• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SECOND Dallas Hospital Worker Tests Positive for Ebola

Reality is tearing their ideology to pieces, they can't explain it and dont know what to do.


CDC ought to tread carefully with healthcare workers, especially the front liners - don't throw them under the bus just to look good on national tv!
 
CDC ought to tread carefully with healthcare workers, especially the front liners - don't throw them under the bus just to look good on national tv!

Its effing politics. The CDC is demonstrating that its a political body merely masquerading as a scientific one.
 
Obama and his ilk make plans without banking on things going awry. They don't see what-if scenarios.
Now he wants a "SWAT" team healthcare workers. Gimme a break! You only thought of that now?
 
Oooh am I pickin' on your buddy Perry toooo much? LOL

Oh really.....perhaps you should look up what we have about GOP Contenders and Perry rather than try.....that's try and think for another.
 
Why is the CDC concerned about the other folks on the Frontier flight.........it can't be transmitted as an airborn illness.....right?
 
Apparently, there are now reports that she contacted CDC with concerns about her fever, but it fell below the threshold for high risk.

CDC: Ebola Patient Traveled By Air With “Low-Grade” Fever « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

Right now, there remains no reason for panic. But work remains to be done to ensure that the risk of such a situation is minimized and the need for such work likely extends to the CDC, if this news report is accurate.



Mornin DS. :2wave: The reports out this morning, are the CDC gave her the go ahead. How long before you think BO fires Freiden?
 
She should have known better than to board that plane. If she had been in the military and I was her commanding officer I would push for a court marshal.

More cases potentially because 70 staff had access to Duncan.



Well like I just told DS.....the CDC gave her permission. She called them to ask if she could go.
 
This will exist regardless. Healthcare is a finite resource and the funds to fund that finite resource are finite itself. We simply don't have the money or the will to fund healthcare to the point where we can maintain a reasonable level of preparedness.

I agree. Some degree of risk will always exist for the reason you cited. The extent of risk society is willing to tolerate is a policy choice. Resource allocation that gives greater weight to ensuring an inventory of certain equipment and training for critical personnel can mitigate the risk, even if one is dealing strictly with a reallocation of existing resources.

Your average total hospital bed capacity of a city is nowhere even hear what is necessary to handle patients in the event of an outbreak or major disaster because the cost to maintain them the rest of the time is prohibitive. Most hospitals are trying to make some money, but maintaining the necessary "stuff" to handle rare incidents like this will bleed them dry. A profitable hospital is not a hospital that can handle a pandemic.

I don't believe it is feasible to expect every hospital to have such a capacity. Having at least one hospital with such capacities in defined regions is more practical. The U.S. needs a coherent response strategy for such a scenario. That does not mean that every medical facility would play leading roles. One might envision a scenario where, in the case of a pandemic, certain medical facilities would take on patients with routine health issues to free up space at designated critical care institutions assigned the leading role for combating a pandemic.

Overall, the early experience with Ebola in the U.S. has exposed some gaps. Remedying some of those gaps does not really require significant new resources. For example, the CDC's communications have been somewhat sloppy. An emphasis on sticking only to the facts, refraining from making sweeping or overconfident statements for which there isn't sufficiently strong evidence to sustain them, etc., could have avoided many of those early communications-related issues. The CDC can ill afford to the lose the public's confidence concerning a virus that quite frankly the U.S. public poorly understands. Already, at least some media outlets seem to be treating what is still an extremely limited incidence of Ebola in the U.S. as a sort of emergent and inevitable epidemic. Such coverage has dissected the CDC's early statements and seems to have created excessive anxiety.

Personally, I don't think Ebola is going to wind up being a big problem in the United States. Even with the issues that have occurred, the U.S. is vastly better prepared to deal with Ebola than the West African states at the epicenter of the outbreak. Superior resources and infrastructure make a world of difference.
 
Mornin DS. :2wave: The reports out this morning, are the CDC gave her the go ahead. How long before you think BO fires Freiden?

If this is true, the CDC has shown itself to be utterly incompetent, why would they green light her and why would she green light herself knowing the risk, knowing what just happened to Ms Pham.

