Talk:Ebola virus cases in the United States/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

"Key facts" cloning available

Since the Key disease facts section is general for Ebola, I set it up for simple cloning to any other relevant article by transclusion. Just add the text inside the quotation marks, " {{:2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States}} " anywhere within an article to clone the entire section. For the time being, this article will be the section's home page template, so any changes made here will automatically change other pages using the material. --Light show (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Duplication of content might be a hint that these ought not be separate articles in the first place. (Or at least they're not divided up in a sensible way.) – JBarta (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Jbarta, Nobody's trying to duplicate any content. That's becoming a false meme here. We're trying to get new material into new articles, but first this disruptive nonsense, including the page blanking, AfD's, and topic ownership needs sorting. This topic is too huge for one article, not to mention, these are sovereign countries, not a conglomerate of states known as West Africa. This is an encyclopedia, afterall. It's hardly encyclopedic to confine all information to one article. It's not done that way on other subjects. There's no reason it should be done here, other than to satisfy a few who have serious ownership problems. Take a second look at some of the comments made and edit behaviours on the articles. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Light show, that was a good idea making things consistent for the reader. Well done, you. SW3 5DL (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
We shouldn't be cloning this material in the first place; it shouldn't be in those articles at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Cloning was just an option note, so far unused, and was not a suggestion. The "key facts" section itself was added here per consensus, and is a synopsis of what's on the Ebola page. If you don't think it belongs, feel free to explain why and get new feedback. In the meantime, it should be kept in this article until decided otherwise. --Light show (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I took it back out. Facts about the disease itself should be in the disease article... not used to pad other articles.– JBarta (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
In theory, you're 100% right. The Ebola article does include those same topics. But as I noted on its talk page, without reply, much of the information is written and oriented to medical professionals, which is a barrier to average people needing vital information in a succinct easy-to-understand form. Others agreed to include a brief "Key facts" section with hatnotes. --Light show (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Then that technical information should be edited to make it understandable to average readers. You can use Template:Technical if that helps. – JBarta (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't work at all on that article, and neither the real-world MD who did, or anyone else, replied to the comment. A template isn't needed to make the point. BTW, here's a WHO article that included its own separate "Key facts" section, maybe for the same reason.--Light show (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe there is a way to work in a "key facts" section into the ebola article. I don't entirely have an objection to such a thing... I just object to putting it somewhere it doesn't really belong (such as this article). – JBarta (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That's where it should be. If you care to bring it up on the Ebola talk page, I'd support the idea. --Light show (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, while I'm not necessarily against a "key facts" section, I'm not entirely in support of it either. It has a USA Today feel to it and is probably more suited to a magazine article than an encyclopedia article. If you really believe it would be a good idea over there, bring it up on the talk page and see if it gets any traction. Or, as mentioned earlier, you might want to concentrate on making technical sections a little less technical, either by editing yourself or getting others familiar with the material to help. – JBarta (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Everyone commenting here has made excellent points. Light show came up with an idea that stopped the section blanking and gives readers a quick synopsis of the situation, especially given the number of hits this article is getting. Obviously, Americans are seeking this information. We haven't cloned this to other pages and we don't need to. Light Show came up with a great idea and it should be kept and not reverted with only a few editors discussing this. We can open another RfC, but for now the section should be restored. He had a great idea and I'm sure his placement of that material has informed a few thousand people by now. I'm going to restore it because of the number of hits, and because there's no real consensus here to remove it. We can ask the wider community about it in the meantime. All these new articles need time to grow and coordinate. Thanks everybody for your comments. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Inserting questionable content because the article is getting a lot of hits is a poor rationale. Light show himself agrees the content doesn't really belong here. At this point, looking at this section, you're the only one really pushing for inclusion. That's not a consensus. I'd argue the consensus is that generic ebola information (which these key facts are) should be in the ebola article. An inability to get that informaion inserted into the ebola article (if such an inability exists) does not justify inserting it elsewhere. – JBarta (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
JBarta, That's a good point. I'm not really pushing for it. There's a concern about duplication as well as a lack of uniformity by others. I think Light Show was trying to address that dichotomy and it seemed a good solution at the time. As the article grows, we can revisit this. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought that the Key facts addition was excellent. I'd very much like to see it returned. Gandydancer (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Gandydancer: It doesn't belong here at all. This is an encyclopedia. Anything like that would belong in the appropriate article, namely Ebola virus disease, which already contains the information. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Forking option

