Dead bodies are highly infectious. They don't vomit on you, bleed on you, share spit with you, or have sex with you. All you have to do is touch them.
Ebola outbreak - general thread #8
- Thread starter Harmony 2
- Start date
-
MO MO - Jasmine Alexis McKee, 14, Hartville, 21 Sept 2025
- Latest: TwinkieDefense
-
UK - Chloe and Josh Bashford, killed in Newhaven, June 2023 *arrest/charged*
- Latest: thewalruswasdanny
- Status
Dead bodies are highly infectious. They don't vomit on you, bleed on you, share spit with you, or have sex with you. All you have to do is touch them.
SStarr33
Inactive
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2013
- Messages
- 7,881
- Reaction score
- 37
Christie's people need to get a handle on what is going on. Geeze.
oh_gal
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,942
- Reaction score
- 59
What I meant by that was, aren't you contagious when symptoms present? In that case, the first minute you present symptoms would be "too late" in that, you are contagious, and could infect others. Is that not correct? I could be missing something, here. I mean, I understand that there has to be some transfer of body fluids taking place, in whatever capacity. But before you exhibit symptoms, if body fluids get transmitted, it's ok.
I know the chances seem miniscule, and I really admire those people who can put this all in better perspective than I can.
SStarr33
Inactive
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2013
- Messages
- 7,881
- Reaction score
- 37
Interesting. Looks like the tent system at the NJ hospital had been approved by the CDC
https://twitter.com/GovChristie
https://twitter.com/GovChristie
SStarr33
Inactive
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2013
- Messages
- 7,881
- Reaction score
- 37
Good point. So either the training is not as good or the strain is much more virulent.
Previous outbrakes were in rural areas. They were small. This is a very large outbreak. Meaning many more patients.
I understand your concern. In the case of the Presby Dallas HCW, they were offered the option of isolating at the hospital (or Hospitel, as the case may be), or at home. They are on a no fly list and cannot take public transportation I believe and were asked not to leave the state, IIRC. But they have not been forcibly quarantined.
Something very strange her. Child apparently arrived in the hospital with no symptoms. Why was he taken into a hospital? Now he developed fever.
We're talking about early symptoms, and how to catch the disease at that point, and I would suggest that "dead body" is neither an early symptom nor the same level of viral load as when we see the first symptom(s).
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 29,996
- Reaction score
- 208,252
NEW YORK CITY — A child was being tested for Ebola and had developed a fever Monday after recently returning to the city from one of the West African countries reeling from the deadly epidemic, officials say.
BBM. Fever after being in a location where ebola was present.
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...ola-as-doctors-condition-improves-report-says
Appears that way:
Governor Christie @GovChristie · 1h 1 hour ago
"...that was recently toured and evaluated by the CDC." @NJDeptofhealth
Governor Christie @GovChristie · 1h 1 hour ago
"She was cared for in a monitored area of the hospital with an advanced tenting system..." (cont) @NJDeptofhealth
Of course she is. And like Nina Pham did, she can call up her designated contact and request to be transported to the hospital. In early ebola, they are not hemorrhaging, so there is no danger to the public in that kind of scenario. You are not a teeming cesspool of ebola the minute you begin showing symptoms, if no one is exposed to her body fluids, there is no threat. Her showing symptoms and being put into isolation immediately would not show that it was a "mistake" to send her home to self monitor. The Bellevue hospital employees, the NIH employees, the Nebraska employees, and Emory employees have taken care of ebola patients, and they are not self isolating, simply self monitoring. If one of them begins to run a fever or experience flu like symptoms, they too can get to the hospital immediately without endangering the public.
SStarr33
Inactive
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2013
- Messages
- 7,881
- Reaction score
- 37
This is super cool:
Researchers At Harvard Discovered A New Potential Treatment For Ebola
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-university-ebola-cure-2014-10#ixzz3HMG8hrlV
More info:
http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpressrelease/166
Researchers At Harvard Discovered A New Potential Treatment For Ebola
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-university-ebola-cure-2014-10#ixzz3HMG8hrlV
More info:
http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpressrelease/166
oh_gal
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,942
- Reaction score
- 59
I hope he's ok....God bless all the medical personnel who transported and are treating him. It's not for the faint of heart.
But he was taken to the hospital on Sunday. Why was he taken to the hospital before symptoms developed?
"The boy was transported to Bellevue Hospital Sunday night because of his travel history and initial reports that he had a fever, but he actually had no symptoms when he first arrived at the hospital, officials said. "
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/year-boy-tested-ebola-nyc-hospital/story?id=26478362
sonjay
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,608
- Reaction score
- 118
And that also means more HCW over there in the affected countries. And more of them getting infected. And more of them returning -- to the U.S. or whatever their home country. And more of them returning already infected with ebola.
I see the arguments for not quarantining returning HCWs. There are very valid arguments, particularly the likelihood that quarantining will reduce the number of HCWs who are willing and able to go to the affected countries, with the greater likelihood that the disease will spread even more in those countries.
At the same, I see the value in quarantining at least the high-risk groups -- such as HCWs who have been treating ebola patients -- when they return here. We really really don't want ebola spreading in the U.S.
I don't know what the best course of action is.
I know that I don't trust the politicians and bureaucrats to make these decisions without regard for the political ramifications.
And I know that quarantining that nurse in a tent with no running water and no flushable toilet is just stupid.
That does look very promising. Not helpful at this moment, but certainly impressive, not only for treating ebola, but any number of other diseases.
What they say is that before you show symptoms, you are NOT contagious and cannot infect anyone. But that doesn't mean that the moment you have the first symptom, you are automatically and definitely contagious.
From what we have observed, where no one has caught it other than exposure at the tail end of someone else's sickness, it gives the appearance that the risk really doesn't begin for some time thereafter, when the viral load has increased significantly.
I find it feasible - and prudent - if the publicized caution point using "onset of symptoms" still has a margin of error of quite some time, epidemiologically. When the first symptom shows, that's the time to begin to take huge precautions, but it's possible that doing so at that point is somewhat of an overkill, for safety's sake and to make a clear and easy line in the sand.
Ebola is a viral infection. Narrator said device is for bacterial infection.
- Status
Similar threads
