Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Casual contacts are not traced; close contacts are. Limiting the total number of contacts makes it easier to define close contacts for people who become ill.
No they cannot pinpoint the moment, but the empiric evidence is that sick people spread it.
It was just mentioned in the context of discussing whether people still carry and can spread the virus after they recover from Ebola. They do not, with the warning that the virus may still be present in breast milk and semen for some time after recovery.
Someone who is in the early stages of the disease may test negative because there is not enough virus in the blood for the test to pick it up. That would actually support the observation that people do not spread Ebola early in the illness.
Risk evaluation is part and parcel of medicine. Every time a patient is offered a medication or surgery is discussed, the benefits and risks are balanced and a treatment plan developed.
The different levels of quarantine are based on risk assessment.
He did not reject quarantine. The title is misleading. Monitoring temperature is a form of quarantine.
The issue is whether someone who tests negative for the virus will be able to pass it to someone else. As far as we know, Dr. Brantly did not infect anyone. He isolated himself as soon as the fever started.
With regard to the patients who did not have a fever.
"The researchers described imperfections in some of the data. In a footnote, they wrote that 'in practice, healthcare workers at the district level often do not have a medical thermometer and simply ask whether the person's body temperature is more elevated than usual.' "
"Interviewed by email, Zwinkels said that hospital staff members took the temperature of one of the doomed patients four times a day for three consecutive days, and the patient never showed a fever. The readings were taken by a digital thermometer placed in the armpit, he said."
These two quotes raise red flags about the quality of the information that the "no fever" figure is based upon. If you do not take the temperature with a thermometer, you have no idea what the temperature is, and armpit temps may not reflect core temp. In addition, a moribund patient with an infection may actually have a subnormal temp.
The only temp we are interested in is at the beginning of the illness. You cannot use temps late in the course of the disease to say the patient never had a fever.
You can quibble about this all you want, whether they used an axillary temp or a different kind, whether they just asked the patient, whatever. Actually, axillary temps are probably more accurate than some of those forehead temps. Asking patients if they have a fever is as likely to err on either side of the issue. Just a few years ago, the thinking was that a person absolutely, positively had to have a fever to be diagnosed with flu. Then the "thinking" changed. Doctor’s Dispatch: Three Unusual Aspects Of This Year’s Early Flu | CommonHealth And flu is a disease that's been around and studied for a very long time.
You can quibble about this all you want, whether they used an axillary temp or a different kind, whether they just asked the patient, whatever. Actually, axillary temps are probably more accurate than some of those forehead temps. Asking patients if they have a fever is as likely to err on either side of the issue. Just a few years ago, the thinking was that a person absolutely, positively had to have a fever to be diagnosed with flu. Then the "thinking" changed. Doctor’s Dispatch: Three Unusual Aspects Of This Year’s Early Flu | CommonHealth And flu is a disease that's been around and studied for a very long time.
Whatever. I just think that if you are going to write a medical article about fever in an Ebola patient the temperature should be taken with a thermometer, not just by asking someone if he thinks he has a fever. GIGO.
What year did you get your advanced degree in human health science, microbiology, or public health? You are stating pure opinion, just like the rest of us. Some of us would better believe those experts who are calling for erring on the side of caution, based on public health policy.
Whatever. I just think that if you are going to write a medical article about fever in an Ebola patient the temperature should be taken with a thermometer, not just by asking someone if he thinks he has a fever. GIGO.
That's probably what I would do, but you've got to go with what you have. We get plenty of parents who tell us their kid had a fever. When you ask them what it was, they say the child felt warm. Their thermometer is broken, it's lost, whatever.
That's probably what I would do, but you've got to go with what you have. We get plenty of parents who tell us their kid had a fever. When you ask them what it was, they say the child felt warm. Their thermometer is broken, it's lost, whatever.
Agreed. That's common. I did it with my kids a lot and it was accurate; there was a fever but only a thermometer would measure the degrees, no matter how loving a mom's arm (I always used the inside of my wrist, not the hand).
I think it's very difficult for a person to feel one's own forehead and conclude that a low-grade fever is present. Asking a person if they "think" they have a fever is a waste of time.
You'll feel 'normal' to yourself unless the fever is very high and then you'll know you have a temp without having to feel for it.
It's easier when you're of normal temp feeling someone else's skin.
That's probably what I would do, but you've got to go with what you have. We get plenty of parents who tell us their kid had a fever. When you ask them what it was, they say the child felt warm. Their thermometer is broken, it's lost, whatever.
Yeah, but if you were writing a paper, I think it would be better to use the thermometer.
People are quoting that 13 to 15% with no fever as if it came from hard data. It did not.
The degree (as in more or less) of "likeliness" or "odds" is hardly based on any kind of scientific thinking. Science is based on consistently replicated results, not on conjectures.
You're forgetting about the variables, you have to put the variables (manipulated/controlled) in there and Nurse Kaci is a variable - of the manipulated type. She's not a sure thing.
How is she being selfish when she went to help in Africa?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
