I think the term ' airborne ' is a little bit tricky-
remember to close the toilet lid when you flush because little pieces of doody fly around the bathroom
so don't leave your toothbrush out
That's droplet. Airborn is particles that linger in the air and then can be breathed in at a later time. Droplet is a particle that travel through the air until gravity brings it down.
righteous and wrong all that criticize and think that I am a woos.....far from it....
no one knows and to think that some of you bloggers can be so critical and insensitive.....
No one is taking the handle and showing up to PREVENT an outbreak.......the government has used everyone but the right ones to control this disease.
BEDS??????????.......training and education about this disease......and I believe that if the CDC has been in touch with all those who traveled by plane.
or had any contact ...then they are not sure if this disease can be airborne....
Be sure to wash your hands.....if anyone sneezes around you......God bless them......if they have a cough ..offer then a cough drop....
and if they say they have traveled from W Africa???.......RUN...
prevent? like they prevent wars?
we just make effort.....prevention is prediction much like a gypsy reads your fortune.....which is EXACTLY what the media and politicians are doing with the ebola cases.....MAKING A FORTUNE.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
we just make effort.....prevention is prediction much like a gypsy reads your fortune.....which is EXACTLY what the media and politicians are doing with the ebola cases.....MAKING A FORTUNE.....
You do know what will be next right??? EMERGENCY EBOLA FUNDING BILL!! It will be called something like the EDA(Ebola Defense Act). It will be proposed, there will be political positioning, and it will be framed as the "tea party"(for lack of better words) that champion small federal government as hypocrites if they vote for it, or monsters if they vote against it. This will be the "republicans want you to die" if they speak even one word of opposition to a proposed EBOLA funding bill.
The medical devices industry that saw their taxes raised with the implementation of the ACA may be looking at a big injection of federal funds if everything goes as planned.
can you really be sure of that???...just like everything that has happened in the past weeks...
Can't be sure about anything. I do know that the tax revenue from the medical devices tax implemented under the ADA is 25% less than planned($300 million). That money was to offset the cost of insurance for Americans. Who makes up the $300 million shortfall in revenue? My guess is it's passed on to the insured in the form of premiums.
Quoted Text
TIGTA: ObamaCare Medical Device Tax Is Raising 25% Less Revenue Than Expected, IRS Administration of Tax Is Rife With Errors
Our review found that both the number of Forms 720 filed and the amount of the medical device excise tax revenue being reported are lower than estimated. Figure 2 shows that the IRS processed 5,107 Forms 720 with reported excise taxes of $913.4 million for the quarters ending March 31 and June 30, 2013. The IRS estimated between 9,000 and 15,600 quarterly Forms 720 tax returns with excise tax revenue of $1.2 billion for this same period.
not to mention the cost of sterilizing/cleaning the equipment used on ebola patients......the guy was on a ventilator....
I wonder what happened to that vent machine after.....
the environmental cleaning costs will be astronomical......
this will become Ebola-gate.........
Quoted Text
Democrats Push to Restart CDC Funding for Gun Violence Research
New legislation would increase CDC funding for gun violence research from zero dollars to $10 million. The NRA calls the push “unethical” and an “abuse of taxpayer funds.” by Lois Beckett ProPublica, May 21, 2014, 10:26 a.m.133 Comments Print Print This is part of an ongoing investigation:
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) (Wikimedia Commons) Updated 05/21/2014 1:56 p.m.: This story has been updated to include comments from the National Rifle Association and Rep. Maloney.
Two Congressional Democrats are unveiling legislation this morning that would restart the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's gun violence research efforts.
Since 1996, when a small CDC-funded study on the risks of owning a firearm ignited opposition from Republicans, the CDC's budget for research on firearms injuries has shrunk to zero.
The result, as we've detailed, is that many basic questions about gun violence — such as how many Americans are shot each year — remain unanswered.
