Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quarantine is not recommended. What he did was prudent.

BS. His actions caused panic and expense. He could have stayed home.

Has any media asked Hickox why she is so adamant? Her first complaints were that the tent was cold and she couldn't charge her phone. So the compromise is, she finishes quarantine at home in Maine. Residents of the town want her out-- they made a FB page about this. WHY is at-home not good enough? Why the me, me, me? Something is off about her.

Agree - she's wierdly defiant about something that seems like basic common sense. Yes, of course, until symptoms appear, a person isn't contagious. But what is to say that a person couldn't http://thechocolateexpo.combe out and about or traveling or in a public space like a school or public transport, and begin to show symptoms. The chances are small, perhaps, but this is nonetheless a possibility.

I wouldn't want to think for a second that I'd infected anyone with a potentially deadly disease and if I were in her shoes I'd undertake a quarantine in a heartbeat. Cannot imagine why these health care workers are so cavalier.

She thinks she is too special. WaPo says she's not following Maine quarantine, either. She's just upset the photos and updates posted to her Facebook page won't be as exciting and show off a super duper exciting life for three weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quarantine is not recommended. What he did was prudent.

BS. His actions caused panic and expense. He could have stayed home.

Has any media asked Hickox why she is so adamant? Her first complaints were that the tent was cold and she couldn't charge her phone. So the compromise is, she finishes quarantine at home in Maine. Residents of the town want her out-- they made a FB page about this. WHY is at-home not good enough? Why the me, me, me? Something is off about her.

Agree - she's wierdly defiant about something that seems like basic common sense. Yes, of course, until symptoms appear, a person isn't contagious. But what is to say that a person couldn't be out and about or traveling or in a public space like a school or public transport, and begin to show symptoms. The chances are small, perhaps, but this is nonetheless a possibility.

I wouldn't want to think for a second that I'd infected anyone with a potentially deadly disease and if I were in her shoes I'd undertake a quarantine in a heartbeat. Cannot imagine why these health care workers are so cavalier.

Because she KNOWS that she won't infect anyone if she's asymptomatic, which she is. You really think she'd travel overseas to care for Ebola victims, see firsthand what a horrible disease it is, and then come back to the U.S. with the intention of infecting people. If she thought she had Ebola and was contagious she'd get herself to a hospital as soon as possible because no one knows better than someone who's actually treated Ebola how important that is, both for her health and the health of her community. But there's no evidence she has Ebola - in fact, all the evidence (including 2 negative blood tests) is that she doesn't, and even if she were carrying the virus she can't spread it to anyone because she has no symptoms.

She's fighting the quarantine because it's wrong. If she's quarantined, then why aren't they quarantining the health care workers who are caring for the doctor in Bellevue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quarantine is not recommended. What he did was prudent.

BS. His actions caused panic and expense. He could have stayed home.

Has any media asked Hickox why she is so adamant? Her first complaints were that the tent was cold and she couldn't charge her phone. So the compromise is, she finishes quarantine at home in Maine. Residents of the town want her out-- they made a FB page about this. WHY is at-home not good enough? Why the me, me, me? Something is off about her.

If you force nurses into quarantine for doing their jobs, then no one will be willing to nurse patients. This is an important quality of life issue for the profession and she is doing exactly what she should as a professional nurse. She is advocating for herself and her professional community. Nurses aren't supposed to sit back and take crap. They're supposed to be advocates. She is a hero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quarantine is not recommended. What he did was prudent.

BS. His actions caused panic and expense. He could have stayed home.

Has any media asked Hickox why she is so adamant? Her first complaints were that the tent was cold and she couldn't charge her phone. So the compromise is, she finishes quarantine at home in Maine. Residents of the town want her out-- they made a FB page about this. WHY is at-home not good enough? Why the me, me, me? Something is off about her.

Agree - she's wierdly defiant about something that seems like basic common sense. Yes, of course, until symptoms appear, a person isn't contagious. But what is to say that a person couldn't be out and about or traveling or in a public space like a school or public transport, and begin to show symptoms. The chances are small, perhaps, but this is nonetheless a possibility.

