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.

 

New Jersey Suspected Ebola

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Wonder how far this will make it in the MSM...oh scratch that...it won't.



The East African nation of Rwanda is requiring all visitors from the United States and Spain to self-monitor, fill out an extensive questionnaire and report their medical condition for the first 21 days of their visits because of the Ebola cases that have surfaced in the two Western countries.

Coincidentally or not, the new screening follows an embarrassing uproar in a New Jersey school over the imminent enrollment of two Rwanda children that initially prompted their parents to keep them at home for 21 days.

The order by the Rwanda government to visiting Americans and Spaniards was posted Tuesday on the website of the U.S. Embassy in Rwanda:

www.conservativerefocus.com...[/exnews ]

Someone needs to tell our new ebola czar, other countries are now blocking us....


Des




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: j.r.c.b.

Did you get them flu shots?

I know some are touchy about it but the nasel injection is a live virus and I find it works better, even though everyone in the room gets it also. I found that out the hard way. At least I got a free flu shot this year.
It's won't block them from catching it but it will strengthen the immune response to it.

Last year when that cruise ship docked with noroviris I caught it - talk about 4 days of hell!
I was thin to begin with but losing another 8 lbs. was a silver lining. That's what made me worry about this, the norovirus spread rapidly from one quarentined cruise ship to all over this area withing 3 weeks.

Add: It's really late, I've got to sleep. I hope I don't wake up to my neighbors boarding up their windows!
Lol

Goodnight all!
edit on 10/21/2014 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AnteBellum


I'm not freaking out over catching it at this point just the utter failure of mismanagement by our officials.


Hell we all are leery of what the officials say or should be

They say one thing one minute and then contradict themselves the next, like changing tides

You and j.r.c.b. need to keep a watch on the goings on in your area
Stay safe and be alert!!



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: RunForTheHills
Tuesday evening, there was a flurry of activity around the hospital, the designated facility for any passengers flagged by health screeners at the airport. Officials in protective gear were seen entering the building and police were guarding entrances. - See more at: www.northjersey.com...

seen this in New Jersey.Com

Why aren't they taking suspected Ebola patients to a screening center and then to an Ebola treatment facility for further testing and followup? Is another hospital ER going to be contaminated and closed down? I thought that there was something learned from the Dallas debacle(?)
edit on 22/10/2014 by MarkJS because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ValentineWiggin
a reply to: ArmyOfNobunaga

I didn't think it would be long.


Here's hoping it's negative.


If the nurses don't wear a respirator and just wear a mask like the previous nurses they will be infected, again. The reason the nurses got infected is because ebola travels up to 6 feet in the air from a person when he sneezes or coughs. Infection depends upon the viral load, how much virus is in a person. A person has the most amount of virus when they are the sickest. It only takes one viral particle to infect someone. The chances of contracting ebola from someone who is not symptomatic is very low but not zero. The chances of contracting ebola from a surface is low but not zero. The chances of contracting ebola from someone who is sneezing or coughing who is sick from ebola are high if you are close to that person. That is the route of infection that is occurring with health care workers. The fluids drop out of the air rather quickly, unless there is some kind of fan or strong wind. The problem with this new strain of ebola is that the viral load is much higher than in previous strains. All strains of ebola have always been transmittable through the air via aerosols since it was discovered in 1976. Anyone who has ebola is contagious. If they are not showing symptoms they are still contagious but not very contagious. The likelihood of contracting ebola from a nonsymptomatic person is low but not zero.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Destinyone
Wonder how far this will make it in the MSM...oh scratch that...it won't.



The East African nation of Rwanda is requiring all visitors from the United States and Spain to self-monitor, fill out an extensive questionnaire and report their medical condition for the first 21 days of their visits because of the Ebola cases that have surfaced in the two Western countries.

Coincidentally or not, the new screening follows an embarrassing uproar in a New Jersey school over the imminent enrollment of two Rwanda children that initially prompted their parents to keep them at home for 21 days.

The order by the Rwanda government to visiting Americans and Spaniards was posted Tuesday on the website of the U.S. Embassy in Rwanda:

www.conservativerefocus.com...[/exnews ]

Someone needs to tell our new ebola czar, other countries are now blocking us....