The new legislation, which will be introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) in the House, and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in the Senate, would give the CDC $10 million a year "for the purpose of conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention."
"In America, gun violence kills twice as many children as cancer, and yet political grandstanding has halted funding for public health research to understand this crisis," Maloney said in a statement.
A National Rifle Association spokeswoman called the push for new CDC funding "unethical."
“The abuse of taxpayer funds for anti-gun political propaganda under the guise of ‘research’ is unethical,” spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen said in a statement to ProPublica. “That is why Congress should stand firm against President Obama's scheme to undermine a fundamental constitutional right.”
Maloney, who co-sponsored the 1994 assault weapons ban, is a long-time gun control advocate. Earlier this year, she and Markey encouraged President Obama to include CDC funding in his proposed 2015 budget, which he did.
Obama's proposal has been opposed by key Republicans, and so far, Markey and Maloney's legislation has not attracted any Republican support. “On the House side, we have over 20 co-sponsors already. We do not have a Republican,” Maloney said at a press conference this morning.
"The President's request to fund propaganda for his gun-grabbing initiatives through the CDC will not be included in the FY2015 appropriations bill," Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that traditionally sets CDC funding, told ProPublica last month.
The CDC sponsors a wide variety of disease and injury prevention programs, focusing on everything from HIV/AIDS to averting falls by elderly people. Since 2007, the CDC has spent less than $100,000 a year on firearms-focused work, according to a CDC spokeswoman. The money goes not for research but for a very rough, annual estimate of the number of Americans injured by shootings.
The NRA's director of public affairs told CNN last year that more government-funded gun research is not needed.
"What works to reduce gun violence is to make sure that criminals are prosecuted and those who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others don't have access to firearms," Andrew Arulanandam said. "Not to carry out more studies."
Professional groups that represent doctors, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, support the push for more research funding. In a letter last summer, the associations wrote that "the dearth of gun violence research has contributed to the lack of meaningful progress in reducing firearm injuries," and noted that "firearm injuries are one of the top three causes of death among youth."
The CDC is not the only source of federal funding for gun violence research. The Justice Department — which has funded gun violence prevention studies since the 1980s — gave nearly $2 million to firearms violence projects last year, and is offering as much as $1.5 million in research funding this year.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), which invests $30 billion in medical research each year, put out a call last fall for new research projects on gun violence prevention.It's not yet clear how much money the NIH will devote to the research. The NIH will announce the gun violence projects it will fund in September and December, a spokeswoman said.
A report last year from experts convened by the federally funded Institute of Medicine outlined the current priorities for research on reducing gun violence. Among the questions that need answers, according to the report: How often do Americans successfully use guns to protect themselves each year? Could improved "smart gun" technologies reduce gun deaths and injuries, and will consumers be willing to adopt them? And would universal background checks — the most popular and prominent gun control policy proposal — actually reduce gun violence?
Quoted Text
Republicans Say No to CDC Gun Violence Research
Giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention money for gun violence research is a “request to fund propaganda,” a Georgia congressman says. by Lois Beckett ProPublica, April 21, 2014, 2:50 p.m.329 Comments Print Print This is part of an ongoing investigation:
Vendors display handguns for sale at the 2013 National Rifle Association Annual Meeting & Exhibits on April 26. (Gerald Rich/Flickr) After the Sandy Hook school shooting, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) was one of a few congressional Republicans who expressed a willingness to reconsider the need for gun control laws.
"Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table," he said less than a week after the Newtown shootings. He told a local TV station that he wanted to see more research done to understand mass shootings. "Let's let the data lead rather than our political opinions."
For nearly 20 years, Congress has pushed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to steer clear of firearms violence research. As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that traditionally sets CDC funding, Kingston has been in a position to change that. Soon after Sandy Hook, Kingston said he had spoken to the head of the agency. "I think we can find some common ground," Kingston said.
More than a year later, as Kingston competes in a crowded Republican primary race for a U.S. Senate seat, the congressman is no longer talking about common ground.
