CDC threw this nurse under the bus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus, during some procedures there can be a fine spray of saline mixed with bodily fluids coming at the person. This will get everywhere. Don't get me started on the floor around a patient that has certain procedures done.
I am shocked that they put on standard contact precaution gear only.
Feeling upset for the people who put their lives on the line there at Dallas Presbyterian !

Praying the nurse will recover ...

God, that's terrifying. That poor nurse - she's only 26.

Maybe that guy shouldn't have gotten on an airplane and lied about being exposed to Ebola - and now of course his "partner" is suing everyone.

So we're starting with this shit again?

He lied. Liberia said he lied. They were planning to prosecute him when he returned home. What about this is too hard to understand? Are you stupid?

This has been covered many, many times. Do your research and quit repeating speculation as though it's proven fact.

Not the PP, but just to explain to the other PP; it was reported that he was very distraught when he was told of his diagnosis, and said he would have never brought it, had he only known, wished he'd never exposed his family etc.

... If that is true, he suffered from a massive case of denial, and I hate to say, stupidity.
After all, half of his neighbors were dead or dying within a few days... About 6-7 people. They certainly knew it was Ebola then - at least by the second death...
And his fiancée said; " Ebola just never came up at all in our conversation!"
I mean, how can it not? How? You are just coming from a hot zone country where this is changing people's lives like nothing ever before, where this is on everyone's mind. Your neighbors are dying like flies. How can it not come up?
And how can I, as a relative, NOT ask about the situation 'at home'? Utter denial. Unknown degree of stupidity all around.

But it is here now, and now it's up to us, not to be in denial and display stupidity in dealing with this, locally, nationally, and internationally.

Although it doesn't appear that this occurred before he left the country. He flew out only 4 days after being exposed. Clearly no one else would have sickened and died within only 4 days of exposure.

http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-ebola-liberia-20141003-story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those making the breach accusations probably NEVER took care of a patient since medical school.

True.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those making the breach accusations probably NEVER took care of a patient since medical school.

True.

That doesn't really mean anything and has nothing to do with the fact that protocol was, indeed, breached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is said to be in a stable condition. Please do not start to panic and whip-up unnecessary hysteria.

You sound like you work for the CDC.

Yes, because anyone who is logical as opposed to emotional and anxious must be biased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those making the breach accusations probably NEVER took care of a patient since medical school.

True.

That doesn't really mean anything and has nothing to do with the fact that protocol was, indeed, breached.

Was it, though? The CDC has been dancing on that one....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is said to be in a stable condition. Please do not start to panic and whip-up unnecessary hysteria.

You sound like you work for the CDC.

Yes, because anyone who is logical as opposed to emotional and anxious must be biased.

Logic/hysteria here is a false choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those making the breach accusations probably NEVER took care of a patient since medical school.

True.

That doesn't really mean anything and has nothing to do with the fact that protocol was, indeed, breached.

Was it, though? The CDC has been dancing on that one....

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. We'll probably never know.

[Anonymous]

CDC establishes protocols and provides guidance. They don't execute protocols or procedures. Why so quick to blame the CDC for this nurse's exposure. Are we sure that the protocol was faulty?

[Anonymous]

Honest question - If the CDC cannot identify HOW this nurse contracted the virus, how can they be sure protocol was broken? It seems as if this is the default response when a health care worker contracts the virus because they don’t know what else to say.

[Anonymous]

Seeing things on twitter that the nurse's boyfriend who works at Alcon may be having symptoms and is quarantined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question - If the CDC cannot identify HOW this nurse contracted the virus, how can they be sure protocol was broken? It seems as if this is the default response when a health care worker contracts the virus because they don’t know what else to say.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seeing things on twitter that the nurse's boyfriend who works at Alcon may be having symptoms and is quarantined.

Contact tracing becomes extremely difficult. And this is just two cases (Duncan and the nurse).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_EBOLA_HOSPITAL_STAFF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-13-18-45-19

DALLAS (AP) -- They drew his blood, put tubes down his throat and wiped up his diarrhea. They analyzed his urine and wiped saliva from his lips, even after he had lost consciousness.

