Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
I am not sure about the stats that you are quoting demarpaint.
All we have to go from is the WHO stats of ~50% mortality rate in Africa. Which taking into consideration the rudimentary hospitals they have over there is pretty good. The typical cases in Africa are being handled not with special drugs but basic hospital conditions albeit much less sterilized than over in North America, but it is better than no treatment at all in a village with no precautions. They quarantine, they treat as they are instructed by North American and other 1st world nation doctors instruct.
This contrasts vastly different in the treatment than the dozen or so reported people brought to USA having the Ebola virus. These special cases were undergoing treatment before they left Africa, many if not all having been given the 'experimental' drug. Of course the mortality rate will appear to be better if these stats are taken from these special ideal conditions.
Duncan from Texas is the first reported case NOT under these ideal conditions. This unfortunately is the reality and the typical conditions that future cases will be categorized under. If he dies, statistically speaking the mortality rate for typical USA cases will be 100%...as not everyone will have the ideal Ebola treatment conditions like the 'chosen' few, unless the floodgates for this 'experimental' drug are opened and the CDC actually does something in a huge way.
There are known medical conditions that affect one ethnic background people more than others. One element not being studied or being accounted for yet due to the localized concentration of Ebola cases in one region is: Does ethnic background affect the survival rates? We have stats of 50% mortality rates among the African peoples. Do we have stats on the caucasian patients? From what I have read, the doctors that have contracted Ebola while 'protected' many have died. So statistically speaking, the survival rate for Africans would be much higher than caucasians given the same conditions.
I know there are fanatics out there who want their 15 secs of fame etc. Usually they don't have the full picture. There are those that have a pretty good idea however and do things to make a statement like this micribiologist who is also an emergency doctor. His kind will be dealing with this more than anyone else. He is upset understandably at his potentially new workplace risks, I get that. He knows his stuff when it comes disease, so we can't discount everything he says: http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2014/10/05/nr-intv-dr-mobley-hazmat-suit-at-airport-ebola.cnn&hpt=hp_c3&from_homepage=yes&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F
What I heard this morning on the news went like this: If a person is diagnosed with Ebola and is treated in the US that person has a better than 50% chance of surviving the disease. If a person is diagnosed with Ebola and is treated in Africa that person has about a 10% chance of surviving. This is why it is believed people would load up on meds to control the fever and hide the symptoms and try and get here for treatment. Fact or fiction I can't tell you, it is what I heard this morning, and it made sense, if the info presented was correct. Either way I also have reason to believe facts are being misrepresented.