I wouldn't want to think for a second that I'd infected anyone with a potentially deadly disease and if I were in her shoes I'd undertake a quarantine in a heartbeat. Cannot imagine why these health care workers are so cavalier.

Common sense isn't right. The evidence doesn't support quarantine or even screening for these professionals. It's just security theater to make you feel better. It doesn't do anything and it puts a substantial burden on the profession.

[Anonymous]

Oh please. Pay enough, and you'll surely find somebody to do a job. Any job. All this whining is so annoying. Obviously, we can't knkow her motives, but from the looks of it, she's starving for attention. She's cute. Maybe this shitstorm will finally land her a decent doc to marry and shut up already.

[Anonymous]

Take a minute and think about what happened with the others who were NOT quarantined (or were voluntarily quarantined but did not abide by the quarantine), yet traveled around before being diagnosed with Ebola. The nurse in Texas who traveled on an airplane, went wedding dress shopping, and other places.... then, the doctor in NY who went bowling, rode in a cab, and went other places.....
They may not have been contagious, and the risk to others may have been minimal or nonexistent. However, the ramifications of their non-quarantine cannot be ignored. The cost to the businesses, not only in disinfecting, but in lost merchandise and lost customers... the cost of doing the contact tracing.... the alarm caused to others, etc.
Perhaps all of this was not necessary, but are we willing to take the chance NOT to take these precautions?
I don’t believe that a simple 21-day quarantine is asking too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Take a minute and think about what happened with the others who were NOT quarantined (or were voluntarily quarantined but did not abide by the quarantine), yet traveled around before being diagnosed with Ebola. The nurse in Texas who traveled on an airplane, went wedding dress shopping, and other places.... then, the doctor in NY who went bowling, rode in a cab, and went other places.....
They may not have been contagious, and the risk to others may have been minimal or nonexistent. However, the ramifications of their non-quarantine cannot be ignored. The cost to the businesses, not only in disinfecting, but in lost merchandise and lost customers... the cost of doing the contact tracing.... the alarm caused to others, etc.
Perhaps all of this was not necessary, but are we willing to take the chance NOT to take these precautions?
I don’t believe that a simple 21-day quarantine is asking too much.

+1. I agree that the nurse is selfless and heroic, and I'd like to see her extend the same spirit of selflessness to the American public.

[Anonymous]

Anyone have a good understand of how exactly ebola is transmitted. I understand this from WHO:

"Ebola then spreads through human-to-human transmission via direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and with surfaces and materials (e.g. bedding, clothing) contaminated with these fluids. Health-care workers have frequently been infected while treating patients with suspected or confirmed EVD. This has occurred through close contact with patients when infection control precautions are not strictly practiced. Burial ceremonies in which mourners have direct contact with the body of the deceased person can also play a role in the transmission of Ebola. People remain infectious as long as their blood and body fluids, including semen and breast milk, contain the virus. Men who have recovered from the disease can still transmit the virus through their semen for up to 7 weeks after recovery from illness."

So, in some ways it's similar to HIV; but still, why the layered-full-body-not-an-ounce-of-skin-exposed suits? If your wrist is exposed but there's no cut on it, how could you still get ebola? Is there concern the patient can vomit on your exposed wrist and the virus can burrow into your pores? Should you not shake hands with someone who has active ebola, even if their hands are not covered in vomit?

[Anonymous]

And of all of those people who all of those reckless people came in contact with as they wandered around the city and wedding shops and the rest...how many have come down with Ebola? None. Not one. There is no risk in a non-symptomatic person going about their daily lives. You can't expect a nurse, trained in science, to agree to a non-scientific quarantine. It goes against all the training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Take a minute and think about what happened with the others who were NOT quarantined (or were voluntarily quarantined but did not abide by the quarantine), yet traveled around before being diagnosed with Ebola. The nurse in Texas who traveled on an airplane, went wedding dress shopping, and other places.... then, the doctor in NY who went bowling, rode in a cab, and went other places.....
They may not have been contagious, and the risk to others may have been minimal or nonexistent. However, the ramifications of their non-quarantine cannot be ignored. The cost to the businesses, not only in disinfecting, but in lost merchandise and lost customers... the cost of doing the contact tracing.... the alarm caused to others, etc.
Perhaps all of this was not necessary, but are we willing to take the chance NOT to take these precautions?
I don’t believe that a simple 21-day quarantine is asking too much.

