Anonymous wrote:It seems that she had the symptoms after the flight, not before. So, if she is telling the truth, then she didn't have a fever and then hop on a plane to get back home. But, still, she shouldn't have been on planes in the first place, right? I thought the ones who were around Duncan were supposed to be careful.

http://news.yahoo.com/ebola-diagnosed-in-second-dallas-nurse-105542930.html

Cleveland has better health care so it would not make sense to fly to Dallas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I felt bad after the first nurse got it but this second one must be a complete fucking idiot. She exposed her entire family? Wtf? Is she clueless? What sort of nursing school did she go to?

Agree. The first nurse only had contact with her boyfriend and dog. The second nurse already had a fever when she got on a plane! WTF!

Nurses are frequently near patients with infectious diseases (though none like ebola). Are they supposed to sit in their house the rest of lives? They stepped up to help another person and were ensured that the safety protocols would protect them. Let's keep the blame where it belongs--the CDC.

Let's not. I know personal responsibility is about dead in this day and age but she, more than the average lay person, knows about the dangers of Ebola. Nurses regularly stay home when they are sick so they don't infect patients with compromised immune systems (anyone who has worked in a hospital knows this). To think that she didn't grasp that when they told her to monitor herself for possible infection is ridiculous.

Bridezilla wanted to plan her wedding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We will from this moment forward ensure that no other individual who is being monitored for exposure undergoes travel in any way other than controlled movement," Dr Frieden said, meaning, for example, in chartered flights or ambulances."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29632433

Doesn't this seem like it was a common sense action that should've been done from the outset?

Why is the CDC always one step behind?

Also, please tell me they will now monitor every passenger on that plane. Though seeing how effective they've been so far, I doubt it.

It's not just the plane - it's anyone who was behind her in her travels - public bathroom, cab, coffee shop.

This is why I worry about unrestricted travel from West Africa. How do we know what public bathrooms they will contaminate. On airplanes, airports, coffe shops. Everyone is mad the nurse traveled but it is even worse that more people like Mr. Duncan will be roaming free to spread Ebola.

But Obama says you can't get it sitting next to a person on a bus. So since he is our president how is a bus different from a plane? Obama thinks it's ok for people like Duncan to fly on in and so does Jesse Jackson. If those countries were Finland, Denmark, and Sweden I bet our admin would have reacted .....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ I think “confidence” is the key word. Whether rational or not, the public right now does NOT have confidence in our govt nor in the CDC to adequately address this problem. Perhaps things will get better, but until confidence is restored, we will have a very angry and fearful citizenry.

And regardless of how I feel about Obama...where the hell is he? Why has he not made a statement to help ease the public about this becoming an epiedmic in the US? I truly do not understand what the hell is going on? It is clear that leadership either 1) completely underestimated how serious this could get or 2) were just lazy. There have been no proper steps taken since this thing started with Duncan and it seems like shit is going to have to hit the fan in order to get something done.

He acts President of the world not the USA. Obama's main job was a community organizer in Chicago. The community of USA citizens deserves protection of our community. I've thought since the beginning that our domestic travel industry and select international travel would not be hurt if all travel was closed to all with visas from affected countries.

He has said we are too arrogant. He thinks we are getting our just desserts

Weigh this - zmapp is owned by government. Who do you think will get it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans and fruit bats have always coexisted in Africa. I am not sure i buy the defoerstation argument.

I have eaten fruit bat, and it is quite good, if a little boney. There is no evidence that eating fruit bat caused the outbreak. It was probably a fruit bat pooping on a mango, or some such, and then being picked up and eaten by the 2 year old patient 0.

I find it fascinating how keen people are to blame the victims. It makes me think we are pretty rotten as a race. Maybe we deserve to be wiped out by ebola. Maybe the insects would make a better fist of it.

I thought the theory was that killing and preparing the fruit bat, which means contact with its blood, was the issue, not eating it.

