I wasn't freaking out about Ebola until the Dallas woman

[massmedia]

Not trying to offend anyone here, but nurses don't have a "crystal clear" understanding of what to do when presented with a multitude of patients because, well, that's not their role. Like I said earlier, Ebola is no different than say.. Meningitis when it comes to nursing protocol (in regard to infection control). There's no big "teaching" necessary, Ebola is droplet. The symptoms present similarly to other ailments that are droplet, there's nothing new here. /discussion.

Still missing the point completely.
if nurses think that they need to be taught what to do for Ebola, and nobody teaches them what to do, then they will not know what to do when a patient presents. Even if they already know the protocol (droplet according to you), if they don't know to follow that protocol for Ebola (and they have indeed said that they are NOT prepared... meaning that they don't know what protocol to follow) then there will be trouble when Ebola patients show up.

This point couldn't be more simple.
As to people thinking thag medical doctors are the authority... not so much actually.
Medical doctors tend to be great memory bots... excellent at memorizing and often quite lousy at actually thinking and very often waaay behind the literature. Scientists whose life work is to stay on the bleezing edge of this stuff (in this case Virologists and Immunologists) are the places to go for learning and critical thinking on this issue.

anyone suggesting that mass media (especially mainstream mass media and nut job conspiracy news houses) are the place to go for critical thinking and truthful non-spun information on Ebola needs a wake up call.

 

[fskimospy]

Still missing the point completely.
if nurses think that they need to be taught what to do for Ebola, and nobody teaches them what to do, then they will not know what to do when a patient presents. Even if they already know the protocol (droplet according to you), if they don't know to follow that protocol for Ebola (and they have indeed said that they are NOT prepared... meaning that they don't know what protocol to follow) then there will be trouble when Ebola patients show up.

This point couldn't be more simple.
As to people thinking thag medical doctors are the authority... not so much actually.
Medical doctors tend to be great memory bots... excellent at memorizing and often quite lousy at actually thinking and very often waaay behind the literature. Scientists whose life work is to stay on the bleezing edge of this stuff (in this case Virologists and Immunologists) are the places to go for learning and critical thinking on this issue.

anyone suggesting that mass media (especially mainstream mass media and nut job conspiracy news houses) are the place to go for critical thinking and truthful non-spun information on Ebola needs a wake up call.

The standards here are fairly simple and there is no need to consult new literature on what to do. You're taking a single statement from a union representative, who is hardly an impartial source, and making a big deal out of it.

This has been the case for this entire issue. I mean how many hysterical posters have we seen here calling for the U.S. to shut its borders, people freaking out when we brought people to the country for treatment, those bringing up every person being tested for Ebola as a sign of its spread, etc. It's pure, nonsensical hysteria.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not trying to offend anyone here, but nurses don't have a "crystal clear" understanding of what to do when presented with a multitude of patients because, well, that's not their role. Like I said earlier, Ebola is no different than say.. Meningitis when it comes to nursing protocol (in regard to infection control). There's no big "teaching" necessary, Ebola is droplet. The symptoms present similarly to other ailments that are droplet, there's nothing new here. /discussion.

I just read the nurses survey and I think they have reasonable concerns. I know that if you want to know how "healthy" a hospital is, they are among the first to go to.

In a perfect world the government and insurance companies would provide sufficient monies, administrators would always be wise stewards, legislation and regs wouldn't be written by ignorant panderers but with reason, communication would be clear, concise and timely. Necessary personnel, equipment and protocol would be in place or readily available.

All the above are problematic to all hospitals to varying degrees, and with cost cutting being a priority it's not surprising there's some concern. That it's not their job to fix those problems isn't the point, their merely voicing reasonable concerns.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're taking a single statement from a union representative, who is hardly an impartial source, and making a big deal out of it.

Actually you are both wrong. The nursing school adjacent to where my wife teaches has staff which works to identify systemic problems and they are very real. He's wrong because the nature of the transmission of ebola and how cases can come about in the US is something easily managed, but there are real deficits. What we really need are people like nurses leading and being in control of a national redo of the health care system proper, but almost no one wants that done right.

 

[zephyrprime]

It definitely does not need to have any new capabilities. Prior outbreaks were in geographically isolated regions while this one is not.

