Christie’s Quarantine Over-Reaction Ignores How Ebola is Transmitted

While Chris Chrisite toasted fellow quarantine advocate Rick Scott at a fundraiser in Florida on Sunday, Kaci Hickox met with her attorney to prepare a legal challenge to her quarantine.

While Chris Chrisite toasted fellow quarantine advocate Rick Scott at a fundraiser in Florida, Kaci Hickox met with her attorney to prepare a legal challenge to her quarantine.

It’s really difficult to say which poor response to Ebola has done more damage to the public health system in the United States. First, we had the series of unforgivable errors at Texas Health Presbyterian Dallas that resulted in Thomas Duncan being sent home with Tylenol and antibiotics when he first presented with Ebola symptoms. This was followed up after he was admitted by Nina Pham and Amber Vinson coming down with the disease after they treated him. Now, we have Kaci Hickox, who treated Ebola patients in West Africa, confined to an unheated tent in a New Jersey hospital for 21 days even though she is asymptomatic and has tested negative for Ebola. Twice.

The hysteria over retracing the steps of Craig Spencer in New York City just before he developed his fever illustrates the way the US press has misled the public about when and where Ebola risk exists. Abundant evidence from this and previous Ebola outbreaks demonstrates clearly that there simply is no risk of transmission from asymptomatic patients and that transmission risk grows through the course of the infection.

We see that principle demonstrated very clearly in Duncan’s case history. See this terrific ABC timeline for relevant dates quoted below. Duncan arrived in Dallas September 20. No passengers on any of the flights he took have developed Ebola. The incubation period has elapsed, so we know that no transmission of the virus occurred during any of his flights. Duncan had symptoms on his first hospital visit on September 26 but was sent home. He was later admitted on September 28. No patients or personnel from the hospital became infected from his visit September 26. The incubation period has expired, so we know for certain that transmission did not occur for anyone near Duncan that day. Similarly, even though they were in the apartment with him for days after he developed symptoms, none of the residents of or visitors to the apartment where Duncan was staying in Dallas became infected. The incubation period for that exposure also has expired. From this timeline developed by the New York Times, it appears that Pham and Vinson treated Duncan on the day before he died, which would be at the time when the amount of virus being produced by his body was nearing its maximum.

The load of virus in a patient’s blood over the course of Ebola infection has been studied. In this CDC review, we have a graph showing the amount of virus over time:

Viral load

On first glance, one might think that this graph doesn’t show much difference between the viral load at the onset of symptoms and the maximum output of virus. But if we look at the vertical axis of the graph, we see that what is plotted is the log (or logarithm) of the number of copies of RNA (the virus genetic content) per milliliter (mL) of of blood serum. That means that the number on that axis tells us how many zeros are on the number of virus particles. The axis begins at “4”, which means 10,000 virus particles per mL, which is also noted as the lower level of detection for the way the measurement was carried out. So from this graph, we see that on day 0 (which would be before symptoms are shown), the viral load ranges from undectectable to around the tens of thousands of particles per mL. Once symptoms develop, that load jumps dramatically, to tens of millions per mL. That represents a jump of around three logs, or a factor of 1000 times more virus in the blood. A few days later into the infection, we see the load approaching a billion viral particles per mL, about a hundred fold higher than on the first day of symptoms.

That Duncan’s family and friends, even though they were around him well into the time after he developed symptoms and yet did not contract the virus illustrates pointlessness of quarantining Hickox or any other returning health care worker who treated Ebola patients. Before they become extremely ill, Ebola patients appear to be virtually incapable of transmitting the disease. To calm public hysteria that has been whipped up by the sensationalist reporting surrounding these cases, I can agree with calls for health care workers like Hickox to be kept in voluntary home isolation with monitoring twice a day for a fever. These are health professionals with a vested interest in detecting any symptoms once they develop (odds of survival appear to be better the earlier treatment is started), so self-monitoring of temperature should be enough, but if states want to waste precious health-care dollars sending someone out to take those temperatures, so be it. But an actual quarantine serves no purpose and creates a real barrier to those noble souls contemplating spending time on the front lines treating this horrible disease in an area where many of the health care providers have already succumbed due to the shortage of suitable facilities, equipment and supplies.

Fortunately, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who had originally gone along with Christie in implementing the quarantine policy for returning “high risk” individuals, relented last night and went with a more rational policy. Other states may well take some time and a few legal proceedings before sanity sets in.

