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.
I think the CDC head knew exactly what he was saying. And there's an old saying about apologizing, that "you can't un-say something". I'm not willing to cut him some slack on his ignorant remark. If he didn't think that health care workers in the thick of things would not object to him saying they screwed up, either because they didn't know any better or what, he was very wrong.
I'm not seeing Dr. Buetler's arguments as pure science vs applied. I'm not debating about the possibilities of Ebola becoming airborne. I have not said ONE WORD about that. I'm debating this notion that Ebola is not contagious until the patient shows symptoms. If true, it's one of the few viral disease where that happens, and even Frieden ought to know that, and question it a bit.
I don't think the CDC is wrong, I think they just don't know everything but they won't admit that.
This article says nothing about contagion.
Directly from the article:
"And we also know that the higher the viral load that you get infected with, the more severe your disease is likely to be."
Nothing is going to change your mind about the CDC's remarks. You've got your interpretation. I've got mine.
I would ask Dr Buetler if Ebola is contagious prior to the patient becoming symptomatic, why then hasn't the virus infected more people? With a 21-day incubation period, an asymptomatic contagion spread of a viral outbreak that's been going on since late December 2013 (which is when the child they've identified as the first victim of this outbreak, patient zero, died) would have infected far more than 10,000 people, especially once it reached a densely populated area like Monrovia. The math doesn't support Dr Buetler's "possibility".
And even if Ebola were contagious prior to symptoms, the virus still has to find an entry into its new host. It can't be absorbed through the skin.
Massively misinformed and driven by a mob mentality.
Dr Buetler's perspective is, IMO, skewed by his immersion in pure science.
The US Military is bowing to public opinion, because it makes little difference to them. The servicemen are still on duty, still working, still being paid. They already have a support system in place to address their everyday obligations in their absence, because absence is a way of life.
Australia...I have no idea what's driving their policy decisions.
I think it's a mistake to patently dismiss the will of the people. To call them all 'massively misinformed' is a bit presumptuous. I think there has been some serious missteps in handling the Ebola quarantine or don't quarantine issue but I also would not presume to be derisive of our citizens either. It is unusual so many people are agreeing on this issue and speaks to a risk adverse population more than anything else.
So are you saying that her having the Ebola was a sham ?
That she didn't have it but said she had it and so the Obola Administration could used her as a puppet to show the public that people infected with ebola are okay to be around.
But things went wrong when the governors said they would quarantine her and others coming from an Ebola zone.
She hasn't contracted Ebola. She's just subject to mandatory quarantine after returning as a volunteer in the Ebola affected regions in Africa.
The people who have the most to fear from Ebola are those who work in hospitals. These are people who will be put in direct contact with an ebola patient at the height of infection, contact that will include bodily fluids. My hospital just went through training for dealing with ebola. We'll have special team members whose job it is to help staff into and out of the protective suits as well as a full inspection of the suit once it's been put on. Including the ER, our hospital has nearly 25 total isolation rooms. We're getting one of the isolation rooms prepped with an attached clean room for putting on protective suits and for disinfection of the suits prior to suits removal before stepping out into the hallway. Another danger is housekeeping. Housekeeping is the department that handles the medical waste. I don't work in housekeeping so I don't know if they're receiving special training and if they are, what are they being trained to do in this situation. The other thing that worries me for housekeeping is the recent study that shows that in low temperature and moist surfaces, the ebola virus can survive for up to 50 days. Housekeeping do have cleaners that can kill the ebola virus, but there are so many surfaces to clean, there's no way for them to get every surface 100% disinfected daily. The standard hospital bed would have to be disassembled to get to all the surfaces where bodily fluids can get into before it would be safe to use for another patient without risk of passing on the ebola virus.
The study that showed the virus can live a long time was for dried virus under laboratory conditions, at about 40 degree F temp if I remember correctly. It was meant for people in labs, where a specimen might be refrigerated.
Housekeeping has different procedures for cleaning a room after a patient is discharged, doesn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
So, the brainiacs in the State Department think it's a good idea to import non-citizen Ebola patients from Africa?
