Ebola nurse

[donnie_baseball]

This lady is a wacko. Threatening to sue NJ, and now Maine, because they are going to enforce her quarantine. What the hell is the matter with people? Between her, and the NY physician who was flitting around the subway and Brooklyn bowling alleys, clearly they have some kind of personality disorder -- likely narcissistic. As members of the medical establishment, they really should be held up as an example of how NOT to act.

What's great is that the ACLU and the left are always screaming "Science! Science!" in an effort to silence the religious, but now the backing of a Nobel laureate (in the field of infectious disease, no less) isn't good enough for them in defending this woman's "liberty," and having an opportunity to take further shots at Christie, who was 100% correct, in this case.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by donnie_baseball:
This lady is a wacko. Threatening to sue NJ, and now Maine, because they are going to enforce her quarantine. What the hell is the matter with people? Between her, and the NY physician who was flitting around the subway and Brooklyn bowling alleys, clearly they have some kind of personality disorder -- likely narcissistic. As members of the medical establishment, they really should be held up as an example of how NOT to act.

What's great is that the ACLU and the left are always screaming "Science! Science!" in an effort to silence the religious, but now the backing of a Nobel laureate (in the field of infectious disease, no less) isn't good enough for them in defending this woman's "liberty," and having an opportunity to take further shots at Christie, who was 100% correct, in this case.

Couldn't agree with you more. When you are dealing with a health issue with significant uncertainty, you err on the side of the lesser of the potential catastrphic circumstance. Apparently the 21 day quarantine has been put in place for all of the Armed Forces, but our dumb-ass President is worried about Healthcare workers being "stigmatized". We don't know a lot about Ebola, that's certain; in fact, scientists are not certain that you only can transmit the disease if you are symptomatic. Christie was absolutely right in this instance.

FWIW, I had a small community hospital COO tell me yesterday that he was surprised that one of the largest hospitals in Philly called them and asked if they had any supplies to deal with Ebola...that is disconcerting.

 

[shu09]

I think her threats of lawsuits are over the top and reek of a "look at me" attitude. She certainly seems like a narcissist.

But to the larger principle, I am opposed to effectively putting people in what amounts to quasi-jail for 21 days just because they may or may not have symptoms of an illness. If someone develops the illness, they'll seek proper medical care and receive it. If this woman (or any person forcibly quarantined) has to pay a dime in medical expenses, there should be an investigation.

This is a disease that cannot be transmitted unless a person is symptomatic, according to medical professionals. Why should a person be stripped of his or her rights when they are no threat to the public? Again, if they develop symptoms, they will be isolated and given proper care. There is no need to freak out about that. The problem is we have politicians making decisions that have no basis in any science or medical fact. They're making these decisions which violate the rights of our citizens because they seem like the most popular political thing to do.

The have only been nine people treated for the disease in this country. Five developed symptoms in Africa and were flown back here for treatment. One traveled to America from Africa and developed symptoms while here. Two were folks who treated that individual and one was a doctor who developed symptoms after returning from Africa where he was a healthcare worker. What does this tell any intelligent person? It's a nearly impossible disease to contract unless you are directly involved with the treatment of a patient. There have only been two cases of actual transmission in the United States and both involve the nurses who directly treated Mr. Duncan.

I'm also reading these articles about people being amazed by the fact that 8 of 9 patients treated here have survived. To me, the answers are simple. First, we have top notch medical knowledge and facilities in this country. Quite simply, African nations do not have the knowledge, facilities or space to treat so many victim. Second, most of these patients have been young, which means they likely have better immune systems. It's really quite simple to me. If you have the capacity to provide the proper care like we do, the mortality rate should be considerably lower.

In what world is this considered an "outbreak?" It's an outbreak in Africa, not here. It will not become an outbreak in this country. It's important for people to learn the facts about this virus and not put any stock into the sensationalism of the media and politicians. We live in the United States of Fear.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

Christie grandstanded to appeal to the right wing base for the primaries. that's it. And then he had to back down, and looks kinda silly now. The tough guy thing he does is really nauseating.

This post was edited on 10/29 4:27 PM by Bobbie Solo

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by shu09:

I think her threats of lawsuits are over the top and reek of a "look at me" attitude. She certainly seems like a narcissist.