The folly of the quarantine policy will be highlighted further once a few more incubation periods have elapsed. For example, we are 14 days into the 21 day incubation period since the October 13 flights Amber Vinson took back to Dallas once her fever was beginning to develop. There was much hysteria about people “exposed” on those flights. I will stick my neck out here and predict that we will see precisely zero people infected from being on those flights with her. Similarly, the hysteria around the Uber car, the bowling alley and the meatball shop visited by Craig Spencer just before he came down with symptoms will need another 17 days to be proven baseless once we see that he didn’t infect anyone, either.

Ebola is deadly, but we simply must use what we know about it in applying our resources to fighting it.

Update: It appears that while I was writing this post, Christie is already beginning to admit his error because Hickox is now likely to be released.

image_print
30 replies
  1. Saltinwound says:

    It seems like there is some grey area about what constitutes a symptom. The doctor reported that he felt sluggish before the Uber and bowling excursion. Is that a symptom? More importantly, this still seems to be based on self reporting.

  2. seedeevee says:

    “The incubation period has elapsed, so we know that no transmission of the virus occurred during any of his flights. ”

    Not to be too contrarian, but, to say “no transmission of the virus” would assume that every person that the virus is transmitted to shows symptoms and/or would report it? Is it safe to say that there has never been a virus that has a 100% symptomatic rate? (If that is the correct way to phrase it?)

    Our sample size of “infected” of this extremely deadly virus is still relatively small.

    Christie is still a huge fear mongering scumbag, though.

  3. Don Bacon says:

    I don’t get the logic that since Duncan apparently didn’t transmit the disease, “Ebola patients appear to be virtually incapable of transmitting the disease” when of course the disease was transmitted to Duncan.
    .
    Ebola can be spread (a short distance) by airborne droplets or by contact as shown here. However CDC has also said “Ebola is not spread through the air” so there you go. To complicate it further, CDC:

    “During outbreaks of Ebola, the disease can spread quickly within healthcare settings (such as a clinic or hospital). Exposure to Ebola can occur in healthcare settings where hospital staff are not wearing appropriate protective equipment, including masks, gowns, and gloves and eye protection.”

    It’s no wonder that there is confusion.

    • Jim White says:

      .
      You cut that first quote off a bit short. Transmission occurs once patients are extremely sick but is very difficult before that stage of their disease. And that is how Duncan got it. He was helping transport a neighbor to the hospital (and then back again, they had no room) when he was exposed. She died within a day or two of his contact with her.
      .
      That same CDC document I linked has more on the whole “airborne” issue. Droplets going a few feet and quickly? Yes, that could be a route of infection. Airborne in the traditional sense of viruses that stay aloft for hours at a time? Not so much.
      .Edit: I just checked and that incident of the hospital trip was only a few hours before Duncan’s neighbor died. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/us/after-ebola-case-in-dallas-health-officials-seek-those-who-had-contact-with-patient.html

      • Don Bacon says:

        Thanks on Duncan, but we still have droplets and contact so I still go with Christie’s logic that it’s better to inconvenience some than to expose many.

        • Jim White says:

          .
          Alrighty then. How about the folks at Bellvue who are treating Spencer? Quarantine them?
          .
          As far at that goes, I’ve even seen suggestions that Christie’s logic applied to gun owners is that we have to quarantine them, too, since we don’t know when they will kill someone.

        • Ben Franklin says:

          Actually an apt comparison. If we took the same panic troll concerning with ebola and applied it to gunz, we would see the infection of deranged shooters has the same limited range as ebola. The host and the infected die quickly and there is no aerolization to worry about. And just as we shouldn’t politicize ebola, we shouldn’t politicize firearms, eh?

        • Ben Franklin says:

          You are quite imperious like a tenured professor who refuses to be questioned, so I ask again..

          Are you in any way connected with WHO, USAMRID, NIH or Tulane University?

        • lefty665 says:

          Hi Jim,

          Thanks for presenting the graph of concentrations of Ebola virus particles in infected people over time. That lets us look at some statistical “basic findings of science”.
          .
          Other analysis regarding the 21 day quarantine period shows roughly 9 day mean time from infection to full blown Ebola. Those numbers show that 21 days represents a 95% confidence level that someone is Ebola free. That seems consistent with the graph you presented that showed Ebola infrequently in infected people past 21 days, and that at a low level.
          .
          The graph you presented shows that once Ebola gets established there is a profoundly quick rise in virus particle concentration from 10k/mL to millions/mL in 24 hours or less.
          .
          Both those sets of numbers seem consistent with what we have observed in this epidemic:
          . (1) Once someone has become infected, it takes awhile to progress to full blown illness.
          . (2) Until full blown, infectiousness is low.
          .(3) Once symptoms present, the progression from “low” levels of virus to massive happens very quickly, ie, it can be less than 24 hours.
          .
          Previous discussions/announcements I have seen have not addressed the velocity with which change from non-contagious to contagious apparently happens. Speed kills.
          .
          What is a rational public health policy that addresses people, and especially medical professionals, who have been in contact with people with Ebola? What is a prudent way to deal with the potentially very rapid change in status to contagious? Seems, to me anyway, a difficult question, and one that has not been resolved.
          .
          Unfortunately the medical community, especially some of those who have been brave and public spirited enough to work with Ebola patients, have addressed it badly. Being in denial that they could really be infected is understandably strong, but at least two docs and three nurses have demonstrated that “voluntary” quarantine can not be considered a real solution.

