Ebola outbreak - general thread #9

[oh_gal]

BBM
I don't think that is correct. The reason she didn't infect "hoards" of people after she flew on an airplane with a very low grade fever is that this virus is just not extremely contagious as the first symptoms are manifesting. If it were, we would have seen SOMEBODY come up with ebola after being exposed to Amber once she began feeling off. Same with Mr. Duncan. But no one. NOT ONE. Only two victims of Mr. Duncan's illness, and only once he was afflicted with copius vomiting and diarrhea in the hospital and his viral load was extremely high.

I was on the record as someone critical of Amber's decision to travel. But it just didn't play out as we all feared and I don't think that's because of some divine miracle. People have overestimated and overstated the contagious nature of the disease in the early phase of symptoms.

After having treated a patient who died from Ebola, and knowing that a co-worker had tested positive for Ebola, she knowingly
boarded a commercial flight, with the possibility that she could be putting others at risk. No one knew how contagious it would be at that point, and I am still not sure we know, now. I'm glad no one else was infected through her actions. However, I find her actions, as a medical professional, unconscionable. I am not a medical professional. I have not had the years of training she has. And still I, without all that training or knowledge, know enough that if I just treated someone who died from Ebola, I wouldn't be out mingling in public, much less confining myself on a plane for a 2-3 hour flight. I would have waited until I'd gotten the "all-clear" after 21 days. But I guess she wouldn't have gotten that "all clear", since she ended up testing positive for ebola.

 

[SteveS]

OMG! Don't get me started on this woman. She treated an EBOLA patient who DIED...her co-worker contracted EBOLA, yet she sees nothing wrong with getting on a commercial flight. She said (per this interview that was just on) (or rather, Matt Lauer said, I think) that she feels she did "nothing wrong." Excuse me? You, then, tested positive for EBOLA!!!

I consider that "bashing" of a courageous HCW who did nothing wrong, and I 100% disagree with it. (And you can't blatantly bash someone, then ask us to see it for something different than it is.)

She did absolutely nothing wrong! Yet you want to lead the charge to call her to task. Count me out.

Let's review the facts. She did nothing that wasn't exactly what she was instructed to do. She checked and double-checked with the experts, to make sure, and followed their instructions. She wasn't symptomatic, had been told that you can't infect anyone else in that circumstance (which, despite the fears, appears to have been perfectly accurate info), and had no reason to believe that she could possibly infect anyone else by traveling as she did.

One other item - - as it turned out, she was right. And while the headline-making US protocols have stopped some from getting on planes, factually they have continued to allow others to fly who are in the same circumstance. It should be clear that they don't see it as a real risk, just a pain in the butt to do the cautionary tracking later if someone develops symptoms, so on that basis a task they'd rather avoid.

You may wish that she had been instructed differently, but she wasn't. People are NOT catching this disease from traveling on a plane with someone who has been exposed, and the science (which seems to be completely borne out by 100% of the anecdotal evidence) is that they aren't actually contagious at that point, so it creates no risk. The facts are the facts.

In that light, I think the bashing of a nurse who has infected no one, and who followed the protocols to a T (and was cautious even beyond that level), is uncalled for.

 

[SteveS]

After having treated a patient who died from Ebola, and knowing that a co-worker had tested positive for Ebola, she knowingly boarded a commercial flight, with the possibility that she could be putting others at risk. No one knew how contagious it would be at that point, and I am still not sure we know, now.

Did she knowingly board a plane? Yes.

But when you say "with the possibility that she could be putting others at risk," that is not true medically. You cannot infect anyone else if you don't have symptoms yourself, and she had none. She knew that, she checked and double-checked to make sure, and she acted accordingly.

In addition, when you say "No one knew how contagious it would be at that point," that simply doesn't follow. The idea that she was operating blind and making huge assumptions on her own is completely opposite of the facts. She DID know she wasn't contagious, and she double-checked to be sure, before getting on either plane.

If you want to second-guess, you can't. What she was told was, in hindsight, completely correct. They knew it to be true then, and they know it now. She acted according to the protocols, and factually put absolutely no one at risk by what she did.

 

[oh_gal]

Did she knowingly board a plane? Yes.

But when you say "with the possibility that she could be putting others at risk," that is not true medically. You cannot infect anyone else if you don't have symptoms yourself, and she had none. She knew that, she checked and double-checked to make sure, and she acted accordingly.

In addition, when you say "No one knew how contagious it would be at that point," that simply doesn't follow. The idea that she was operating blind and making huge assumptions on her own is completely opposite of the facts. She DID know she wasn't contagious, and she double-checked to be sure, before getting on either plane.