But to the larger principle, I am opposed to effectively putting people in what amounts to quasi-jail for 21 days just because they may or may not have symptoms of an illness. If someone develops the illness, they'll seek proper medical care and receive it. If this woman (or any person forcibly quarantined) has to pay a dime in medical expenses, there should be an investigation.

This is a disease that cannot be transmitted unless a person is symptomatic, according to medical professionals. Why should a person be stripped of his or her rights when they are no threat to the public? Again, if they develop symptoms, they will be isolated and given proper care. There is no need to freak out about that. The problem is we have politicians making decisions that have no basis in any science or medical fact. They're making these decisions which violate the rights of our citizens because they seem like the most popular political thing to do.

The have only been nine people treated for the disease in this country. Five developed symptoms in Africa and were flown back here for treatment. One traveled to America from Africa and developed symptoms while here. Two were folks who treated that individual and one was a doctor who developed symptoms after returning from Africa where he was a healthcare worker. What does this tell any intelligent person? It's a nearly impossible disease to contract unless you are directly involved with the treatment of a patient. There have only been two cases of actual transmission in the United States and both involve the nurses who directly treated Mr. Duncan.

I'm also reading these articles about people being amazed by the fact that 8 of 9 patients treated here have survived. To me, the answers are simple. First, we have top notch medical knowledge and facilities in this country. Quite simply, African nations do not have the knowledge, facilities or space to treat so many victim. Second, most of these patients have been young, which means they likely have better immune systems. It's really quite simple to me. If you have the capacity to provide the proper care like we do, the mortality rate should be considerably lower.

In what world is this considered an "outbreak?" It's an outbreak in Africa, not here. It will not become an outbreak in this country. It's important for people to learn the facts about this virus and not put any stock into the sensationalism of the media and politicians. We live in the United States of Fear.

There are no absolute statements about Ebola like you are suggesting. It is not completely known if the disease can be transmitted without showing the symptoms. I work in the industry and professionals I've spoken do not agree with your absolute statement.

The answer to all of your questions and assumptions is "we don't know yet". It's very early in the game to be definitive about a disease that has been introduced to our population for the first time. Not likely to be an outbreak, but wouldn't you want to ensure that the chance of that happening is remote or non-existant? The media is a bunch of sensationalists. The President should be leading...but once again he's absent. Healthcare professionals (who I would listen to first) say to err on the side of caution. What they are suggesting is to put a quarentine process in place until you have enough data and certainty that the risk of outbreak is negligable. To inconvenience a few dozen healthcare workers for the safety of the entire population for a relatively short period of time seems prudent to me. One Medical Director I spoke with told me that instituting the quarantine process for the next 4-6 months would be all that was necessary. But what do I know....been in healthcare for over 30 years!!!

 

[Muggsy Blue]

I think we should just throw her in a dungeon for a year and be done with her, And if the doctor recovers, we can throw him in too. Oh, the humanity of it all.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Originally posted by shu09:

I think her threats of lawsuits are over the top and reek of a "look at me" attitude. She certainly seems like a narcissist.

But to the larger principle, I am opposed to effectively putting people in what amounts to quasi-jail for 21 days just because they may or may not have symptoms of an illness. If someone develops the illness, they'll seek proper medical care and receive it. If this woman (or any person forcibly quarantined) has to pay a dime in medical expenses, there should be an investigation.

This is a disease that cannot be transmitted unless a person is symptomatic, according to medical professionals. Why should a person be stripped of his or her rights when they are no threat to the public? Again, if they develop symptoms, they will be isolated and given proper care. There is no need to freak out about that. The problem is we have politicians making decisions that have no basis in any science or medical fact. They're making these decisions which violate the rights of our citizens because they seem like the most popular political thing to do.

The have only been nine people treated for the disease in this country. Five developed symptoms in Africa and were flown back here for treatment. One traveled to America from Africa and developed symptoms while here. Two were folks who treated that individual and one was a doctor who developed symptoms after returning from Africa where he was a healthcare worker. What does this tell any intelligent person? It's a nearly impossible disease to contract unless you are directly involved with the treatment of a patient. There have only been two cases of actual transmission in the United States and both involve the nurses who directly treated Mr. Duncan.

