Was It Really Necessary to Euthanize Excalibur?

[jl lin]

Today they euthanized the Spanish nurse's assistant's dog. I mean no one wanted to evaluate the dog in isolation or perhaps have him tested?

"Spanish health officials decided to euthanize the dog that belonged to a Spanish nursing assistant infected with Ebola as a precautionary measure" (IBT, 10/8/14).

I understand the pragmatics of the situation, but in today's world, was it absolutely necessary? Of course my bet is it probably came down to money--costs.
Very sad.
It's like you go to help fatally ill people, and the thanks you get is having your dog put down--and probably needlessly. Of course, I am a sucker for dogs and animals.
It just sucks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ridethecliche]

Cool story.

 

[wholeheartedly]

I don't think it was necessary. The dog absolutely should have been quarantined and it would've been a good opportunity to see what, if anything developed. That might've yielded benefits that outweighed the costs.

I'm a sucker for animals though. My two dogs probably the closest I'm going to have to kids, so I might be a tad biased.

 

[jl lin]

I don't think it was necessary. The dog absolutely should have been quarantined and it would've been a good opportunity to see what, if anything developed. That might've yielded benefits that outweighed the costs.

I'm a sucker for animals though. My two dogs probably the closest I'm going to have to kids, so I might be a tad biased.

WH, it doesn't matter if a person has kids or not. My dogs are like my children--except a lot less work. LOL

 

[Goro]

I'll be contrary and point out that nearly 4000 people have died from this epidemic, but only one dog. There are bigger fish to fry.

 

[wholeheartedly]

I'll be contrary and point out that nearly 4000 people have died from this epidemic, but only one dog. There are bigger fish to fry.

I see your point, but from an epidemiological standpoint I disagree. There are stray dogs wandering all over places where this disease is spreading. It's useful to know if they can get sick from Ebola and/or transmit it to humans.

Second, since they dog is in Spain, quarantining the dog and observing it, doing blood tests, etc. isn't really going to divert resources from the biggest fish to fry. It isn't an either or type issue.

 

[jl lin]

I see your point, but from an epidemiological standpoint I disagree. There are stray dogs wandering all over places where this disease is spreading. It's useful to know if they can get sick from Ebola and/or transmit it to humans.

Second, since they dog is in Spain, quarantining the dog and observing it, doing blood tests, etc. isn't really going to divert resources from the biggest fish to fry. It isn't an either or type issue.

Sorry Goro. I have to agree with WH. My bet is on the cost of keeping the dog in isolation with the right techs in place. As far as testing. . .there again. . .cost. MONEY. It could have been done w/ sound isolation and testing; but no one wanted to spend the money on it or to be accountable for any bad outcomes.

Besides, if we really wanted to limit spread of this virus, wouldn't it be wise to halt transports to and from this part of West Africa? ** Of course with the understanding that exceptions would be made for those involved in humanitarian and medical assistance. I mean that's the argument we are getting; but certainly exceptions could be made for those whose purpose is to give medical or other humanitarian aid.

Also there needs to be tighter surveillance/contact marking overall--and not just with Americans. But this seems easier said than done.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

I'll be contrary and point out that nearly 4000 people have died from this epidemic, but only one dog. There are bigger fish to fry.

This. Who is to say that the incubation period of EVD in a dog isn't years? Who will make the call to release the seemingly healthy dog from $5k/day isolation when we have no way of knowing that info? The same people weeping for this dog would not have been happy with us treating him like ...a lab animal. If all people shedding internet tears on this dog (or who dumped ice water buckets on their head) could put that support behind a disease that by Nov will have killed ~15k people, the world would be a better place. Right call from a public health standpoint.

 

[jl lin]

Ah Pons. You are the voice of reason. Your points make perfect sense. Yes to you and Goro; public health must come first. But darn. Brings back scenes from "Old Yeller." I get upset watching Marley and Me. I'm a sucker for dogs.

So your points really did answer my question. I think I was in denial about it. I'm clouded by the strong possibility of having to lose my 13 year old dog. Biopsy to be completed soon. Gone through this before. It really does suck.