        • Ben Franklin says:

          I know there are good people in those government agencies I listed, but I also understand they are part of a bureaucracy, and those bureaucracy’s are inherently stupid and inefficient. If you value your career you don’t make waves and it’s easy to accept low information ‘need to know’ protocols.

          The fact that some ‘protest too much’ when push comes to shove, deflecting and misdirecting in response to questions makes me wonder, that’s all. But Jim still hasn’t disclosed just why he is so vehement. Mid-terms comes to mind. Other than that, it is mysterious.

        • P J Evans says:

          I also understand they are part of a bureaucracy, and those bureaucracy’s are inherently stupid and inefficient.

          Bureaucracies are as efficient as they have to be. If one is inefficient, maybe it needs new managers and new procedures, instead of people giving up and letting things fall apart because they don’t like working to fix them.

        • P J Evans says:

          Christie is a politician, and he’s a politician who’s ignoring the advice of doctors who know what they’re doing. If you have no symptoms of Ebola, you’re not going to be giving it to anyone else. The nurse in the tent? She isn’t sick.

        • bmaz says:

          Come on man, this flies directly in the face of both medicine and physics. Lets us not all be peeing in our pants fearmongering clowns.
          .
          Whatever happened to the America of “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself”?

  4. lefty665 says:

    The graph doesn’t show negative days before “symptoms” although there is virus present. Jim, are you sure that day 0 is really before symptoms? Seems from the label that is 0 days after symptoms, or framed the other way, as the day symptoms are observed.
    .
    Help please, what is the criteria for a “symptom”. If that has been clearly expressed I’ve missed it. Is it is 101.5 degrees? In any event once showing “symptoms” a person is already ramped up on what is an explosion of virus. As you note it goes from 10k virus particles per mL to millions within a day. That’s a pretty tight window from extremely unlikely to very toxic. That is cause for concern if we are relying on self observation and reporting.
    .
    The problem with voluntary quarantine has been that folks have notably volunteered to un-quarantine themselves. Having a Doc ride the subway and go bowling while another heads out to pick up food gives rise to demands for enforced quarantine. Unfortunately, voluntary quarantine has meant no quarantine, so we can thank a couple of jerk Docs, as well as the Repubs, for the calls for enforced quarantine.
    .
    Even if spread is unlikely, it is understandable that people are anxious about plopping down in a seat someone infected with Ebola has just occupied. Sticking fingers in a bowling ball has a similar yuck factor.
    .
    As you noted the other day, WHO recommends that staff treating Ebola patients be prohibited from treating general population patients. Self reporting and voluntary quarantine of staff would be great if we had evidence it was reliable. Unfortunately we do not. That’s a problem.
    .
    Understand your frustration with some of the incoming you’ve received, but dodging into guns doesn’t make for a rational discussion.

    • Jim White says:

      .
      Nope. Just not buying it.
      .
      If the argument of the quarantine advocates is to inconvenience a few to achieve zero risk, then that applies absolutely to gun owners. If we want zero risk from their guns, maybe at least quarantine the guns if not the owners. Why just shrug and accept a death toll that is likely to be higher next year than that for car accidents as “freedom” while denying freedom to folks who don’t even have any symptoms yet and whose only “crime” was to help sick people?

  5. lefty665 says:

    There is no Constitutional right to Ebola, nor did our independence from tyranny bleed out of an Ebola victim. No rational person advocates for zero risk from any product including guns, cars, light bulbs or tampons. Ironically, one of the few things with zero toxic risk may be THC.
    .
    From the graph you presented someone goes from 10k/mL virus particles to millions within a day. That is the gift of exponential growth. You may well be right that the risk from someone infected with Ebola is binary. Someone is either un-infectious or infectious. But, the segue between states can be very quick. Like, for example, within the 12 hours between voluntary twice daily temperature readings.
    .
    It is understandable that people do not want to sit in the seat that someone in an indeterminate, but guaranteed rapidly changing, state of a deadly disease has used. Same goes with sticking their fingers in a bowling ball (there’s a yuck factor) or going on a cruise.
    .
    The jerks in the medical community who have voluntarily un-quarantined themselves, not citizens with rational concerns about the spread of a deadly disease, are the proximate cause for calls for restrictions on health care workers who work with Ebola patients.
    .

