Texas Health Care Worker Tests Positive for Ebola

polgara said:

Greetings, Ontologuy. :2wave:

I hope your post was tongue-in-cheek because shutting hospitals down is unthinkable. We can't just let people die! The health care experts are doing their best with a disease that currently has no cure, and some victims are surviving - I just wish it was better than 50%! The fatality rate in Africa is 70% or higher, with entire villages succumbing to the disease, so there is hope that we might yet find a cure. The health care experts we recently sent to Africa are setting up labs, etc - any news on how they're doing?

Click to expand...

No, it was most assuredly not tongue-in-cheek (which is why I included the word "truly" in my first sentence).

I presented the reasonable concerns in my first post in this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/206720-texas-health-care-worker-tests-positive-ebola-7.html#post1063857761

A proper shut-down and quarantine does not put people at risk of dying because they can't get in -- they're simply directed to other nearby hospitals.

I know it appears Draconian.

But it's a far sight better than the likely alternative of an epidemic.

Hospitals have been permanently shut down for other reasons.

This would be a temporary shut down until the hospital is truly safe again, a shut down to new patients and people who've never set foot in the hospital, with practitioners remaining in and screened as they continue to help the sick.

This healthcare worker was spreading the virus around the hospital facility and staff 24 hours before she "felt" symptomatic.

Knowing that, who would want an ambulance to transport them there or would want to knowingly walk through the front door.

Better extra-effort safe than epidemic sorry.

polgara said:

Greetings, SMTA. :2wave:

The Media itself reported that one had died, and the other is in poor condition, but slowly recovering so far. They apparently got the news from the CDC. Why would they lie?

Click to expand...

Heya Lady P. :2wave: I noticed it did say half of the WHO Healthcare people had died while treating those in 3 of the countries. They keep sending medical people and they keep getting infected. They might want to go with NASA Astronauts Uniforms. I would disinfected with a spray powder and soak up any liquids. For removal of the gear.

polgara said:

Greetings, MMC. :2wave:

Why would he lie? It's probably worse than we're being told. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would commit a "protocol breach" at this point! If you were dealing with a deadly disease that has no cure, would you be careless? :thumbdown:

Click to expand...

He keeps emphasizing on removal of the gear.....so what is he really saying? Who is he not trying to blame?

MMC said:

Heya OG. :2wave: CDC is now saying there was a protocol breach. From 42 mins ago.


CDC: Protocol breach in treating Ebola patient.....

Top federal health officials said Sunday that the Ebola diagnosis in a health care worker who treated Thomas Eric Duncan at a Texas hospital clearly indicates a breach in safety protocol. But the unidentified worker has been unable to pinpoint where that breach might have occurred, according to Dr. Tom Frieden, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

He said the CDC has recommended that the hospital where the worker is being treated — and where Duncan died Wednesday — should keep "to an absolute minimum" those who care for Ebola patients and should perform only those procedures that are essential to a patient's treatment. He cautioned that additional health care workers could develop Ebola even as he expressed confidence that the "chain of Ebola" could be broken. He said that the CDC, as part of its investigation on how the worker became infected, would look at dialysis and intubation, procedures with the potential for spreading infectious material, as well as the removal of protective gear. Removing it incorrectly can lead to a contamination, he said. Earlier, on CBS' "Face the Nation," Frieden said the worker was doing self-monitoring. "Immediately when they developed symptoms, they isolated themselves, they were promptly isolated at the hospital so that any further spread from that individual was stopped," he said.....snip~

CDC: Protocol breach in treating Ebola patient

How many believe this guy from the CDC?

Click to expand...

I addressed the CDC line in my first post in this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/206720-texas-health-care-worker-tests-positive-ebola-7.html#post1063857761

Or the healthcare worker contracted Ebola from Duncan when he came to the hospital with a 103 degree temperature three days before he returned and was placed in isolation. ...

If the right and proper intelligent procedures are not executed immediately, then we as good as already have an epidemic on our hands.