Re: Excalibur, who knows what could have happened? When might have the dog tested positive? Yes.. Would they have stayed with the human protocol, watching 21 days? We can't assume that would be correct. Certainly there are undeniable risks to those techs having to care for the dog while in isolation. There is the issue that they then could get ill and get others ill. It would seem that the dog was another point that needed to be shut down, when you really think about it. But like I said; it sucks--especially if in fact the dog had not been ill or harboring the virus.

 

[Promethean]

I also love animals, but I am unapologetic about my preference for preserving human life over that of an animal. Could the dog have been quarantined safely? Possibly. But what if even one person contracted the virus from the dog? We know that ebola can jump between mammals, and that mutations are facilitated by cross-species transmissions.

Also, while Spain isn't West Africa, the resources that would have been spent to keep the dog in quarantine aren't just "money." Supplies, expertise, facilities... those can all be bought with money, but they could also have been better allocated. While we regularly give better veterinary care to our pets than the medical care that many in Africa have access to, it seems particularly cruel to underline that in the midst of an uncontrolled epidemic.

 

[deleted480308]

Dog might have crazy killer contagion? Dog's dead

It's not a hard decision. If you love your dog that much, don't risk giving it ebola

 

[jl lin]

Dog might have crazy killer contagion? Dog's dead

It's not a hard decision. If you love your dog that much, don't risk giving it ebola

I am not sure that the NA knew she had it after caring for those missionaries. I think she racked her brain, trying to think of when she might have touched her face--or if she had broken protocol when disrobing from her personal protective gear.

After her exposure, she was not aware and/or thinking. People need to be carefully trained in caring for highly infectious people or animals.

No. I really don't have a leg to stand on in saving this dog. It's just sad to me. I can imagine for the NA and her husband, it's insult upon injury. But when you set aside the emotional aspects of this, and think it through, well, it was the safest bet. I think the idea of not knowing if the dog had any hint of the virus is what bothers me the most. I mean, if you have a rabid dog, well, you do what you have to do. It might have gone down more easily for those people online rallying against euthanizing the dog if they knew for a fact the dog was infected. But, you know, at the end of the day, it is what it is, as they say. And while it was necessary, to some of us, it's sad nonetheless. And no. It is not sadder than those dying from the virus. It's just it's own kind of sad.

 

[jl lin]

I see your point, but from an epidemiological standpoint I disagree. There are stray dogs wandering all over places where this disease is spreading. It's useful to know if they can get sick from Ebola and/or transmit it to humans.

Second, since they dog is in Spain, quarantining the dog and observing it, doing blood tests, etc. isn't really going to divert resources from the biggest fish to fry. It isn't an either or type issue.

WH, true that there are stray dogs all over that could be a part of the epidemic equation. I guess the fact is that this is one in Spain that they know was exposed (to what degree we don't know, and that's really why people are upset) to someone that tested positive to Ebola. They're reasoning is to cut that potential shooter branch off and limit that as another factor. It's about containment. Actually Pon's point about the incubation period is what slapped me back to reality.

When I posted, I was thinking more with my heart and not my head, and I didn't really think through the issue from an epidemiological standpoint. Actually, I had just taken my sweet dog to the vet. We are concerned about a mass that has caused recurrent infection in her mammary gland. She's an older girl, and, well, I am quite attached to this dog. My own situation temporarily clouded my ability to think this through, and Pon's points revealed that to me. I mean I cannot argue the reasoning he gave at all. He's right. It sucks, but it's right--it was the safest way to cut off any other potential exposure on that end of things. I'd like to save the world--including all it's animals, but really, it's not the reality in which we live. And reality can bite.

 

[Prncssbuttercup]

Everything I have seen doing research for my virology class in my post-bacc work says that the incubation period is similar in all mammals, and transmitted similarly. Did the dog need to be euthanized, not necessarily, was it probably the most humane end for the dog, probably.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

Everything I have seen doing research for my virology class in my post-bacc work says that the incubation period is similar in all mammals, and transmitted similarly. Did the dog need to be euthanized, not necessarily, was it probably the most humane end for the dog, probably.