It's utter insanity.

Having said that I'm not worried about the 132 passengers on the plane though we should definitely check up on that.
 
Mornin DS. :2wave: The reports out this morning, are the CDC gave her the go ahead. How long before you think BO fires Freiden?

I'm not sure that firing Dr. Frieden would be appropriate or necessary. I do think the CDC needs to look at its own response to assure that slip-ups as occurred in this case don't recur.

The President should also appoint a Surgeon General to also play a leading role in the government's response to Ebola. I realize that there is a nominee, but that nominee has faced confirmation issues. If necessary, the President should appoint, a respected former Surgeon General. On the Surgeon General issue, CNN had a decent editorial:

Ebola scare: We need a surgeon general (opinion) - CNN.com
 
Ok, fair enough. However, your horse in this race as you put it, is not being served well by minimizing the threat we now face.

The border remains unsecured, and now this latest case where the nurse traveled to OH and back on domestic flights. Where's the people on those flights? How many did she come in contact with? What hotel did she stay at?

The potential for an out of control situation to take hold is now there, and we are supposed to believe a CDC, and administration that lies and has to change their story daily?

We are being lied to.

The problem is you want so badly to make this political.

And that's why none of what you say matters because this isn't about the disease for you, this is more about the Obama Administration.

Having said that with the CDC, the fact that that Nurse was greenlit to fly is unforgivable, how that was allowed I have absolutely no idea, someones head needs to roll over that.
 
it can't be transmitted as an airborn illness.....right?

From the World Health Organization:

Ebola is introduced into the human population through close contact with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected animals such as chimpanzees, gorillas, fruit bats, monkeys, forest antelope and porcupines found ill or dead or in the rainforest.

Ebola then spreads through human-to-human transmission via direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and with surfaces and materials (e.g. bedding, clothing) contaminated with these fluids.


WHO | Ebola virus disease
 
The cliff is marked, "Liberal Agenda"

touche.gif
 
I agree. Some degree of risk will always exist for the reason you cited. The extent of risk society is willing to tolerate is a policy choice. Resource allocation that gives greater weight to ensuring an inventory of certain equipment and training for critical personnel can mitigate the risk, even if one is dealing strictly with a reallocation of existing resources.



I don't believe it is feasible to expect every hospital to have such a capacity. Having at least one hospital with such capacities in defined regions is more practical. The U.S. needs a coherent response strategy for such a scenario. That does not mean that every medical facility would play leading roles. One might envision a scenario where, in the case of a pandemic, certain medical facilities would take on patients with routine health issues to free up space at designated critical care institutions assigned the leading role for combating a pandemic.

Overall, the early experience with Ebola in the U.S. has exposed some gaps. Remedying some of those gaps does not really require significant new resources. For example, the CDC's communications have been somewhat sloppy. An emphasis on sticking only to the facts, refraining from making sweeping or overconfident statements for which there isn't sufficiently strong evidence to sustain them, etc., could have avoided many of those early communications-related issues. The CDC can ill afford to the lose the public's confidence concerning a virus that quite frankly the U.S. public poorly understands. Already, at least some media outlets seem to be treating what is still an extremely limited incidence of Ebola in the U.S. as a sort of emergent and inevitable epidemic. Such coverage has dissected the CDC's early statements and seems to have created excessive anxiety.

Personally, I don't think Ebola is going to wind up being a big problem in the United States. Even with the issues that have occurred, the U.S. is vastly better prepared to deal with Ebola than the West African states at the epicenter of the outbreak. Superior resources and infrastructure make a world of difference.



Well there is good reason to report on it.....first it was one infected. Then observing 50 some other people who all came in contact with him. That's outside the Hospital. Then, we now have 76 Medical People and now they have to be observed with 2 of their Nurses becoming infected.

Now we hear one travels on a plane there and back. Now the CDC wants to talk to and Observe another 130 some people.

Plus now they have to quarantine people the one Nurse saw in Akron. While Closing off any places she was in. Which we haven't been given that figure yet.

While at the same time.....the CDC says they are expecting more to come down with the infection.
 