Des

21 days is an arbitrary number that they adopted. There is talk of increasing it to 42 days. This is a new strain, and nobody knows the real maximum incubation time. One virus particle is all it takes to become infected. Infections vary on how many virus particles (viral load) someone acquires. Obviously if you acquire only one virus particle its going to take you a long time to develop symptoms. That virus has to replicate enough times so that you eventually become sick. I am very concerned about this 21 day period. Does anybody else find it unusual that Duncan's wife and children are not sick, yet the nurses got sick? Duncan wasn't that sick when he was with his family. He was exposing them to a low level of virus. The nurses were working around Duncan when he was the sickest with a high viral load. Is it possible that Duncan's wife and children are infected but started with a very low viral load so aren't sick yet? Do they test the quarantined people on a regular basis, or do they just wait and see if they develop symptoms?



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: RunForTheHills
Sounds like they all will be coming into the USA for treatment. I am still can not believe we are allowing them to come into the uSA with a deadly disease. How many Americans have to die before they stop the flights?



They won't have to come willingly, at the rate Obama is going, there's rumors he WANTS to bring them here for treatments. Between this rumor and his overpopulation Czar, we're doomed. Let's face it. We're doomed.

Judicial Watch



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Source< br />
^ This article says there is no indication the man has Ebola but they still haven't tested. Gov Christie is basically telling everyone not to panic. He says he is sure things will be fine after the CDC interviews the man?



Two sources briefed on the treatment of the patient had said he was being evaluated "as if he has Ebola" out of an abundance of caution. The patient was put in isolation and posed no risk.
Christie said he expected the patient would be released from the hospital after he is interviewed by officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


Guess the Coverup Czar is doing a good job.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
This is saying that the man is negative? I haven't seen that anywhere else.

It also says passengers inc. from West Africa will be "monitored" for 21 days. Sounds like they are giving them a thermometer?



Travelers will be given kits to help them track their temperatures and information on what to do if they develop symptoms, Frieden said.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ValentineWiggin
This is saying that the man is negative? I haven't seen that anywhere else.

It also says passengers inc. from West Africa will be "monitored" for 21 days. Sounds like they are giving them a thermometer?



Travelers will be given kits to help them track their temperatures and information on what to do if they develop symptoms, Frieden said.


Why do they keep declaring suspected Ebola patients negative in the short term? As I've said before, this testing, if done properly, takes several days. Faster tests are being developed but are not ready.]

I smell a rat. We've got an election coming up in a few weeks. Must be that Obama's party is in full-blown panic mode, trying to stop us little people from revolting.

I guess the new Ebola czar/cronie/whatever-he-should-be-called is doing a good job. Not one peep about new Ebola cases, which, under normal circumstances, would be great news. But with how this has been handled from the get-go, I've got a bad feeling about this.

Don't go by what the gov't says about this. Go by what it does. If this weren't a real threat, then they wouldn't have put together a rapid-response team of sorts. Wouldn't have deployed thousands of troops to Africa, etc, etc, etc.

This ridiculous fever screening program won't cut it. A travel ban would. But the airline and travel industry would cry foul because that's their bread and butter!

People can take meds to reduce or eliminate fevers. Heck, you can get generic pills at the dollar store that would work, and they think all these cosmetic measures they're taking will do the trick?

I don't buy it.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ValentineWiggin

I don't understand exactly why they aren't testing all of these suspected cases.
Best of luck to all of you ladies nearby and worried about your little ones!



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: dianajune

It is possible for the test to come back within a few hours. Actually the preffered method because of reliability only takes 3 to 4 hours. It just depends on who's doing the testing, and what kind of testing they are doing.

Link



Thomas Ksiazek, a professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston who has done extensive research on Ebola, says that testing is done using a process called real-time RT-PCR, or reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. In this technique, doctors or medical personnel take samples of blood from a patient. They then add an enzyme to convert RNA found in the blood into DNA (RNA is a chemical messenger that helps turn DNA’s “instructions” into proteins). Next, a “primer” is added that targets a string of genetic code unique to the Ebola virus. The concoction is then run through a PCR machine, wherein that strand of Ebola genetic material is amplified, or copied, many times (if it’s there, that is. If it’s not, nothing happens and the test returns a negative.)



