Ebola outbreak - general thread #8

[CARIIS]

Forget any of the misinformation! IMO, anyone who is running three miles is feeling pretty darn fine!!~ The instant he did feel well he took care of it , Total falsse reporting.

Same with NBC Doc - at the time she "went out " of her apt - she was doing what she had, at that point, been asked to do - stay out of public places.

At the time this was blown up she was asked to avoid public places. Here is what she did under vol isolation :

nyderman, 62,said in a statement after being spotted in her car outside Peasant Grill in Hopewell, N.J. A man with her picked up a takeout order. She sat inside her car! You can not give someone the flu(!) from inside your car!

At that time I would think that me walking from my front door, then staying in my car, and returning home is "staying out of public" jmo tho At that point she was "asked" to.....

We all have to remember that people were being told different things from second to second - the notion that anyone would on purpose run around giving people a horrible illiness is not logical - typical folks would not want to do that.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...y-breaking-ebola-quarantine-article-1.1973623

Again, Patrick Sawyer and to a lesser extent, Dr. Spencer

 

[BingoBongo]

Respectfully, JMO, it is not a situation of apples to bananas. It is a situation of law enforcement feeling threatened & responding with their guns.

So, you expect someone in LE to shoot someone who is not exhibiting symptoms of any disease to stop them? And even if they were exhibiting symptoms...

Granted, LE has made numerous mistakes of late, but that's more than a bit of a stretch.

 

[SteveS]

A precedent is about to get set here. The politicians' rules may be extreme or inappropriate. Kaci probably is not contagious. At this point, those things are not important. What matters is that Kaci is totally ignoring rules/guidelines imposed by those in authority. This should never be allowed to happen!!

I just read where the Maine Governor was more or less backing down and trying to get Kaci to do a blood test and/or agree to self guarantine (not got to public places, etc.) but those negotiations have broken down. Kaci wants no quarantine whatsover..period.

I imagine what will happen is that things will go on as there are now, with her doing what she darn well pleases and eventually the 10 days will be up and it will be a moot point.

While I think the approach in Maine has been ridiculous, I do agree that flaunting the "rules" (whatever they are) is wrong. But more than that, it creates a terrible precedent.

Unfortunately, when you make really bad "law," you back yourself into a corner. Eventually push is going to come to shove over that ridiculous mandate, and then what do you do: Do you enforce the over-reaching law, knowing that you've pushed things too far? Or do you ignore the law-breaking?

The roots of America are in that very conundrum, when the British made foolish over-reaching laws with the premise that it really didn't matter, because we are in charge and so you have to do what we say.

That's where the officials in Maine are now cornered. Their mandatory quarantine now is being ridden over by a bicycle and mushed into the ground. Backing down is a bad choice, and the process of arresting an unsick person for doing something unrisky is also bad.

Rock, meet hard place.

 

[BingoBongo]

While ignoring all other problems.

Bit of an exaggeration that.

 

[nrdsb4]

And yet, nurses who were specifically caring for those with ebola, and wearing what was thought to be enough precautionary equipment, still caught it.

An EMT, in an emergency situation, is at risk.

As for good samaritans, bless them, but their actions are driven by urgent need and willingness to help...how many of them are going to be thinking in terms of not catching something when in that moment?

Well, a good Samaritan putting hands on a bloody HIV positive victim could become infected. Shall we quarantine all HIV positive persons because they might be in an accident and a Good Samaritan might not be prudent and put their hands on them? How about Hep B infected people? If they got into an accident and were bloody, all Good Samaritans without gloves are at risk.

 

[annahanna]

Forget any of the misinformation! IMO, anyone who is running three miles is feeling pretty darn fine!!~ The instant he did feel well he took care of it , Total falsse reporting.

<snipped>
That is absolutely false. If he is a seasoned distance runner who generally ran 10 miles a day, running just 3 miles could have been an indication that he was very ill. Additionally, it may well have been the slowest most miserable 3 miles he ever ran. You would have no way to know.

 

[chipmunk]

My question stands.

As it should. The idea to use the forehead type is b/c it's quick, easy and better than nothing. First, it allows long lines to move quickly and "makes sense" for it's purpose. Oral temps for every person would take too long and cost more. Secondly, if there is a fever or recent travel to ebola affected areas additional, more precise testing, questioning are to take place. Then a symptomatic or person with risk will be IDed. So forehead temp is just supposed to be a first step. I'd guess but am not sure there would be more false positives than negatives for fever with forehead method. It's assumed the vast majority screened have zero risk.