This outbreak started in a remote area too (bush country) like all the others but it moved quickly to the city. Maybe it was because some guy just traveled to the city or maybe not.

"Some Ebola experts worry virus may spread more easily than assumed"

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ebola-questions-20141007-story.html#page=1

"Yet some scientists who have long studied Ebola say such assurances are premature — and they are concerned about what is not known about the strain now on the loose. It is an Ebola outbreak like none seen before, jumping from the bush to urban areas, giving the virus more opportunities to evolve as it passes through multiple human hosts."

 

[Jaskalas]

~10 days until Dallas is in the clear. Unless something happens this week, the chances diminish rapidly. :thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

This outbreak started in a remote area too (bush country) like all the others but it moved quickly to the city. Maybe it was because some guy just traveled to the city or maybe not.

"Some Ebola experts worry virus may spread more easily than assumed"

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ebola-questions-20141007-story.html#page=1

"Yet some scientists who have long studied Ebola say such assurances are premature — and they are concerned about what is not known about the strain now on the loose. It is an Ebola outbreak like none seen before, jumping from the bush to urban areas, giving the virus more opportunities to evolve as it passes through multiple human hosts."

That entire article is people saying "we can't definitively rule out X, Y, and Z". Well sure. There is also no evidence that any of that is actually occurring.

Meanwhile I have noticed that some of the hysteria in these threads has started to die down. Hopefully people think about that next time something like this happens, or if/when another Ebola case is located in the US.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Meanwhile I have noticed that some of the hysteria in these threads has started to die down. Hopefully people think about that next time something like this happens, or if/when another Ebola case is located in the US.

Hysteria is one of the factors that fuels this forum and a lot of other things. That's why it's carefully cultivated by many.

 

[theeedude]

The Texas guy passed away. Sad situation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Texas guy passed away. Sad situation.

It's a nasty illness. No doubt it will drive the franatics as I think I'll call them up a notch.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Not trying to offend anyone here, but nurses don't have a "crystal clear" understanding of what to do when presented with a multitude of patients because, well, that's not their role. Like I said earlier, Ebola is no different than say.. Meningitis when it comes to nursing protocol (in regard to infection control). There's no big "teaching" necessary, Ebola is droplet. The symptoms present similarly to other ailments that are droplet, there's nothing new here. /discussion.

You kinda missed the point. What people need to know is how to contain the disease. Treating it isn't the issue. Its stopping the spread.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You kinda missed the point. What people need to know is how to contain the disease. Treating it isn't the issue. Its stopping the spread.

I'm wondering if anyone actually read the article that the nurses representative wrote. The nurses know in general how to treat, but the particulars in the context of hospital protocols and material constraints are a huge issue.

I was fairly surprised to learn why health care workers in Africa were getting sick and it wasn't due to some bizarre mutation. They ran out of frigging gloves, and this is from a physician who worked in the area and saw it time and again. Friggin rubber gloves. No nurse here wants to be caught in a situation without adequate protocols and supplies in place. Our advantage is that under any conceivable circumstance resources can be allocated fairly quickly but that's not optimal

 

[Jeff7]

I wouldn't worry about it. It's contagious, but not as contagious as some people think it is.

Risk versus consequences.
Maybe the risk of infection is indeed low, but the consequence of death by severe internal bleeding is fairly significant.

 

[massmedia]

He's wrong because the nature of the transmission of ebola and how cases can come about in the US is something easily managed, but there are real deficits.

• ebola is in saliva
• every cough and sneeze by someone with ebola in their saliva puts ebola containing spit sroplets inthe air
• contact with those droplets constitutes the "direct physical contact" that the moronic mass media always shows with an infographic of two people holding hands or other such nonsense
• this is technically not airborne by the scientific definition
• this is very much airborne as the layperson understands "airborne" (sad but true)
• the media and the CDC and the administration are exploiting this gap in understanding of what "airborne" means to badly mislead people and that is unacceptable
• ebola is not well understood because it is so difficult and dangerous to work with and outbreaks have historically been sporadic and frankly in places with substandard infrastructure... now that we have patients in western hospitals that will change very quickly. expect a slew of new papers in the literature in the coming weeks and months.
• whether or not ebola in saliva floating in the air and making contact with mucus membranes of another person can induce a full infection is UNKNOWN. Prudence demands erring on the side of caution

now what am i wrong about specifically because im not sure which points you think im wrong on truthfully. i was however thankful for the reference you provided earlier... was an interesting read so i'll thank you for that

 

[Pens1566]

The standards here are fairly simple and there is no need to consult new literature on what to do. You're taking a single statement from a union representative, who is hardly an impartial source, and making a big deal out of it.

