Thread: Can we quarantine idiocy? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028040
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
I've long suspected that many of my countrypersons are idiots, possibly including me. Now, it appears, we are all in hot competition with one another to become potentially lethal idiots.

First up: the hospital emergency room to which Thomas Duncan, late of Liberia, turned when he became ill and who, despite his informing them he had just traveled from West Africa, sent him home with antibiotics guaranteed to have zero effect on any kind of viral infection, least of all ebola;

Second: the very same hospital, which apparently exposed who knows how many other already sick people to Duncan’s rapidly-developing ebola symptoms; Third: the self-same hospital sending health care personnel in to care for Duncan with inadequate protective gear, resulting in two nurses becoming infected with ebola;

Fourth: the hospital, or simple common sense, failing to keep allegedly “closely monitored” exposed personnel from boarding planes to travel out-of-state while still potentially incubating a disease which WHO estimates has a 70% mortality rate;

And last but far from least and fifth: the fucking glamormedics & crews sent by their conglomerate media bosses into the hot zones where (A) they probably get massively in the way of desperate efforts to save sick locals, and then (B) get exposed, and who then, during the 21-day quarantine afterward (while the virus could be incubating), casually stroll into public restaurants to have a bite.

What is wrong with these damn fools?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I think it's first-world arrogance. A doctor, IIRC, was critiquing the situation on NPR today: the US medical folks in charge thought the epidemic took such a hold in Africa because of poverty, ignorance, and lack of technology; and they arrogantly assumed that US medicine is "all that" (not the doc's wording), and everything would be fine.

And someone (either the head of the hospital, or of the CDC) blamed the nurse who got sick. I know that at least one nurse spoke up, in the news, and slammed him for that, saying that the nurses weren't given proper training. (And that makes me wonder if the lower-ranking staff--cleaners, launderers, etc.--are given proper equipment and training.)

AFAICS, no one in charge has covered themselves with glory.
 
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :
 
It's the inherent human belief that it always happens to someone else and given it doesn't that it will still all work out in the end.

An attitude which sometimes gets ourselves and others killed, but may ultimately keep us sane.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
yes - I was looking at that - if the US escapes with a minor localised outbreak affecting a handful of people it will be considered to have more combined luck than the annual chinese factory output of coin-eating cats and plastic goldfish. The alternative to this possible run of luck is not pretty.

Joking aside, I guess that the UK has sent 750 troops over there to help so they get experience so they can then be brought home to train other people if necessary.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think it's first-world arrogance. A doctor, IIRC, was critiquing the situation on NPR today: the US medical folks in charge thought the epidemic took such a hold in Africa because of poverty, ignorance, and lack of technology; and they arrogantly assumed that US medicine is "all that" (not the doc's wording), and everything would be fine.
I agree,and it's an approach that is reflected elsewhere in foreign policy. Parachute management. Well-intentioned but veiled in over-confidence because "it's a long way away" and won't affect us back home.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And someone (either the head of the hospital, or of the CDC) blamed the nurse who got sick.
That was distasteful in the extreme. The haste with which the responsibility was passed down to the victim was scandalous blame-shifting. The announcement within a few hours of the diagnosis that someone had "made a mistake" (i.e. it was individual-based, not process-based) set alarm-bells ringing in my head when I saw it. There was also a strong whiff of "we know what's going down, so you ordinary folks don't need to bother us with questions about it - move along, nothing to see here, bit of a panic, not a pandemic."
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
They've since suggested that the haz-mat suits (or the way they're worn?) leave a gap on the neck.

I've been wondering if there's a problem with the fabric of the suits--maybe not as impermeable as people were told; or some sort of shady deal with the manufacturers, due to budget cuts or greed...

Perhaps a "follow the money" situation, combined with what I call "conspiracies of incompetence and stupidity".
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
They've since suggested that the haz-mat suits (or the way they're worn?) leave a gap on the neck.

I've been wondering if there's a problem with the fabric of the suits--maybe not as impermeable as people were told; or some sort of shady deal with the manufacturers, due to budget cuts or greed...

Perhaps a "follow the money" situation, combined with what I call "conspiracies of incompetence and stupidity".
If you look at the photos from Liberia, people wear Haz suits and ALSO have a rubberised helmet and cape that has about a 6 inch overlap onto the suit round the neck
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Whilst I agree that quarantining idiocy is a really good idea I reckon you'd need half the planet to hold them all!

Nothing to do with Ebola but just driving into town 3 times today half the drivers on the road need locking away on the grounds of public safety - then all the politicians of any country!

Where would it all end?
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
They've since suggested that the haz-mat suits (or the way they're worn?) leave a gap on the neck.

I've been wondering if there's a problem with the fabric of the suits--maybe not as impermeable as people were told; or some sort of shady deal with the manufacturers, due to budget cuts or greed...

Perhaps a "follow the money" situation, combined with what I call "conspiracies of incompetence and stupidity".
As I understand it, Ms. Pham didn't have a true haz-mat suit. They gave her so sort of coverall that didn't have an encasing hood, and she wore a face mask, a face shield and double gloves. (There was an illustrative video about wearing and removing the covering clothes on CNN that unfortunately has been replaced by Anderson Cooper interviewing the doctor who did the demo instead of the demo itself). I'm not even sure she had proper shoe covers on. Some Dallas nurses are claiming that when they complained that their necks were exposed, they were told to wrap them in medical tape (!) Good luck in getting that stuff off safely after a shift. [Mad]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Whilst I agree that quarantining idiocy is a really good idea I reckon you'd need half the planet to hold them all!
Make that the whole planet, and call it Genesis 1-3.
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
Certainly plenty of idiocy.

