Ebola outbreak - general thread #9

[Detective Klimpt]

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.

That is what the powers that be continue to say. IDK. What baffles me though, is that if this is the case, why do they continue to track down people that have been in contact with a person that only has a fever and in most cases ask them to self quarantine and do temperature checks a couple times a day? One specific question I have is why is Spencer's fiance in 'mandatory' quarantine. She's in their apartment now, but was previously in the hospital. Spencer had only a fever of 100.3 upon admittance to the hospital. So then, why quarantine his fiance? Same with Nina's dog. Why did they quarantine the dog?

This inconcistency in quarantine rulings is contibutes to the public's fear.

 

[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.

http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/Ebola-Survivor-Defends-Decision-to-Fly-281790701.html
From this article:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has acknowledged that Vinson was not stopped from flying, something director Tom Frieden later said was a mistake on the agency's part.

So, yes, she did what they told her to do (their protocols, which she followed), that they are now calling a mistake. I guess that is where making your own protocols of, "I probably shouldn't fly, if I've been exposed to Ebola, even though no one said I couldn't fly" would come into play.

 

[oh_gal]

I think it's important, too, to note that most of us here are not medical professionals and/or contagious disease experts, so our confusion/trepidation/fear whatever you want to call it, is justified. Especially when we see people who are medical professionals do things that, to us, seem to be putting the public at risk. Or...when public officials, that we place our trust in, backpedal on their former protocols, calling them "mistakes".

I can read on this board, over and over again, "there's nothing to worry about, until the virus reaches a certain point in the blood"...but I have to tell you, as well meaning as you might be, you are anonymous to me, and when I have officials with names (and accountability) changing their minds...it's not comforting.

 

[faw720]

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?

Strange that you should mention car accidents. It so happens that I've been involved in 3 accidents, none of which were my fault. Personally I don't feel that other drivers in North Texas are obligated to take special measures to ensure my safety. It would be nice, but that is not the way the world works. All drivers should take care to ensure the safety of all other drivers, but that is not the way the world works either. It's just a fact of life that you endanger your own life when you're driving. Same thing when you go shopping..........there could be a deranged shooter at the mall. I could stay home & cower in my house, but lightening might strike my house or even a tornado or flood. I simply choose to live my life without unreasonable fear.

As for ebola, it seems to me that nearly everyone hit the panic button as soon as it was diagnosed here in the US. We didn't worry about it as long as it was in Africa, then when it surfaced here people went nuts. We did receive misinformation & conflicting information from health officials. Hopefully, they will learn valuable information from the cases here in the US & can give us accurate information in the upcoming days. In the meantime, I absolutely refuse to live in fear of what might happen.

 

[SStarr33]

MN is monitoring 48 travelers who returned from West Africa

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/281665611.html

Wednesday’s report cited an additional 12 people who either returned recently and still are being contacted, or haven’t been located yet because of inadequate or incorrect contact information.

 

[Detective Klimpt]

MN is monitoring 48 travelers who returned from West Africa

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/281665611.html

Wednesday’s report cited an additional 12 people who either returned recently and still are being contacted, or haven’t been located yet because of inadequate or incorrect contact information.

Well heck, there are 367 of um being monitored in NYC and the number is growing.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...raig-Spencer-bellevue-hospital-281671121.html

 

[SteveS]

That is what the powers that be continue to say. IDK. What baffles me though, is that if this is the case, why do they continue to track down people that have been in contact with a person that only has a fever and in most cases ask them to self quarantine and do temperature checks a couple times a day? One specific question I have is why is Spencer's fiance in 'mandatory' quarantine. She's in their apartment now, but was previously in the hospital. Spencer had only a fever of 100.3 upon admittance to the hospital. So then, why quarantine his fiance? Same with Nina's dog. Why did they quarantine the dog?

This inconcistency in quarantine rulings is contibutes to the public's fear.

I agree that they have been inconsistent. IMO their inconsistency has them varying from "Super Safe Overkill" to "Triple Unnecessary Politician-inspired Overkill" in the rules set here and there, and imo no question that the varying voices all creating their own rules created a lack of trust and fed fear that things were iffy and unknown.

Why the varying rules? I have an answer that I think explains a ton of it.