Another question is whether a separate "Key facts about . . ." article would an acceptable type of fork worth having. In concept, it could work for many large disease articles. The premise and format of "key facts" articles would be the bulleted list, as a synopsis of material from the main article but without the medical jargon, with the goal of summarizing of key facts. The guideline rationale: The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details, thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of details they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic. Breakout methods should anticipate the various details levels that typical readers will look for. Therefore, the first question is whether the lead of the main article accomplishes that purpose. IMO, it varies a lot with the disease article. For Ebola, most of key facts are in the lead, along with general outbreak details, but in prose form. The same with Flu, which includes a brief history of pandemics. Here's a sandbox of the Key facts included earlier for quick comparison.

Is a fork justifiable based on size of the main article? For the "Key facts on Ebola," the text excluding hatnotes was about 450 words. Those same sections summarized in the main article were 4,000 words, with the full article being about double that. Other articles had the same size issues: Flu is an 8,800 word article, and AIDS, 9,000 words.

Another question is whether reliable sources have used that style, including a "key facts" section within a much larger article. It seems many do:

Would it really help general readers? Probably, as it would be understandable to a general audience. For people sitting on subways or buses using a smartphone, the bulleted list keeps it simple and quick. When tabloids, aimed at sensationalizing news to sell ad space, put out headlines like these, key facts will help. And for people sick in bed with a thermometer in their mouth, quick and easy facts are appreciated. --Light show (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Light show, Well done you. I especially like that you thought of readers using smartphones. It should also include the information that as the person gets sicker, the viral load he's carrying increases and therefore makes his blood and body fluids even more contagious. Lots of RS for that. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Large articles are not an issue so much if they are properly organised. This is a bad idea and is essentially creating a indiscriminate collection of information. Users seeking quick simple information can find it at simple:Ebola virus disease. Wikipedia frowns heavily upon trivia or "fact" articles and you should find consensus BEFORE making such an article. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Floydian is right; Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or something similar, it is an encyclopedia. If we're looking for the basics, the simple page may be a good place to go (though on the other hand, it, too, could stand to be improved). If you feel that Ebola virus disease is too difficult to understand or presents its information in a confusing way, we can talk it over there. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Floydian: I have greatly improved the simple:Ebola virus article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Fine, I understand the problem, but just wanted to put this option out there. BTW, I don't think the simple article can substitute for a Key facts article, as "simple" is for non-English readers to get the big picture, not just key facts. Key facts wouldn't begin, Ebola virus is a very dangerous virus, for example. --Light show (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
More accurately, it is for people who are not very literate in English. However, a "key facts" article doesn't seem very, well, encyclopedic. We have an Introduction to Evolution article which is meant to be a non-technical coverage of the subject, but a "key facts" article doesn't seem like it would be very encyclopedic at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess it's a hybrid, a list and an introduction to . . . combined. --Light show (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

American doctors get protective training/CDC

FYI

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2784761/MDs-Ebola-training-focuses-astronaut-like-gear.html

SW3 5DL (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Bare URLs

We've got some bare url's that don't seem to respond to the reflinks tool. Can someone fix those? Appreciate it. Ta. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Where? In this talk page? There was one URL enclosed in "ref" tags in #Post recovery patient management that didn't need to be. I removed the tags and replaced them with parentheses. — QuicksilverT @ 21:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciate that. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Current event

Since this topic is in the news and updated almost daily, should the article be tagged with {{current}}?  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think so. Geogene (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Done. – JBarta (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Aye. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Second Dallas Ebola case reported

Reports have been trickling in on the radio for the last 2-3 hours that a Dallas County sheriff's deputy who entered the apartment where Thomas Duncan ("Patient Zero") had been staying last week without being dressed in protective gear has been rushed to the hospital with symptoms of Ebola. I haven't seen anything in the Google News stream yet, however. The deputy was told that he had "no chance" of contracting the virus before he entered the premises. He woke up this morning feeling sore and a little nauseous, and visited a clinic where the determination was made that he needed to get to a hospital ASAP. — QuicksilverT @ 21:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if true, this has not been confirmed as ebola. Wait until we get confirmation, as this could be any number of different illnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.122.15 (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed it from the article because it's not notable until he is confirmed to have ebola (fails the ten year test), because experts say that it is "unlikely" that he has ebola, and further, because it's probably a BLP violation. Geogene (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not a BLP violation. It's also covered in multiple media, so it should be added for the time being. If not, it can be removed. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, but if it must be added now, the addition should make clear, as reliable sources do, that this is a "low risk" individual and is probably not ebola, and/or is being done "out of an abundance of caution". Geogene (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay. We can go with that. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Duncan dead