How many lives are you willing to bet on what you learned in your post bacc virology course? It's a dog, this is a deadly epidemic. Perspective.

 

[Prncssbuttercup]

Yeah, it's a dog, I am not sure why this is even being discussed. Dogs get euthanized every day in the US by the tens of thousands. Pons, not really sure what your point is other than that to me, the dog doesn't matter as much as the potential spread of Ebola in TX, or in Africa. Why the world is up in arms over a dog is beyond me. The dog may not have had Ebola, but if it did, it was going to die a horrible death.

 

[jl lin]

Yeah, it's a dog, I am not sure why this is even being discussed. Dogs get euthanized every day in the US by the tens of thousands. Pons, not really sure what your point is other than that to me, the dog doesn't matter as much as the potential spread of Ebola in TX, or in Africa. Why the world is up in arms over a dog is beyond me. The dog may not have had Ebola, but if it did, it was going to die a horrible death.

Why discussed? Well, I really like dogs, and apparently, so do a lot of other people. Believe it or not, dogs can be more loyal and caring than some people. I 'm glad I brought it up, b/c Pons gave me a good thought/reality check. Thanks Pons. It can be helpful to think "aloud" and have others do the same.

It's terrible, IMHO, that so many dogs get euthanized each day. They aren't rocks. They are complex beings. Just b/c they don't have the same complexity as we do, at least not in the same ways, does not mean they don't have intrinsic value. I mean there is such a thing, popularized by Albert Schweitzer, call reverence for life.

Again, people that love animals and dogs were upset b/c the dog was NOT KNOWN to have Ebola. If the dog didn't, people may look at this as a needless killing of life. What's wrong with that? Sadly, b/c no one can know for sure, the dog was put down. Yes. That is sad; just as the needless killing of thousands of other dogs is sad. Again, reverence for life. Only b/c we HAVE reverence for human life--and even the potential wipe out of other susceptible life-forms, the dog was killed. Catch 22--but as I said. Very sad.

Discussing the value of life is not a waste of time IMHO. I'm OK if you feel differently and don't choose to participate in the discussion. That's totally fine.

BTW, I literally smile every time I read your moniker--princessbuttercup. Very cute.

 

[Prncssbuttercup]

I love dogs too, but again, why are people up in arms in the US over one dog, and not over the deaths of people? Why do people care so much about that dog but not about all the dogs euthanized in the US? Why is THIS the one thing that people are SOOOO mad about?? Sorry, but 'it doesn't have Ebola' and it was still put down, doesn't really cut it when ALLLLLLLLL the other stuff is happening...

 

[jl lin]

I love dogs too, but again, why are people up in arms in the US over one dog, and not over the deaths of people? Why do people care so much about that dog but not about all the dogs euthanized in the US? Why is THIS the one thing that people are SOOOO mad about?? Sorry, but 'it doesn't have Ebola' and it was still put down, doesn't really cut it when ALLLLLLLLL the other stuff is happening...

Well to answer your question, as best as I can at least, it has to do with what people can handle dealing with in the moment. If they see "the one," the poster child, so to speak, it's that particular story they hone in on--they are relating humanly to that particular tragedy. It doesn't mean that they don't care about the others. But this is the one brought to their immediate attention and senses. If you took most of any of these same individuals to any number of tragic scenarios of needless dog killing, or the horror of God knows how many people's suffering in Africa or India, they would indeed be moved. But it's hard for people to take even in small doses. They relate, in general, to one person or being at a time.

We just can't handle being bombarded with human tragedy, and for those that do deal with it on a daily basis, they can't for long in most cases, without a break from it. Some can hunker down if directly in the environment, while others become numb or collapse without a break from it. We are built to only stand so much. Yes, it may vary from individual to individual; but PTSDs indicate that in general, most people can only take so much psychologically before they crumble. So humans seek to self-protect. If they are faced with something that is somehow distasteful to them, they react to it, and for a number of folks, they will react quite passionately. They will not, however, generally take on and digest too much at one time along those lines; b/c of their inherent need to self-protect.