About 70 staff members at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital were involved in the care of Thomas Eric Duncan after he was hospitalized, including a nurse now being treated for the same Ebola virus that killed the Liberian man who was visiting Dallas, according to medical records his family provided to The Associated Press.

Why on earth would they need 70 staffers taking care of him? It seems like the sensible thing to do would be to have a pretty limited number of people with any type of contact with the patient?!

I understand the Dallas hospital is very well-regarded and it appears they did everything possible to save Duncan. But I wonder how much guidance their doctors had from doctors who have expertise in treating Ebola (i.e.: at Emory or the hospital in Nebraska). First, they allowed way too many workers to have contact with Duncan. Second, they intubated him and put him on dialysis, two very high-risk procedures as far as infection control - the CDC head said at his news conference that he wasn't aware of another Ebola patient who has been put on dialysis. Either the CDC left the Dallas hospital to fend on its own to try to prove a point - that any large hospital in the US can treat Ebola - or the Dallas doctors stubbornly refused to get or follow advice on Ebola treatment. I suspect its the first option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_EBOLA_HOSPITAL_STAFF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-13-18-45-19

DALLAS (AP) -- They drew his blood, put tubes down his throat and wiped up his diarrhea. They analyzed his urine and wiped saliva from his lips, even after he had lost consciousness.

About 70 staff members at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital were involved in the care of Thomas Eric Duncan after he was hospitalized, including a nurse now being treated for the same Ebola virus that killed the Liberian man who was visiting Dallas, according to medical records his family provided to The Associated Press.

Why on earth would they need 70 staffers taking care of him? It seems like the sensible thing to do would be to have a pretty limited number of people with any type of contact with the patient?!

I understand the Dallas hospital is very well-regarded and it appears they did everything possible to save Duncan. But I wonder how much guidance their doctors had from doctors who have expertise in treating Ebola (i.e.: at Emory or the hospital in Nebraska). First, they allowed way too many workers to have contact with Duncan. Second, they intubated him and put him on dialysis, two very high-risk procedures as far as infection control - the CDC head said at his news conference that he wasn't aware of another Ebola patient who has been put on dialysis. Either the CDC left the Dallas hospital to fend on its own to try to prove a point - that any large hospital in the US can treat Ebola - or the Dallas doctors stubbornly refused to get or follow advice on Ebola treatment. I suspect its the first option.

Or maybe (gasp) they really thought the hospital could handle it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_EBOLA_HOSPITAL_STAFF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-13-18-45-19

DALLAS (AP) -- They drew his blood, put tubes down his throat and wiped up his diarrhea. They analyzed his urine and wiped saliva from his lips, even after he had lost consciousness.

About 70 staff members at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital were involved in the care of Thomas Eric Duncan after he was hospitalized, including a nurse now being treated for the same Ebola virus that killed the Liberian man who was visiting Dallas, according to medical records his family provided to The Associated Press.

Why on earth would they need 70 staffers taking care of him? It seems like the sensible thing to do would be to have a pretty limited number of people with any type of contact with the patient?!

I understand the Dallas hospital is very well-regarded and it appears they did everything possible to save Duncan. But I wonder how much guidance their doctors had from doctors who have expertise in treating Ebola (i.e.: at Emory or the hospital in Nebraska). First, they allowed way too many workers to have contact with Duncan. Second, they intubated him and put him on dialysis, two very high-risk procedures as far as infection control - the CDC head said at his news conference that he wasn't aware of another Ebola patient who has been put on dialysis. Either the CDC left the Dallas hospital to fend on its own to try to prove a point - that any large hospital in the US can treat Ebola - or the Dallas doctors stubbornly refused to get or follow advice on Ebola treatment. I suspect its the first option.

They probably tried every procedure possible so they wouldn't be accused of the patient receiving subpar treatment. Oh yeah, that's happening anyway.