Is it mentionable in this article that his remains will be cremated? if so then i have some references that can be used. After Texas Ebola patient's death, 'what ifs' haunt loved onesTexas Officials Say They Will Cremate Ebola Patient's RemainsRemains of Texas Ebola patient to be cremated--Nrpf22pr (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

West Africa section

The section on West Africa might best be trimmed down to just a summary paragraph as is more appropriate, and per policy, when a main article exists. It would also benefit by including more specific information relevant to Mr. Duncan's activities there so the reader can understand events better. With all the claims of article duplication, this should be an easy edit, but I'm asking here first. The map should remain as it is well done and informative. What do others think? SW3 5DL (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Who paid for Thomas Duncan's passage to the United States?

It has been reported that Thomas Duncan lived in a shack in Liberia an didn't have the financial means to pay for a $3000-plus airline flight to the United States. Who paid his way? Was it a friend? A relative? A Dallas-area church group? This should information should be added to the article as it becomes available.  — QuicksilverT @ 21:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a possible clue: [1], but it and others reporting the same thing look quite less than reliable. I couldn't find anything reliable reporting it... at least not yet. Of course we don't want to add that until (and if) something more solid surfaces. – JBarta (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I imagine Duncan paid his own fare. He had a good job working for a container shipping company. He was sending money to his family in Texas, and he rented the small apartment he had in Monrovia. it wasn't a shack. After his neighbor died, he quit his job suddenly and headed to the U.S. I don't know what visa arrangements the U.S. State Department has with Liberia, so don't know if he had to apply for one first. I read this in either the NYTimes or the Guardian. Could be it was on the BBC. I remember taking it as reliable because of the source. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/world/africa/ebola-victim-texas-thomas-eric-duncan.html?_r=0. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Hydrargyrum: Uh, can you please explain why you want to put that in an encyclopedia article? Geogene (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Geogene: Because Thomas Duncan is Patient Zero in what may become a human disaster on a scale that North America has never seen before, and it would make the article complete — you know, just like all the sordid details of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, with its 324 references. If you're not interested in contributing to the effort, that's fine, too. — QuicksilverT @ 23:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I know all about the sordid details of the Gulf Oil Spill, and the media feeding frenzy that ruined the article. (But then again, you probably had a look at my editing history). I hope that won't repeat here. I asked for encyclopedic reasons, and you haven't provided them. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox to shame people. Geogene (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
No, the purpose is not to shame anyone; it is to be informative. Check out the Typhoid Mary article, for example. It has lots of detail about the person who was the vector for a disease that killed dozens and sickened additional hundreds. — QuicksilverT @ 23:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
What's informative is a matter of opinion, Wikipedia WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This is especially true when it involves gossip about ordinary people. And an important difference, Typhoid Mary is a historical figure, she died a long time ago. If patient zero didn't pay his own fare then whoever did is still alive. This means that if you "out" them here it'll be swatted down immediately, per policy, and then an oversighter will erase it from the page history. Shaming an oil company may be considered acceptable by the community around here, but I suspect that shaming a local immigrant community probably will be severely frowned upon. At least, I hope so. And I also disagree that this is a pending disaster for the US. I'm a lot more worried about having a car crash than catching ebola. Geogene (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a feeling Ebola is not going to get very far in the U.S. We're actively combating it here before it has a chance to gain a foothold. (Unlike HIV, unfortunately) It may kill many in underdeveloped counties, but probably not in developed ones. Here in the U.S. we're blessed to deal with heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc on an epidemic scale. But the poor Ebola virus? Doesn't stand a chance. – JBarta (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with the article content at hand? This is about Duncan's Ebola case in the U.S., not about his personal life prior to and during his stay in the U.S. Wikipedia isn't a forum, by the way. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think per WP:BLP we should avoid assuming any special significance for Duncan as "patient zero", because the reality is that he differs from 20,000 people only by where he spent a few days. You don't have an infectious disease outbreak on one side of an ocean and not the other; if anything he should be credited with sending the U.S. into such a full freak mode that it might actually be politically viable for them to contribute enough help to stop the outbreak in Liberia before it goes airborne. Let's try to avoid demonizing the man. Wnt (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Wnt. And, let's not base today's editorial decisions on assumptions that this article is someday going to read like The Stand. One thing at a time. Geogene (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Mistreatment of viral infection with antibiotics for bacteria