I do wonder how much the fact that Thomas Duncan did not have health insurance played into some of the initial errors. Also how much lack of insurance might play down the road (e.g., people afraid that what they think might be a simple flu but it gets treated as potential Ebola will land them with a huge bill).
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Good point Net Spinster. I doubt that they kept anyone waiting because of insurance, (busy ER personnel don't take time to find such things out from the receptionist) but I can see the uninsured delaying seeking care for this, just as they naturally tend to do for most illnesses.

I saw an article last week where the powers that be were telling us all not to "shun," people who had been around the infected man. Um hmmm. Invite them over for dinner and have them hold the baby.

I no longer believe half of what we're told on issues like this. For a long time our government has seemed to fear "panic," over everything else. I say we have a right to know the truth and a right to panic if we are then so inclined.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Certainly plenty of idiocy.

I do wonder how much the fact that Thomas Duncan did not have health insurance played into some of the initial errors. Also how much lack of insurance might play down the road (e.g., people afraid that what they think might be a simple flu but it gets treated as potential Ebola will land them with a huge bill).
Another reason the NHS is a far better system than having to buy insurance.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
My grandfather was a doctor in the field of public health, and so was one of my uncles. There used to be a government agency (I don't remember what it was called) consisting of doctors and other medical personnel who had very specific knowledge about how to deal with contagious diseases, how to trace the source of water-bourne illness, and how to trace the source of mass food-poisoning. They would send experts wherever they were needed.

Since they had only one job, they kept their eyes closely on it. This unit was subsumed into the Center for Disease Control when it was formed. The CDC had many other tasks, and the higher-ups apparently did not realize that the public health required that they pay very careful attention to what the epidemiologists said.

The CDC higher-ups went in for empire building. They said that obesity was a serious public health problem, and they started spending money trying to solve the problem. Unfortunately, in contrast to epidemiology, there is no body of expert knowledge on how to cure obesity. The more tasks the CDC found for itself, the smaller the amount of attention they paid to contagious diseases.

I have frankly feared and expected this scenario for years. I think the long-term solution to restore the former independence of the group responsible for epidemics, etc.

Moo
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Wow, Moo. That pop was the burst of a big ol' bubble of mine. I first heard of the CDC in Stephen King's The Stand and thought it sounded like the coolest place. I thought epidemics were what they were all about.

Obesity. Wouldn't you just know? I'm so tired of hearing about that. My fat may be the only thing that saves me now that Ebola's come to my area --all for the sake of a wedding shower.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
To be fair to the hospital, the chances of someone turning up in their ER with Ebola, even if they'd just come in from west Africa, is very low. Ebola has a high fatality rate, but is not very easily transmitted without direct contact with body fluids. The current outbreak has about 4500 confirmed fatalities and about 10,000 suspected cases. Assume that there are maybe 50,000 cases in total (a 20% reporting rate within a region where vigilance is high is probably the bottom end of the range), that's a very small proportion of the population. Someone in Texas recently arrived from West Africa showing a fever is much more likely to have malaria, cholera, 'flu or several other infections. Of course "here's some anti-biotics, now go home" isn't the right treatment for any of them either. But, on readmission it should have been clear that it was a much more serious infection and adequate precautions should have been immediately put in place. The actions of the hospital, at least as reported, following readmission are reprehensible.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I say we have a right to know the truth and a right to panic if we are then so inclined.
And I say most people don't bother with finding out the truth before heading straight to the panic part.

Minor details such as ebola not being airborne (unlike colds and flu) and ebola patients not being infectious before they have symptoms (unlike many diseases) tend to be overlooked so that we can have great big bold headlines about the horrors of an ebola-infected nurse being on a flight.

It's true that she probably shouldn't have been on the flight, but her being on the flight does not actually create much of a chance of infection. Unless she was shaking vials of her sweat over all the other passengers.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
That's the thing, though--AIUI, we leave our bio bits all over the place. So there'll be at least traces of sweat, blood (if there's broken skin), urine and poop (leakage, etc.), spit, mucus...

I don't know how *much* of a bodily fluid is needed to pass on the virus. My understanding is that HIV doesn't require much at all. (E.g., medical folks who are accidentally punctured with a used needle.)

And viruses do change and adapt.

Not freaking out; just wondering out loud. YMMV.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And viruses do change and adapt.
It's been amusingly observed that various conservatives suddenly believe in evolution when it comes to the possibility of Ebola mutating to completely change its mode of transmission.

It's never happened with any other virus. Mutations happen, yes, but not that kind of fundamental shift.

Oh, and if you're leaving traces of your urine, blood and poop on planes when you travel, I'm surprised you haven't been banned by any airlines yet. This is just silly. The main trace you leave of yourself as you go about your daily business is skin cells.

[ 17. October 2014, 09:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Oh look, just read the summary.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I understand why Ebola frightens people. It is a truly terrifying disease. BUT there is no reason for a major outbreak in the developed world. In Nigeria (a fairly prosperous African country), it’s been successfully brought under control by applying the proper procedures. The reason for the rapid transmission in West Africa is that there is pretty much no functioning medical infrastructure.

There’s always going to be some human error – the Spanish nurse who contracted it thinks she may have touched her face with her gloves, for example – and that’s a tragedy for the people concerned, but with proper isolation of patients, a major outbreak can be stopped.

