NEWS: Bird Flu Patient Escapes From Hospital

A man believed to have contracted the bird flu has fled from a quarantine unit of a Vietnamese hospital.
The man was admitted to the hospital with a high fever and difficulty breathing. He claims to have become ill after slaughtering chickens.



This is quite scary. I hope it's found that he in fact doesn't not carry the bird flu.
I don't know how this man got out of the hospital but it seems obvious that security needs to be beefed up to make sure these things don't happen.
This person needs to be found immediately. If he is now hiding with his family or friends he could be killing them. I hope further investigation reveals why he fled in the first place.

Related News Links:
breakingnews.iol.ie
news.webindia123.com

[edit on 25/11/2005 by Umbrax]

Wow... people like this really lower the value of human life, for themselves anyway. If this had been a widespread national quarantine, and he made the selfish and irresponsible act of escaping, while infected, he should be shot on sight. Before he were to kill anyone else.

I'm all for trying to escape a quarantine situation, as long as you know you aren't infected. If you are a carrier, you are a danger to those who are not. You could kill hundreds, thousands, even millions due to pure selfishness.

Since bird flu, namely h5n1, is not proven to sustain human to human transmission, this case is not of the severity described above. However, if for some crazy reason he is the source of a mutation to that effect, euthanasia is a very good option.

After extracting a bit of his blood... of course.

Actually, what he did is a common reaction.
If you or anyone else for that matter were to learn that you had a contagious disease and had to be quarantined, one of the first things that will run through your mind is to run away. It is part of the Fight or Flight reaction to stress that humans around the world have.
The issue here is that the security forces at the hospital should have been more alert so that this guy could not have escaped.

This reminds me of the miners in SA earlier this year, where some had been diagnoised with another contagious disease that is cousin to Ebola. Sorry, I can not remember the name of the disease at the moment other than it bagen with M and was similar to Ebola. The miners were placed uder quarantine, but soon most had escaped and the the disease spread to surrounding towns. I will see if I can get a link to the story for your reference.
Edited to add link as well as name of the virus.
The virus's name is Marburg. Here is the link to the story:
National Geographic

[edit on 25-11-2005 by kenshiro2012]

pop media didn't make the headlines read, "Man struck with bird flu flies the coop!"

Ken, what you're talking about is Marburg, if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah, there is no way this should have been allowed to happen. I guess security overseas isn't what it is in the U.S.

[edit on 11/25/2005 by JBurns]

Originally posted by saint4God
pop media didn't make the headlines read, "Man struck with bird flu flies the coop!"

Dangit! You beat me to the flying the coop line. Do we have a right to hold sick people prisoner? This will make it so that sick people won't go to the hospital for fear of being jailed like a criminal.

That's what results in entire cities being quarantined.

If someone is knowingly infected with a deadly pathogen, and they know they can spread it to others, and instead of being responsible and respectful of their fellow man and taking care of themselves (interpret that however you want)... but they don't, and instead willfully infect others... they are guilty of mass murder.

I feel if an entire city fell under a quarantine condition, those found who refused medical attention, or in the very least didn't seal themselves off in an airtight room, should be euthanized.

Originally posted by Indy
Dangit! You beat me to the flying the coop line.

Doh!

Originally posted by Indy
Do we have a right to hold sick people prisoner?

If they walk on the other side of the street and shout, "Unclean! Unclean!" then I think it'd be kosher to let them go.

Originally posted by Indy
This will make it so that sick people won't go to the hospital for fear of being jailed like a criminal.

It's an interesting dilemna. When I go, I hope it's because of Kung-Fu or skydiving. I don't wanna go out like dat... but it ain't my decision.

Originally posted by apc
That's what results in entire cities being quarantined.

I think that's fine. You'd still have things like being able to go to market, shop, tv, internet, etc. A little different then being tortured by hospital food.

Originally posted by apc
If someone is knowingly infected with a deadly pathogen, and they know they can spread it to others, and instead of being responsible and respectful of their fellow man and taking care of themselves (interpret that however you want)... but they don't, and instead willfully infect others... they are guilty of mass murder.

What are you going to do? Jail them? Hold a 3-year trial and give a death sentence? I'd preach respect to them rather than threaten their life. They're going to die anyway.

Originally posted by apc
I feel if an entire city fell under a quarantine condition, those found who refused medical attention, or in the very least didn't seal themselves off in an airtight room, should be euthanized.

Ah, kill them sooner. Thanks doctor.

If you're dealing with a situation in which a highly contageous [lethal] disease is spreading, and those infected refuse to seek help and instead choose to allow others to be infected, they clearly must be dealt with. Capture and containment is the obvious solution. If that doesn't work, there's only one other action to take.