  6. lefty665 says:

    Jim, Jim, you out there? We’re down to the “basic findings of science” that you presented.
    .
    They show how quickly Ebola virus multiplies in people. Do you agree that exponential proliferation should be a factor in how we deal with people who have been exposed, or does it not make any difference?
    .
    Given the replication rates you presented, how many hours do you believe it takes from being zero risk to high? Less than 12 using your numbers.
    .
    We agree that people in early stages of infection are not very contagious, but what about that short transition period when the curve goes close to straight up to big numbers? The risk goes from low to high very quickly. Imagine what the chart you presented would look like if it was linear!
    .
    Ebola apparently takes about 8 hours to replicate, but replication by each virus particle is multiple particles, hundreds to thousands. Then it all does it again. That’s what drives the exponential growth. Someone can go from 10k/mL to 1m/mL in a hurry.
    .
    How can voluntary quarantining and self monitoring/reporting reliably cope with that rapid onset of severe and contagious infection?

    • Jim White says:

      .
      I’m here but had other stuff going on.
      .
      The data in the graph are for viral load in blood. And yes, it does replicate exponentially and goes to very high levels quickly.
      .
      But that isn’t the only step in infection. For someone to get infected, they have to come into contact with that blood or other body fluids (I haven’t seen numbers for the time course of buildup in those other fluids) and then transfer the fluids through a cut or contact with a mucous membrane. How that happens most of the time with Ebola is for someone caring for an extremely sick or dead victim and coming into contact with large amounts of those fluids. For that to happen, you need lots of vomiting, diarrhea or bleeding.
      .
      Keep in mind that even with those crazy high virus titer numbers, the average number of people one person with this virus infects is two while measles is 18.
      .
      Find me a case of an Ebola patient during an outbreak who has a “mystery” infection. That is, one who doesn’t know who exposed them or how. You won’t be able to because it hasn’t happened. There has never been a suspected case where a patient came down with the disease when they weren’t very obviously exposed to someone in late stages of the disease.
      .
      If asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic people regularly passed the disease to others, we’d see very different patterns during outbreaks (and higher R0 numbers closer to the one for measles) from the ones that we have seen in the past and that we are seeing in this outbreak.

  7. lefty665 says:

    I understand Ebola is hard to spread, and have not been in the sky is falling contingent. That no one in Duncan’s “family” was infected illustrates just how hard it is to infect people.
    .
    It may be that in Africa people have a pretty good idea where they got bit. But here in America we don’t seem to be as insightful or forthcoming. Have the nurses in Dallas copped to exactly what they did to become infected? Last I heard they had not. If the Doc in NYC knew where and by whom he was infected, what the hell was he doing riding the subway and bowling?
    .
    The doc stayed away from Columbia, his place of employment, but potentially exposed as many or more people by rambling around the city. Suppose that had anything to do with the ability to be anonymous in the city as opposed to being highly visible at work among peers who have a professional appreciation of disease?
    .
    The graphical representation of the exponential explosion of virus in infected people was stunning. Log graphs seem so mild, but facilitate compact representation of profound changes. I had to look about three times before the numbers sank in. With another vertical scale those bars would be so tall they could not be presented.
    .
    That means the time between mild symptoms and massive illness is very short. That creates the opportunity for exposure before the extent of illness is recognized. There can be many vectors. Transmission from someone with a massive load of virus may not be easy, but it sure is possible. I work with my hands, so I’ve always got nicks and dings. That creates an exposure for me. Recent studies of office virus spread via door knobs, printer buttons, telephones, etc shows surprisingly quick and wide dispersal. With Ebola, close range aerosols also have the potential to spread disease. That is not in the same order of magnitude as cold or other viruses that actively use that vector, but the risk is there.

    Events with low probability but high lethality are scary, and that’s where we are with Ebola. That seems to argue for a cautious public health policy that keeps people at material risk away from the general population for several weeks after exposure while waiting for disease, or lack of it, to declare itself. It seems a pretty mild inconvenience for a small number of people to ensure that the disease does not spread here as it has in Africa.
    .