The reason for the transmission in the US is that the authorities have been staggeringly incompetent. In West Africa, there have been at least 10000 cases, possibly far more, and 240 medical workers have contracted it. Which my crappy maths skills tell me is about 2%. In the US, there have been a handful of cases, and it’s been passed on to as many medical personnel.

Added to which - who the hell lets a person get on an aeroplane when they’ve been in direct contact with an Ebola patient and they’re reporting a high temperature?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I'm not in a panic over ebola and last week I was laughing at the news stations for talking about it, non stop. I even had a cartoon stuck on the refrigerator of a man surrounded by dire statistics about other diseases, while screaming "Ebola!"

All I'm saying is that if there is reason to worry we should be told. Instead we saw and heard, over and over and over, things like Orfeo's link, that imply it is almost impossible to catch.

So this week's question is: If it really is that hard to catch, then why did professional medical people in protective gear, manage to catch it?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
So this week's question is: If it really is that hard to catch, then why did professional medical people in protective gear, manage to catch it?
Because they weren't all that 'professional' and their gear wasn't all that 'protective'.

The fact is that caring for a person already sick with the disease is far and away the highest risk situation. You've got a high risk of contact with their sweat because they have a fever and are sweating. In later stages you've got a high risk of contact with blood because one of the symptoms is external bleeding, such as around the eyes.

That IS a high risk situation. The reason most of us shouldn't be worrying is because most of us are not involved with the care of feverish, bleeding people. The falsity in the reasoning comes from concluding that nurses in hospitals are equivalent to ourselves, or that if the 'professionals' get it that us non-professionals are at higher risk. The reality is that the professionals are putting themselves in the way of exposure risks that are far greater than the ordinary population will experience.

[ 17. October 2014, 10:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I have just learned that when the CDC first heard that there was an Ebola patient in California, they did not immediately send an agent to observe, gather information, and advise the hospital on safety procedures. This is staggering incompetence. The CDC's job is to support local health authorities who do not have CDC's resources.

There is also a question about whether the nurses who tended the patient in the first days were given all the protective gear they needed. If someone from the CDC had been there, he would have made sure they had proper protection.

As far as the question of airborne transmission is concerned, some authorities think it can be spread if an infected person sneezes on someone else.

Moo
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
As far as the question of airborne transmission is concerned, some authorities think it can be spread if an infected person sneezes on someone else.
The fact that it takes Ebola for sneezing on other people to suddenly be not okay speaks volumes. Weren't people taught not to do this to avoid giving people ordinary colds? I was taught as a child to turn the other way and to use a handkerchief or tissues!

[ 17. October 2014, 10:58: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

The reason for the transmission in the US is that the authorities have been staggeringly incompetent. In West Africa, there have been at least 10000 cases, possibly far more, and 240 medical workers have contracted it. Which my crappy maths skills tell me is about 2%. In the US, there have been a handful of cases, and it’s been passed on to as many medical personnel.

First many of the cases/deaths in West Africa may not have been near a hospital. The known death toll is 4,493 of whom 236 were health care workers (the latter would not include traditional healers or people who caught it caring for their own family members). West Africa also starts with a very low number of doctors and nurses (Liberia for instance has/had about 250 doctors total for 3.5 million people) so the percentage of health care workers killed is far higher than the percentage of the general population.

Being extremely carefully (and having the supplies to be extremely carefully) does cut down the transmission when giving medical care (MSF has had a very low rate). The initial US response to an unexpected Ebola case has been less than competent perhaps in part due to lack of supplies on hand (there has been no transmission when the patient was known to have Ebola when airlifted to the US).

BTW the
H5N1 blog is a useful clearing house on information about Ebola and other infectious outbreaks.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Someone I know keeps reminding everyone whenever we complain about how Dallas Presby handled things that they are level 2 biosafety facility not a level 4. Level 4 is what you need to deal with infectious diseases like ebola. Big institutions don't tend to communicate well, and are not made for precision unless they are particularly focused on that area, as a level 4 facility would be. If you ask me, the worst mistake the hospital made was thinking they could handle Duncan.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

It's true that she probably shouldn't have been on the flight, but her being on the flight does not actually create much of a chance of infection. Unless she was shaking vials of her sweat over all the other passengers.
Until or unless it's possible to accurately predict the precise course of the disease, she certainly shouldn't have been cleared to fly. Plus she's a nurse; she ought to have kept herself off the flight. AIUI, fever IS a symptom of ebola; therefore she was symptomatic, and knew she'd been exposed to a deadly virus.

While she had not yet progressed to the body-fluid-emitting stage, who knows how quickly any one patient might progress from mildly-elevated temperature to profuse sweating, vomiting, or diarrhea? I certainly don't know this, and likely the time lapse can vary considerably from one patient to the next. A 3-hour airline flight might be enough.

[ 17. October 2014, 13:58: Message edited by: Porridge ]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Meanwhile, a lab technician who may have handled Duncan's infected specimens takes an ocean cruise. What next? Will they go into public restaurants and lick the silverware?
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
This article about the cruise ship contains the following quote:

quote:
"We are working with the cruise line to safely bring them back to the United States out of an abundance of caution," Psaki said in the statement.
Where was all this caution when the worker who may have handled Duncan's specimens boarded the %$%#! cruise?

I grant you, he isn't symptomatic, and he's nearly at the end of the 21-day incubation period, and subjecting him to isolation is probably useless at this point, but shouldn't "self-monitoring" include a proviso to limit contact and avoid travel for at least 21 days after possible exposure?

[ 17. October 2014, 16:49: Message edited by: Porridge ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Certainly plenty of idiocy.