Screw the cost to businesses. If you don't protect the rights of nurses, there won't be any willing to do the job.

The nurse who traveled to Indiana checked in with the CDC before she did so. They told her to travel, even with a 99.5 fever. She was responsible. All of the other healthcare providers have also been responsible for monitoring their symptoms and status. So far they have demonstrated responsibility across the entire health care field.

The panic, demands for quarantine, etc. are the result of your ignorance and fear. There is no scientific reason to do it. We shouldn't be depriving people of their rights just because you are having a panic attack and peeing your pants.

Once upon a time, in the 1980s, my school district put a kid with HIV in a trailer, with a lone teacher, because they were afraid of HIV. The kid had to eat alone. He couldn't play with other kids. It was cruel.

Your demands that asymptomatic healthcare professionals be placed in quarantine are equally stupid and cruel. If you insist on quarantining nurses, then no nurses will care for Ebola patients. They will walk off the job. If you have an actual outbreak here, you and your family are going to be screwed, because no one is going to be willing to take care of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have a good understand of how exactly ebola is transmitted. I understand this from WHO:

"Ebola then spreads through human-to-human transmission via direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and with surfaces and materials (e.g. bedding, clothing) contaminated with these fluids. Health-care workers have frequently been infected while treating patients with suspected or confirmed EVD. This has occurred through close contact with patients when infection control precautions are not strictly practiced. Burial ceremonies in which mourners have direct contact with the body of the deceased person can also play a role in the transmission of Ebola. People remain infectious as long as their blood and body fluids, including semen and breast milk, contain the virus. Men who have recovered from the disease can still transmit the virus through their semen for up to 7 weeks after recovery from illness."

So, in some ways it's similar to HIV; but still, why the layered-full-body-not-an-ounce-of-skin-exposed suits? If your wrist is exposed but there's no cut on it, how could you still get ebola? Is there concern the patient can vomit on your exposed wrist and the virus can burrow into your pores? Should you not shake hands with someone who has active ebola, even if their hands are not covered in vomit?

I believe the number of virions needed for infection is the difference, also perhaps the hand to mucus membrane touching is not an issue with HIV, or not as much of an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have a good understand of how exactly ebola is transmitted. I understand this from WHO:

"Ebola then spreads through human-to-human transmission via direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and with surfaces and materials (e.g. bedding, clothing) contaminated with these fluids. Health-care workers have frequently been infected while treating patients with suspected or confirmed EVD. This has occurred through close contact with patients when infection control precautions are not strictly practiced. Burial ceremonies in which mourners have direct contact with the body of the deceased person can also play a role in the transmission of Ebola. People remain infectious as long as their blood and body fluids, including semen and breast milk, contain the virus. Men who have recovered from the disease can still transmit the virus through their semen for up to 7 weeks after recovery from illness."

So, in some ways it's similar to HIV; but still, why the layered-full-body-not-an-ounce-of-skin-exposed suits? If your wrist is exposed but there's no cut on it, how could you still get ebola? Is there concern the patient can vomit on your exposed wrist and the virus can burrow into your pores? Should you not shake hands with someone who has active ebola, even if their hands are not covered in vomit?

It's because the symptoms of Ebola makes you produce a lot of bodily fluid, in a way that HIV doesn't. Ebola causes diarrhea, fever (with sweating), vomiting, and bleeding from eyes, ears, nose, mouth, vagina, rectum. (HIV doesn't do this.) If that blood gets in a scratch on your hands or neck or in your eyes or nose or mouth, you can catch it. If the patient coughs or shakes or moves a limb suddenly the bodily fluids can become aerosoled, along with the virus in them.