If this is true, the CDC has shown itself to be utterly incompetent, why would they green light her and why would she green light herself knowing the risk, knowing what just happened to Ms Pham.

It's utter insanity.

Having said that I'm not worried about the 132 passengers on the plane though we should definitely check up on that.

Mornin JBM. :2wave: Because they are saying she didn't have the fever when she flew to Cleveland. Also because Vinson has worked with 2 others who were infected with Ebola and she never had caught it before.

Yet, Freiden was bitching about protocols and the CDC approved the travel. Even after knowing it would be public transportation.
 
Well there is good reason to report on it.....first it was one infected. Then observing 50 some other people who all came in contact with him. That's outside the Hospital. Then, we now have 76 Medical People and now they have to be observed with 2 of their Nurses becoming infected.

Now we hear one travels on a plane there and back. Now the CDC wants to talk to and Observe another 130 some people.

Plus now they have to quarantine people the one Nurse saw in Akron. While Closing off any places she was in. Which we haven't been given that figure yet.

While at the same time.....the CDC says they are expecting more to come down with the infection.

One thing I would add though, is they're not taking all these steps strictly because they're worried about that scale of infection, especially in the plane incident, if she wasn't symptomatic there's really nothing to worry about, though she absolutely shouldn't have been allowed to fly.

They just want to calm the publics nerves, by taking large and bold steps they think they can calm people that way, it may not work because the Media has stirred everyone into a frenzy but we'll see.
 
Well there is good reason to report on it.....first it was one infected. Then observing 50 some other people who all came in contact with him. That's outside the Hospital. Then, we now have 76 Medical People and now they have to be observed with 2 of their Nurses becoming infected.

Now we hear one travels on a plane there and back. Now the CDC wants to talk to and Observe another 130 some people.

Plus now they have to quarantine people the one Nurse saw in Akron. While Closing off any places she was in. Which we haven't been given that figure yet.

While at the same time.....the CDC says they are expecting more to come down with the infection.

I don't have issues with reporting on the situation. But the reporting should stick strictly with the facts and avoid speculation. At the same time, media stories should provide key information e.g., on how the virus is spread, because many Americans don't know that it is not transmitted airborne unlike, for example, influenza. Hence, many assume that the 132 passengers and flight crew are at genuine risk of contracting Ebola. In fact, the risk is probably extremely to very low given how the virus is spread. Additional cases are more likely among the health care workers who treated the Ebola patient in Dallas given the initial lack of adequate equipment and training to deal with such cases.
 
I'm not sure that firing Dr. Frieden would be appropriate or necessary. I do think the CDC needs to look at its own response to assure that slip-ups as occurred in this case don't recur.

The President should also appoint a Surgeon General to also play a leading role in the government's response to Ebola. I realize that there is a nominee, but that nominee has faced confirmation issues. If necessary, the President should appoint, a respected former Surgeon General. On the Surgeon General issue, CNN had a decent editorial:

Ebola scare: We need a surgeon general (opinion) - CNN.com


There is no way he can stay.....he admitted that the CDC should have sent a response Team to Dallas after they found out Duncan had become infected. He was Right....what he didn't explain. Is why they didn't? You need to read what the Dallas Nurses reported. Which Freiden knew but wasn't saying anything.

Then he came back with that.....now he was thinking of sending any infected to one of the 4 Hospitals that can deal with this from arrival.

What about the Former head of the CDC? I seen that CNN was propping up Sanjay Gupta again.
 
I don't have issues with reporting on the situation. But the reporting should stick strictly with the facts and avoid speculation. At the same time, media stories should provide key information e.g., on how the virus is spread, because many Americans don't know that it is not transmitted airborne unlike, for example, influenza. Hence, many assume that the 132 passengers and flight crew are at genuine risk of contracting Ebola. In fact, the risk is probably extremely to very low given how the virus is spread. Additional cases are more likely among the health care workers who treated the Ebola patient in Dallas given the initial lack of adequate equipment and training to deal with such cases.


They have been.....they reported what Freiden is saying. Which the CDC was saying breach.....but now they can't find it. So that would worry people IMO.