There are lots of viruses that are transmitted through feces (hendra, for one), and they really don't know how Ebola is transmitted. So other PP's suggestion of a little kid eating an unwashed, infected piece of fruit is just as likely.

Oh
Good
LORD

You go with that

This info bothers you somehow? Would you like to eat food with Ebola poo on it? No. And why? Because it can be transmitted in poop.

Because actual scientific research has not pointed to fruit. Rabies is similar - can get it by touchinf infected fluids, eating tbe rabid animal, being bitten. How prevalent would rabies be if it was spread by bat poo on fruit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ I think “confidence” is the key word. Whether rational or not, the public right now does NOT have confidence in our govt nor in the CDC to adequately address this problem. Perhaps things will get better, but until confidence is restored, we will have a very angry and fearful citizenry.

And regardless of how I feel about Obama...where the hell is he? Why has he not made a statement to help ease the public about this becoming an epiedmic in the US? I truly do not understand what the hell is going on? It is clear that leadership either 1) completely underestimated how serious this could get or 2) were just lazy. There have been no proper steps taken since this thing started with Duncan and it seems like shit is going to have to hit the fan in order to get something done.

He acts President of the world not the USA. Obama's main job was a community organizer in Chicago. The community of USA citizens deserves protection of our community. I've thought since the beginning that our domestic travel industry and select international travel would not be hurt if all travel was closed to all with visas from affected countries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I felt bad after the first nurse got it but this second one must be a complete fucking idiot. She exposed her entire family? Wtf? Is she clueless? What sort of nursing school did she go to?

Agree. The first nurse only had contact with her boyfriend and dog. The second nurse already had a fever when she got on a plane! WTF!

Nurses are frequently near patients with infectious diseases (though none like ebola). Are they supposed to sit in their house the rest of lives? They stepped up to help another person and were ensured that the safety protocols would protect them. Let's keep the blame where it belongs--the CDC.

Let's not. I know personal responsibility is about dead in this day and age but she, more than the average lay person, knows about the dangers of Ebola. Nurses regularly stay home when they are sick so they don't infect patients with compromised immune systems (anyone who has worked in a hospital knows this). To think that she didn't grasp that when they told her to monitor herself for possible infection is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We will from this moment forward ensure that no other individual who is being monitored for exposure undergoes travel in any way other than controlled movement," Dr Frieden said, meaning, for example, in chartered flights or ambulances."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29632433

Doesn't this seem like it was a common sense action that should've been done from the outset?

Why is the CDC always one step behind?

Also, please tell me they will now monitor every passenger on that plane. Though seeing how effective they've been so far, I doubt it.

It's not just the plane - it's anyone who was behind her in her travels - public bathroom, cab, coffee shop.

This is why I worry about unrestricted travel from West Africa. How do we know what public bathrooms they will contaminate. On airplanes, airports, coffe shops. Everyone is mad the nurse traveled but it is even worse that more people like Mr. Duncan will be roaming free to spread Ebola.

I sorry. Please explain why one is worse than the other? At least one wasnt symptomatic or entirely sure of his exposure when he traveled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all common sense! I do not need to be the leader of the CDC of US or the Texas hospital to know that 1) you do not need a team of 76 people dealing with a highly contagious Ebola victim. 2) anyone who dealt with him should have been quarantined for atleast a full week and not gone home or left the hospital to ensure they were not infected. 3) that nurse should have known better!

Can someone explain why this is so difficult?

I nominate you to go work directly with Ebola patients and you can show us all what "common sense" would dictate.

This is common sense. What about the above does not make sense to you pp? Please enlighten me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I felt bad after the first nurse got it but this second one must be a complete fucking idiot. She exposed her entire family? Wtf? Is she clueless? What sort of nursing school did she go to?

Agree. The first nurse only had contact with her boyfriend and dog. The second nurse already had a fever when she got on a plane! WTF!