Ebola creates the symptoms which make it spread. HIV doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a minute and think about what happened with the others who were NOT quarantined (or were voluntarily quarantined but did not abide by the quarantine), yet traveled around before being diagnosed with Ebola. The nurse in Texas who traveled on an airplane, went wedding dress shopping, and other places.... then, the doctor in NY who went bowling, rode in a cab, and went other places.....
They may not have been contagious, and the risk to others may have been minimal or nonexistent. However, the ramifications of their non-quarantine cannot be ignored. The cost to the businesses, not only in disinfecting, but in lost merchandise and lost customers... the cost of doing the contact tracing.... the alarm caused to others, etc.
Perhaps all of this was not necessary, but are we willing to take the chance NOT to take these precautions?
I don’t believe that a simple 21-day quarantine is asking too much.

Screw the cost to businesses. If you don't protect the rights of nurses, there won't be any willing to do the job.

The nurse who traveled to Indiana checked in with the CDC before she did so. They told her to travel, even with a 99.5 fever. She was responsible. All of the other healthcare providers have also been responsible for monitoring their symptoms and status. So far they have demonstrated responsibility across the entire health care field.

The panic, demands for quarantine, etc. are the result of your ignorance and fear. There is no scientific reason to do it. We shouldn't be depriving people of their rights just because you are having a panic attack and peeing your pants.

Once upon a time, in the 1980s, my school district put a kid with HIV in a trailer, with a lone teacher, because they were afraid of HIV. The kid had to eat alone. He couldn't play with other kids. It was cruel.

Your demands that asymptomatic healthcare professionals be placed in quarantine are equally stupid and cruel. If you insist on quarantining nurses, then no nurses will care for Ebola patients. They will walk off the job. If you have an actual outbreak here, you and your family are going to be screwed, because no one is going to be willing to take care of you.

I think people just want to know what's with the hazmat suits. If someone just came down with ebola and they have a fever but not vomiting, then why the hazmat suits? Do you need the same kind of suit dealing with a patient in the throes of AIDS? People are getting mixed messages between what's being said and what's being done.

[Anonymous]

No, you don't actually need the hazmat suit when someone just has a fever. Probably the person isn't shedding virus in a way that makes them really, really infectious. That happens when they are very sick, vomiting, bleeding, dying. But if there is a good possibility someone has Ebola - they have a fever and were treating Ebola patients in the past 21 days, the suit is prudent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have a good understand of how exactly ebola is transmitted. I understand this from WHO:

"Ebola then spreads through human-to-human transmission via direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and with surfaces and materials (e.g. bedding, clothing) contaminated with these fluids. Health-care workers have frequently been infected while treating patients with suspected or confirmed EVD. This has occurred through close contact with patients when infection control precautions are not strictly practiced. Burial ceremonies in which mourners have direct contact with the body of the deceased person can also play a role in the transmission of Ebola. People remain infectious as long as their blood and body fluids, including semen and breast milk, contain the virus. Men who have recovered from the disease can still transmit the virus through their semen for up to 7 weeks after recovery from illness."

So, in some ways it's similar to HIV; but still, why the layered-full-body-not-an-ounce-of-skin-exposed suits? If your wrist is exposed but there's no cut on it, how could you still get ebola? Is there concern the patient can vomit on your exposed wrist and the virus can burrow into your pores? Should you not shake hands with someone who has active ebola, even if their hands are not covered in vomit?

It's because the symptoms of Ebola makes you produce a lot of bodily fluid, in a way that HIV doesn't. Ebola causes diarrhea, fever (with sweating), vomiting, and bleeding from eyes, ears, nose, mouth, vagina, rectum. (HIV doesn't do this.) If that blood gets in a scratch on your hands or neck or in your eyes or nose or mouth, you can catch it. If the patient coughs or shakes or moves a limb suddenly the bodily fluids can become aerosoled, along with the virus in them.

Ebola creates the symptoms which make it spread. HIV doesn't.

So then it CAN be transmitted through the air; therefore, you do NOT want to be on a crowded train with someone who might have ebola but is one day away from being diagnosed because they really think they have the flu, or, like the doctor in NYC who first lied to officials about traveling around the city, aren't feeling too hot but still want to see their friends because it's been a while.