The CDC should be ashamed of it's "well, the only explanation is that the healthcare worker didn't remove their protective clothing correctly" policy line. Their attempt to fend off "panic" comes at the expense of the obvious truth in this matter which thereby puts more people at oblivious risk and thus increases the chances of an epidemic developing when the CDC will then simply be unable to convince people of their misinformation about how the disease is truly spread .. and then there'll be real panic.

Better is for the CDC to tell the truth now and institute the proper and intelligent reactive measures, thereby really preventing a panic, or, better yet, and much more importantly, really preventing an epidemic.

Click to expand...

Ontologuy said:

No, it was most assuredly not tongue-in-cheek (which is why I included the word "truly" in my first sentence).

I presented the reasonable concerns in my first post in this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/206720-texas-health-care-worker-tests-positive-ebola-7.html#post1063857761

A proper shut-down and quarantine does not put people at risk of dying because they can't get in -- they're simply directed to other nearby hospitals.

I know it appears Draconian.

But it's a far sight better than the likely alternative of an epidemic.

Hospitals have been permanently shut down for other reasons.

This would be a temporary shut down until the hospital is truly again.

This healthcare worker was spreading the virus around the hospital facility and staff 24 hours before she "felt" symptomatic.

Knowing that, who would want an ambulance to transport them there or would want to knowingly walk through the front door.

Better extra-effort safe than epidemic sorry.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I misunderstood your point. I agree with you! :thumbs: What's going to happen when no hospitals can handle the number of sick because they're overwhelmed, though, and they're turned away? Their odds of survival become practically non-existent.....

herenow1 said:

She came in contact with him the second time he came in. News this morning says that she was in full protective gear. The health care workers are the most cautious, so what does this say for the rest of us who don't have suits, masks, and protective gear?

Click to expand...

The CDC line is designed to make us think that the hospital worker who contracted the disease made a mistake in removing her protective clothing.

As I presented in the post you quoted, that simply may not be how she contracted the disease!

Whether or not she came in contact with Duncan on his first visit in no way rules out the distinct possibility that she became contaminated by means of happening to contract the disease from touching materials touched by Duncan (walls, chairs, doorknobs, pens, examination tables, etc.) that weren't properly disinfected according to Ebola-prevention standards.

The CDC want's to blame what it can damage-control to prevent "panic".

The very real possibility of contamination via other materials .. or that she's not the only one currently carrying the virus spread all over the hospital from Duncan's first visit .. is not something over which the CDC realizes it can exercise damage-control to prevent "panic".

The CDC's line right now is all about damage-control, not about telling the truth.

The very fact that those knowing they're dealing with an Ebola patient would exercise the most extreme caution in protecting themselves when removing their protective gear simply attests to the likelihood that she didn't contract the disease via a mistake in that procedure .. and that she contracted it coincidentally as I presented in the post you quoted.

BBC News - Ebola: Hospital mistakes blamed for US transmission

Emphasis on the following:

Dr Frieden said a full investigation would be conducted into how the infection had occurred

"Clearly there was a breach in protocol," he told US broadcaster CBS.

The CDC investigation, he told reporters, would focus on possible breaches made during two "high-risk procedures", dialysis and respiratory intubation

Click to expand...

polgara said:

Sorry, I misunderstood your point. I agree with you! :thumbs: What's going to happen when no hospitals can handle the number of sick because they're overwhelmed, though, and they're turned away? Their odds of survival become practically non-existent.....

Click to expand...

It is important to grasp that an Ebola epidemic would be almost unthinkably horrific.

As you ponder the possibility you present here, we get a feel for every aspect of this problem, the challenges of implementing solutions, and the more widespread horror that will result if we don't handle the local problem in Dallas intelligently.

MMC said:

He keeps emphasizing on removal of the gear.....so what is he really saying? Who is he not trying to blame?

Click to expand...

Interesting point! I didn't think of that. :thumbs: I was more focused on the absurdity of having to believe that health care workers aren't thinking of their own safety first, and are being super careful!

K

Ontologuy said:

The CDC line is designed to make us think that the hospital worker who contracted the disease made a mistake in removing her protective clothing.