I do wonder how much the fact that Thomas Duncan did not have health insurance played into some of the initial errors. Also how much lack of insurance might play down the road (e.g., people afraid that what they think might be a simple flu but it gets treated as potential Ebola will land them with a huge bill).
Another reason the NHS is a far better system than having to buy insurance.
Don't let anyone talk you out of that, either.

Someone upthread mentioned the lack of communication in the CDC-- or to it, or from it-- and I want to smack my head against the wall. This us exactly the same bullshit that went down with AIDS. People were allowed to panic and speculate for a good two years after the method of transmission was determined, until C. Everett Cook finally said " fuck this" and defied chain of command to give the American people clear, accurate information.

[ 17. October 2014, 17:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Oh, here it is:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Someone I know keeps reminding everyone whenever we complain about how Dallas Presby handled things that they are level 2 biosafety facility not a level 4. Level 4 is what you need to deal with infectious diseases like ebola. Big institutions don't tend to communicate well, and are not made for precision unless they are particularly focused on that area, as a level 4 facility would be. If you ask me, the worst mistake the hospital made was thinking they could handle Duncan.
The " not communicating well" is simultaneously the easiest fix and the most difficult fix-- doesn't matter how much communicating will help if nobody does it!
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
This article about the cruise ship contains the following quote:

quote:
"We are working with the cruise line to safely bring them back to the United States out of an abundance of caution," Psaki said in the statement.
Where was all this caution when the worker who may have handled Duncan's specimens boarded the %$%#! cruise?

I grant you, he isn't symptomatic, and he's nearly at the end of the 21-day incubation period, and subjecting him to isolation is probably useless at this point, but shouldn't "self-monitoring" include a proviso to limit contact and avoid travel for at least 21 days after possible exposure?
It appears that is not the advice for category 2 exposure .
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This us exactly the same bullshit that went down with AIDS. People were allowed to panic and speculate for a good two years after the method of transmission was determined, until C. Everett Cook finally said " fuck this" and defied chain of command to give the American people clear, accurate information.
I know you meant C. Everett Koop. And I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that all this talk of appointing an "ebola czar" would be unnecessary if we had a surgeon general in place today, instead of a candidate whose confirmation has been stalled because he dared speak the truth about guns.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Unforgiveable. He's my hero [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Also, regarding surgeon general slot: fuck fuck fuck fuck FUCK!
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Someone I know keeps reminding everyone whenever we complain about how Dallas Presby handled things that they are level 2 biosafety facility not a level 4. Level 4 is what you need to deal with infectious diseases like ebola. Big institutions don't tend to communicate well, and are not made for precision unless they are particularly focused on that area, as a level 4 facility would be. If you ask me, the worst mistake the hospital made was thinking they could handle Duncan.
I know this "any hospital can do this" was circulating around in the ether before this, but yeah. Especially after their previous communication screw-up.

(I worked at a biotech firm that had a Level 3 lab because people were working with live TB virus. The protocols were pretty strict from what I understand. I never got near it.)
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have just learned that when the CDC first heard that there was an Ebola patient in California, they did not immediately send an agent to observe, gather information, and advise the hospital on safety procedures. This is staggering incompetence. The CDC's job is to support local health authorities who do not have CDC's resources.

There is also a question about whether the nurses who tended the patient in the first days were given all the protective gear they needed. If someone from the CDC had been there, he would have made sure they had proper protection.
Yep, a "go team/tiger team" from CDC out to Dallas would have been the way to do this.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves: re: the NHS

Don't let anyone talk you out of that, either.

I am now of the opinion that it doesn't matter what we think or say, we are going to be landed with not having it any more. We have people closely associated with the "government" who are also deeply involved with "health provider" companies with close links to private similar in the US.

It doesn't matter what us Morlocks think, and we don't even have the Morlocks' sanction over the lizard class. They do anything that enters their tiny minds, and claim the mystical mandate even if they did not have a majority in the election, and never mentioned it in the manifesto.

I just hope their incompetence doesn't land us with an outbreak. They are currently scaring us with the possibility that illegal immigrants could bring it in at Dover. As someone has sensibly pointed out, getting, on foot and via death ships, from West Africa would take longer than the incubation period. They would have died before reaching us.

[ 17. October 2014, 19:54: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:


It doesn't matter what us Morlocks think, and we don't even have the Morlocks' sanction over the lizard class. They do anything that enters their tiny minds, and claim the mystical mandate even if they did not have a majority in the election, and never mentioned it in the manifesto.

Quotes file.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
One rather has a feeling that we're spoiling the guy's cruise just to show we are Doing Something. In fact, I'd bet money that if God came down and infallibly told the CDC that said person did not have ebola and never would, they would still take the guy off the ship.

[ 17. October 2014, 20:49: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Reading that advice document, I realise two things. One, I haven't heard anything in the broadcast media about the longevity of the virus in semen. Two, nothing is said about female secretions. It looks as thought there could be a window by which the virus could migrate as an STD if care is not taken with recovered patients.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Reading that advice document, I realise two things. One, I haven't heard anything in the broadcast media about the longevity of the virus in semen. Two, nothing is said about female secretions. It looks as thought there could be a window by which the virus could migrate as an STD if care is not taken with recovered patients.
A BBC article had a comment to that effect
bbc
See the 'how not to catch ebola'
Presumably there's some room for error there, so less than 3 months.
Also I'm not sure if that applies to your point 'Two' or just point 'One'.