We will not be bringing every Ebola patient in Africa to the US. Keep in mind that healthcare workers are dying. There are already too few of them there. If workers know there is the option to be treated here, more of them will be willing to do the work. Australia, in particular, does not want to send workers; it is contributing money. The Aussies cite the length of time it would take to get their people home for treatment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
The 1918 flu pandemic was likely more of a combination of young people being ravished by war and the introduction of an unfamiliar stain from china. If you look at the areas hit hardest it was the us and Europe even though the strain started in china. All those young people had been fighting in the worst conditions imaginable. Then Canada shipped 90,000 sickly Chinese laborers in and started the pandemic. The strain was new to people in the us and Europe but not china (kinda like what Obama did with the illegals and enterovirus). So it's not like the 1918 strain was some kind of superbug, it was just a combination of bad circumstances.
Evidence suggests the 1918 flu started in ... Kansas!
Enterovirus D68 was not imported. It was already here. It is endemic around the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
And when we touch ourselves, we are often unaware of it. We do it without thinking. So policing yourself is an added stress. And you pile stressor on stressor on stressor, and that leads to mistakes. Often innocuous mistakes that have no consequences and go unnoticed. That's why the people at Emory have such an advantage. The work and experience they have in dealing with numerous contagions actually reduces the amount of stress, and they've been able to modify the protocols to reduce the stress even more. Just the level of confidence they have that they know what they are doing and what they are dealing with makes the process less stressful. For the healthcare personnel at Texas Presbyterian, the stress must have been off the charts. Not only are they treating someone who is dying, but they are dealing with a disease that provokes a great deal of fear, they are dealing with it for the first time, they are dealing with it knowing the nation is watching and criticizing, they are dealing with unfamiliar protocols and conflicting information, they are dealing with stigma simply from doing their jobs. It must have been an impossible situation. The nurses and staff of Texas Presbyterian were truly heroic in providing care to Mr Duncan.
Four of the Texas Presbyterian nurses who cared for Duncan were on 60 Minutes last week. Your analysis mirrors exactly what they described feeling. the nurse who admitted Duncan in the ER told about being handed the PPE, being scared stiff, but putting it on and doing her job.
Everyone who participated in his care was a volunteer, by the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR
No you are discussing probabilities not absolutes. The CDC and the medical experts, including those on this board, speak of medical absolutes.
I don't think they intend for what they say to be taken as absolutes. Decades of experience with the virus says it is not transmitted by casual contact, and that is what they are trying to convey. Then "experts" chime in with "it's possible, we cannot rule it out" and the American public, largely illiterate when it comes to science, translates that as reason to personally fear catching Ebola.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
Nurses who work on Ebola patients in this country are told by their boss that they are working on "x" patient. They don't have the freedom to choose usually. And yes, it sounds like she made the decision to work on people in Africa/another country who have Ebola, not me or you.
The Dallas treatment team was all volunteer. If a hospital did not ask for volunteers, an employee could decide whether to quit. I understand some Bellevue employees called in "sick." That is not the way to do it, in my estimation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
I'm starting to wonder if there are some natural immunities at work here. That would explain quite a bit, in my opinion. I know viral load has plenty to do with the increased chance of getting infected but there seems to be some more casual contact cases (e.g. the NBC camera man) where others have done the same action and not been infected. I don't know if researchers have investigated natural immunities and/or been able to identify if one person or another is more likely to be at risk of infection.
Yes, they have, and two different lines of research have emerged.
Some people may be genetically resistant to the disease. At least one gene is associated with possible complete resistance and others with less severe disease. That may explain why there are people who apparently can have Ebola and never have any symptoms from it. They just have antibodies to the virus in their blood.
Others have tried to identify why some people survive and others do not. Survivors show higher levels of markers of the general immune response to the infection. That could just mean they were healthier, or there might be a genetic basis for that, too.
Needless to say, there are likely to be some journal reports on the experiences with the patients treated here in the US. Perhaps they will be looking at these two issues.
I hope they are looking for asymptomatic infections in the people who were close to Mr. Duncan early in his illness. That would explain the apparent lack of transmission to people who were possibly highly exposed.
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.
