Ebola outbreak - general thread #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #1,221
  • #1,222
  • #1,223
The timeline is unclear to me. The flight to Cleveland is one thing if it happened prior to Nina's diagnosis (not saying it was smart, but one can rationalize it), the flight back however.....no, it should have never happened. Her coworker became infected and she had an elevated temperature. if she hadn't been explicitly told to stay put, her training / common sense should have made her realize that boarding a commercial flight was not the best course of action.

MOO, etc.

She knew flying commercially was placing people at risk yet she did it anyway. Is this someone I would want providing me or a loved one with nursing care? Uh, no.

JMO
 
  • #1,224
this is wrong on so many levels-I am blown away.

I had to change my avatar, no support here for the pres sending military into africa
JMO
Agree. Agree, agree agree!
 
  • #1,225
Well, one would HAVE to wonder which staff they were planning on using to take care of additional ebola patients. They have stated that the 75 caregivers are "employed but not working," and we can suspect that those caregivers were among the more specially trained, i.e. critical care. If those nurses and caregivers are taken out of the equation, you are pulling from other floors and units. I really can see those nurses calling off or refusing to do something they feel is out of their scope and dangerous to boot. I just don't buy that they have the staffing to continue the ebola care, such as it was.

We KNOW there will be more HCW become infected. If the protocols were not right to begin with, it would be naive to assume the affected will number only 2.

I believe you're onto something in regards to staffing.
 
  • #1,226
I heard on Chicago radio this afternoon that the 2nd nurse who flew to Cleveland went there to make wedding arrangements. I am just reporting what I heard on the radio but if she is planning a wedding I can see where she may be determined to fly no matter what.
 
  • #1,227
Durrie Bouscaren ‏@durrieB 25m25 minutes ago
NIH director Collins and MO senator Blunt here for Alzheimer's and genetic research presser.
Collins took 2 questions on ebola: Stagnant NIH funding meant fewer studies could be supported, ebola vaccine in development since 2001
& says he does not believe there will be large outbreak in the US. Says medical community has series of checks and balances to avoid spread
 
  • #1,228
We need to short the stock of hospital insurers:)
 
  • #1,229
Still, the CDC wants to interview all 132 passengers who were on the plane with her.
"Because of the proximity in time between the evening flight and first report of illness the following morning, CDC is reaching out to passengers who flew on Frontier Airlines flight 1143 Cleveland to Dallas/Fort Worth Oct. 13," the CDC said in a statement. The flight landed Monday at 8:16 p.m. CT.

:/.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/health/texas-ebola-outbreak/index.html
 
  • #1,230
The timeline is unclear to me. The flight to Cleveland is one thing if it happened prior to Nina's diagnosis (not saying it was smart, but one can rationalize it), the flight back however.....no, it should have never happened. Her coworker became infected and she had an elevated temperature. if she hadn't been explicitly told to stay put, her training / common sense should have made her realize that boarding a commercial flight was not the best course of action.

MOO, etc.

Yes, she already new about Nina and got on a return flight anyway.

Careless decision. moo
 
  • #1,231
The second nurse also flew on the 13th with a low grade fever and did not go to the hospital until the next day, the 14th. So there was ANOTHER period of time in which she was not being responsible. But I guess after hearing that DOCTOR Nancy left her house to go out and get soup when she was supposedly quarantined, what can be expected by a young nurse who has several degrees?

Question: Did the CDC happen to say anything to any of the workers who cared for Dunken that they should not travel? Or is this just something that was "part of their protocols" but that they never even conveyed to these workers? Remember, all these workers were initially designated by the CDC as being at "Minimal Risk". Which did not make ANY sense at all.

NOW CDC is backing up and saying that when they arrived onsite at Texas Presbyterian Hospital CDC personnel could see that PPE was either not the correct type or was not being used properly. But they STILL categorized these workers as "Minimal Risk"?

A spokeswoman for the American Nurses Association just appeared on CNN and said "this is a very good hospital". And she has no idea why the nurses were not given proper PPE because the hospital says they have had ongoing training, etc. etc.
Such bullshyte! (By the way, the ANA is not particularly popular among a whole lot of nurses, who will NOT join or support it. And things like this woman appearing on national television and NOT supporting the nurses but rather making statements about what a "good" hospital it is, is one of the reasons why.)

No, it is NOT a good hospital. It failed to provide the correct PPE for its employees to wear while exposed to an ebola patient. It is the EMPLOYER'S responsibility to properly determine each and every risk of exposure for its employees. It is the EMPLOYER'S responsibility to provide the PROPER PPE for each and every risk an employee is exposed to. It is the responsibility of the EMPLOYER to plan for risk, train to reduce risk, monitor for exposure to risk. All of this is clearly spelled out in OSHA regulations.
 
  • #1,232
I admit that I had assumed a lot about the "monitoring" criteria. I assumed also that "any" fever along with "having had just been involved with treating an Ebola patient" would have put a person directly into quarrantine and not on an airplane full of unsuspecting people. What exactly did "monitoring" really mean? Trusting the exposed personnel to do whatever they please? go where ever they want? I had incorrectly assumed that these people being monitored would not be allowed to travel on public transportation of any kind until the possibility of Ebola infection had been ruled out. I guess that's what I get for assuming.
 
  • #1,233
  • #1,234
@NBCDFW: Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins Creates Order to Restrict Travel of Ebola Health Care Workers http://t.co/SmOz9BhhOT #DallasEbola
 
  • #1,235
There is a lot of this going 'round america right now. JMO

invincible1.gif
 
  • #1,236
  • #1,237
Now the CDC is advising all passengers on the first flight (on the 10th) should contact them. This was the TX to CLE flight.
 
  • #1,238
I admit that I had assumed a lot about the "monitoring" criteria. I assumed also that "any" fever along with "having had just been involved with treating an Ebola patient" would have put a person directly into quarrantine and not on an airplane full of unsuspecting people. What exactly did "monitoring" really mean? Trusting the exposed personnel to do whatever they please? go where ever they want? I had incorrectly assumed that these people being monitored would not be allowed to travel on public transportation of any kind until the possibility of Ebola infection had been ruled out. I guess that's what I get for assuming.

Per CDC, they have to have a fever of greater than 101.5 for there to be concern
 
  • #1,239
  • #1,240
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
127
Guests online
2,830
Total visitors
2,957

Forum statistics

Threads
632,988
Messages
18,634,534
Members
243,362
Latest member
PeacefulQilin
Back
Top