Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-29-2014, 09:00 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,889,770 times
Reputation: 14345

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
The CDC changed their protocols several times since Duncan and the nurses.
Those protocols were not effective enough.

A breach in protocols means someone didn't follow the guidelines.
A breach in protocols means someone didn't follow the guidelines, possibly because they were unable to do so. Not because they deliberately chose not to follow the guidelines. Not because they didn't do the best possible job with the training, equipment and oversight they had available.

The CDC has "changed their protocols" because the CDC has recognized that their assumption that any American hospital would have the training, equipment and oversight necessary to treat and contain Ebola was a false assumption. The basic premise that the protective gear when properly put on, maintained, and taken off, is, indeed protective, has not changed.

And Duncan's case was particularly instructive, because the cab driver who drove Duncan around Monrovia with the dying woman and her infected brother, did not become sick, even though he was clearly in close proximity to infected and highly contagious persons. Because when Duncan arrived and was not symptomatic, he didn't expose anyone to the virus. Because when he became symptomatic, and was in a small apartment with several other people, sharing a bathroom, breathing the same air, no one in that apartment became infected. We are learning, even more, that casual contact does not spread this virus, that the contagiousness of the virus is closely related to both the viral load in the infected person, and the specific symptoms (ie vomiting and copious diarrhea and hemorrhaging).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2014, 09:09 AM
 
6 posts, read 4,490 times
Reputation: 15
So our military is being quarantined for 21 days but she isn't. They never had close contact with affected people, but she did. And our military did not volunteer, as she did. And somehow she is a 'hero' after whining about being quarantine. And we are to believe that somehow medical workers know the exact minute that they turn infectious. Do walk around with a thermometer in the mouth?

Given she worked for the CDC, I think she has a political agenda. She is an absolute disgrace and I hope people everywhere shun her.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2014, 09:11 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,889,770 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
People touch their face an average of 3.6 times per hour. Got it from this article...
Quit touching your face, flu researchers say - Health - TODAY.com Just a bit of trivia injected into the discussion.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2014, 09:13 AM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,444 posts, read 7,019,847 times
Reputation: 4601
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Someone who is symptomatic with Ebola could spread it by droplets.

If asymptomatic Ebola victims were spreading it, West Africa would have even more victims than it does now. Duncan's family would have gotten sick. Sawyer was symptomatic and did not spread it on the plane or in the airports he went through.

The guy who discovered Ebola was actually the first to state that you do not catch it from someone with no symptoms just from riding the bus with him:

Ebola Discoverer Peter Piot: 'I Would Sit Next to an Infected Person on the Train'

Professor Peter Piot:

"I wouldn't be worried to sit next to someone with Ebola virus on the Tube as long as they don't vomit on you or something. This is an infection that requires very close contact."

Scientist who discovered Ebola:

“You need really close contact to become infected. So just being on the bus with someone with Ebola, that’s not a problem.â€

Droplets from a symptomatic person: hazardous.
Sneeze from an asymptomatic person: not hazardous.

That is what the CDC has said all along.

The scientists, including the Nobel Prizewinner who are saying it could possibly happen from a sneeze from an asymptomatic person on a bus are going counter to the experience in the field. Someone needs to go back and ask him what is the probability that an asymptomatic person will spread Ebola.

The reason we do not want Ebola victims to actually be on the bus is because then we do have to trace their close contacts. That is easier if they are not out riding public transportation at the time they develop symptoms.
No you are discussing probabilities not absolutes. The CDC and the medical experts, including those on this board, speak of medical absolutes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2014, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,509,263 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Fox View Post
So our military is being quarantined for 21 days but she isn't. They never had close contact with affected people, but she did. And our military did not volunteer, as she did. And somehow she is a 'hero' after whining about being quarantine. And we are to believe that somehow medical workers know the exact minute that they turn infectious. Do walk around with a thermometer in the mouth?

Given she worked for the CDC, I think she has a political agenda. She is an absolute disgrace and I hope people everywhere shun her.
Well that explains a lot regarding her outrage at being quarantined.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2014, 09:16 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,889,770 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Fox View Post
So our military is being quarantined for 21 days but she isn't. They never had close contact with affected people, but she did. And our military did not volunteer, as she did. And somehow she is a 'hero' after whining about being quarantine. And we are to believe that somehow medical workers know the exact minute that they turn infectious. Do walk around with a thermometer in the mouth?

Given she worked for the CDC, I think she has a political agenda. She is an absolute disgrace and I hope people everywhere shun her.
The military isn't quarantining the soldiers for medical reasons. It's the old "abundance of caution" that tells us that they are doing it for political purposes. And the soldiers in quarantine are still "on the job", working, drawing a paycheck.

Not one medical worker returning from the affected countries has infected anyone else. Not one. They must be doing a good job monitoring themselves and reporting to authorities when they become symptomatic, huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2014, 09:19 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,509,263 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
The military isn't quarantining the soldiers for medical reasons. It's the old "abundance of caution" that tells us that they are doing it for political purposes. And the soldiers in quarantine are still "on the job", working, drawing a paycheck.

Not one medical worker returning from the affected countries has infected anyone else. Not one. They must be doing a good job monitoring themselves and reporting to authorities when they become symptomatic, huh?
It's a debate of being proactive vs reactive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2014, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 11,028,329 times
Reputation: 6192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
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.
I know you said Katiana was being a bit defensive in her remarks but you both actually have a point. Remember, the CDC insisted 'any' hospital would be able to care for Ebola with standard infection control practices. This has been shown to not be accurate. So, when CDC says it was a breach in protocol, that does have a bit of connotation that the hospital or nurses intentionally broke said protocol. The CDC has since walked back the claim that any hospital could care for Ebola patients.

So, there is both the overly laissez faire manner in which CDC approached Ebola before the Duncan case and the fact that protocol breaches did happen but the word use is at issue. So, yes, protocol was breached BUT I think Katiana may be expressing frustration with the connotation used by CDC when they first spoke about how the nurses were infected. The CDC shares some significant blame here as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2014, 09:23 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
16,911 posts, read 10,596,615 times
Reputation: 16439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
Good! We need science and epidemiology guiding decision here and not right wing politicians fear-mongering for votes. You can't quarantine people who are not sick. It is simply unconstitutional. The irony is that the ones who supposedly so love the constitution are the same ones calling for it to be thrown out the window in the name of political gamesmanship from their side.
You don't need to be sick to be quarantined. Read the law I posted. You just need to be exposed and there is no question that nurse drama queen was exposed. Isolation is for people who are actually sick; quarantine is for people who are exposed and may become sick.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2014, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,509,263 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
Good! We need science and epidemiology guiding decision here and not right wing politicians fear-mongering for votes. You can't quarantine people who are not sick. It is simply unconstitutional. The irony is that the ones who supposedly so love the constitution are the same ones calling for it to be thrown out the window in the name of political gamesmanship from their side.
If Obama said he was for quarantine you'd be praising him for thinking about Americans first.
With you it is all politics.

And who met with the President ? Why the NSA, the Pentagon, the UN Ambassador, etc.
Hardly any of them have medical expertise in the area of Ebola.


States do have the right to quarantine and isolate.


Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine | Quarantine | CDC
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:17 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top