself from anyone I cared about since I would not want to be the instrument of their infection - no matter how slim the chances are. Unfortunately we have become a very narcissistic society where a lot of people don't really think of others.

[bkkcanuck8]

The hypocracy of this move is astounding - if isolation is not needed for returning medical personel - why is it needed for returning military personel?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-outbreak-u-s-soldiers-returning-from-liberia-placed-in-isolation-in-italy/

[IAMHERE]

No quarentine ? Fine, make them wear a cross or something like the big letter 'A'. Others should be made aware of who is a potential killer disease. A registry like for child molesters maybe. It is as if the US wants an Ebola outbreak in the states. Always an opportunity in a crisis.

[JDGRUEN]

Seems Australia disagrees with the U.S. ....

Sounds logical to me....

Australia issues blanket visa ban on Ebola-hit countries

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia has issued a blanket ban on visas from West African nations affected by the Ebola outbreak to prevent the disease reaching the country, Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said, becoming the first rich nation to shut its doors to the region.



http://news.yahoo.com/australia-issues-blanket-visa-ban-ebola-hit-countries-022047232.html

[Norvabc]

I was hoping when I read the title it would not be what I thought. Words escape me...

All I can say is why and how long do we have!

A lot more to this story, vast amounts of resources have been found in West Africa including some of the largest diamonds in the World.

A new Kimberlite Pipe has also been located about six months before the outbreak.

US have long had an interest in getting troops into the area, i wonder if they will be locking down the Diamond area, so as to stop the spread of the virus.

Make of it what you will but sending troops into and infected area is rather strange.

[ClutchClark]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What exactly are the talking points "based on science" in both sides of the argument?

I have heard many arguments and maybe half are based on science.

Here is one scientific fact:

Ebola is spread through contact with an infected person's fluids, including external on the skin as well as in aerosol form from a sneeze or cough.

Ergo, preventing anyone contageous or at risk of contagion with Ebola from entering US soil would prevent the illness from spreading into the US.

Thats one scientific fact.

Shall we use science then in this discussion?

Ebola is spread through DIRECT CONTACT with fluids from an INFECTED PERSON where ebola is ACTIVE. Just as the spread of HIV is from an infected person where ebola is active. HIV is not communicable from a person who simply infected (ie., a carrier or in remission) with HIV. Ebola is not spread through the air - for survivability it requires a surface to survive, ie., an area not exposed to cell-killing oxygen. HIV is not spread through aerosols or sneezes, etc. either. Please don't argue that ebola COULD mutate into an airborne disease. That is only a supposition and not a scientific fact. Based on the fact that in over 40 years ebola has not mutated into an airborne disease any more than the much older HIV disease is proof.

Being at risk of containgion is not a scientific risk, only an emotional feeling of risk. You can live with a person with active HIV and not become infected. The mere presence of an HIV person cannot spread HIV. Ebola is the same. By your analysis because everyone on the planet is "at risk" not matter how remote that risk is, the whole planet's population should be isolated individually and monitored. And who is going to minitor the monitor?

So please keep science in the forefront and uneducated suppositions to the rear.

I would be interested in what you are saying except you are talking about HIV and I am talking about Ebola.

They are two unique communicable diseases and should be treated as such. Any attempt to make comparisons only confuses the matter.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that an Ebola infected person can cough bodily fluid, ie aerosol, into a persons eye or onto their skin and that person can become infected. Are you saying this is not possible?

Thanks

[Chicog]

The hypocracy of this move is astounding - if isolation is not needed for returning medical personel - why is it needed for returning military personel?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-outbreak-u-s-soldiers-returning-from-liberia-placed-in-isolation-in-italy/

Probably because they've just spent weeks picking up decomposing bodies full of the virus and transporting them for disposal.

[Chicog]

I was hoping when I read the title it would not be what I thought. Words escape me...

All I can say is why and how long do we have!

A lot more to this story, vast amounts of resources have been found in West Africa including some of the largest diamonds in the World.

A new Kimberlite Pipe has also been located about six months before the outbreak.

US have long had an interest in getting troops into the area, i wonder if they will be locking down the Diamond area, so as to stop the spread of the virus.

Make of it what you will but sending troops into and infected area is rather strange.

Did you hear that on Alex Jones?

[bkkcanuck8]

The hypocracy of this move is astounding - if isolation is not needed for returning medical personel - why is it needed for returning military personel?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-outbreak-u-s-soldiers-returning-from-liberia-placed-in-isolation-in-italy/

Probably because they've just spent weeks picking up decomposing bodies full of the virus and transporting them for disposal.

I did not read that in the story....

When the troops were deployed to Liberia they did not send hazmat suits for them because they were not coming into contact with ebola patients themselves, they were there to build facilities and logistics etc. Has things changed?

[Chicog]

The hypocracy of this move is astounding - if isolation is not needed for returning medical personel - why is it needed for returning military personel?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-outbreak-u-s-soldiers-returning-from-liberia-placed-in-isolation-in-italy/

Probably because they've just spent weeks picking up decomposing bodies full of the virus and transporting them for disposal.

I did not read that in the story....

When the troops were deployed to Liberia they did not send hazmat suits for them because they were not coming into contact with ebola patients themselves, they were there to build facilities and logistics etc. Has things changed?

We did speculate earlier how they would be contributing, but I haven't seen a specific report that says what they were doing.

Have you?

Added: This was the plan:

When the mission was initially announced in early September, The USDOD officials described the mission's main goals: set up a joint force command headquarters in Liberia to support military activities and help coordinate aid from other agencies, appoint a General Officer in Monrovia, provide engineers to build Ebola Treatment Units, and establish a training site for health care providers to direct care to Ebola patients.

The Post reports that health official's plan for the mission include building 17 Ebola Treatment Units (ETUs) in Liberia staffed by health-care workers, each with 100 beds.

This is to remove Ebola victims from their home, where they can easily spread the virus, and treat them at the ETUs where the risk of spread is limited and the patients can get the appropriate care.

The ETUs will reportedly not be completed until December. The first is expected to be built within weeks.

But it wouldn't be the first example of "mission creep".

Edited October 28, 2014 by Chicog

[bkkcanuck8]

I read a news report which was highlighted on Drudge at one point highlighting that the troops were not receiving hazmat suits.... I followed the link to the actual story and it indicated the 3000 troops were NOT being issued hazmat suits because they WOULD NOT come in contact with ebola patients.... that they were there to build facilities (of which there were practically none) for treatment and quarantine. They would not be patrolling and they would not be in contact ebola patients. I would have posted a link to it earlier but I did not see it as significant since hazmat suits would have been cumbersome for building and not worth it... although the headline would have been "scary".

That begs the question, you indicate that they were picking up and burying ebola patients apparently when you read nothing of the sort? Just making it up?

I do find it funny that they would quarantine people that do not come in contact with ebola patients, while not quarantining those that would come in contact with them.... The other alternative is that we were lied to about what they would be doing there....