It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

United Notifying Passengers on Ebola Patient Duncan's Flights

page: 1
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
www.nbcnews.com...




United Airlines, which flew Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan on two of the three flights that brought him to the U.S. last month, is trying to notify as many as 400 people who may have been on Duncan's flights, referring them to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the airline told NBC News on Thursday. United said it doesn't believe any fellows passengers are at risk but that it was taking the move out of an abundance of caution.


Not much to add..

I think this is the right move, regardless of what the CDC says. Clearly the CDC is not taking things seriously.




posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I think this will dramatically increase the number of cases of people showing up sick at the hospital, whether they are sick or not. And I can see how the government and the CDC might not like this move as it could cause panic - but I also think United had to do it to limit liability.
edit on 10/2/2014 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

I agree that United did the right thing by looking out for their customers.

Let's face it, we are all going to have to look out for each other since those we pay and have trusted in the past to do it no longer do.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

I can't imagine that awkward phone call.

"Hi, this is Chet with United, we hope you liked our flight and our service, are you bleeding uncontrollably?"



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack
It's clear that the egg was dropped in the Dallas situation, and the CDC couldn't get control--which they need--and they can't put Humpty back together again.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: kosmicjack
www.nbcnews.com...




United Airlines, which flew Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan on two of the three flights that brought him to the U.S. last month, is trying to notify as many as 400 people who may have been on Duncan's flights, referring them to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the airline told NBC News on Thursday. United said it doesn't believe any fellows passengers are at risk but that it was taking the move out of an abundance of caution.


Not much to add..

I think this is the right move, regardless of what the CDC says. Clearly the CDC is not taking things seriously.


I would say they're taking the possibility of mass panic if they let on to the actual magnitude of what's probably about to happen pretty seriously, hence their cavalier attitude in front of the press and their use of words like "impossible" to describe the likelihood of anyone on any of those planes being infected.

These people will downplay this until they can downplay it no more.

What would they do if it turns out that maybe he was experiencing some mild symptoms on the flight home? Could they possibly track down and monitor every person on each of those flights and every person each of those passengers have come into contact with since then?



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Someone high up the food chain made this call, and I am sure that it wasn't an easy one for United because it will surely impact them negatively. This does show that they think there is at least a small chance that the man was contagious in flight regardless of what was originally reported, or they wouldn't risk making a decision like this.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpaDe_
Someone high up the food chain made this call, and I am sure that it wasn't an easy one for United because it will surely impact them negatively. This does show that they think there is at least a small chance that the man was contagious in flight regardless of what was originally reported, or they wouldn't risk making a decision like this.


I agree. United was likely advised by their legal department to take this step to lessen legal liability so they're not absolutely convinced that he wasn't contagious on the plane. You can bet United consulted the CDC and other medical experts, learned that there was some risk, weighed the odds and opted for minimizing legal liability. It's unlikely the CDC would tell us if there's a chance he was contagious on the plane. That would produce panic that the CDC and US government doesn't want to contemplate. At this point, they're crossing their fingers.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I think reality is beginning to settle in that the CDC is outright lying to the public, the government is failing to protect us, actively endangering us, and that the public is in grave danger with the current policies in place regarding unrestricted travel to these infected areas.

Hopefully more U.S, airlines will step in and inplement their own protective protocols to begin to minimize the amount of infected that make it inside our borders. It's almost a certainty Obama's minions aren't going to do anything to protect the people.

I fear its already too late. We need more action yesterday, and it's not gonna happen.

I have scoffed at various doom porn scenarios others thought were going to bring us down.

This doom porn movie is no longer fictional, the script is playing out, and when it's over this country will be unrecognizable from what we know today.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: SpaDe_
Someone high up the food chain made this call, and I am sure that it wasn't an easy one for United because it will surely impact them negatively. This does show that they think there is at least a small chance that the man was contagious in flight regardless of what was originally reported, or they wouldn't risk making a decision like this.


I agree. United was likely advised by their legal department to take this step to lessen legal liability so they're not absolutely convinced that he wasn't contagious on the plane. You can bet United consulted the CDC and other medical experts, learned that there was some risk, weighed the odds and opted for minimizing legal liability. It's unlikely the CDC would tell us if there's a chance he was contagious on the plane. That would produce panic that the CDC and US government doesn't want to contemplate. At this point, they're crossing their fingers.


Powerful writing. Every word rings with the truth.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack
The last time I flew, I had to throw away my bottle of Afrin. A small thing (except when my ears clog at 35,000 feet). I bought another bottle when I passed "on the other side" of the TSA barrier. People were lined up that morning, old ladies taking off their shoes; old, crippled men getting scanned. Baggage opened, the contents tossed carelessly. In this smallish Southern airport, all passengers were threats to national security.
Yet...yet...tptb let a bioterror through? And a major city fumbled, allowing that terror to possibly spread. How could any airline think that they would not be held accountable by the actions of governments? United did the hard thing, but it was the right thing. Who will be next to step up to the table and do what must be done?



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpaDe_
Someone high up the food chain made this call, and I am sure that it wasn't an easy one for United because it will surely impact them negatively. This does show that they think there is at least a small chance that the man was contagious in flight regardless of what was originally reported, or they wouldn't risk making a decision like this.