This has been the case for this entire issue. I mean how many hysterical posters have we seen here calling for the U.S. to shut its borders, people freaking out when we brought people to the country for treatment, those bringing up every person being tested for Ebola as a sign of its spread, etc. It's pure, nonsensical hysteria.

This. The only really valid concern brought forth in the nurses study article is lack of equipment. The protocols for handling a suspected ebola patient (other than the stigma/hysteria) would be the same if they suspected other more contagious bugs.

 

[Pens1566]

And yes, the "airborne" use is misleading. Just as the word "cure" denotes something entirely different to an oncologist than it would John Q. Public. Or "theory" to a scientist and John Q. Republican.

 

[Jaskalas]

REPORT: New Patient 'Exhibiting Symptoms'...
Claims Had Contact With Victim...

Damn.., so much for the 21 day clock. Hopefully this was one of the folks under watch. Things can still be contained IF he was self aware and had limited contact with others.

 

[DrPizza]

• ebola is in saliva
• every cough and sneeze by someone with ebola in their saliva puts ebola containing spit sroplets inthe air
• contact with those droplets constitutes the "direct physical contact" that the moronic mass media always shows with an infographic of two people holding hands or other such nonsense
• this is technically not airborne by the scientific definition
• this is very much airborne as the layperson understands "airborne" (sad but true)
• the media and the CDC and the administration are exploiting this gap in understanding of what "airborne" means to badly mislead people and that is unacceptable
• ebola is not well understood because it is so difficult and dangerous to work with and outbreaks have historically been sporadic and frankly in places with substandard infrastructure... now that we have patients in western hospitals that will change very quickly. expect a slew of new papers in the literature in the coming weeks and months.
• whether or not ebola in saliva floating in the air and making contact with mucus membranes of another person can induce a full infection is UNKNOWN. Prudence demands erring on the side of caution

now what am i wrong about specifically because im not sure which points you think im wrong on truthfully. i was however thankful for the reference you provided earlier... was an interesting read so i'll thank you for that

I see you're back to fear mongering with your assertion. You were pointed to the research last time - researchers kind of say, "gee, it doesn't seem to spread via sneezing, we don't know why. Maybe it's because... " Regardless, it doesn't seem to be spread via sneezing.

It's akin to claiming that HIV could be spread via mosquito bites. Gee, it seems like it could, after all, there's blood. But, it isn't.

 

[massmedia]

I see you're back to fear mongering with your assertion. You were pointed to the research last time - researchers kind of say, "gee, it doesn't seem to spread via sneezing, we don't know why. Maybe it's because... " Regardless, it doesn't seem to be spread via sneezing.

It's akin to claiming that HIV could be spread via mosquito bites. Gee, it seems like it could, after all, there's blood. But, it isn't.

go back and read what i wrote about that research.
their methods and experimental design were wholly incapable of reaching a scientific conclusion about saliva. samples sat for hint 6+ hours at above RT temperatures before being frozen down. if you don't understand what that means then i can't help you.

since when does stating facts count as fear mongering?
and that strawman mosquitoe comment is infantile

 

[werepossum]

Do any of you people personally know any doctors and asked them about their thoughts?

Seriously stop getting all of your information from the tinfoil hats here and the sensationalist news.

Are you seriously suggesting that highly trained specialists know more about their field of specialty than people who happen to have access to the Internet?

Man, it's like you just don't understand the Internet at all. Today you're questioning my knowledge of exotic diseases; tomorrow you may be questioning my righteous outrage! I tell you, sir, that assuming we know everything is a G_d-given right to all Americans, and I for one am not going to sit here while you criticize and denigrate America.

I mean, I'm still going to sit here, but, um . . .

I'm wondering if anyone actually read the article that the nurses representative wrote. The nurses know in general how to treat, but the particulars in the context of hospital protocols and material constraints are a huge issue.

