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.
In case you haven't noticed the sick Ebola people who collapsed in the streets are laying there,,in place with no one around them....Look this Ebola is bad,,very bad and playing it down serves no purpose. Right now the media is trying to explain away how these people in suits and being aware of the imminent threat of contagion contacted Ebola..I have to ask what chance have I as an ordinary citizen not getting Ebolaized? Seems pretty slim to me.....
Is there any news on how the transmission occurred? How deep her involvement was with the patient? She wasn't even on the list of people the CDC considered contacts. I'm concerned the CDC doesn't truly know what qualifies as a contact. This means some of the hospital staff weren't being monitored. The Spanish nurse's aide wasn't being monitored either.
The Spanish nurse was a nurse's aid and was changing his diaper.
The US nurse was working with the dialysis machine.
Both dealt DIRECTLY with body fluids and yet neither were considered high risk.
The family of the healthcare worker has requested total privacy. I don't blame them after Duncan was vilified and the children of staff in Spain are being treated like outcastes by other parents. I can't imagine how total privacy can possibly be achieved. They went door to door within a block radius of the patients home and have talked to many contacts. It's going to be leaked. I wonder if total privacy means we won't receive updates on the nurse's progress.
From what was being reported on CBC she had "extensive" contact and had been wearing all of the protective gear.
As for me, I'm not surprised at all and it confirms that the "experts" are deceiving us about how easy it is to contract this strain. It's already been revealed that it's mutating fast.
We are in a lot of trouble - hopefully the naysayers will FINALLY understand this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
I too am surprised and dismayed that the second case is a health care worker. I wonder if this case stems from Duncan's first or second visit to the ER.
I gotta tell you folks, those of us who have worked in medicine for a long time are well aware of the dangers of bloodborn pathogens, but most are pretty desensitized to poop, pee, and puke. This virus brings with it, a whole ' nother learning curve.
I gotta tell you folks, those of us who have worked in medicine for a long time are well aware of the dangers of bloodborn pathogens, but most are pretty desensitized to poop, pee, and puke. This virus brings with it, a whole ' nother learning curve.
Yup..now that poop can kill you.
And that is a first for us.
I, too, shared this optimism on the evening that Mr. Duncan’s Ebola diagnosis was released. But that optimism was already being tempered by that of physicians like Judy Stone, MD, a physician and writer who has practiced in infectious diseases and infection control for over 30 years.
On her Scientific American blog, Dr. Stone, wrote a week ago,
“While I agree that we have the knowledge, experience, and resources to be able to control Ebola, most of the experts are academicians or practice in relatively well-heeled ivory towers.”
She cited the disconnect between administrators and practitioners on the front line of patient care and the focus on dazzling new tools and techniques rather than the less-glamorous training exercises to test whether basic infection control measures are working under routine conditions.
Laurie Garrett, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and current senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in The Washington Post on October 11 that,
“Hubris is the greatest danger in wealthy countries — a sort of smug assumption that advanced technologies and emergency-preparedness plans guarantee that Ebola and other germs will not spread.”
Dr. Stone also makes note of the need to separate politics from the funding of public health and research. She documents that CDC public health and preparedness funding was cut by $1 billion between 2012 and 2013 and their discretionary funding cut by another $585 million between 2010 and 2014. Funding for research through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was cut by $446 million during this same time period.
In her discussion of our developed-world hubris, Garrett echoed Stone’s comments,
“And it is hubris that causes politicians to routinely slash public health budgets every time the microbes seem under control, only to cry out in desperation when a new epidemic appears.”
Closing her article last week, Dr. Stone summed up her feelings:
“At this rate, what is happening in Dallas is going to be about as effective as the shameful response to Hurricane Katrina was,” wrote Stone.
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.