Well, it's now known he lied on his questionnaire.

There are a few reasons to do that: you know you were exposed and know you are sick which means you are contagious, you know you were exposed and are in a massive case of denial which means you could be contagious, you know you are exposed and know if you get sick being in Africa is sure death sentence which means you may not be contagious.

And someone today on the Limbaugh they apparently were reporting that the temperature screening in Liberia isn't done with any physical contact. So, how sensitive are their thermometers likely to be?

It seems a lot of this relies on people being honest.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
I don't have a link handy, but the CDC released Pt Z's temp readings and went on to discuss the legitimacy of their freaking thermometers. I hate it when the CDC defends itself like that.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: drwill

Well, to be fair, it was a caller who takes temperature readings on equipment with a probe that uses air temp, and he was basing his understanding of how these things would work based on the sensitivity of his own equipment which isn't designed or calibrated to measure human body temp. So I would take it with a grain of salt. It is possible that what they are working with in Liberia is legitimate equipment designed for the purpose because you certainly wouldn't want to spread ebola with a measure designed to prevent spreading it.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You CANNOT trust the infected.

They need to get rid of all this touchy-feely TSA security BS too.

And ... they need to hold accountable the director of the CDC for gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.

The government downplayed this whole Ebola threat ... to protect the #ty-@ssed economy.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

Well is nice to know that at leas somebody have the common sense and the initiative to do something about people that had contact with Liberia man, during fly, because obviously the CDC is full of crap.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
This was originally linked by Gully in another thread, but it applies to this thread:

ebola.emedtv.com...




The Ebola incubation period is the period between infection with the virus and the appearance of symptoms associated with the disease. The incubation period can be as short as 2 days or as long as 21 days. A person is still contagious during this time.
...
After four to six days on average, symptoms of Ebola can begin. The period between the transmission of the virus and the start of symptoms is called the incubation period. For Ebola, the incubation period can be as short as 2 days or as long as 21 days.

Is a Person Contagious During the Ebola Incubation Period?
Even if a person exhibits no signs or symptoms of Ebola, he or she can still spread the virus during the incubation period. Once symptoms begin, the person can remain contagious for about three more weeks.


If this is true, those on the planes were exposed, despite what the CDC says.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Thing is that you only get Ebola through infected body fluids.

Ask yourself, how often do you come into contact with the body fluids of any random person you happen to be next to?

The reason why they say you can't catch it before symptoms appear is because viral load is heaviest in fluids like blood, vomit, and feces. It's much lower in saliva and sweat. Viral load is even lower before symptoms appear across all body fluids. There are some sources that say it's even possible to have symptoms and test negative for Ebola, that's how low it's possible for the viral load to still be.

So, OK, you are sitting next to someone who is incubating ... what are the odds that you are swapping blood, vomit or feces with them? And if you do happen to catch spit or sweat off them, it still has to gain access to your system with enough viral particles to establish infection, and we've already talked about how the viral load is still low at this point, low enough they may not even be able to detect it in your blood where the load would be higher.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Would "1 to 10 organisms" be considered low as far as viral loads go?


INFECTIOUS DOSE: Viral hemorrhagic fevers have an infectious dose of 1 - 10 organisms by aerosol in non-human primates


EBOLAVIRUS - PATHOGEN SAFETY DATA SHEET - INFECTIOUS SUBSTANCES



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BlueAjah

Thing is that you only get Ebola through infected body fluids.

Ask yourself, how often do you come into contact with the body fluids of any random person you happen to be next to?

The reason why they say you can't catch it before symptoms appear is because viral load is heaviest in fluids like blood, vomit, and feces. It's much lower in saliva and sweat. Viral load is even lower before symptoms appear across all body fluids. There are some sources that say it's even possible to have symptoms and test negative for Ebola, that's how low it's possible for the viral load to still be.

So, OK, you are sitting next to someone who is incubating ... what are the odds that you are swapping blood, vomit or feces with them? And if you do happen to catch spit or sweat off them, it still has to gain access to your system with enough viral particles to establish infection, and we've already talked about how the viral load is still low at this point, low enough they may not even be able to detect it in your blood where the load would be higher.



I wish I could live in the dream world you do. Where the facts from the government are allowed ro temporarily defy reason. Only, I know better.

On long flights, people sleep. They drool. They cough. Air is recirculated. If one is getting sick, they may sweat which also carries the virus. There is a good reason why no other Ebola patients or possible patients have been transported commercially. Like a doctor on Fox (the one wearing the hazmat suit in Atlanta), if you poll a group of doctors who know abo Ebola about whether it is transmissable during the incubation period, they would likely respond they don't think so or don't know. However, if asked if they would feel comfortable next to such a person on a bus, most would answer no.

The virus is mutating everytime it finds a new host. That means there is some wiggle room on anything having to do with it. Anything could change. Would you be okay with risking the life of your loved ones because the government told you it is okay.

The same government that said Ebola would not come to the u. S.? The same government that refuses to do anything differently with people coming from this area after these controls allowed Mr. Duncan in? If they want us to trust them, then they need to put forth real means to keep this from happening again. Otherwise, they are full of crap.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join