- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A Dallas hospital worker now has Ebola
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:10 pm to dewster
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:10 pm to dewster
quote:
I'm not saying that a pandemic is inevitable, but I think the recent news is indicative of our lack of preparedness for this type of illness.
I agree with this.
And this is our country's norm.
0
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:14 pm to Boats n Hose
quote:
You won't ever take the human error factor out of the equation. Government or no government.
In private (industrial) industry, where there is risk, redundancy equipment and procedures are put in place.
Evidently, our healthcare industry isn't ready to handle this situation. Evidently, our government (CDC, etc) isn't doing their part to assist them either.
Just my opinion, from my casual glance. Again, they're 0 for 1.
This post was edited on 10/12/14 at 9:15 pm
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:16 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
Like putting one glove in your mouth while taking the other glove off?
If you've ever taken surgical gloves off you'd know there is a correct way to remove them. I doubt she used her mouth
but if I ha to guess she let the outside of the glove slide across her hand when removing them in a lazy incorrect fashion. This is just my guess but of all ways to breach procedure I think this is pretty likely. Glove removal the correct way is important to keep from getting anything on your skin.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:19 pm to ell_13
quote:
Just because it isn't airborne doesn't mean it isn't easily transferrable. "Easy" being a relative term, obviously.
The way I interpreted it was the infected fluids could be absorbed through pores.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:19 pm to Sl4m
I live less than a mile from the worker that has ebola! Yikes. Reporters are still there. Just saw the news...CDC notified everyone in a 4 block radius. I don't live that close but close enough.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:20 pm to Sl4m
Wow
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:20 pm to Sl4m
Hard to type too much on am iphone but O i think chem warfare agent type decon is needed here...basically hit em with a strong bleach soln before doffing the PPE. And medical gowns and masks isnt what Im talking about. level B or C hazmat at a min
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:24 pm to Nynna11
quote:
The type of gear that's needed is not just readily available to healthcare workers.
But...but... but that's not what the lying CDC doc said. He said 'ANY hospital is more than equipped to deal with Ebola. No biggie. Don't worry it's hard to catch. Just use basic protection measures'
If Obama won't stop the flights to contain it over there, then what's the big deal to isolate and contain potentially infected people here? Why not let them roam around and travel, since it's no big deal and all.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:27 pm to Sl4m
quote:That's very unlikely though in general. While the skin can absorb minimal amounts of fluid, it's not likely to be sufficient to get into the bloodstream unless you're soaked for an extended amount of time.
The way I interpreted it was the infected fluids could be absorbed through pores.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:38 pm to ell_13
quote:
That's very unlikely though in general. While the skin can absorb minimal amounts of fluid, it's not likely to be sufficient to get into the bloodstream unless you're soaked for an extended amount of time.
I never assume anything and it's something that's been tiptoed around with one article stating what I just mentioned, but honestly I don't know, we don't know.
I do think it's an issue that will hopefully be clarified so we all have a better idea of what we are up against, but the media seems more interested in shock stories for hits than neutral journalism.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:43 pm to Grassy1
quote:
Evidently, our healthcare industry isn't ready to handle this situation. Evidently, our government (CDC, etc) isn't doing their part to assist them either.
The massive sample size totally supports this blanket statement
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:48 pm to ell_13
I've said it before and I will again - I get very uncomfortable with the absolute certainty being expressed by the CDC and the White House that ebola as a disease pathogen is not a real threat to the USA and can be handled by our healthcare system and that our protocols are quite adequate (under the unspoken assumption that they will be followed carefully and without human error). Their assurances do not comfort me as we continue to learn of others who have now been diagnosed with ebola or placed under quarantine for "observation" or something.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:50 pm to Boats n Hose
quote:
The massive sample size totally supports this blanket statement
Sample size: 1
Failures: 1
Hmmm. okay.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:51 pm to ell_13
quote:
That's very unlikely though in general. While the skin can absorb minimal amounts of fluid, it's not likely to be sufficient to get into the bloodstream unless you're soaked for an extended amount of time.
Right. Transmission is by contacting bodily fluids of an infected individual and then that fluid entering via contact with mucous membranes (mouth/eyes/nose/etc) or through small abrasions/wounds in the skin. If I remember right the viremia is pretty high compared to other viruses so bodily fluids are more infectious.
And to all those saying "we just don't know enough." While yes the strain associated with this particular outbreak seems to be more virulent than those in past outbreaks even with the Zaire strain, the transmission of the virus has been pretty well documented. The disease has been around since the late 70s.
And I may be wrong but if I recall correctly according a CDC graph I looked at the other day there was at least one previous outbreak with a mortality rate higher than the current outbreak.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:52 pm to Grassy1
1 isn't massive.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:52 pm to Grassy1
You just proved my point.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:53 pm to Sl4m
quote:
The way I interpreted it was the infected fluids could be absorbed through pores.
Considering the literal purpose of skin is to cause a barrier in both directions between an organism and the environment.....this is unlikely.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:54 pm to bhtigerfan
CDC now admitting its airborne. Why the initial cover up? Time for answer from our wonderful government.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:55 pm to Grassy1
quote:
Sample size: 1
Failures: 1
So this nurse is the only health care worker to come in contact with the patient period?
Because they are part of the sample size of any failure rate calculations.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:56 pm to Magicmikeforlsu
quote:
CDC now admitting its airborne.
No, they fricking aren't.
Page 12 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News