Doctors who can’t diagnose Ebola patients: ‘It’s like a black box’

Anesthesiologists can’t reliably diagnose Ebola-related symptoms in patients with the deadly virus, a new study has found.

The study, published in the journal Infection Control and Surveillance, found that many of them can’t detect the symptoms of the disease.

It also found that patients often don’t know what’s wrong with them and that their symptoms aren’t easily understood.

The finding was a stark reminder of how difficult it can be to diagnose Ebola in the community.

Anesthesiology and emergency medicine specialists are the best at diagnosing Ebola patients, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and most are specialists in respiratory and cardiac care.

But because Ebola is such a complicated disease, a lack of effective diagnostics and treatment has made it harder for them to respond effectively to cases.

That’s one reason that health officials and other experts have called for a global effort to address the disease’s complexities.

The new study focused on 10,000 people who were randomly assigned to a group of 12,000 randomly chosen healthcare workers or non-care workers who were given one of two treatment groups, one with antibiotics and one without.

Researchers found that the non-treatment group was significantly more likely to have positive tests for Ebola than the treatment group.

And among the 12,002 randomly selected healthcare workers, those who were exposed to the Ebola virus were significantly more than two times as likely to develop symptoms of Ebola as the non–exposure group.

“The most obvious thing to do is to have more testing,” said James R. Anderson, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and the author of the study.

“I don’t think the current state of the science tells us that that’s a good thing.”

Anderson said that a more concerted effort to track and respond to Ebola cases in the U.S. could save lives.

“If we’re able to find a way to get the vaccine in place and have it out there in time, then that will give us the time we need to stop the spread of the virus,” he said.

The CDC said the findings support efforts to get Ebola vaccines ready for mass use in the coming months.

“There are more than 50,000 American healthcare workers exposed to Ebola who have tested positive for the virus, so there is a huge risk that many more of them could get sick,” CDC Director Tom Frieden said in a statement.

“We’re also working closely with our partners in healthcare to help these workers get tested for Ebola and keep them safe.”

The CDC also said that the U,S.

government will provide $15 million to the National Institutes of Health to help the CDC with testing for Ebola.

The agency also announced the creation of a special Ebola-response task force to help develop a plan to respond to the epidemic.

“Achieving our Ebola response goals is not only the right thing to focus on, it is also the most efficient way to protect our nation from another Ebola pandemic,” CDC director Tom Friedens said in the statement.

But some experts are skeptical that the CDC’s plan will make a difference in the long run.

“This study does not provide a comprehensive, scientifically based picture of the effectiveness of this approach,” said David A. Siegel, a senior vice president at the Infectious Diseases Society of America, a medical society.

“Even if we get this right, it’s hard to predict the future because so many factors are still changing.

So it’s not going to work to prevent a second pandemic.” “

It’s important to note that the most effective way to treat Ebola is to get it under control.

So it’s not going to work to prevent a second pandemic.”

Infectious disease experts also criticized the study for not taking into account the fact that Ebola can be transmitted by direct contact with the body fluids of an infected person.

“To suggest that this is a good idea because a lot of people don’t have to do it is an obvious misstatement,” said Dr. Thomas Frieden, the director of the CDC.

“And I would say that’s because of the way we got it.”

The report did not factor in whether or not patients were taking care of Ebola patients themselves.

“Although the majority of healthcare workers in the study were infected with Ebola, the fact remains that the vast majority of individuals who had direct contact (with) Ebola patients were infected by others, or through direct exposure to an infected individual,” the report said.

“Therefore, the study cannot address the importance of direct contact, or the need for healthcare workers to be vaccinated against Ebola in order to prevent the spread and spread of this virus.”