Finally, a chemical probe is added that binds to these snippets of DNA and alerts the scientists to the presence of the Ebola virus, Ksiazek tells Newsweek. The whole process can take as little as three to four hours.


The only thing being that a person has to be symptomatic i believe before they can test with that. There is also




A technique called ELISA can also be used to diagnose Ebola, but it takes longer and also requires at least 100 times more individual viruses for an accurate result to be obtained than RT-PCR—meaning it is less sensitive, and doesn’t catch the virus as soon as the latter technique, Ksiazek says. The PCR technique was first widely used to diagnose Ebola in 2000.


So it is possible that they are getting the test results back within a couple of hours... so long as the person was actually exhibiting symptoms.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnteBellum
I hate to say it but maybe because it's in the 'wealthy' area being near Short Hills and the like they decided otherwise. Wouldn't surprise me at all given the area and snobbery there.


We should get something for the insane taxes we pay.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: RunForTheHills
I am sure they will continue taking airplanes as previously. Wouldn't you agree?


And what are they going to pay for their airline tickets with, colored rocks or shells?



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: RunForTheHills
I am sure they will continue taking airplanes as previously. Wouldn't you agree?


And what are they going to pay for their airline tickets with, colored rocks or shells?



What did Sawyer and Duncan pay for theirs with?

Seems to me that Ebola doesn't care whether you have money for plane tickets or not.

And don't forget that it is a zoonotic virus.

 

a reply to: AnteBellum

...more aggressive tools?



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Read the initial posts, neither one is a villager.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And only villagers get Ebola, correct?

Just want to make sure we have all the facts.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: BLACKOWT
Funny thing I just remembered hoping it is a coincidence that health officials were walking through my block passing out fliers and talking to people about ebola earlier....which I thought was strange(other than the fact that they are scared to walk through without police escort) and then this happens down the street....



Seriously? I live in Dallas and I didn't get a flyer. But then I didn't live in those areas of Duncan and the nurses.

Hmmm...Do you think they knew something beforehand?



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
And only villagers get Ebola, correct?
Just want to make sure we have all the facts.


No. The preponderance of infected persons are in rural areas and they obviously cannot either get to the airport and/or afford plane fare.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: itswhatev
a reply to: dianajune



It is possible for the test to come back within a few hours. Actually the preffered method because of reliability only takes 3 to 4 hours. It just depends on who's doing the testing, and what kind of testing they are doing.



Link






Thomas Ksiazek, a professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston who has done extensive research on Ebola, says that testing is done using a process called real-time RT-PCR, or reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. In this technique, doctors or medical personnel take samples of blood from a patient. They then add an enzyme to convert RNA found in the blood into DNA (RNA is a chemical messenger that helps turn DNA’s “instructions” into proteins). Next, a “primer” is added that targets a string of genetic code unique to the Ebola virus. The concoction is then run through a PCR machine, wherein that strand of Ebola genetic material is amplified, or copied, many times (if it’s there, that is. If it’s not, nothing happens and the test returns a negative.)






Finally, a chemical probe is added that binds to these snippets of DNA and alerts the scientists to the presence of the Ebola virus, Ksiazek tells Newsweek. The whole process can take as little as three to four hours.





The only thing being that a person has to be symptomatic i believe before they can test with that. There is also








A technique called ELISA can also be used to diagnose Ebola, but it takes longer and also requires at least 100 times more individual viruses for an accurate result to be obtained than RT-PCR—meaning it is less sensitive, and doesn’t catch the virus as soon as the latter technique, Ksiazek says. The PCR technique was first widely used to diagnose Ebola in 2000.





So it is possible that they are getting the test results back within a couple of hours... so long as the person was actually exhibiting symptoms.



This is what I don't understand. How can a PCR test show negative so quickly? In the early stages of Ebola the virus doesn't show up enough for the test to work. So you get a 'false negative' reading. It's only when the symptoms are further along that the test picks it up.

ETA: Never mind. I re-read your post and it's an RT-PCR test. That's new to me, as I've never heard of it.
edit on 22-10-2014 by texasgirl because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join