[ 17. October 2014, 21:24: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
This article about the cruise ship contains the following quote:

quote:
"We are working with the cruise line to safely bring them back to the United States out of an abundance of caution," Psaki said in the statement.
Where was all this caution when the worker who may have handled Duncan's specimens boarded the %$%#! cruise?

I grant you, he isn't symptomatic, and he's nearly at the end of the 21-day incubation period, and subjecting him to isolation is probably useless at this point, but shouldn't "self-monitoring" include a proviso to limit contact and avoid travel for at least 21 days after possible exposure?
It appears that is not the advice for category 2 exposure .
Point taken. Given the 'protocols' as apparently observed at the hospital where he works, though, I think we can safely assume he ran those tests bare-handed between sips of coffee while on break in the hospital cafeteria.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
While she had not yet progressed to the body-fluid-emitting stage, who knows how quickly any one patient might progress from mildly-elevated temperature to profuse sweating, vomiting, or diarrhea? I certainly don't know this, and likely the time lapse can vary considerably from one patient to the next. A 3-hour airline flight might be enough.
I see. Because your imagination can compress timeframes the way a movie does, decades of medical knowledge about how fevers actually work can go out the window.

[ 17. October 2014, 22:04: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
My mildly elevated temperature Wednesday at 11:30 pm had progressed to diarrhea by 2:30 a.m. Thursday.

[ 17. October 2014, 22:46: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
[Frown]

Sorry, Ruth. Hope you feel better now.

But @ orfeo, with all sympathy for Ruth, that's only 3 hours. Though I doubt all fevers, ebola or otherwise, proceed in the same way or at the same rate of speed.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Fever is a response mechanism of the body to infection. Diarrhea it also commonly caused by infections. But one does not "progress" to the other.

Indeed, the reason that most symptoms of diseases are the same is that most of them are not directly caused by the infection.

[ 17. October 2014, 23:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
OK, whatever bug I have manifested itself first as a low-grade fever and three hours later as diarrhea.

The wording is more precise, but the point is the same.

[ 17. October 2014, 23:38: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I know you meant C. Everett Koop. And I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that all this talk of appointing an "ebola czar" would be unnecessary if we had a surgeon general in place today, instead of a candidate whose confirmation has been stalled because he dared speak the truth about guns.
He is reported to save said that gun violence is a public health issue. This is true in the trivial sense - shooting people does indeed negatively affect their health - but it it true in the same sense that anti-lock brakes and road salting trucks are a public heath issue.

It's got nothing at all to do with the surgeon general.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
One rather has a feeling that we're spoiling the guy's cruise just to show we are Doing Something. In fact, I'd bet money that if God came down and infallibly told the CDC that said person did not have ebola and never would, they would still take the guy off the ship.
I guess the message is that if you work in a lab handling samples from patients you don't get a vacation. You've handled material from a patient which turned up positive for ebola, HIV, or some similarly nasty disease? Go into quarantine for 21 days before taking a vacation? Oh, wait ... you can't do that, you're needed in the lab. But, you can't be sure you'll not be handling samples with infectious agents so you're 21 days quarantine before your vacation restarts every day you enter the lab. To be safe, probably better not go home to your family in that period. And, definitely no sex with your spouse (or, anyone else).

Follow that approach, and then find that hospital pathology labs have severe difficulties recruiting qualified staff.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
He is reported to save said that gun violence is a public health issue. This is true in the trivial sense . . . [but] it's got nothing at all to do with the surgeon general.
He's far from alone in thinking so, as googling "gun violence public health approach" will reveal, but let's not digress.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
OK, whatever bug I have manifested itself first as a low-grade fever and three hours later as diarrhea.

The wording is more precise, but the point is the same.
Assuming both symptoms were caused by the bug, yes.

My point was that Porridge engaged in a kind of hand-wringing "I don't know how this works and so therefore no-one knows how it works" leap.

It's not as if no-one knows anything about this disease. It's been studied for a while now. It's just that the general public in the West doesn't know much about it and isn't used to it.

Heck, the fact that we know that it's not infectious before symptoms appear is an immediate point of distinction from many major diseases. It means we have to only deal with foolishness rather than unwitting spread.

The other day on Facebook I saw a neat little observation about how scientists say "don't panic about Ebola" and we all panic, but they say "climate change is the most serious threat we've ever faced" and people ask for more coal.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
OK, whatever bug I have manifested itself first as a low-grade fever and three hours later as diarrhea.

The wording is more precise, but the point is the same.
Assuming both symptoms were caused by the bug, yes.
[Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes]

quote:
My point was that Porridge engaged in a kind of hand-wringing "I don't know how this works and so therefore no-one knows how it works" leap.
How long from the onset of fever in an ebola case before diarrhea and/or vomiting starts? Wikipedia doesn't say.

She didn't in fact say no one knows how it works. She only said she did not know. You're the one who made the leap.

quote:
The other day on Facebook I saw a neat little observation about how scientists say "don't panic about Ebola" and we all panic, but they say "climate change is the most serious threat we've ever faced" and people ask for more coal.
This is a neat point. But it's pretty unfair to imply that Porridge is panicking.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
I said I don't know this. I also said I thought that timing might vary in different patients, even with the same disease. Nowhere did I say that nobody knows this. There's probably some statistical average somewhere for the course of the disease, like "X-Y hours of fever; if untreated, will be followed by Y-Z hours of profuse sweating; hydration and administration of electrolytes is indicated; if left untreated . . . etc."