I'm also reading these articles about people being amazed by the fact that 8 of 9 patients treated here have survived. To me, the answers are simple. First, we have top notch medical knowledge and facilities in this country. Quite simply, African nations do not have the knowledge, facilities or space to treat so many victim. Second, most of these patients have been young, which means they likely have better immune systems. It's really quite simple to me. If you have the capacity to provide the proper care like we do, the mortality rate should be considerably lower.

In what world is this considered an "outbreak?" It's an outbreak in Africa, not here. It will not become an outbreak in this country. It's important for people to learn the facts about this virus and not put any stock into the sensationalism of the media and politicians. We live in the United States of Fear.

Well said, but I take issue with the fact that you can only be contagious when symptomatic. Not true, according to the guy from University of Texas- Southwestern Medical Center who won a NOBEL PRIZE in the field of infectious disease. So, given that, assholes who are knee-deep in carcasses of Ebola-infected people in Africa should be detained until the incubation period passes. I appreciate the well-thought out and stated response, otherwise, unlike the drivel solo spits out here. Is Cuomo right wing, you idiot? He is supporting the same measures.




This post was edited on 10/29 6:00 PM by donnie_baseball

 

[shu09]

Originally posted by HALL85:

It is not completely known if the disease can be transmitted without showing the symptoms.



So then the CDC graphic (I've linked it below), which says "you can only get Ebola from...touching the blood or body fluids of a person who is sick" is wrong???

Originally posted by HALL85:

It's very early in the game to be definitive about a disease that has been introduced to our population for the first time.

People have been studying Ebola for nearly 40 years. Also, the disease has not been introduced to the US population. That's an ill-advised statement because it implies that Ebola is floating around the US population. It is not. It is ravaging three nations in western Africa and that is it. Again, let's look at the facts and not speculation and fear.

Originally posted by HALL85:

The President should be leading...but once again he's absent.

Really? What more do you suggest he do? He's sent troops to Africa. He got up before the UN last month and urged other nations to get involved in controlling the virus. He has pumped millions of dollars into Africa to fight this. Instead of taking a political shot, which you love to do on this board, what do you suggest he do? He has done more than enough already.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/pdf/infographic.pdf

 

[HALL85]

Sure, throw millions at some of the most corrupt governments that manage money about as good as the RU athletic dept. A hospital CEO joked that you are lucky if 5 cents on the dollar gets to the source. Urging the UN? That's going to make a difference. And the link you posted doesn't address what healthcare experts have said, in that it's not conclusive that it's possible to carry the virus and not show the symptoms.

What should BO have done?
- The minute the first carrier set foot in the country, he should have gone to the CDC to publish a protocol.
- Not bother to name an Ebola Czar, who is nothing more than a policy wonk who should have his picture on a milk carton since he's been MIA since getting named. More people die world wide from malaria each year than Ebola by the way. Should we have a malaria Czar?
- Be consistent. Armed forces has a 21 day quarentine. But he's suggesting something different (not sure what it is just yet...I'm sure he's working on that strategy too).
- Every healthcare Exec I've spoken with takes nothing he says seriously regarding Ebola. This virus has been around since the 70's so sending troops and money into Africa is his solution, while we have no plan when these people come to this country.

Here's where I have the biggest problem with BO. His self-proclaimed crowning achievement is the ACA and wanting a single-payer nationally run healthcare program. He also has a federal infrastructure in place today with the CDC, FDA and NTSB to coordinate a protocol and process for managing on a national level. So what does he do with Ebola? He punts it to the states to deal with it.When there is something to do that you can take credit for, he's all over it; but when there is risk in making a tough decision, he defers....not wanting to put himself in a position to get blamed for things. Leaders run to the problem; not away from it.

He's all about style over substance. Even his own party doesn't want him near the Senate and House races.

My apologies...he's not absent; just incompetent. Hopefully I answered your question.
This post was edited on 10/30 11:35 AM by HALL85

 

[donnie_baseball]

Originally posted by HALL85:
Sure, throw millions at some of the most corrupt governments that manage money about as good as the RU athletic dept. A hospital CEO joked that you are lucky if 5 cents on the dollar gets to the source. Urging the UN? That's going to make a difference. And the link you posted doesn't address what healthcare experts have said, in that it's not conclusive that it's possible to carry the virus and not show the symptoms.