To be completely honest with you, there are times I do this when listening or watching the news, for my own sanity. I still listen to the news. There are times, however, when I am so stressed or just exhausted, and I just don't have it in me to watch anymore local or global suffering. I will rest, even pray/meditate, have a glass of Merlot, go running at the track or bounce myself into a mad sweat on the rebounder, and then re-charge, and return to it later. I don't believe this is "not cutting it." I believe this appropriate and even healthy coping.

Now, if I never wanted to hear about the other stuff and lived with my head in the sand, that would be different. If I allowed myself to become totally "me" focused and forget about the world around me (perhaps a chronic issue for a number of Generation Y people), then it would be a problem. If I was so sucked into all the global human tragedy that I could not get up and go about my daily business or go to work or take care of my own activities of daily living, well, yes. That also would be a problem.

 

[Promethean]

Incidentally, the Texas nurse who caught ebola also has a dog. The authorities there are seeking a way to keep her dog in quarantine.

I can't say that I think this is wise, but I guess I am happy for the dog. Hope no people get sick taking care of it.

 

[jl lin]

Incidentally, the Texas nurse who caught ebola also has a dog. The authorities there are seeking a way to keep her dog in quarantine.

I can't say that I think this is wise, but I guess I am happy for the dog. Hope no people get sick taking care of it.

Yes. I don't know. Did she have contact with the dog after having symptoms? Maybe they are hedging their bets, b/c she had the sense enough to come in with a low-grade fever, and her viral load was low. I don't know. I'm sorry, but I'm kind of pissed that the nurse is infected, and just the whole way everything has been handled.

 

[Prncssbuttercup]

I completely think we've botched this. Borders should have been closed to those countries unless you can wait out a quarantine period in a safe place. Even the docs I work with think that we've botched this horribly! Just can't fathom why it didn't seem important to share the data about the first guy having come from Liberia...

 

[ridethecliche]

I completely think we've botched this. Borders should have been closed to those countries unless you can wait out a quarantine period in a safe place. Even the docs I work with think that we've botched this horribly! Just can't fathom why it didn't seem important to share the data about the first guy having come from Liberia...

Incorrect.

 

[RJGOP]

Incorrect.

How is that incorrect? First of all, it's really an opinion, thus it can't be deemed incorrect. More importantly, do you think that we should allow those who were potentially exposed to Ebola-those who potentially have Ebola, into our country? It's bad enough a couple people in the U.S. have Ebola, and it would be a catastrophy if we endured an epidemic. I think it would be more beneficial to save ourselves, than to maintain the "politically correct" demeanor.

 

[ridethecliche]

How is that incorrect? First of all, it's really an opinion, thus it can't be deemed incorrect. More importantly, do you think that we should allow those who were potentially exposed to Ebola-those who potentially have Ebola, into our country? It's bad enough a couple people in the U.S. have Ebola, and it would be a catastrophy if we endured an epidemic. I think it would be more beneficial to save ourselves, than to maintain the "politically correct" demeanor.

I'll take these opinions over yours. Taken from my response on another thread here on the same topic:

1) New yorker article with a good quote from Dr. Gawande.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ban-flights-countries-ebola-outbreaks

There are several reasons for this. For one thing, as Gawande points out, travel bans don’t really work: “Even if travel could be reduced by eighty per cent—itself a feat—models predict that new transmissions would be delayed only a few weeks.” For another, they make it even more difficult to address the public-health crisis: “If you try to shut down air travel and sea travel, you risk affecting to a huge extent the economy, people’s livelihoods, and their ability to get around without stopping the virus from traveling,” Gregory Hartl, a W.H.O. spokesman, said, according to the Washington Post. “You can’t ship goods in. Sometimes these goods are basic staples people need to survive.”