As I presented in the post you quoted, that simply may not be how she contracted the disease!

Whether or not she came in contact with Duncan on his first visit in no way rules out the distinct possibility that she became contaminated by means of happening to contract the disease from touching materials touched by Duncan (walls, chairs, doorknobs, pens, examination tables, etc.) that weren't properly disinfected according to Ebola-prevention standards.

The CDC want's to blame what it can damage-control to prevent "panic".

The very real possibility of contamination via other materials .. or that she's not the only one currently carrying the virus spread all over the hospital from Duncan's first visit .. is not something over which the CDC realizes it can exercise damage-control to prevent "panic".

The CDC's line right now is all about damage-control, not about telling the truth.

The very fact that those knowing they're dealing with an Ebola patient would exercise the most extreme caution in protecting themselves when removing their protective gear simply attests to the likelihood that she didn't contract the disease via a mistake in that procedure .. and that she contracted it coincidentally as I presented in the post you quoted.

Click to expand...

Um, I'm not disagreeing. I was answering your question about whether she contracted it the first or second time Duncan came in.

Ontologuy said:

It is important to grasp that an Ebola epidemic would be almost unthinkably horrific.

As you ponder the possibility you present here, we get a feel for every aspect of this problem, the challenges of implementing solutions, and the more widespread horror that will result if we don't handle the local problem in Dallas intelligently.

Click to expand...

The thing that bothers me the most is that people will still have auto accidents and heart attacks, and women will still be having babies - how are we going to handle those things? :shock:

Jetboogieman said:

BBC News - Ebola: Hospital mistakes blamed for US transmission

Emphasis on the following:

Click to expand...

Emphasis on the rest of what he said.....and on Face the Nation too.


procedures with the potential for spreading infectious material, as well as the removal of protective gear. Removing it incorrectly can lead to a contamination, he said. Earlier, on CBS' "Face the Nation," Frieden said the worker was doing self-monitoring. "Immediately when they developed symptoms, they isolated themselves, they were promptly isolated at the hospital so that any further spread from that individual was stopped," he said.....snip~

CDC: Protocol breach in treating Ebola patient

Ontologuy said:

The CDC line is designed to make us think that the hospital worker who contracted the disease made a mistake in removing her protective clothing.

As I presented in the post you quoted, that simply may not be how she contracted the disease!

Whether or not she came in contact with Duncan on his first visit in no way rules out the distinct possibility that she became contaminated by means of happening to contract the disease from touching materials touched by Duncan (walls, chairs, doorknobs, pens, examination tables, etc.) that weren't properly disinfected according to Ebola-prevention standards.

The CDC want's to blame what it can damage-control to prevent "panic".

The very real possibility of contamination via other materials .. or that she's not the only one currently carrying the virus spread all over the hospital from Duncan's first visit .. is not something over which the CDC realizes it can exercise damage-control to prevent "panic".

The CDC's line right now is all about damage-control, not about telling the truth.

The very fact that those knowing they're dealing with an Ebola patient would exercise the most extreme caution in protecting themselves when removing their protective gear simply attests to the likelihood that she didn't contract the disease via a mistake in that procedure .. and that she contracted it coincidentally as I presented in the post you quoted.

Click to expand...

Well the CDC says it is watching 50 people that came in contact with Duncan and his family.....WCH had up pics with people walking up into that apartment without any protective gear.

I would hope they are keeping an eye on those Ambulance drivers that answered the call the first time and took him home.

polgara said:

The thing that bothers me the most is that people will still have auto accidents and heart attacks, and women will still be having babies - how are we going to handle those things? :shock:

Click to expand...

If we can prevent an Ebola epidemic, we'll handle them as we always have.

If we're in the middle of an Ebola epidemic, everything changes .. and God only knows the answer to the question you pose.

It would be horrific.

MMC said:

Well the CDC says it is watching 50 people that came in contact with Duncan and his family.....WCH had up pics with people walking up into that apartment without any protective gear.

I would hope they are keeping an eye on those Ambulance drivers that answered the call the first time and took him home.

Click to expand...