If you want to second-guess, you can't. What she was told was, in hindsight, completely correct. They knew it to be true then, and they know it now. She acted according to the protocols, and factually put absolutely no one at risk by what she did.

(above, bbm)
That she acted according to protocols could be seen as a very convenient excuse on her part.

As in, "Yes, I know I did, indeed, come down with Ebola, and I knew I could come down with Ebola, but in boarding that flight, I did nothing wrong, because I acted according to protocol." (Meaning: if anyone was wrong here, perhaps it is the protocols...).

Sometimes, you just know the right thing to do, but still you do the opposite, because it's not convenient for you to do the right thing.

Having said that, none of us knows exactly what she was thinking; not me, and not you. So if I am second-guessing her actions, then so, certainly, are you.

 

[oh_gal]

I consider that "bashing" of a courageous HCW who did nothing wrong, and I 100% disagree with it. (And you can't blatantly bash someone, then ask us to see it for something different than it is.)

She did absolutely nothing wrong! Yet you want to lead the charge to call her to task. Count me out.

Let's review the facts. She did nothing that wasn't exactly what she was instructed to do. She checked and double-checked with the experts, to make sure, and followed their instructions. She wasn't symptomatic, had been told that you can't infect anyone else in that circumstance (which, despite the fears, appears to have been perfectly accurate info), and had no reason to believe that she could possibly infect anyone else by traveling as she did.

One other item - - as it turned out, she was right. And while the headline-making US protocols have stopped some from getting on planes, factually they have continued to allow others to fly who are in the same circumstance. It should be clear that they don't see it as a real risk, just a pain in the butt to do the cautionary tracking later if someone develops symptoms, so on that basis a task they'd rather avoid.

You may wish that she had been instructed differently, but she wasn't. People are NOT catching this disease from traveling on a plane with someone who has been exposed, and the science (which seems to be completely borne out by 100% of the anecdotal evidence) is that they aren't actually contagious at that point, so it creates no risk. The facts are the facts.

In that light, I think the bashing of a nurse who has infected no one, and who followed the protocols to a T (and was cautious even beyond that level), is uncalled for.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. As am I.

 

[oh_gal]

BBM
I don't think that is correct. The reason she didn't infect "hoards" of people after she flew on an airplane with a very low grade fever is that this virus is just not extremely contagious as the first symptoms are manifesting. If it were, we would have seen SOMEBODY come up with ebola after being exposed to Amber once she began feeling off. Same with Mr. Duncan. But no one. NOT ONE. Only two victims of Mr. Duncan's illness, and only once he was afflicted with copius vomiting and diarrhea in the hospital and his viral load was extremely high.

I was on the record as someone critical of Amber's decision to travel. But it just didn't play out as we all feared and I don't think that's because of some divine miracle. People have overestimated and overstated the contagious nature of the disease in the early phase of symptoms.

You could be right, and I hope you are. Whether you are, or not, the fact remains that she boarded a plane after treating someone with Ebola who later died from it, without waiting the customary 21 day period. And during that time, she, herself, contracted Ebola. She put hundreds of people through unnecessary stress with her actions. It could have all been avoided, if a little common sense had been used.

 

[faw720]

[/B]

You could be right, and I hope you are. Whether you are, or not, the fact remains that she boarded a plane after treating someone with Ebola who later died from it, without waiting the customary 21 day period. And during that time, she, herself, contracted Ebola. She put hundreds of people through unnecessary stress with her actions. It could have all been avoided, if a little common sense had been used.

So are we all supposed to live our lives in a manner that will not cause anyone else stress? JMO, I've said it once & I'll say it again...........we're all responsible for our own stress whether it is valid or invalid.

 

[SteveS]

That she acted according to protocols could be seen as a very convenient excuse on her part.

As in, "Yes, I know I did, indeed, come down with Ebola, and I knew I could come down with Ebola, but in boarding that flight, I did nothing wrong, because I acted according to protocol." (Meaning: if anyone was wrong here, perhaps it is the protocols...).

Sometimes, you just know the right thing to do, but still you do the opposite, because it's not convenient for you to do the right thing.

Having said that, none of us knows exactly what she was thinking; not me, and not you. So if I am second-guessing her actions, then so, certainly, are you.

1 I think what you fail to accept is that HCW's who deal with infectious disease live their lives using "protocols" that come from others. They trust them, because their lives and the lives of others depend on following protocol.

To then assert that she SHOULD HAVE created her own protocol, and ignored what she was being instructed as proper, is simply wrong. That's not how they are trained, nor how they live their lives.

You say that sometimes people don't do the right thing, and then excuse their bad behavior. But in this case, medical protocol says that she did the RIGHT thing. No question about it.