    • P J Evans says:

      The doc in NYC was taking his temperature twice a day and reported it as soon as he found he had a fever. That was what he was supposed to do, and apparently Thursday morning was the first time he had a fever. He wouldn’t have exposed anyone before that, and if he wasn’t exchanging bodily fluids with anyone, then he didn’t expose anyone either.

      • Saltinwound says:

        But he did report feeling sluggish. Not the height of Ebola but is there a reason no one wants to even count his self reported sluggishness before bowling as a symptom? That seems odd to me. It was important enough for him to report.

      • lefty665 says:

        I understand. Look at the chart Jim published as part of this posting. It makes it clear that exponential replication of virus is the norm. Someone can go from essentially non infecting to loaded with virus in less than 12 hours.
        .
        Where is the evidence that 12 hours is a safe cycle for taking temperatures? Or evidence that rambling around the city, doing things like bowling, is less than reckless? The doc did not go to work at Columbia where people knew him and understand infectious diseases.
        .
        Ebola replicates on a roughly 8 hour cycle. When it replicates, it is not like cell division, it is hundreds or thousands of particles. Then it all does it again. That is how someone can go from 10k/mL virus particles to millions/mL very quickly. That is exponential proliferation that requires a log scale to represent.
        .
        The graph documents going from 1,000,000/mL virus particles to 10,000,000/mL in a day, and to almost 100,000,000/mL the next day. That is the very benign looking 6 to 7 to 8 on the vertical axis. Tinker to Evers to that’s a chance we, as a matter of public health policy, may not want to take.
        .
        If Ebola was easy to transmit, Africa would be depopulated already and we’d be well on the way. It is a lot easier to transmit by someone who has a heavy load of virus, and that happens very quickly. There is no evidence that voluntary quarantine can reliably deal with that.

  8. Don Bacon says:

    Soldiers coming back from serving in Ebola-hit Liberia will be kept in quarantine for 21 days, the U.S. Army said Monday — even though they were kept apart from any Ebola patients.
    .
    New York’s and New Jersey’s governors announced Friday that any health care workers returning from West Africa to their states would face mandatory 21-day quarantines. Other states including Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota and Georgia have since announced their own measures.
    .
    Reiterating, ebola can be transmitted by airborne droplets (within about a meter) or by contact. Exchanging bodily fluids is not necessary for transmission (and repeating it doesn’t make it true). That’s according to CDC –#3.

    • Ben Franklin says:

      I thought it was ill-advised and poorly thought out. But it augers well with the mid-terms and is consistent with progressive logic.

    • fritter says:

      Actually, gun control fits pretty well in this context and I’m a 2nd amendment advocate in most situations. Denying anyone liberty, internment during war, or health crisis, it’s all applicable.

      I don’t think we were originally supposed to be a country of cowards. It seems pretty obvious the founders knew — had experienced first hand — how fears of various types could be used as excuses to restrict liberty. In spite of that, we have a long history of this so there is clearly precedent. That doesn’t make it right or consistent.

      It is kind of funny because it is inconvenient for members of both parties and really serves to highlight their hypocrisy. If you don’t want mere potential patients locked up under near prison / inhumane conditions then you have to consider that gun owners might just have a point even though they could be “dangerous”. You might also reflect that “crazy” women at one time were kept locked up and isolated just because they thought they should be able to vote. Not to mention, homosexuality was at one time considered a disease. Also we have to attack them over there before they attack us here, forever war, that both parties seem to love unless the other guy is doing it.

      Maybe it will get people to think a little about their anything goes as long as i have a confortable life policy. Rendition ok, unless its me. See 99.6, nothing to worry about yet, I’m not even brown see when I said lock ’em up, I really wasn’t talking about me…

    • lefty665 says:

      So much for the idea of “self quarantine” as a respectful and effective way to deal with assholes.
      .
      When do we get to physician heal thy f**** self on this barren mountain top surrounded by concertina wire? Don’t you just hate it when jerks make Cuomo and Christie begin to look reasonable?

  9. Uncle William says:

    The graph shows that once symptoms begin, the viral load is near the detectable limit at day 0. However, the quarantine time is 21 days before the symptoms begin and so you’ve left off the previous 21 days that would show virus below the detectable limit. She was “tested negative for ebola twice” is irrelevent if she is in within the 21 days before symptoms. Duncan would have tested negative as well before he showed symptoms. There is still a chance that she could be symptomatic (God forbid) and why she should be quarantined. Besides, it’s 21 days and half over! Relax, watch TV, listen to music. She’s acting like she’s in solitary confinemen!

Comments are closed.