What should BO have done?
- The minute the first carrier set foot in the country, he should have gone to the CDC to publish a protocol.
- Not bother to name an Ebola Czar, who is nothing more than a policy wonk who should have his picture on a milk carton since he's been MIA since getting named. More people die world wide from malaria each year than Ebola by the way. Should we have a malaria Czar?
- Be consistent. Armed forces has a 21 day quarentine. But he's suggesting something different (not sure what it is just yet...I'm sure he's working on that strategy too).
- Every healthcare Exec I've spoken with takes nothing he says seriously regarding Ebola. This virus has been around since the 70's so sending troops and money into Africa is his solution, while we have no plan when these people come to this country.

Here's where I have the biggest problem with BO. His self-proclaimed crowning achievement is the ACA and wanting a single-payer nationally run healthcare program. He also has a federal infrastructure in place today with the CDC, FDA and NTSB to coordinate a protocol and process for managing on a national level. So what does he do with Ebola? He punts it to the states to deal with it.When there is something to do that you can take credit for, he's all over it; but when there is risk in making a tough decision, he defers....not wanting to put himself in a position to get blamed for things. Leaders run to the problem; not away from it.

He's all about style over substance. Even his own party doesn't want him near the Senate and House races.

My apologies...he's not absent; just incompetent. Hopefully I answered your question.

This post was edited on 10/30 11:35 AM by HALL85

Ouch. No argument there. Shu09, you've grown up a lot on this board, but you can't tell me that you approve of almost the last 6 years of the way things have run from the Oval Office. Remind me of all the hope and change?

 

[Seton75]

The constant refrain seems to be that govt cant do anything, and why isn't Obama doing anything.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Seton75:

The constant refrain seems to be that govt cant do anything, and why isn't Obama doing anything.

Yup, the truth hurts sometimes.

 

[shu09]

Originally posted by donnie_baseball:

Shu09, you've grown up a lot on this board, but you can't tell me that you approve of almost the last 6 years of the way things have run from the Oval Office. Remind me of all the hope and change?

I've generally been satisfied with Obama's presidency. Not thrilled, but he has done a satisfactory job.

My major issues with him have been transparency (or lack of), going after reporters for doing their jobs, his position on "global warming," which I think is backwards, and his continuing the Bush policy of extraordinary powers for the NSA and other agencies. Those are big negative marks for me when assessing the job he has done.

I think he's done a better job on the economy than he's given credit for. While many criticize him for his foreign policy, I think he's done a great job there. Ending the war in Iraq was the most important issue I voted on in 2008 and he did it, while also eventually winding down our involvement in Afghanistan. Now, I'm not a fan of the current mission creep we're seeing with the ISIS stuff, but as long as he doesn't put thousands of US troops on the ground, I can tolerate it. I love that he has taken a tougher stance with Israel, who has gotten what they want at our expense for far too long. Netanyahu is a war hawk, and I like that Obama stands up to him.

I am a huge supporter of his position on gun control, I just wish he could get something done about it. Special interests are too strong to do this, though. I generally support his positions on economic and social equality as well.

Regarding Obamacare, I generally think it's a good thing, but it's going to take a decade or longer to see what it's true effects are/were. We aren't at that point yet. There are some things in there I really like, but some that we can do without.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by shu09:

So then the CDC graphic (I've linked it below), which says "you can only get Ebola from...touching the blood or body fluids of a person who is sick" is wrong???

Can't be wrong! Look at the thousands of scientific studies on its transmission! And thalidomide is safe for expectant mothers.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by Seton75:

The constant refrain seems to be that govt cant do anything, and why isn't Obama doing anything.

75

I think this is intended as a poke at 'inconsistency' among conservatives. Is that right?

I suspect your hyperbole creates a false dichotomy.

There are very few things that the federal government can manage better than the state governments, but Alexander Hamilton pointed out a lot of them!

And there are very few things that any government can manage more efficiently than the market, but setting uniform and consistent safety protocols to deal with a single, little understood but highly communicable and frighteningly fatal virus has to be one of them.

When we are dealing with a pandemic threat, shouldn't we try to err on the side of caution?

This post was edited on 11/1 9:53 PM by Old_alum