That's generally how the course of a disease gets described -- by averages. And that's because different individuals respond in different ways, and at different rates, to any disease process going. So yes, we can describe an average course for a given disease. We can say something like, "Most patients experience an elevated temperature for X amount of time before additional symptoms appear, and symptoms typically appear in the following order . . . etc."

What we can't say, with any certainty, when our very own Aunt Sophronia comes down with Disease X, is exactly which symptom will manifest first, or exactly when, or exactly how long she'll have that symptom, or in what exact order additional symptoms might develop, or exactly how long she'll be ill, etc.

I'm simply pointing out that what we tend to know about disease processes is a compendium of averages -- very useful in knowing how, generally, that disease works, and what steps we ought to be prepared to take in treating it. Those averages are not necessarily predictive of exactly how a given disease process will work in any one particular individual. That's all I'm saying. Sheesh.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Until or unless it's possible to accurately predict the precise course of the disease, she certainly shouldn't have been cleared to fly.

...

who knows how quickly any one patient might progress from mildly-elevated temperature to profuse sweating, vomiting, or diarrhea? I certainly don't know this,
It was the second bit in particular that caught my eye. "Who knows?". Well, the fact is people do know what's possible and what isn't possible.

There ya go, Ruth. There's the leap I was talking about.

And you can roll eyes at me all you like, but the fact is I've gone to the doctor plenty of times talking about more than one symptom only to have the doctor say that one of the things I'm describing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

[ 18. October 2014, 02:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
This was entertaining.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
By the way, I think it's worth pointing out, while we fret about nurses on planes and lab workers on cruise ships, that there is no report that anyone who encountered Thomas Duncan when he was (wrongly) sent home from hospital has fallen ill.

Yes, there are people still in quarantine. But as yet all of the people who were in contact with him before the nurses, in the several days that he was out in the community, are still well. Including his girlfriend.

I think that says something about the relative difficulty of contracting ebola. Yes, there is still some possibility that someone will fall ill in the next couple of days, having had a longer incubation period than the 2 nurses, but at present things are looking pretty good.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Until or unless it's possible to accurately predict the precise course of the disease, she certainly shouldn't have been cleared to fly.

...

who knows how quickly any one patient might progress from mildly-elevated temperature to profuse sweating, vomiting, or diarrhea? I certainly don't know this,
It was the second bit in particular that caught my eye. "Who knows?". Well, the fact is people do know what's possible and what isn't possible.
Yes, but you clearly don't know either. Porridge made it clear that she is not making a definitive statement. She said, "A 3-hour airline flight might be enough." Given that travel restrictions are now in place for everyone who cared for Duncan in Dallas, her position is at least as strong as yours.

You don't know. Neither does Porridge. Thing is, she didn't claim to know. God knows there's enough actual stupid hysterical panic out there that you don't need to go on and on picking at something Porridge said.

quote:
And you can roll eyes at me all you like, but the fact is I've gone to the doctor plenty of times talking about more than one symptom only to have the doctor say that one of the things I'm describing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
So what? I'd bet the rent my fever and regular dashes to the bathroom stem from the same bug. I've never gone to the doctor with a fever and another symptom of infection and had the doctor tell me they were unrelated.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

who knows how quickly any one patient might progress from mildly-elevated temperature to profuse sweating, vomiting, or diarrhea? I certainly don't know this,
It was the second bit in particular that caught my eye. "Who knows?". Well, the fact is people do know what's possible and what isn't possible.

There ya go, Ruth. There's the leap I was talking about.
You might try reading the rest of the sentence: who knows HOW QUICKLY ANY ONE PATIENT MIGHT PROGRESS . . .

And no, nobody does in fact know this, nor can anyone predict this except in terms of averages. "People" only know how quickly, ON AVERAGE (having collected a boatload of data from a boatload of patients who responded in a variety of different ways and times) a disease process works. They do not, and cannot, know this with any precision about one individual.

And you're absolutely right about all the people Duncan was in close contact with between his being sent home from the hospital the first time and being admitted on his second try: they all seem. so far (I have seen zero reports on these folks), to have escaped infection despite probable exposure to the virus, as Duncan reportedly had vomiting and diarrhea at that point. Very good news for all those folks, and yet another indication that we only know what GENERALLY happens with this disease, and can't accurately predict what WILL happen with specific individuals.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
You might try reading the rest of the sentence: who knows HOW QUICKLY ANY ONE PATIENT MIGHT PROGRESS . . .
And you might learn that they have statistics for outliers as well as averages. For example, average incubation is 8 to 10 days, with a range of 3 to 21 days. Not a range of zero to infinity. Which means that not only do they know the ordinary course of the disease they no the unusual course of the disease as well.

This is why I said they know what's possible and what's not possible. As well as what's likely and what's not likely. If you read what I said, that's what I was arguing. I'm trying to counter your depiction of "no-one has any idea of how any one patient might progress" with statements that actually, we can narrow down how they'll progress quite a bit. Even if they're NOT an average patient, it's not the case that they'll defy known rules of transmission.

[ 18. October 2014, 03:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Why are you so exercised about this, orfeo?
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Not a range of zero to infinity.

. . .

Even if they're NOT an average patient, it's not the case that they'll defy known rules of transmission.
It's lucky, then that I haven't said the range extends from zero to infinity, and even more fortunate that nowhere have I suggested that the disease is transmitted by impossible means.

All I have said is that what happens with individuals may differ from known averages, and that because we cannot accurately pinpoint next developments with any one specific patient who has begun exhibiting symptoms, it's probably a bad idea to enclose that symptomatic person in small space for a long period of time with a large group of other people.