In a statement to ProPublica, Kingston said he would oppose a proposal from President Obama for $10 million in CDC gun research funding. "The President's request to fund propaganda for his gun-grabbing initiatives through the CDC will not be included in the FY2015 appropriations bill," Kingston said.
Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), the vice chairman of the subcommittee, also "supports the long-standing prohibition of gun control advocacy or promotion funding," his spokeswoman said.
CDC's current funding for gun violence prevention research remains at $0.
As gun violence spiked in the early 1990s, the CDC ramped up its funding of firearms violence research. Then, in 1996, it backed off under pressure from Congress and the National Rifle Association. Funding for firearms injury prevention activities dropped from more than $2.7 million in 1995 to barely $100,000 by 2012, according to CDC figures.
After the Sandy Hook shootings, Obama issued a presidential memorandum "directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."
Following Obama's instructions, the authoritative Institute of Medicine put together a report on priorities for research on reducing gun violence. Among the questions that need answers, according to the report: Do background checks — the most popular and prominent gun control policy proposal — actually reduce gun violence? How often do Americans successfully use guns to protect themselves each year? And — a question that Kingston himself had raised repeatedly — what is the relationship between violence in video games and other media and "real-life" violence?
Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who led the CDC's gun violence research in the 1990s, said that the National Rifle Association and other opponents of funding have often fueled a misconception: that Americans can be for guns or for gun research, but not both.
"The researchers at CDC are committed to two goals: one goal is preventing firearm injuries. The second goal is to preserve the rights of legitimate gun owners. They have been totally misportrayed," Rosenberg said.
A long list of associations that represent medical professionals—including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics — signed a letter last year urging Congress to fund gun violence prevention research.
"If all we wanted to do was protect the rights of legitimate gun owners, we wouldn't pass any legislation, and if we just wanted to reduce firearm injuries and death, we might say, 'Take all guns out of civilian hands,'" Rosenberg said. "The trick is, we want to do both at the same time, and that requires research."
The NRA did not respond to a request for comment. Last year, the NRA's director of public affairs, Andrew Arulanandam, told CNN that more government gun research is not needed.
"What works to reduce gun violence is to make sure that criminals are prosecuted and those who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others don't have access to firearms," Arulanandam said. "Not to carry out more studies."
Kingston has touted his A+ rating from the NRA. But in his opponents in the Senate primary race are also running on their gun-rights records. (One of them recently made headlines with an AR-15 assault rifle giveaway.)
The CDC is not the only source of federally funded research on gun violence. In response to Obama's push for more research, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which invests $30 billion in medical research each year, put out a call for new research projects on gun violence prevention last fall. While the first submission deadline has passed, it's not yet clear how many projects will be funded, or how much money NIH will devote to the effort. An NIH spokeswoman said there is no set funding amount.
Congress also approved Obama's request for additional CDC funding last year to broaden the reach of the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS), a detailed database of the circumstances surrounding all kinds of violent deaths, including gun deaths. Obama has asked for $23 million this year, to expand the data collection to all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
A CDC spokeswoman said that while the agency "does not receive any dedicated funding for firearm related injury prevention research," Congress does fund "research on a variety of related topics, including youth violence, child maltreatment, domestic violence, and sexual violence."
"We remain committed to treating gun violence as the public health issue it is, which is why we need the best researchers in this country working on this topic," a White House spokesperson said in a statement.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chair of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that oversees CDC funding, successfully pushed for more NVDRS funding last year. He told ProPublica in a statement that investing in gun violence research is a "critical need," but that it has to be balanced "with many competing priorities."
Other Democrats in the Senate and House — including Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) — have continued to push for more funding.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
LMAO reading this thread, so I'll just throw this out there. You have a greater chance of dying from a refrigerator falling from the sky than contracting and succumbing to Ebola.
That being said, keep posting. They've been priceless so far.