I don't think it's irrelevant to note that we just had a major election with a huge number of pols at risk of losing their jobs. Consider, for example, the Maine governor. I think it's naive to believe that his over-reach, to prove he was "protecting the public" (and thereby implying that lesser measures were inadequate), wasn't directly tied to his hair-tight race for re-election. The over-reach made people scared? Hey, he was just "doing his job" (supposedly), consequences (on people's fears) be damned. "My rules, and me, are the only ones who care enough to protect you!" Multiply that across the country, where everyone is trying to PROVE that they are protecting their constituents, and you get a mish-mash of rules that are inconsistent because many are medically unnecessary but offered as proof that "I'm your guy and taking the REAL action."

 

[oh_gal]

Strange that you should mention car accidents. It so happens that I've been involved in 3 accidents, none of which were my fault. Personally I don't feel that other drivers in North Texas are obligated to take special measures to ensure my safety. It would be nice, but that is not the way the world works. All drivers should take care to ensure the safety of all other drivers, but that is not the way the world works either. It's just a fact of life that you endanger your own life when you're driving. Same thing when you go shopping..........there could be a deranged shooter at the mall. I could stay home & cower in my house, but lightening might strike my house or even a tornado or flood. I simply choose to live my life without unreasonable fear.

As for ebola, it seems to me that nearly everyone hit the panic button as soon as it was diagnosed here in the US. We didn't worry about it as long as it was in Africa, then when it surfaced here people went nuts. We did receive misinformation & conflicting information from health officials. Hopefully, they will learn valuable information from the cases here in the US & can give us accurate information in the upcoming days. In the meantime, I absolutely refuse to live in fear of what might happen.

I'm glad for you. You are obviously saving yourself a lot of stress that way.
As for me, if you've been exposed to ebola and we're riding in a plane together, I want to know, so I can get off.

 

[Zuri]

Hickox also had a problem with having to wear protective equipment while treating Ebola patients.
She was frustrated because the protective gear she had to wear – “this sort of space suit” – made it hard to connect with patients, and the high temperatures inside meant she could only spend an hour at a time in the high-risk tent, which didn’t leave much time to provide care for the 30 or so patients in her care.

“As a nurse and health care provider, we like to be able to look our patient in the eye and hold their hand and to explain to them that we’re there for them,” Hickox said.

She advocates the desire to see HCW to come and go as they please when they return with no restrictions at all and for Americans to not have the knowledge of where these workers or with what disease they were working with or exposed to.

I totally disagree with her logic on this. JMO

As a medical professional, an RN for over 30 years, I agree with you totally. I have been lurking here and reading for all the updates. You all are awesome.

IMO, Hickox's actions were selfish. She rolled the dice while treating those with Ebola, and fortunately for her, she didn't catch it. I don't know that I would have been that brave, especially knowing the patient population she was caring for. Her immediate quarantine was way over the top and I don't exactly blame her for being pissed. However, she could have self quarantined, not exposed her fiancé, and taken other measures to ensure the safety of others. Her actions are seemingly diametrically opposed to those she demonstrated in West Africa. I commend her going over there and helping, and certainly wish things had been handled differently.

The mass hysteria that the media has perpetuated has been ridiculous. My BIL works at the NJ school where the school nurse made that blunder and he had to deal with all the media that surrounded the school. One of his employees spoke with CNN and made things even worse as he was speaking out of turn. Point a TV camera at people, and the self importance rears its ugly head. JMV

 

[faw720]

I'm glad for you. You are obviously saving yourself a lot of stress that way.
As for me, if you've been exposed to ebola and we're riding in a plane together, I want to know, so I can get off.

You're safe from me. I'm not planning on flying anytime soon.eace:

 

[SStarr33]

Well heck, there are 367 of um being monitored in NYC and the number is growing.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...raig-Spencer-bellevue-hospital-281671121.html

I know, but I am more afraid of the 12 they can't find in MN. If they have that many think about how many others there are running around and not being monitored.

 

[winnnancy]

Strange that you should mention car accidents. It so happens that I've been involved in 3 accidents, none of which were my fault. Personally I don't feel that other drivers in North Texas are obligated to take special measures to ensure my safety. It would be nice, but that is not the way the world works. All drivers should take care to ensure the safety of all other drivers, but that is not the way the world works either. It's just a fact of life that you endanger your own life when you're driving. Same thing when you go shopping..........there could be a deranged shooter at the mall. I could stay home & cower in my house, but lightening might strike my house or even a tornado or flood. I simply choose to live my life without unreasonable fear.