I think it is scientifically relevant to note how the hospital prescribed([2]) antibiotics to treat a suspected "common viral infection" on Duncan's first visit to the hospital. Regardless of his false travel disclosure at that time, antibiotics target bacteria, not viruses, so if it is true he was given antibiotics, this was a very bad preliminary medical care by that hospital/physician. Prescribing antibiotics for viral infections is a terrible and common mistake in USA, and in the context of this epidemic and he being the patient Zero, I wonder if this has become an issue under investigation. Source: [3]:

Mark C. Lester, executive vice president of the health-care system that includes Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, the Dallas facility treating the man [...] Lester said during a news conference Wednesday [Duncan] was diagnosed with a “low-grade, common viral disease” and sent home that day, Lester said. [...] Duncan’s sister told the AP he was sent home with antibiotics that day.

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing like a viral illness to set up an opportunistic bacterial infection. Do you have a source that's focusing on this particular aspect? Geogene (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not a doctor but It is fairly common for secondary bacteria infections to develop. I suppose the hospital could have sent the patient home with nothing, I guess they were trying to be proactive and avoid a repeat trip to the ER. I can't wait to see the bill the family gets for all the car Duncan received. Mantion (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course, a lot of doctors also (unwisely) prescribe antibiotics as placebos, and/or give ignorant patients who demand a magical drug no matter what antibiotics. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Doctors also give a prescription for antibiotics when they've taken cultures to rule out bacterial infection. That's appropriate. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
With Ebola, a disease never in history been in the U.S., it's not necessarily "very bad" or "terrible" that he, along with thousands of feverish patients every day get a prescription for antibiotics. It's typical, even if mostly useless except as a placebo, and to fill the pockets of druggists and the drug industry. Had he first phoned the emergency room with his symptoms, a mild fever (100.1) and headache, etc., they would have told him not to come into a large emergency room loaded with patients, but to stay in bed, take aspirin, and drink lots of fluids. With only a 100.1 degree temperature, I'm not sure why they gave him any prescription at all, as there is no anti-viral drug for cold or flu, or most other viruses.
Even as a visitor from Liberia, as the new and yet unknown patient zero, it's not a big surprise that alarm bells weren't set off. And had they even suspected Ebola, they also would have told him to stay home until a biohazard team showed up. In any case, the hospital will be treating his potential $500,000 bill as a charity case. And that excludes the 100 contacts that Dallas had to track down, including a homeless person, to put in either quarantine or monitoring. --Light show (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I will tell you what is "terrible" about it: the world-wide selective breading of bacteria superbug strains resistant to antibiotics. I was wondering if this epidemic served as a wake up call to governments, looks like it did not. Good night. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove info that contradicts WHO

I have removed the following:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the origin is unknown, however one study suggested that the child may have contracted the virus through contact with a fruit bat, which are known to harbor the virus in Central Africa where Ebola disease is endemic.

It's important that we get this information correct. One editor continues to add it to articles...and I continue to remove it. One study which was discussed in a news source (not a scientific journal), which has still not been published although several months have gone by, is not a reasonable source to question the WHO, who states that the origin remains unknown. Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Article title - unnecessary words

Most, if not all, of the viral and bacterial disease articles just give the name of the disease, which makes this title seem excessive. The word "cases" is ok for now, however, although it's implied in any disease article.--Light show (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree the title was too many words, especially it seemed, 'in the United States." And given that there are now two related cases, it's an outbreak, so I changed the title to reflect that. I included the year as per MEDRS. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
How on Earth are you an admin? MEDRS has nothing to do with article titles or years in the title. An outbreak is not two cases, an outbreak is a an ongoing situation. I keep trying to make your circus spinouts consistent with the main article, the consensus determined in several discussions before the US case brought the circus to town, WP:MEDMOS (which despite your userpage, I can no longer assume good faith that you have ever read that), but in comes 5W3 to make some random uninformed change to just one of the articles. Kudos to you. The title should simply be Ebola virus disease cases in the United States or even Ebola virus disease in the United States. Unfortunately right now it's Gong Show. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Including the words "virus disease" or even "virus," is inconsistent with other disease article titles, which just name the disease. --Light show (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it would seem so, but it's an outbreak of a virus that a person contracts that then causes the hemorrhagic fever. The article isn't really about the disease per se, it's about the outbreak of the virus and its spread. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The disease is called "Ebola virus disease". It is consistent with all other Ebola articles. The article is about the few cases treated or discovered in the United States. It should begin with a hatnote directing users to the main outbreak article for background information, and should only specifically cover the details pertinent to the US cases. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Floydian and can't imagine where SW3 found MEDRS that states that we must include the year. Gandydancer (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Fever Temperature