There is now a dispute about truthfully being airborne with sneezing. With a range and droplets of moisture. I believe Grip had put up.
 
There is no way he can stay.....he admitted that the CDC should have sent a response Team to Dallas after they found out Duncan had become infected. He was Right....what he didn't explain. Is why they didn't?


If the U.S. starts witnessing person-to-person transmission beyond the Dallas health care workers and those with whom they had contact, then he will almost certainly be replaced at some point.

I'm not sure about the exact reasons such a team wasn't sent. However, I suspect that it is part of a larger problem that has plagued the U.S. government in recent years: a lack of strategy for such circumstances on account of a lack of contingency planning. While this problem doesn't garner the headlines the seemingly endless Republican-Democratic clashes receive, it is a significant problem that has hobbled U.S. domestic, foreign, and military policy, leaving the U.S. behind the curve of events and having to scramble to catch up. IMO, President Obama (and if he doesn't, his successor) should create a crisis working group containing such people as the Secretary of State, National Security Adviser, Secretary of Defense, etc. That group would be charged with identifying the major risks the U.S. could confront within the next 10 years. Afterward, each of the major departments would be charged with developing a strategy for such events and scenarios that could arise.

Even if one might not have expected Ebola to move into the U.S., the threat of a possible viral outbreak (be it from natural or manmade origins e.g., a biological weapons attack) has been in the mix of widely discussed possibilities. Logical "what if" questions would concern the type of pathogen: anthrax (used in the past), small pox (rumored), bio-engineered influenza, etc., tropical diseases (often brought up in the climate change debate), each of which would require a response.

The same holds true for foreign policy. With respect to Syria, the risks associated with a decaying authoritarian regime were not novel. One has witnessed the consequences of such decay in post-Tito Yugoslavia, post-Assad Iraq, Lebanon, etc. Syria is, as U.S. Ambassador to Syria Richard Murphy put it in 1976, "a patchwork quilt of small groups." Moreover, these groups have had major differences. At the same time, there were also radical Islamist elements devoted to toppling any kind of secular order present. Syria was a proverbial powder keg. Yet, when the protest movement was shoved aside by armed elements, the U.S. naively assumed that the democratic protest movement (almost certainly a minority among the overall population) had transitioned into armed democratic uprising. Notable former U.S. statesmen ranging from Brent Scowcroft to Henry Kissinger urged extreme caution in making such a diagnosis. As Kissinger later noted in his World Order, among those who took up arms, "few elements...could be described as democratic, much less moderate." Yet, U.S. policy was based on the false assumption of a democratic and moderate uprising. Rather than merely condemning the Assad dictatorship for its brutality, the U.S. boxed itself into a strategic lockbox by calling for regime change. Now it has less strategic flexibility than might otherwise have been the case, even as the deepening power vacuum was filled by the increasingly extreme elements such as ISIS.

You need to read what the Dallas Nurses reported. Which Freiden knew but wasn't saying anything.

There are differences between the nurses union's account and what the hospital has said. The matter needs to be examined.

What about the Former head of the CDC? I seen that CNN was propping up Sanjay Gupta again.

Given his public role on CNN, I suspect the position of Surgeon General might be a better fit for him. I'm not sure that Dr. Gupta has the management experience to run a large entity like CDC. The CEO or COO of a leading hospital or medical research institution would probably be better prepared to run the CDC.
 
.....they reported what Freiden is saying. Which the CDC was saying breach.....but now they can't find it.

On the communication front, Frieden should never have charged a "breach of protocol" without having the facts. What one knows at this point is that the hospital lacked full body protective suits and had less than adequate training to deal with Ebola. Those are very different matters. As noted previously, Frieden and others should stick strictly to the facts. If one doesn't know, then state that the situation will be examined. Don't make statements that one cannot support.

The kind of media coverage I'm concerned about is wild speculation and sensationalism that has occurred in cases. Stories that the Ebola virus might spread via airborne transmission, mentioning that people are boarding planes with surgical masks and latex gloves, etc., are some examples This coverage provides no useful information on Ebola. It does feed possible hysteria.
 
Back
Top Bottom