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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.