Duncan's family is now claiming that he had a temperature of 103F, while initial reports stated that his temperature was 100.1 F. We should probably wait until an investigation is completed/the hospital gives a different number, but we should keep an eye on this. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think "fever" is specific enough really. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? A fever of 1 degree F is not equivalent to a fever of 3 degrees F. Edison (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah but the sources disagree as to the degree of the fever, so "fever" is ample until we get more information. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Screening of passengers

This is interesting, about Dr. Aileen Marty. She's affiliated with WHO and works at a Uni in Florida. [4]. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Stay tuned for Ebola... – Epicgenius (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
What a thought. She's credible in assessing their screening. The CDC kept saying it wouldn't be a problem in America, but the hospitals aren't prepared for the numbers overwhelming the African hospitals/clinics. They've closed Texas Presbyterian ER. That takes their beds out of the resource pool. And while this is going on, what other services are being lost? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Just remember, this isn't a forum, and the Daily Mail is the Daily Mail. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There's been a debate among some politicians as to whether screening is enough, with some advocating more of a ban on flights from certain places. It might add some perspective to the decision to screen, giving pros and cons, opinions, problems doing it, etc. --Light show (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the flights and there's been discussion that the U.S. State Dept. could just stop issuing visas. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Containment efforts

We should add in the Hazmat cleaning of the apartments of both patients, and also mention the quarantine of the NBC news crew. They are now in mandatory quarantine after Dr. Nancy Snyderman apparently violated the voluntary quarantine by going to a restaurant for soup. I'll get the sources. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2790507/nbc-chief-medical-correspondent-accused-violating-ebola-quarantine-visit-favorite-soup-restaurant.html

SW3 5DL (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Suspected Cases in Isolation"

The field "Suspected cases in isolation" should be removed. It does not serve a purpose separate from the field below it. It also has been changing nearly daily of late. Geogene (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's separate enough. When someone is placed in medical isolation, they are beyond quarantine or observation, and are being diagnosed in a specially equipped facility as a potential level 4 biohazard risk. --Light show (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Light show. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. Does that mean that that is not the appropriate field for patients in Dallas? I don't think that's a BL 4 setup. Geogene (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
If she's no longer just "suspected," she would be a "diagnosed case." And while only a limited number of hospitals have a full BL-4 setup or lab, most have isolation rooms. --Light show (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that it was the deputy that was the "1" listed as being in isolation, and the rest are listed as being in "quarantine". At least, that was changed from "0" to "1" immediately after news broke that the deputy was taken into the hospital. Point: since I don't really understand the difference here, I suspect that the readership and many editors probably don't, either. Geogene (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess the infobox is too brief. Otherwise we'd note that "suspected" cases have symptoms. Yet not everyone with symptoms will be placed in isolation. It may be a combination of the degree of symptoms along with the person's risk factors that would warrant isolation. When and if the news stops reporting suspected cases from diagnosed cases, we can drop the field. --Light show (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I added a note tag to the infobox to help readers. --Light show (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Infections from Dog issue's

Looks like the USA is been a little tenderfoot on the possibly infected Dogs issue, as with in this news report, [5] compared to the Spanish authorities.. Some thing to follow, just incase more develops from it. Gremlinsa (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Other patients

No mention of Ebola patients in US.

  • Dr Kent Brantly
  • Dr Nick Sacra
  • Ashoka Mukpo
  • anonymous World Health Organization (WHO) employee
Did you bother to look under Medical evacuations to the U.S.?? Gremlinsa (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Public reaction

Many people are calling for putting a stop to non-essential travel to/from (but especially from) the infected West African Countries. Should we mention that here? 98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if there are reliable sources. Check papers like New York Times and area papers, like the Dallas-Morning News, etc. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Doctor gives blood for Ebola-infected Dallas nurse

  • "Doctor gives blood for Ebola-infected Dallas nurse". FOX News. October 14, 2014. Archived from the original on October 14, 2014. Retrieved October 14, 2014.