As for ebola, it seems to me that nearly everyone hit the panic button as soon as it was diagnosed here in the US. We didn't worry about it as long as it was in Africa, then when it surfaced here people went nuts. We did receive misinformation & conflicting information from health officials. Hopefully, they will learn valuable information from the cases here in the US & can give us accurate information in the upcoming days. In the meantime, I absolutely refuse to live in fear of what might happen.

Love this analogy! While it may not be an issue there are parts where snow tires are required or even mandatory. So indeed, other drivers are obligated to change their behavior in the pursuit of public safety. I understand that Texas has no snow but I imagine there may be vehicle safety checks AND drivers are required to have insurance to put a vehicle on the road SO, Yes, that is the way the world works. If the unforseen happens your lawsuit is paid by the other drivers INSURANCE and since many people would feel thats a violation of thier freedoms to purchase something they don't feel is necessary, its mandated by law. (I imagine those drivers too would say they choose not to live in fear.)

Do you run an errand to the wrong side of town during the night or wait until daylight? Fear is a healthy, protective, primal response that has aided in the survival of our species.
It is differentiating when to be afraid and when not to. That is the learned, educated part but of course people feel just as confident with decisions based on misinformation as they do on fact.

 

[SteveS]

So indeed, other drivers are obligated to change their behavior in the pursuit of public safety.

To be clear, the ebola issue under discussion is not one of accommodating "public safety" but rather "irrational public fears."

Yes I must self-monitor my actions to keep from harming others in an accident. But I am allowed to buy a red car, even if it makes someone scared because they think of blood when they see red.

Fact is, despite the fears, no one is catching ebola by traveling next to someone else who has been exposed but has no symptoms. In fact, despite the fears, no one out in public has ever caught ebola anywhere in the US. Ever. Two nurses, in a hospital room treating a HIGHLY contagious person they knew had ebola, while he's spewing bodily fluids everywhere, are the only transmissions of the disease at any time and in any place in the US.

So, there's a lesson to learn. If you are scared and want to avoid ebola, stay out of hospital rooms with patients who have ebola projectile vomiting, sweating, and diarrhea everywhere. That's a rational thing to fear. We also hear you might avoid hugging the dead body, if your family member or friend dies from ebola -- but since no one is dying from ebola in the US, that's probably not a real issue for anyone.

Otherwise this thing isn't gonna chase you down and catch you. I'm far from worried. But, be scared if you wish.

 

[Elley Mae]

Love this analogy! While it may not be an issue there are parts where snow tires are required or even mandatory. So indeed, other drivers are obligated to change their behavior in the pursuit of public safety. I understand that Texas has no snow but I imagine there may be vehicle safety checks AND drivers are required to have insurance to put a vehicle on the road SO, Yes, that is the way the world works. If the unforseen happens your lawsuit is paid by the other drivers INSURANCE and since many people would feel thats a violation of thier freedoms to purchase something they don't feel is necessary, its mandated by law. (I imagine those drivers too would say they choose not to live in fear.)

Do you run an errand to the wrong side of town during the night or wait until daylight? Fear is a healthy, protective, primal response that has aided in the survival of our species.
It is differentiating when to be afraid and when not to. That is the learned, educated part but of course people feel just as confident with decisions based on misinformation as they do on fact.

Clarity.
Every word.
Thank You.

 

[Detective Klimpt]

I know, but I am more afraid of the 12 they can't find in MN. If they have that many think about how many others there are running around and not being monitored.

Yes, I agree, and that was really my concern about all those in NYC and elsewhere. There are people entering the country from Ebola countries and landing in various states. All are supposed to be monitoring temps and I think all are supposed to be checking in with health care officials. One has to be very naiive to believe that some won't fall through the cracks. Eventually, one wil carry the virus and hopefully will get treatment before they infect someone else.