2) Opinion piece by Frieden: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...-support-travel-ban-to-combat-ebola-outbreak/

3) Vox: http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6964633/travel-ban-airport-screening-ebola-outbreak-virus

4) National Geo: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141007-ebola-travel-ban-restrictions-health-world/

5) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/6/a-top-health-expert-warns-against-closing-borders-/

Re: political correctness. I'm just deferring to the experts. Unless I'm mistaken, your politics are pretty apparent in your username though.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

I'll take these opinions over yours. Taken from my response on another thread here on the same topic:

1) New yorker article with a good quote from Dr. Gawande.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ban-flights-countries-ebola-outbreaks

There are several reasons for this. For one thing, as Gawande points out, travel bans don’t really work: “Even if travel could be reduced by eighty per cent—itself a feat—models predict that new transmissions would be delayed only a few weeks.” For another, they make it even more difficult to address the public-health crisis: “If you try to shut down air travel and sea travel, you risk affecting to a huge extent the economy, people’s livelihoods, and their ability to get around without stopping the virus from traveling,” Gregory Hartl, a W.H.O. spokesman, said, according to the Washington Post. “You can’t ship goods in. Sometimes these goods are basic staples people need to survive.”

2) Opinion piece by Frieden: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...-support-travel-ban-to-combat-ebola-outbreak/

3) Vox: http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6964633/travel-ban-airport-screening-ebola-outbreak-virus

4) National Geo: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141007-ebola-travel-ban-restrictions-health-world/

5) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/6/a-top-health-expert-warns-against-closing-borders-/

Re: political correctness. I'm just deferring to the experts. Unless I'm mistaken, your politics are pretty apparent in your username though.

Oh snap!

 

[jl lin]

I'll take these opinions over yours. Taken from my response on another thread here on the same topic:

1) New yorker article with a good quote from Dr. Gawande.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ban-flights-countries-ebola-outbreaks

There are several reasons for this. For one thing, as Gawande points out, travel bans don’t really work: “Even if travel could be reduced by eighty per cent—itself a feat—models predict that new transmissions would be delayed only a few weeks.” For another, they make it even more difficult to address the public-health crisis: “If you try to shut down air travel and sea travel, you risk affecting to a huge extent the economy, people’s livelihoods, and their ability to get around without stopping the virus from traveling,” Gregory Hartl, a W.H.O. spokesman, said, according to the Washington Post. “You can’t ship goods in. Sometimes these goods are basic staples people need to survive.”

2) Opinion piece by Frieden: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...-support-travel-ban-to-combat-ebola-outbreak/

3) Vox: http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6964633/travel-ban-airport-screening-ebola-outbreak-virus

4) National Geo: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141007-ebola-travel-ban-restrictions-health-world/

5) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/6/a-top-health-expert-warns-against-closing-borders-/

Re: political correctness. I'm just deferring to the experts. Unless I'm mistaken, your politics are pretty apparent in your username though.

LOLOLOL, why in the world to you continue to re-publish mere opinions as Gospel? Oy.

Sorry dude. That's "snapless."

 

[RJGOP]

I'll take these opinions over yours. Taken from my response on another thread here on the same topic:

1) New yorker article with a good quote from Dr. Gawande.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ban-flights-countries-ebola-outbreaks

There are several reasons for this. For one thing, as Gawande points out, travel bans don’t really work: “Even if travel could be reduced by eighty per cent—itself a feat—models predict that new transmissions would be delayed only a few weeks.” For another, they make it even more difficult to address the public-health crisis: “If you try to shut down air travel and sea travel, you risk affecting to a huge extent the economy, people’s livelihoods, and their ability to get around without stopping the virus from traveling,” Gregory Hartl, a W.H.O. spokesman, said, according to the Washington Post. “You can’t ship goods in. Sometimes these goods are basic staples people need to survive.”

2) Opinion piece by Frieden: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...-support-travel-ban-to-combat-ebola-outbreak/

3) Vox: http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6964633/travel-ban-airport-screening-ebola-outbreak-virus

4) National Geo: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141007-ebola-travel-ban-restrictions-health-world/

5) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/6/a-top-health-expert-warns-against-closing-borders-/

Re: political correctness. I'm just deferring to the experts. Unless I'm mistaken, your politics are pretty apparent in your username though.

By allowing every one access into our country, we will likely only have more cases similar to that of the man in Dallas. Can we stop people from lying about their condition? No. Will many people still be selfish enough to lie just so they can get to their destination? Yes.