FYI, above cite could be worth adding to update the article.

It appears this is at least the 2nd time this particular doctor has donated blood in this capacity to someone affected by the Ebola virus. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

here's another source: [6]

Article Title: Does this define an Outbreak?

At this point in time, Ebola does not constitute an outbreak in the US. Should the article be named Ebola in the US or Ebola Cases in the US, or Ebola Virus in the United States? Outbreak(n): the sudden or violent start of something unwelcome, such as war, disease, etc. So this isn't an outbreak at all. Yet... EoRdE6 (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that something like "Ebola virus disease in the United States" would do for the time being. But would that make the article harder for readers to find? Geogene (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Disagree. It is an outbreak - "the occurrence of more cases than expected" [7]. Prior to this year Ebola has not caused clinical disease in the US source Definitely more than expected. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Has the CDC declared it an outbreak or epidemic? Geogene (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Two related cases = an outbreak. The WHO stated in an email to an editor who posted it on the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa talk page, that in West Africa they call it an epidemic, in the individual countries they call it an outbreak. It is an outbreak of a virus. The virus enters the human. It is the reaction/interaction of the human's immune system with the virus that results in the disease. So it's not an outbreak of disease, it's an outbreak of a virus. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Are sources calling it an outbreak? Geogene (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Not medically reliable sources. An outbreak is defined as an ongoing event, and at this point in time neither Spain nor the USA are experiencing a continuously unfolding event. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
As long as readers will be able to find the article, I think we should go with the sources. Geogene (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

See Outbreak. Ebola virus is not endemic to the United States, therefore, no outbreak of the Ebola virus is expected here. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So why would we define it as one? They are imported cases, and until a chain of transmission becomes established in those countries, there is no "outbreak", just initial cases. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

See WHO here. A chain of transmission? I don't understand this: They are imported cases, and until a chain of transmission becomes established in those countries, there is no "outbreak", just initial cases. Well, I could be wrong, but it looks to me like an infected individual entered the United States with a zoonotic virus, developed an infection from that virus, transmitted that virus to another person in the United States, that person has now developed the same zoonotic infection, I'd say that's an outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's an introduction. Hence the use of that term by the WHO. The link you provided says it may constitute an outbreak in those cases, but it's synthesis to apply that to the US ebola cases. The title should be updated to be in line with the spanish article, as that is descriptive, and more time need to be focussed on improving the content and not on the semantics of the title. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have RS that says it's an "introduction?" Also, well done on the nav box. We'd been needing that. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not think this is an outbreak. Nigeria's case is an outbreak. These are 2 cases in the U.S., like in Spain. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
For the U.S., the word "case(s)" seems to be used most by sources. A recent example NY Times article uses the word "case(s)" 10 times, but used the word "outbreak" only once, in a question: "Is the U.S. Prepared for an Ebola Outbreak?" --Light show (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Might be good to read this diff here to understand what an outbreak is. This is well said and might help. There's also a epidemiology source provided. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
A similar article yesterday, this one quoting Obama, John MCain and the CDC, differentiated the words: "A widespread outbreak is extremely unlikely in the United States. But individual or isolated cases were possible, hence the need for the CDC to be ready." As for the nurse, "The new case is fanning the fears of those who think the government is not doing enough to prevent an Ebola outbreak in the United States." The case(s) exist today, while "outbreak" is generally referring to a potential future event, it seems. --Light show (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The future event would be a . . . widespread outbreak. . . The CDC did not say, this does not represent an outbreak of the Ebola virus. They said they think a widespread outbreak is unlikely. They are acknowledging that this is an outbreak by saying that. They also said that Ebola virus would not come to America, and here it is. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
CDC Chief, more cases likely. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As yet, there appears to be no source which has called the case(s) in the U.S. an "outbreak". Quite the opposite: as yesterday's NY Times wrote in its editorial: "the risk that the Ebola virus might cause outbreaks in this country remains small," which is similar to quotes above. I also agree with what an African editorial wrote, "No Need for Sensationalism". It's not great that "two-thirds of Americans are worried about possible widespread epidemic in U.S.". People may fear an outbreak, but the term is currently unsupported, only inferred. --Light show (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Per the lack of consensus here and at WT:MED to use the word outbreak in the title, I will attempt to move the article to something very similar, descriptive, and generic: Ebola virus disease in the United States. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ebola_virus_cases_in_the_United_States/Archive_2&oldid=1083512059"