[edit on 25-11-2005 by apc]

Many states are actually updating the laws in regards to quarrantines.
This is a reaction to 9/11 and the possibility of chemical / biological attacks occuring.
USAToday

If memory serves me correctly, there was a broohaha a week or so after Katrina due to goverment proposals that okayed such restrictions on a city / state level if there were a need to and the goverment declared a state of emergency as well as martial law being declared.

H5N1 bird flu has the ability to infect animals, and has been spreading around the world via migrating birds and whales since 1959, at least.

But suddenly we need to incarcerate people to protect ourselves from the boogeyman. Think about this folks. Please. And consider where we're being led.



.

Uhm... I think you missed the point.

Lets say, for example, that HIV goes airborne. It can be spread in peoples coughs and sneezes. Would you:

A. Lock all those infected up in a high security quarantine environment, or

B. Let them roam the streets, potentially killing everyone they cross paths with.

But, for now, we're only dealing with H5N1, a strain fully capable of mutating and becoming trasmissible human-to-human. We all know there are multiple unconfirmed reports of this already happening in a limited fasion. Is it worth the risk to not contain someone who is infected with this virus? Worth the risk of allowing them to be the catalyst for a mutation that could bring about global pandemic? Personally, I'll take the discomfort of one human over the potential deaths of a few billion.

Originally posted by apc

Uhm... I think you missed the point.

No. You missed my point. We already have horrific diseases that now are airborne, and almost without exception, common environmental contaminations are to blame for triggering mutations and activating the diseases.

For example - review the molecular biology of E. coli, rabies, and all the super bugs. They all are diseases that used to require direct physical contact or ingestion - but now are airborne, and community-acquired. And this is the short list.

My point being - we need to clean up the whole friggin world - NOT target and incarcerate a select group of victims.

Personally, I'll take the discomfort of one human over the potential deaths of a few billion.

Really? Even if that one persom is a multi-trillionaire who will lose his income if the world is slated for a clean up?




wd: brain burp



[edit on 27-11-2005 by soficrow]

Originally posted by soficrow
My point being - we need to clean up the whole friggin world - NOT target and incarcerate a select group of victims.

A select group that is infected with a lethal pathogen that does not currently have a cure or vaccine. An extremely strong dose of tamiflu will work in most of the human H5N1 infections so far, but it is rapidly becoming apparent that this will not always be the case.

Whether it is a possible super-flu or any number of other pathogens that result in death, and cannot be cured by a trip to the ER and a shot in the arm, then by all means the person infected must be quarantined. I really don't understand how this is getting misunderstood.

Person is infected with disease.
Disease cannot be cured.
Disease kills those infected.
Disease is highly contagious.

Why is it such a problem to keep them locked in a room unable to infect anyone else?

Really? Even if that one persom is a multi-trillionaire who will lose his income if the world is slated for a clean up?

What does income have to do with stopping a pandemic?

Originally posted by apc

Originally posted by soficrow
My point being - we need to clean up the whole friggin world - NOT target and incarcerate a select group of victims.

Whether it is a possible super-flu or any number of other pathogens that result in death, and cannot be cured by a trip to the ER and a shot in the arm, then by all means the person infected must be quarantined.

Then you're already looking at quarantining the bulk of the population.

Person is infected with disease.
Disease cannot be cured.
Disease kills those infected.
Disease is highly contagious.

Why is it such a problem to keep them locked in a room unable to infect anyone else?

H5N1 bird flu does NOT kill all who are infected - the real crisis is the fact that survivors become progressively and chronically debilitated.

...And FYI - every characteristic you describe, with the correction above, applies to hundreds of diseases already present in the USA and the world.

These diseases already are epidemic, and result in heart disease, stroke, kidney failure and etc - all the USA's leading causes of death.

What does income have to do with stopping a pandemic?

All of these diseases could be stopped, cured, treated - with money. All of these diseases could be prevented from spreading - with money, and a commitment to clean up existing environmental contamination.

The world's poor are being sacrificed to "protect the economy," and preserve individual wealth.


.

Originally posted by soficrow
Then you're already looking at quarantining the bulk of the population.

I don't see how...

H5N1 bird flu does NOT kill all who are infected - the real crisis is the fact that survivors become progressively and chronically debilitated.

And that's better than death because...

...And FYI - every characteristic you describe, with the correction above, applies to hundreds of diseases already present in the USA and the world.

Present? Sure. Spreading with exponential growth? No.

These diseases already are epidemic, and result in heart disease, stroke, kidney failure and etc - all the USA's leading causes of death.

So you're saying all our leading causes of death are caused by these epidemic diseases? I have a feeling the majority of the mainstream medical community would disagree.

All of these diseases could be stopped, cured, treated - with money. All of these diseases could be prevented from spreading - with money, and a commitment to clean up existing environmental contamination.

The world's poor are being sacrificed to "protect the economy," and preserve individual wealth.

Take it up with Bill Gates. See if he'll flip the bill to "help all the poor people."