Now that a hospital worker has Ebola and was spreading it around that hospital perhaps 24 hours prior to recognizing she had "symptoms", I hope they're keeping an "eye" on the whole frickin' hospital!

Ontologuy said:

The CDC line is designed to make us think that the hospital worker who contracted the disease made a mistake in removing her protective clothing.

As I presented in the post you quoted, that simply may not be how she contracted the disease!

Whether or not she came in contact with Duncan on his first visit in no way rules out the distinct possibility that she became contaminated by means of happening to contract the disease from touching materials touched by Duncan (walls, chairs, doorknobs, pens, examination tables, etc.) that weren't properly disinfected according to Ebola-prevention standards.

The CDC want's to blame what it can damage-control to prevent "panic".

The very real possibility of contamination via other materials .. or that she's not the only one currently carrying the virus spread all over the hospital from Duncan's first visit .. is not something over which the CDC realizes it can exercise damage-control to prevent "panic".

The CDC's line right now is all about damage-control, not about telling the truth.

The very fact that those knowing they're dealing with an Ebola patient would exercise the most extreme caution in protecting themselves when removing their protective gear simply attests to the likelihood that she didn't contract the disease via a mistake in that procedure .. and that she contracted it coincidentally as I presented in the post you quoted.

Click to expand...

I understand your point, but there are probably thousands of people who might have contracted the disease from a random doorknob he touched on his first visit. It would be an incredible coincidence that the nurse who got sick, one of at least hundreds of people with possible incidental contact from the first visit, just happened to also be one of a tiny few who directly cared for him when they all knew he had ebola. Seems far more likely that she was exposed while treating him the second time. Occam's Razor and all that...

Dallas Police are guarding the apartment of the infected healthcare worker. The apartment has been decontaminated. The yellow barrel in the background is for disposal of hazardous materials.

From what I can ascertain, a solution of 5.25% household bleach/powder will eradicate the Ebola virus on hard surfaces.

JasperL said:

I understand your point, but there are probably thousands of people who might have contracted the disease from a random doorknob he touched on his first visit. It would be an incredible coincidence that the nurse who got sick, one of at least hundreds of people with possible incidental contact from the first visit, just happened to also be one of a tiny few who directly cared for him when they all knew he had ebola. Seems far more likely that she was exposed while treating him the second time. Occam's Razor and all that...

Click to expand...

.
I completely disagree.

There are not "thousands" of people who might have contracted the disease from "a random doorknob" he touched on his first visit -- that's pure hyperbole.

The number of hospital workers and patients is a much smaller number, and thus your conclusion fails as your premise is false.

The Ebola virus is a fragile virus and if exposed to enough UV light it will quickly dissipate, with only a three hour window for spread.

Most of what Duncan touched, due to automatic doors, would be limited to the chair upon which he sat, the counter at reception upon which he leaned, the restroom doorknob if he visited the restroom, and then everything he touched once he was called back into the ER exam facility.

Prior to being called into the exam area, the window of exposure, though definite, is limited to a very small number of people, and we don't really know where all he went prior to being called into the exam area.

After being called into the exam area, Duncan would have touched quite a few things, almost exclusively limited on re-touch to hospital personnel, again a very small number of people compared to the "thousands" you erroneously state.

Critical care personnel often work ER.

The coincidental contact from this nurse, being within the incubation period from Duncan's first visit, is indeed probable, odds-wise.

Because she knew that making a careless mistake removing her protective gear could expose her to Ebola, it's more unlikely that she erred in so doing.

Right now, that hospital is much more in danger from this nurse who now has the disease, who's been moving about freely during the 24 hours prior to being aware of her symptoms, and that's why this facility at this point should be quarantined.

nota bene said:

What is so concerning is that this healthcare worker was suited up and yet still contracted Ebola.

I hope others posting on this thread won't make it political. Disease doesn't recognize political lean.

Click to expand...

However it reeks of politics. Why hasn't the One on the golf course stopped people from ebola country from coming to the US? Politics.