"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,"
Could Ebola spread to the United States? LiveScience By Rachael RettnerPublished June 30, 2014 Facebook240 Twitter103 Email Print Ebola (CDC/ Cynthia Goldsmith) The current outbreak of Ebola in West Africa is now the largest in history, but how likely is it to spread to the United States or other countries around the world?
It's theoretically possible that people with Ebola could travel to other countries on planes, and infect others outside the region. However, it's extremely unlikely that the virus would then cause further outbreaks in communities in the United States or other developed countries with systems in place to contain such deadly infections, experts say.
So far, the Ebola outbreak, which first appeared in December 2013, has infected at least 600 people in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia, including 338 who died, according to the World Health Organization.
The medical group Doctors Without Borders has said the epidemic is "out of control" in the region, and that they do not have the resources to care for the growing number of people who are sick.
Could Ebola come to the U.S.?
One reason why the Ebola virus's spread is possible in theory is that it can take up to 21 days for an infected person to show symptoms. That's ample time for someone with Ebola to travel a long distance by plane and arrive in the United States or Europe, said Derek Gatherer, a researcher at Lancaster University in the United Kingdom who studies virus genetics and evolution. [5 Things You Should Know About Ebola]
But if an infected person arrived in the United States and showed symptoms, doctors would be quick to suspect Ebola based on the patient's travel history, and isolate the patient, Gatherer said.
"Western medical services would probably cope quite well with catching Ebola as it arrived, because we'd be aware of people coming from Ebola-affected areas," Gatherer said. case for imbedded realID with GPS/health info
Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, agreed. Health officials do not think that there is a risk of sustained spread of Ebola in the United States, he said.
"Ebola is not going to come to the United States and become embedded in the United States," Schaffner said.
That's because Ebola's transmission requires close contact with bodily fluids, such as blood or secretions, Schaffner said. "It's really intimate, hands-on contact and involvement with the sick person's body fluids" that spreads the disease, Schaffner said. "Being in the same room with a person in and of itself is not hazardous."
It's possible that a small cluster of cases could occur in a hospital setting in the United States, because healthcare workers have this type of close contact with their patients, but control procedures would prevent further spread, Schaffner said.
The spread of Ebola outbreaks in African countries is sometimes fueled by long-held social customs surrounding human burials, Schaffner said. Those customs include washing the bodies of the deceased. But this would not be a factor in countries, like the United States, that don't have such traditions, he said.
Another important factor limiting the spread of Ebola is that people are not contagious until they show symptoms, Gatherer said. "By the time people are shedding the virus, they're already feverish," making it possible, for example, to screen people with fevers before they get on a plane, Gatherer said. In addition, a person sick with a fever from Ebola is unlikely to feel well enough go out and interact with others, Gatherer said.
What's worrying health officials
Researchers say the virus causing the current outbreak does not appear to be more contagious than those behind previous Ebola outbreaks.
"It's the same species of Ebola that has caused some of the larger and more prominent outbreaks in central Africa," said Thomas Geisbert, a virologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. This species is called Zaire ebolavirus. "It's a slightly different strain, but I haven't seen any data suggesting that it's more transmissible," Geisbert said. Still, only a small dose of the virus is required to cause infection, Geisbert said.
Gatherer noted that it has been six months since the first case of Ebola in the current outbreak was reported in Guinea. And yet the vast majority of cases have remained in an area near the borders of the three African countries.
"Two-thirds of all the cases are still within the narrow geographic region where the outbreak began," Gatherer said.
Health officials are mainly concerned for people living in the areas affected by the outbreak, and they are worried because they have not been able to reduce the number of new Ebola cases as they have in the past, Gatherer said.
WHO is organizing a meeting next week to discuss response to the outbreak and how it can be contained, the organization said.
Live Science staff writer Tia Ghose contributed reporting to this story.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Hey....question.....what ever happened to that Duncan guy's family? Ya know, the guy who died of Ebola? He was WITH his family BEFORE he was hospitalized. Do they have Ebola?