Nurses are frequently near patients with infectious diseases (though none like ebola). Are they supposed to sit in their house the rest of lives? They stepped up to help another person and were ensured that the safety protocols would protect them. Let's keep the blame where it belongs--the CDC.

Really? Sorry but I find it hard to believe they were told they would be 100% ok. There were extreme risks involved in caring for the patient and they knew about monitoring themselves which meant DONT FLY ON A DAMN PLANE WITH A FEVER.

Anonymous wrote:This is all common sense! I do not need to be the leader of the CDC of US or the Texas hospital to know that 1) you do not need a team of 76 people dealing with a highly contagious Ebola victim. 2) anyone who dealt with him should have been quarantined for atleast a full week and not gone home or left the hospital to ensure they were not infected. 3) that nurse should have known better!

Can someone explain why this is so difficult?

I nominate you to go work directly with Ebola patients and you can show us all what "common sense" would dictate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans and fruit bats have always coexisted in Africa. I am not sure i buy the defoerstation argument.

I have eaten fruit bat, and it is quite good, if a little boney. There is no evidence that eating fruit bat caused the outbreak. It was probably a fruit bat pooping on a mango, or some such, and then being picked up and eaten by the 2 year old patient 0.

I find it fascinating how keen people are to blame the victims. It makes me think we are pretty rotten as a race. Maybe we deserve to be wiped out by ebola. Maybe the insects would make a better fist of it.

I thought the theory was that killing and preparing the fruit bat, which means contact with its blood, was the issue, not eating it.

There are lots of viruses that are transmitted through feces (hendra, for one), and they really don't know how Ebola is transmitted. So other PP's suggestion of a little kid eating an unwashed, infected piece of fruit is just as likely.

Oh
Good
LORD

You go with that

This info bothers you somehow? Would you like to eat food with Ebola poo on it? No. And why? Because it can be transmitted in poop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We will from this moment forward ensure that no other individual who is being monitored for exposure undergoes travel in any way other than controlled movement," Dr Frieden said, meaning, for example, in chartered flights or ambulances."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29632433

Doesn't this seem like it was a common sense action that should've been done from the outset?

Why is the CDC always one step behind?

Also, please tell me they will now monitor every passenger on that plane. Though seeing how effective they've been so far, I doubt it.

It's not just the plane - it's anyone who was behind her in her travels - public bathroom, cab, coffee shop.

This is why I worry about unrestricted travel from West Africa. How do we know what public bathrooms they will contaminate. On airplanes, airports, coffe shops. Everyone is mad the nurse traveled but it is even worse that more people like Mr. Duncan will be roaming free to spread Ebola.

Anonymous wrote:
I hold nurse 2 completely responsible. She is a trained medical professional. She knows better. The CDC doesn't have to tell her she knows but it was inconvenient for HER to limit contact.

1000 likes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that she had the symptoms after the flight, not before. So, if she is telling the truth, then she didn't have a fever and then hop on a plane to get back home. But, still, she shouldn't have been on planes in the first place, right? I thought the ones who were around Duncan were supposed to be careful.

http://news.yahoo.com/ebola-diagnosed-in-second-dallas-nurse-105542930.html

I thought this was damn near impossible to get...at least according to the CDC.

Because they are nurses dealing with bodily fluids from an actively dying person with Ebola. The closer to desth the higher the viral load. If it was that easy to get his family would be infected by now. Which they aren't.

But we were assured Ebola would not be a problem here because 1) our great health care system and 2) it's hard to catch.

But we know that when dealing with the bodily fluids from a dying Ebola victim, even members of our great health care system (which is actually woefully unprepared) can actually catch it. And then, get on planes, or otherwise possibly spread it to others.

The nurses are Americans too, who deserve to be protected and not even put in the position of caring for Ebola patients in the first place - which is what travel bans could have done, and still could do.

We are WAY too overconfident. American Exceptionalism does not extend to viruses.