2 The point I made about second-guessing is that it's what we do when things go WRONG. But, we don't second-guess people who got it right and knew what they were doing.

If there's anyone to second-guess at this point, it's the people who were freaked out (then and now) by her travel. They were the ones who got it wrong.

She got it right. She infected no one. The experts were right when they told her it was okay to fly. She infected no one. They knew what they were doing, and a wish for a different set of actions on their part when they knew what they were doing and got it right all along is silly and unfair to her and to HCWs imo.

 

[oh_gal]

So are we all supposed to live our lives in a manner that will not cause anyone else stress? JMO, I've said it once & I'll say it again...........we're all responsible for our own stress whether it is valid or invalid.

There are two different schools of thought on this, that's for sure.

 

[oh_gal]

1 I think what you fail to accept is that HCW's who deal with infectious disease live their lives using "protocols" that come from others. They trust them, because their lives and the lives of others depend on following protocol.

To then assert that she SHOULD HAVE created her own protocol, and ignored what she was being instructed as proper, is simply wrong. That's not how they are trained, nor how they live their lives.

You say that sometimes people don't do the right thing, and then excuse their bad behavior. But in this case, medical protocol says that she did the RIGHT thing. No question about it.

2 The point I made about second-guessing is that it's what we do when things go WRONG. But, we don't second-guess people who got it right and knew what they were doing.

If there's anyone to second-guess at this point, it's the people who were freaked out (then and now) by her travel. They were the ones who got it wrong.

She got it right. She infected no one. The experts were right when they told her it was okay to fly. She infected no one. They knew what they were doing, and a wish for a different set of actions on their part when they knew what they were doing and got it right all along is silly and unfair to her and to HCWs imo.

If I were a health professional, and I had just treated someone for Ebola, and that person died from Ebola, and then one of my co-workers contracted Ebola from that deceased person, I would put myself in a 21-day quarantine, to avoid the possibility of putting others at risk. After that 21 day period, I would continue on with my life. Is it an inconvenience? Of course, it is.

I would not want to be on a plane with someone who recently treated someone for Ebola (who was now deceased), and had a co-worker who had contracted Ebola from that person, until the 21 day incubation period had passed. But that's just me. And if I knew that someone with those circumstances were sitting on a plane with me, I'd be upset.

 

[Sonya610]

Since fruit bats have been discussed I thought I would share this video. I don't see North American bats or other wild animals becoming infected or becoming vectors for Ebola. Humans are the ones bringing it to the Americas and they aren't likely to infect wildlife.

I have always liked bats.

[video=youtu;FkeSSdwbnPg]http://youtu.be/FkeSSdwbnPg[/video]

 

[SteveS]

Oh_gal, you have the right to decide your own actions, and decide whether you want to live life with caution that's above and beyond, or not. But where I would draw the line, is whether you or anyone else (except those in authority) should have the right to tell anyone else how THEY must draw the line for their own actions, or to bash them if they don't do it as you might have.

That's what liberty should be about. Once she did what she was supposed to do, legally and medically, her choice should be hers.

Nurse Amber took the precautions she was told were necessary. And more. That should be enough, even if you think you would have taken even more. (And, to be fair, if you were a nurse and exposed to disease daily, you might have done exactly what she did. We can't say, "If I were her..." without accepting that to be her, in that moment of choice, she had a world of training and experience in relation to disease that we don't have. More knowledge and training can revise what we perceive to be a prudent course.)

As an aside, unlike others here, I believe that the protocols were DESIGNED to set an ultra-cautious cutoff point already, given the deadly nature of this disease. Accordingly, I don't think it's truly transmittable until well after symptoms start to appear. As in, days later, when the viral load has gotten so high that it's causing bodily fluids to spew everywhere. On her flights, I don't think there was any risk, even if people fear there might have been.

 

[rtjedarling]

Dr's are people too, like the rest of us and certainly don't use the best judgment in all situations- have you ever heard of one operating high, killing a spouse or lover, etc., etc.- thank God for medical professionals and medical experts, but they don't know everything, and when they do know, don't always choose the right thing.

The medical professionals resist the most because they are the ones most aware of how ebola works. They know they have almost no chance of infecting anyone if they get quarantined before the gastrointestinal symptoms start, and while I get that it is not totally impossible, the standard of impossibility is not the one we use in quarantining people. While I get the question "but why even take the chance?", you could apply that to a million things we do every day that have a tiny risk of death. Ebola is scarier because we don't deal with that every day, but these doctors did, so the risk ranks along with other more common ones in their minds. I don't think it's fair to say that they aren't worried until it affects them. I think that's generally true of the public, but not generally the doctors.