If the One stopped people from ebola country from coming here he might not be able to subvert the Constitution completely when after the election he declares an amnesty for the 20-30 million illegals who are here.

Ontologuy said:

If we can prevent an Ebola epidemic, we'll handle them as we always have.

If we're in the middle of an Ebola epidemic, everything changes .. and God only knows the answer to the question you pose.

It would be horrific.

Click to expand...

:agree: The presentation that I watched suggested that if this starts becoming an epidemic, the day might soon be coming where wearing throw-away latex gloves and painter's masks while shopping for groceries or anything else you might need would be advisable; also purchase lots of bleach. They also suggested that any anti-viral product on the market be purchased for your home medicine cabinet - like grapefruit seed extract, elderberry extract, colloidal silver, etc, which are known virus killers, both inside and outside the human body. You could wash fruits and veggies in a diluted solution, too, before you consumed them because you could not know who might have handled them before you bought them, especially if they were coughing or sneezing while working. No specific brands were mentioned, however. They did mention Ciprofloxicin, *sp?* but it's an antibiotic, and apparently can only be taken for three days at a time, and then stopped for a while, and it might not work on viruses. I also remember my chiropractor saying that he learned in college that eating raw garlic will kill anything bad in your body, so that might be a suggestion. You're going to smell to high heaven, but if it works, who cares! It's not like people are going to be out partying if we have an epidemic, anyway. :shock:

Ontologuy said:

.
I completely disagree.

There are not "thousands" of people who might have contracted the disease from "a random doorknob" he touched on his first visit -- that's pure hyperbole.

The number of hospital workers and patients is a much smaller number, and thus your conclusion fails as your premise is false.

Click to expand...

Obviously we're both guessing, but there are at least dozens of healthcare workers/fellow patients exposed as you suggest. So why is this nurse who 'happened' to treat him during his long stay when all knew he had ebola the only one who so far has contracted the disease? It's possible, obviously, that it was from his first visit, but still NOT the most likely route.

Certainly, if he contaminated the hospital on his first visit, and the nurse contracted the disease from that, we'll see many more people uninvolved with his later direct care get sick in coming days.

EnigmaO01 said:

Because we need to nip this thing in the bud at it's source and these troops are not involved with treatment but are building infrastructure.

Click to expand...

The One will commit troops where we have no national interest but will not commit troops when it is in our national interest.

Think of it. The troops are coming from all over the US. When they return they will return to all over the US.
Those poor guys. I would not serve under Eboma.

Misterveritis said:

The One will commit troops where we have no national interest

Click to expand...

This is absolutely in the national interest, for all of us, not just the US.

If you're too blind to see that, don't play the game.

JasperL said:

Obviously we're both guessing, but there are at least dozens of healthcare workers/fellow patients exposed as you suggest. So why is this nurse who 'happened' to treat him during his long stay when all knew he had ebola the only one who so far has contracted the disease? It's possible, obviously, that it was from his first visit, but still NOT the most likely route.

Certainly, if he contaminated the hospital on his first visit, and the nurse contracted the disease from that, we'll see many more people uninvolved with his later direct care get sick in coming days.

Click to expand...

It's not just that he left virus on objects, as two things must then happen: 1) someone else must pick sufficient quantity of the virus up on their hand and clothing, and then 2) they must touch that part of the thing that picked up the virus to their face where it can get into their eyes, nose, and mouth.

My "guess", as you call it, lacks any hyperbole and is quite educated.

Also, did you not read where they're saying another person is in isolation right now under observation, not just that one nurse?!

When they indicate whether or not that person has Ebola, then I believe you'll see the coincidence about the nurse is quite likely, much more likely than that she treated her own life carelessly and didn't follow protocols for removing her protective gear as the CDC "don't panic" line guesses.

Of course, there is a third possibility to consider: that the nurse followed the CDC protocols for removing her protective gear .. and those protocols are inadequate! :shock:

Jetboogieman said:

This is absolutely in the national interest, for all of us, not just the US.

If you're too blind to see that, don't play the game.

Click to expand...

Explain it. Why is this in our national interest? Be specific. or don't play the game.