 

[sonjay]

I think it's important, too, to note that most of us here are not medical professionals and/or contagious disease experts, so our confusion/trepidation/fear whatever you want to call it, is justified. Especially when we see people who are medical professionals do things that, to us, seem to be putting the public at risk. Or...when public officials, that we place our trust in, backpedal on their former protocols, calling them "mistakes".

I can read on this board, over and over again, "there's nothing to worry about, until the virus reaches a certain point in the blood"...but I have to tell you, as well meaning as you might be, you are anonymous to me, and when I have officials with names (and accountability) changing their minds...it's not comforting.

This is largely what I have problems with too. Before the first ebola cases in this country, we had multiple assurances -- in calm, confident voices -- from the CDC and other health officials that "We know how to treat ebola" and "We know how to contain ebola" and "Any hospital in this country is prepared to care for an ebola patient safely." And then, following the very first ebola case diagnosed in this country, the CDC revised its protocols at least twice that I'm aware of, and have been quietly changing things on their website.

That doesn't inspire confidence. It doesn't inspire confidence that they know how to treat ebola safely, and it doesn't inspire confidence that the latest round of protocol revisions are finally adequate.

It's not the things you know that'll kill you; it's the things you know that just ain't so.

 

[faw720]

Ebola outbreak in Dallas officially ends today. 180 people who had some contact with Mr. Duncan have been being monitored.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141106-ebola-outbreak-in-dallas-officially-ends.ece

 

[faw720]

In an interview with CNN, Amber Vinson says more training is needed. She still cannot identify what happened that led her to contract ebola. Her engagement ring was destroyed when her apartment was decontaminated so I think we might be able to assume that the decontamination was thorough. All persons who flew on the same planes with Amber have also been recently cleared.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/loca...ho-caught-ebola-says-more-training-needed.ece

 

[oh_gal]

To be clear, the ebola issue under discussion is not one of accommodating "public safety" but rather "irrational public fears."

Yes I must self-monitor my actions to keep from harming others in an accident. But I am allowed to buy a red car, even if it makes someone scared because they think of blood when they see red.

Fact is, despite the fears, no one is catching ebola by traveling next to someone else who has been exposed but has no symptoms. In fact, despite the fears, no one out in public has ever caught ebola anywhere in the US. Ever. Two nurses, in a hospital room treating a HIGHLY contagious person they knew had ebola, while he's spewing bodily fluids everywhere, are the only transmissions of the disease at any time and in any place in the US.

So, there's a lesson to learn. If you are scared and want to avoid ebola, stay out of hospital rooms with patients who have ebola projectile vomiting, sweating, and diarrhea everywhere. That's a rational thing to fear. We also hear you might avoid hugging the dead body, if your family member or friend dies from ebola -- but since no one is dying from ebola in the US, that's probably not a real issue for anyone.

Otherwise this thing isn't gonna chase you down and catch you. I'm far from worried. But, be scared if you wish.

(above, bbm)
And all I've ever said....was, if you are one of those people, who have come into contact with a highly contagious person...err on the side of caution and stay at home for 21 days.

What you call fear, I call caution. And if caution were exercised, then a lot of people wouldn't have been fearful of being exposed to ebola because they took a plane ride with Amber Vinson, or visited the dress shop, or tried on the dresses she tried on.

Would it really have killed her to postpone her flight, or stay at home? I'm sorry she came down with Ebola, and I applaud her (and everyone's efforts) to combat this disease. I'm glad she recovered. I don't wish her any ill will. But I just think she should have extended that caring that she displayed in volunteering to care for Ebola patients to caring for others she came into contact with, for 21 days, after being exposed to Ebola.
And yes, apparently, she wasn't told she couldn't fly. However, we've since heard that her being advised that was a mistake -- that she shouldn't have flown. So...I'm not alone in this idea.

 

[winnnancy]

In an interview with CNN, Amber Vinson says more training is needed. She still cannot identify what happened that led her to contract ebola. Her engagement ring was destroyed when her apartment was decontaminated so I think we might be able to assume that the decontamination was thorough. All persons who flew on the same planes with Amber have also been recently cleared.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/loca...ho-caught-ebola-says-more-training-needed.ece

Again, the majority of people infected are UNABLE to recall how they may have been infected. No one describes being sprayed or soiled by body fluids of any kind and all wore PPE of varying degrees.
If transmission only occurs via body fluids, HOW did these people get sick?