There is the type of oral thermometer in doctor's offices attached to a machine that is reusable. A new cover shield is put on for each patient. I think that would be more accurate but it would slow down airport traffic. The passengers and airlines won't like to be delayed but it really doesn't take much longer. What do nurses here think about an alternative method?

Anyway so long as the screening is thorough the current system works well. Anyone questionable is tracked and they can be checked again if needed. Symptomatic people and those screened well who still have fever, with recent travel to ebola areas are to be further evaluated by a physician, be tested for ebola, separated from others- isolated. That is until deemed not to be positive for ebola.

 

[Detective Klimpt]

Spencer was in the early stages and sought early treatment. The original question was about someone in active stages who didn't seek treatment.

Since some are saying people in the early stages are not contageous, why did they quarantine Spencer's fiance?

 

[nrdsb4]

And yet, nurses who were specifically caring for those with ebola, and wearing what was thought to be enough precautionary equipment, still caught it.

An EMT, in an emergency situation, is at risk.

As for good samaritans, bless them, but their actions are driven by urgent need and willingness to help...how many of them are going to be thinking in terms of not catching something when in that moment?

Wasn't the question asked regarding someone during the incubation period (Kaci) getting into an accident, bleeding, and the danger presented to first responders and Good Samaritans? If so, what does that have to do with nurses who were caring for a VERY sick Mr. Duncan in the hospital, who was long past incubation and into the very high viral load stage?

 

[Detective Klimpt]

EVERYONE from WAfrica, even a visitor, is tracked and monitored twice-daily for symptoms, for 21 days from their entry into the US. So yes the temp is tracked continuously. There are no Duncans out there anymore, anonymously coming from a risk country and not being on the radar of health officials.

I wasn't aware of that. Is this being done in all states? I just read that there are approximately 100 people coming into the USA daily from W. Africa. All are being monitored? What about that 5 year old boy that recently got sent to the hospital with symptoms. Was he being monitored? I'm thinking not. This would mean that all those people would have to be available in their homes when health care workers came to take their temperatures.

 

[faw720]

While I think the approach in Maine has been ridiculous, I do agree that flaunting the "rules" (whatever they are) is wrong. But more than that, it creates a terrible precedent.

Unfortunately, when you make really bad "law," you back yourself into a corner. Eventually push is going to come to shove over that ridiculous mandate, and then what do you do: Do you enforce the over-reaching law, knowing that you've pushed things too far? Or do you ignore the law-breaking?

The roots of America are in that very conundrum, when the British made foolish over-reaching laws with the premise that it really didn't matter, because we are in charge and so you have to do what we say.

That's where the officials in Maine are now cornered. Their mandatory quarantine now is being ridden over by a bicycle and mushed into the ground. Backing down is a bad choice, and the process of arresting an unsick person for doing something unrisky is also bad.

Rock, meet hard place.

Beautifully said!! Thank you!!

 

[Lyra500]

I really think it would make sense for people to concentrate on the facts rather than spending their energies thinking up hypothetical 'worst case' scenarios just so that they can continue fuelling the huge overreaction which is going on in the US.

I just saw a news clip on the BBC and the correspondent said "This is a battle between facts and fear and fear is winning".

Dr Spencer's temperature had not even breached the threshold when he referred himself in. I do not think anyone is going to contract Ebola from him if the examples of Mr Duncan and the two Texas nurses are anything to go by.

I just posted a very clear excerpt of an article which covered when people are contagious, which bodily fluids carry the most virus, why people are very unlikely to contract anything from sweat in the early stages.

Ebola virus disease - How it spreads

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/ebola-virus/Pages/how-it-spreads.aspx

 

[Lyra500]

When someone has active ebola, from what I understand, they are dreadfully sick. I don't think it would be difficult to "round them up." You would't have to chase them on a bicycle ride, for example.

Precisely

Dr Spencer ran 3 miles, went bowling, and dined in a restaurant after traveling on several subway lines the day before he was hospitalized and tested positive for Ebola.

The fact that he ran three miles and went bowling is a pretty good indication that he was not suffering from active Ebola at the time.

He was not passing out bodily fluids during that time and had not even developed a fever when he was jogging and bowling - this means that the virus concentrations in his body would not have been high enough to be passed on. That is why a fever is regarded as the trigger factor for taking someone in for testing - it is actually erring on the side of caution because even with a fever in the early stages, passing the infection on is very unlikely. These protocols have been devised and based on 40 years experience of the 23 or so previous outbreaks.

If the person has a fever but no other symptoms, then the level of virus in their body is very low and unlikely to be passed on to someone else.

 

[Lyra500]

<snipped>
That is absolutely false. If he is a seasoned distance runner who generally ran 10 miles a day, running just 3 miles could have been an indication that he was very ill. Additionally, it may well have been the slowest most miserable 3 miles he ever ran. You would have no way to know.