You seem to want me to be saying something else, something to which you strenuously object. I'm not quite clear what that is, and I'm sorry I can't seem to oblige you.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Why are you so exercised about this, orfeo?
It's either this or doing the ironing.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
He is reported to save said that gun violence is a public health issue. This is true in the trivial sense . . . [but] it's got nothing at all to do with the surgeon general.
He's far from alone in thinking so, as googling "gun violence public health approach" will reveal, but let's not digress.
The problem with labeling gun violence as a public health problem is that the usual public health approaches to the problem are totally irrelevant. As I said in this post public health began with contagious disease prevention. There was a solid body of knowledge on how to do the job. AFAIK there is no body of knowledge on how to reduce gun violence. As I said in the cited post, the effect has been to divert resources and attention from epidemics.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo
Yes, there are people still in quarantine. But as yet all of the people who were in contact with him before the nurses, in the several days that he was out in the community, are still well. Including his girlfriend.

I think that says something about the relative difficulty of contracting ebola. Yes, there is still some possibility that someone will fall ill in the next couple of days, having had a longer incubation period than the 2 nurses, but at present things are looking pretty good.
I have heard the statistic that on average one Ebola patient infects two other people. This is in contrast with measles, where one patient infects seventeen others. The frightening thing about Ebola is the mortality rate.

Moo
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I've read several opinion pieces this morning about all the foolish Ebola panic. I think there's starting to be a panic about the "panic." There is no panic. People aren't storming the airports to leave Texas and Ohio, there is no hysteria in the market place.

There is a tendency to over talk the subject on television news stations but they do that over anything they can find until the next bit of news comes along. How many non-stop months did they talk about that missing plane? Was there an anti-flying panic? This happens to be a slow news period. Not a panic.

As for wanting the health care workers who dealt with Duncan to stay home. Why not? The powers that be clearly don't know everything about this disease. Don't blame us for losing faith in their expertise when, just a few weeks ago, they were telling us that it was all under control and Duncan's care givers were entirely safe from contagion. They lost credibility through their own actions and now we would all rather err on the side of extreme caution. That's not panic that's common sense. Delaying vacations for a few months is not extreme cruelty to anyone.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Why are you so exercised about this, orfeo?
It's either this or doing the ironing.
This isn't the first time Orfeo has sacrificed himself (and his ironing) on the altar of controversy to keep his corner of Hell happy. God Bless him!
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I've read several opinion pieces this morning about all the foolish Ebola panic. I think there's starting to be a panic about the "panic." There is no panic.
I've seen reports to the effect that friends of Duncan, folks who were quarantined, are being shunned and subjected to assorted bad treatment. Neighbors are preventing repair people and the like from entering the family's apartment by shouting "They have ebola there!" at them.

That may not be panic, but it also seems an extreme overreaction; apparently neither Duncan nor his bodily fluids were ever present there once he became ill.

And while it's easy to blame all this fear on ebola itself (which certainly is frightening), I agree with your point that the initial screwed-up responses may really be what lit a scare under some of us. It certainly scares me.

I am sometimes responsible for administering meds to clients at my place of work; I do so under cover of our staff nurse's license (legal under state law). Even after all these years, I am terrified to deviate one iota from the training she gave me, lest I injure or kill someone by giving them the wrong meds. On returning to work recently after a lengthy absence, I requested that she put me through the training again before re-shouldering this responsibility. I put my staff through this training every 6 months. (They think this is stupid; I think it's prudent.)

I'd like to know that those handling ebola cases are at least as careful as I and my co-workers try to be.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Why are you so exercised about this, orfeo?
It's either this or doing the ironing.
This isn't the first time Orfeo has sacrificed himself (and his ironing) on the altar of controversy to keep his corner of Hell happy. God Bless him!
Forget blessings. I got the Quotes File I was after!
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
You shameless quotesfile tart.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
You shameless quotesfile tart.
I'd make "Shameless Quotesfile Tart" my description if I didn't already really like "Ship's Musical Counterpoint".
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Put it in your sig?
 
Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :
 
Meanwhile on this side of the pond we have this.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chocoholic:
Meanwhile on this side of the pond we have this.
He says he wants his action to make people think...
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I just came across this article about Ebola. Here is the paragraph that especially struck me.
quote:
After outbreaks in Uganda in the late 1990’s, scientists tested the blood of several people who were in close contact with Ebola patients, and found a number of them had markers in their blood indicating they carried the disease, but they were totally asymptomatic—they managed to completely avoid the horrifying symptoms of the disease.
Moo
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
What that article does not make clear is whether these are carriers (i.e. able to infect others though apparently well themselves) or whether these are naturally immune people or survivors who had such slight symptoms they were never identified--in which case they would be perfectly safe to be around, and also of great interest to those searching for treatments. Unfortunately the article conflates the three categories.

A true, lifelong carrier state would be a hellish thing indeed. I hope and think the writer was referring to those with antibodies only and not shedding live virus.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What that article does not make clear is whether these are carriers (i.e. able to infect others though apparently well themselves) or whether these are naturally immune people or survivors who had such slight symptoms they were never identified--in which case they would be perfectly safe to be around, and also of great interest to those searching for treatments. Unfortunately the article conflates the three categories.
The article only talks about recovered survivors and naturally immune individuals. So, though the group of people mentioned may conflate those two groups (ie: include people who had undiagnosed symptoms and those who were naturally immune) I can't see how it would include asymptomatic carriers - their blood would contain live virus and not just markers.