Why isn't the LAME STREAM MEDIA investigating these FACTS???
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
On 5 October 2014, the Ministry of Health (MoH) of Uganda notified WHO of a confirmed case of Marburg virus disease (MVD) in Kampala, Uganda.
The confirmed case was a healthcare worker who had onset of disease on 11 September 2014 while working at Mengo Hospital, Kampala. The case presented to Mpigi District Health Center on 17 September 2014, and transferred to Mengo Hospital, Kampala, on 23 September 2014. On admission the case presented with symptoms including fever, headache, abdominal pain, vomiting and diarrhoea and died on 28 September 2014.
The case reported no history of travel beyond Mpigi, no contact with a person with similar illness. He had not eaten bush meat nor had had contact with bats in the last 4 weeks.
A preliminary result indicating the specimen taken from the patient was positive for Marburg virus disease was received on 3 October 2014, and further confirmed on 4 October 2014 by the Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI).
As of today, a total of 146 contacts have been identified and are being monitored for signs and symptoms compatible with MVD. Eleven of the contacts developed signs and symptoms compatible with Marburg virus disease. All samples from symptomatic contacts have tested negative so far. Second samples have been taken from them and are being tested at the Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI). One contact, Kenyan mortician who travelled back to Kenya, developed a fever and cough but tested negative for both Marburg and Ebola virus. The contact in Kenya continues to be followed up by the Kenyan Rapid Response Team.
Public health response
The Ministry of Health of Uganda has activated the National Task Force which is meeting regularly and sub-committees have been established.
WHO, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are supporting the national Ugandan authorities in the investigation and response operations including, enhancements and establishment of isolation and treatment units; prepositioning personal protective equipment (PPE), and training health workers on infection control and prevention, as well as in case management and social mobilization.
Four multi-disciplinary teams have been deployed to perform an in-depth risk assessment. Surveillance and contact tracing, and follow-up activities are currently being implemented in Kampala, Mpigi and Kasese.
WHO recommendations
Marburg virus disease is a severe and highly fatal disease caused by a virus from the same family as the one that causes Ebola virus disease. Both viruses can cause large outbreaks such as the ongoing Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa. The last outbreak of MVD in Uganda occurred in 2012 during which 20 cases, including 9 fatal cases were reported from Kabale District, Kampala, Ibanda, Mbarara, and Kabarole.
WHO advises against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on Uganda based on the current information available on this outbreak.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Currently an outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) is ongoing in several African countries. Ebola virus disease is a severe illness.
The infection is transmitted by direct contact with the blood, body fluids and tissues of infected animals or people.
During an outbreak, those at higher risk of infection are health workers, family members and others in close contact with sick people and deceased patients.
Appropriate infection and prevention control measures can be implemented to stop transmission and supportive care to patients help to considerably reduce the mortality. Spread of the infection can be controlled through the use of recommended protective measures in clinics and hospitals, at community gatherings, during burial ceremonies or at home.
Current outbreak: a human to human transmission
Ebola viruses are known to cause epidemics of disease among wild animals, particularly non-human primates.
Potential hosts of Ebola viruses are non-human primates, duikers, bats, small rodents, and shrews.
The initial source of past EVD outbreaks was likely human contact with wild animals through hunting, butchering and preparing meat from infected wild animals (“bush meat”), with subsequent transmission from human to human.
However, in the current outbreak, the majority of cases are a result of human to human transmission.
Food, animals and Ebola
If food products are properly prepared and cooked, humans cannot become infected by consuming them: the Ebola virus is inactivated through cooking.
Basic hygiene measures can prevent infection in people in direct contact with infected animals or with raw meat and by-products.
Basic hygiene measures include regular hand washing and changing of clothes and boots before and after touching these animals and their products.
However, sick and diseased animal should never be consumed.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
rumor also has it that it can mutate 