If we don't have a travel ban, what else can we do? I understand some people will take a financial hit, but I'd venture to assume they'd rather stay safe and lose a small amount of income. Countries will also take an economic hit, but I'm sure they'd prefer that over Ebola.

It is a difficult situation and everyone has their opinion. I just hope our decisions ( our meaning this country's) will ultimately benefit us instead of destroying us.

 

[ridethecliche]

I think the quarantine approach is effective here and provides the most benefit while doing the least harm.

A travel ban makes it harder to get resources and get human capital (i.e. doctors/nurses etc) into and out of the country. The west dropped the ball on this over 6 months ago when MSF warned everyone about the severity of this particular epidemic. Additionally, the travel ban only buys us time and safety, during which the situation there gets worse.

But you should definitely form an opinion using your emotional response instead of listening to what the experts in the US are saying. jl lin has it all figured out, I think the WHO should hire him/her as a consultant and all these problems would go away overnight.

People were freaking out when they brought back American citizens! Yeah, we should definitely leave our people in a place where healthcare options are worse than the worst hospital in our country because that's what they deserve as citizens. Also, we should leave pows in harms way because the cost is too great to get them back, right?

LOLOLOL, why in the world to you continue to re-publish mere opinions as Gospel? Oy.

Sorry dude. That's "snapless."

So now you're an authority on what is and isn't snap-worthy as well?

Saying these opinions are equal to your own is equivalent to giving anti vaccers and global warming denialists a pedestal. Like I said before, I'm glad you're so smart that you consider your opinion to be as valid as that of leading experts in America.

These people you keep claiming as playing politics have families and friends at home here. This affects them. Turn off the stupid news channels and talking heads you're listening to and try to listen to people that know what they're talking about for a change. Stupid strawman arguments. Say something with anything of substance to me. I've shown you opinions of people who are the leading experts in the world. You have listed what your gut thinks. Your gut has crap for brains.

Come at me bro.

 

[jl lin]

I think the quarantine approach is effective here and provides the most benefit while doing the least harm.

A travel ban makes it harder to get resources and get human capital (i.e. doctors/nurses etc) into and out of the country. The west dropped the ball on this over 6 months ago when MSF warned everyone about the severity of this particular epidemic. Additionally, the travel ban only buys us time and safety, during which the situation there gets worse.

But you should definitely form an opinion using your emotional response instead of listening to what the experts in the US are saying. jl lin has it all figured out, I think the WHO should hire him/her as a consultant and all these problems would go away overnight.

People were freaking out when they brought back American citizens! Yeah, we should definitely leave our people in a place where healthcare options are worse than the worst hospital in our country because that's what they deserve as citizens. Also, we should leave pows in harms way because the cost is too great to get them back, right?



So now you're an authority on what is and isn't snap-worthy as well?

Saying these opinions are equal to your own is equivalent to giving anti vaccers and global warming denialists a pedestal. Like I said before, I'm glad you're so smart that you consider your opinion to be as valid as that of leading experts in America.

These people you keep claiming as playing politics have families and friends at home here. This affects them. Turn off the stupid news channels and talking heads you're listening to and try to listen to people that know what they're talking about for a change. Stupid strawman arguments. Say something with anything of substance to me. I've shown you opinions of people who are the leading experts in the world. You have listed what your gut thinks. Your gut has crap for brains.

Come at me bro.

Prime example of what I was referring to in the other Ebola thread started by me.

You continue to listen to BS being sent out by Freiden and others like him. Plenty of people see the foolishness in their argument and the KNOW damn well it's political spin, period, end of story. At this point I'm using something I rarely use here. . .the ignore feature.

 

[Mad Jack]

We know dogs can acquire antibodies to ebola, which means they might be able to harbor the disease. Whether they can transmit it, we can't be sure, but I'm going to just go ahead and give the Spanish a pass on this one. It's a judgement call, and I am not going to say they did or didn't do the right thing. If you were the one making the decision, I guarantee you would view it very differently than you do as an outsider.

 

[ridethecliche]

I'm impressed that we have an SDN member that knows more about ebola than the scientists and physicians at the worlds best agencies.