I don't think anyone knows how long Ebola has been present in sub-Saharan Africa - certainly it would have been there long before the first documented occurrences in the 1970s. But, even with the low frequency of infection genetic traits leading to immunity or increased resistance wouldn't take very many generations to be fairly common in the population (if those genetic traits don't carry other survival disadvantages). It probably means that European and American medical personnel offering humanitarian aid in the affected regions, or treating patients in the US/Europe, have a greater chance of contracting fully symptomatic Ebola.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chocoholic:
Meanwhile on this side of the pond we have this.
He says he wants his action to make people think...
... that he's an idiot.

I'm sure there are other ways we can complete that sentence.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
As we've been told repeatedly the ebola virus isn't airborne and can't become airborne without violating natural law (not that I fully understand this, but it's what we're being told), it's hard to see what wearing a facemask is meant to accomplish.

Maybe his daughter talks too much and this is a way of shutting her up?
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chocoholic:
Meanwhile on this side of the pond we have this.
His poor daughter - all the kids at school are going to be laughing at her and her nutty father. That's not 'normal' behaviour - I imagine he's not easy to live with. Poor girl.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
She must be lifting the spirits of all the kids in her class who don't have fathers in the home.

I can see where face masks would be needed by people around Ebola, just to keep their rubber gloved fingers out of their mouths. I'm always surprised at the frequency of face, nose, eye and mouth touching that goes on by most people.
 
Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :
 
I wonder if he makes her stay indoors to reduce the chance of being struck by lightning.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
I reckon this counts as cruel and inhumane treatment, if not illegal imprisonment as well. [Mad]

Deterring medics from working in West Africa is not the way to make us safe from Ebola. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I suppose that "obviously ill" is based on the fact that she disagrees with her treatment. Sort of Catch 22 logic.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
"Obviousy ill" was based on the fact that her temperature was a little bit above the average normal temperature when officials took it at the airport -- so they took her to a hospital, where the doctor who saw her there said her problem wasn't a fever but just being flushed from the stress of the process she was being put through.

But yeah, Christie was talking out of his ass.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
After all the outrage after the previous case where someone was allowed to fly with a 99.x temperature, is it surprising that the pendulum has swung the other way and now any temperature at all is being considered dangerous?
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But yeah, Christie was talking out of his ass.
No surprises there, since that's usually where he's talking out of.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
After all the outrage after the previous case where someone was allowed to fly with a 99.x temperature, is it surprising that the pendulum has swung the other way and now any temperature at all is being considered dangerous?
But she is being kept in hospital for 3 weeks, DESPITE the doctors agreeing that her temperature is normal and she has no other symptoms.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Fear-bola has no boundaries, and the public is demanding action to treat their Fear-bola. Unfortunately, Fear-bola is a pernicious disease and not easily treated.

She showed a temperature once! Why should we believe what doctors say that that was just because of stress! Look at how bad the medical establishment screwed up in Texas! We threw all our civil liberties away over fear of terrorism, of course we're going to also throw all our civil liberties away over fear of Ebola! What if she currently has Ebola but is symptom free, and is out and about on the day she starts to have symptoms, and infects lots of people between two temperature-takings?

Thus says Fear-bola.

I wonder how long it will be before people flying from Africa aren't let back into the country at all until they've finished their 21-day quarantine elsewhere.

The CDC had a guideline, people rose up in outrage over the application of the guideline, what government official is now going to want to be seen as taking any risks at all, no matter how minute, when dealing with Ebola?

I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't surprise me one whit.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But yeah, Christie was talking out of his ass.
No surprises there, since that's usually where he's talking out of.
It's certainly big enough.

This needs to be made into a test case. I understand the nurse has retained a lawyer. If she is being held against her will, her captors need to charged with unlawful arrest and brought to court.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
After all the outrage after the previous case where someone was allowed to fly with a 99.x temperature, is it surprising that the pendulum has swung the other way and now any temperature at all is being considered dangerous?
But she is being kept in hospital for 3 weeks, DESPITE the doctors agreeing that her temperature is normal and she has no other symptoms.
Well, considering that the doctor who let out an ebola case would have their ass sued by everyone in middle america, be struck off by the AMA and probably also end up in guantanamo, I can understand it. Doesnt't make it rught, but it's understandable.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The 2 Texas nurses are now well and appear not to have infected anybody else.

THIS, of course, is not world headline news.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Well, their status is ongoing national news in the US.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
It was headline news here -- both in the LA Times and on National Public Radio.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Ah, apparently when I say "world headline", this is equivalent to the "World Series".

It has been reported here - otherwise I wouldn't know about it - but the story is tiny compared to the coverage given to the nurses' infection or the doctor who arrived in New York.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I didn't say it was a "world" headline. I said it was a headline here. I even said exactly where here I read and heard it.

Go do your ironing.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I suppose I should admit that I'm watching the Kansas City Royals beat the crap out of the San Francisco Giants in game six right now.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I suppose I should admit that I'm watching the Kansas City Royals beat the crap out of the San Francisco Giants in game six right now.
Noted. So I will NOT be seeing a celebratory Facebook post from one of my Californian friends just yet.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Well...

(back to topic)

I just got an email from my sub agency in which we were asked whether or not we had been exposed in the usual ways, or had worked in a center that had been closed for Ebola. (no, and no.) I thought it was pretty smart of them. I have actually been thinking that preschools should be an area of concern-- mostly because kids are notoriously craptastic at containing their bodily fluids, and if something ever got int there, it would be hellacious. Universal Precautions only can do so much-- if a kid sneezes full in your face or barfs in your lap, rubber gloves aren't gonna do much.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0