Doctors are not usually the ones screaming about how it's everyone else's fault they were infected once they get infected. They recognize the riskiness of the job and do their best to recover with treatment. They see more bad endings than anyone, but aren't usually the ones out there advocating for changes to products known to cause illness or injury. It's the general public that waits until one of these situations strikes them personally, and then wants all risk eradicated through drastic action. Doctors live with the knowledge that it could indeed be their own kid who falls victim to some rare illness - they see it every day. But they know that it's not likely to be ebola - they know about all the possibilities, and live with that knowledge.

 

[faw720]

Apparently Boston officials are keeping their heads on straight, thank God! If they had just jumped on the ebola bandwagon there would be total panic there. 140 students & 10 teachers have been diagnosed with norovirus. Norovirus symptoms are the same as ebola & affects 19-21 million people each year.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/11/06/norovirus-sickens-150-at-boston-elementary-school/

 

[oh_gal]

Oh_gal, you have the right to decide your own actions, and decide whether you want to live life with caution that's above and beyond, or not. But where I would draw the line, is whether you or anyone else (except those in authority) should have the right to tell anyone else how THEY must draw the line for their own actions, or to bash them if they don't do it as you might have.

That's what liberty should be about. Once she did what she was supposed to do, legally and medically, her choice should be hers.

Nurse Amber took the precautions she was told were necessary. And more. That should be enough, even if you think you would have taken even more. (And, to be fair, if you were a nurse and exposed to disease daily, you might have done exactly what she did. We can't say, "If I were her..." without accepting that to be her, in that moment of choice, she had a world of training and experience in relation to disease that we don't have. More knowledge and training can revise what we perceive to be a prudent course.)

As an aside, unlike others here, I believe that the protocols were DESIGNED to set an ultra-cautious cutoff point already, given the deadly nature of this disease. Accordingly, I don't think it's truly transmittable until well after symptoms start to appear. As in, days later, when the viral load has gotten so high that it's causing bodily fluids to spew everywhere. On her flights, I don't think there was any risk, even if people fear there might have been.

(bbm)
And I hope you're correct about that.

 

[oh_gal]

So are we all supposed to live our lives in a manner that will not cause anyone else stress? JMO, I've said it once & I'll say it again...........we're all responsible for our own stress whether it is valid or invalid.

That implies that people are not responsible for their actions, and how they might affect others. If that were the case, then our whole legal system is void, saying nothing of ethical or moral behavior.

 

[faw720]

That implies that people are not responsible for their actions, and how they might affect others. If that were the case, then our whole legal system is void, saying nothing of ethical or moral behavior.

Personally, I feel responsible for my actions and I also feel that I am the only one responsible for my own fears. I can choose to be afraid or not...........but that's just me.

 

[rob]

After having treated a patient who died from Ebola, and knowing that a co-worker had tested positive for Ebola, she knowingly
boarded a commercial flight, with the possibility that she could be putting others at risk. No one knew how contagious it would be at that point, and I am still not sure we know, now. I'm glad no one else was infected through her actions. However, I find her actions, as a medical professional, unconscionable. I am not a medical professional. I have not had the years of training she has. And still I, without all that training or knowledge, know enough that if I just treated someone who died from Ebola, I wouldn't be out mingling in public, much less confining myself on a plane for a 2-3 hour flight. I would have waited until I'd gotten the "all-clear" after 21 days. But I guess she wouldn't have gotten that "all clear", since she ended up testing positive for ebola.

I really don't understand medical professionals who are exposed to the disease or voluntarily go to Africa to treat patients, then feel it is too much to ask to self quarantine for a mere 21 days. You can risk your life to try and save others, but you can't stay inside for 3 weeks? Is that really asking too much? If it saves one person from catching this disease, it is more that worth it. It may never be wide-spread in this country, but better to take a few precautions, then try to fix the problem when it is too late.
We are all so self-centered now. Not one ounce of understanding for our fellow citizens. Plenty of understanding and sympathy for citizens of other countries, but none for our own.
But then again, if we went to help, came back and quietly stayed at home for 3 weeks, we'd miss all those TV opportunities and waa-waa sessions.
All MOO.

 

[oh_gal]

Personally, I feel responsible for my actions and I also feel that I am the only one responsible for my own fears. I can choose to be afraid or not...........but that's just me.

But what happens when the actions of others directly cause something to happen to you?
If I was driving a car, and swerved into your lane, who would be at fault for the resulting head-on collision, you or me?

In this case, her actions caused others to be fearful. Would they have been fearful of contracting ebola if not for her actions?

 

[cuffem]

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/v...ot-amber-vinson-ebola-survivor-nurse.cnn.html
One of the first words she spoke is very telling,"I care for me".