Is he a seasoned distance runner who usually runs 10 miles a day?

 

[JudyBolton]

I really think it would make sense for people to concentrate on the facts rather than spending their energies thinking up hypothetical 'worst case' scenarios just so that they can continue fuelling the huge overreaction which is going on in the US.

I just saw a news clip on the BBC and the correspondent said "This is a battle between facts and fear and fear is winning".

Dr Spencer's temperature had not even breached the threshold when he referred himself in. I do not think anyone is going to contract Ebola from him if the examples of Mr Duncan and the two Texas nurses are anything to go by.

I just posted a very clear excerpt of an article which covered when people are contagious, which bodily fluids carry the most virus, why people are very unlikely to contract anything from sweat in the early stages.



http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/ebola-virus/Pages/how-it-spreads.aspx

bbm - Somehow, using the word "THINK" when discussing a virus with a 50-80% death rate does not give me any comfort. This is nothing more or less than old fashioned (yes - I said it) common sense. If the risk of contacting Ebola was very low AND if the potential outcome was something like the flu - then we could discuss whether the nurse, the dr., and others' "rights" to run around, ride bikes, go bowling, etc. outweighed the risk of innocent citizens being sick for a week or two. BUT we are not - we are talking about weighing their "rights" (for 21 or 41 or whatever number of days) with the potential DEATH of someone who is an innocent citizen. smh (MOO)

 

[jjenny]

Precisely



The fact that he ran three miles and went bowling is a pretty good indication that he was not suffering from active Ebola at the time.

He was not passing out bodily fluids during that time and had not even developed a fever when he was jogging and bowling - this means that the virus concentrations in his body would not have been high enough to be passed on. That is why a fever is regarded as the trigger factor for taking someone in for testing - it is actually erring on the side of caution because even with a fever in the early stages, passing the infection on is very unlikely. These protocols have been devised and based on 40 years experience of the 23 or so previous outbreaks.

What protocols have been developed on 40 years of experience? How long did the first cdc guidelines last? A couple of weeks? Now we have new protocols. CDC suggest for people who are at risk to avoid public places. So they have changed what they recommended just a short time prior.

 

[jjenny]

Is he a seasoned distance runner who usually runs 10 miles a day?

Per what has been reported, he is a marathon runner.

 

[Lyra500]

bbm - Somehow, using the word "THINK" when discussing a virus with a 50-80% death rate does not give me any comfort. This is nothing more or less than old fashioned (yes - I said it) common sense. If the risk of contacting Ebola was very low AND if the potential outcome was something like the flu - then we could discuss whether the nurse, the dr., and others' "rights" to run around, ride bikes, go bowling, etc. outweighed the risk of innocent citizens being sick for a week or two. BUT we are not - we are talking about weighing their "rights" (for 21 or 41 or whatever number of days) with the potential DEATH of someone who is an innocent citizen. smh (MOO)

Well then please provide a link to show where people have picked up Ebola from someone who has just fever and no other symptoms - or even no fever at all. If this is what you are afraid might happen, what are you basing your fear on?

My thoughts are based on the evidence which we have available to us and the guidance and data gathered by the WHO over decades. I believe that makes them quite valid. Whay are your thoughts based on?

 

[Detective Klimpt]

Well then please provide a link to show where people have picked up Ebola from someone who has just fever and no other symptoms - or even no fever at all. If this is what you are afraid might happen, what are you basing your fear on?

My thoughts are based on the evidence which we have available to us and the guidance and data gathered by the WHO over decades. I believe that makes them quite valid. Whay are your thoughts based on?

I've already asked this, but I'll ask again in hopes someone will answer. Why did they quarantine Spencer's fiance if there is no chance of getting obola from him when he only had a mild fever?

 

[Lyra500]

What protocols have been developed on 40 years of experience? How long did the first cdc guidelines last? A couple of weeks? Now we have new protocols. CDC suggest for people who are at risk to avoid public places. So they have changed what they recommended just a short time prior.

With respect, the CDC is not the only public health authority - they chose to diverge from some of the guidance on levels of PPE required - they have reviewed and updated their guidance. That does not suddenly mean that everything they say is worthless and the tabloids and conspiracy theorists must know better.

I am talking about the wealth of experience that the WHO has amassed since Ebola was first identified in the 1970s. the treatment protocols which they recommend and which are used in many countries are based upon the observation of all of those patients in the 20 plus outbreaks which have occurred over the past 40 years.

There are lots of documents and features on the WHO website tracing not just this outbreak but all aspects of the disease and its history.