I was fairly surprised to learn why health care workers in Africa were getting sick and it wasn't due to some bizarre mutation. They ran out of frigging gloves, and this is from a physician who worked in the area and saw it time and again. Friggin rubber gloves. No nurse here wants to be caught in a situation without adequate protocols and supplies in place. Our advantage is that under any conceivable circumstance resources can be allocated fairly quickly but that's not optimal

Exactly. It's not just whether proper protocols are in place, it's whether the people on the front line understand those protocols and their duties within it. The best protocol is only as good as its weakest link, whether that is a nurse not educated on it or a critical if minor part running out.

To me the question isn't whether we can contain and beat Ebolla; freakin' Nigeria has already done that, so obviously we can. The question is whether we can contain and beat Ebolla with the least possible unnecessary suffering and death.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

REPORT: New Patient 'Exhibiting Symptoms'...
Claims Had Contact With Victim...

Damn.., so much for the 21 day clock. Hopefully this was one of the folks under watch. Things can still be contained IF he was self aware and had limited contact with others.

No, he was not one of those that under a watch. Unless he was showing symptoms he was not contagious. Based on his symptoms this could also be a stomach virus or due to stress from worrying about whether he contracted ebola from entering the apartment. Guess we'll have to wait to see if his symptoms worsen/have a positive test result for ebola.

 

[fskimospy]

No, he was not one of those that under a watch. Unless he was showing symptoms he was not contagious. Based on his symptoms this could also be a stomach virus or due to stress from worrying about whether he contracted ebola from entering the apartment. Guess we'll have to wait to see if his symptoms worsen/have a positive test result for ebola.

Yes, while he should definitely be isolated, tested, etc, there have been literally dozens of people admitted to hospitals with Ebola like symptoms recently. Only one has tested positive.

Certainly a cause for concern, but it should be viewed in light of that.

 

[TheVrolok]

Still missing the point completely.
if nurses think that they need to be taught what to do for Ebola, and nobody teaches them what to do, then they will not know what to do when a patient presents. Even if they already know the protocol (droplet according to you), if they don't know to follow that protocol for Ebola (and they have indeed said that they are NOT prepared... meaning that they don't know what protocol to follow) then there will be trouble when Ebola patients show up.

Unfortunately I think you're missing the point. Nurses do not make diagnoses. They don't need specific "Ebola training" because it's irrelevant to our discussion. A patient who presents with symptoms of Ebola should be placed in droplet precaution because those are the indications for droplet precaution, which are already a known entity. There's nothing specific to Ebola about this. They don't need to know to follow that protocol for Ebola, because they don't need to know it's Ebola in order to have appropriately followed protocol. Again, being "Ebola" is irrelevant.

As to people thinking thag medical doctors are the authority... not so much actually.
Medical doctors tend to be great memory bots... excellent at memorizing and often quite lousy at actually thinking and very often waaay behind the literature.

Really? I suppose you know this because of your significant research efforts in physician thought processes, heuristics, cognition, memory, etc.? Or are you just speaking out of ignorance? Critical thinking is absolutely integral to the practice of medicine, in fact, it's the "actual thinking" is what places physicians above their subordinate providers.

anyone suggesting that mass media (especially mainstream mass media and nut job conspiracy news houses) are the place to go for critical thinking and truthful non-spun information on Ebola needs a wake up call.

At least we can absolutely agree on this.

 

[TheVrolok]

You kinda missed the point. What people need to know is how to contain the disease. Treating it isn't the issue. Its stopping the spread.

I was simply responding to his post.

 

[werepossum]

Unfortunately I think you're missing the point. Nurses do not make diagnoses. They don't need specific "Ebola training" because it's irrelevant to our discussion. A patient who presents with symptoms of Ebola should be placed in droplet precaution because those are the indications for droplet precaution, which are already a known entity. There's nothing specific to Ebola about this. They don't need to know to follow that protocol for Ebola, because they don't need to know it's Ebola in order to have appropriately followed protocol. Again, being "Ebola" is irrelevant.

SNIP

I disagree. First off, reporting to the emergency room will get you seen by a nurse long before a doctor. That nurse needs to understand how to recognize Ebolla symptoms, what questions to ask, what safety procedures to take both personally and in isolating the patient, and how to properly implement the protocol.

Second, once a doctor has confirmed that the protocol is sensible until test results dictate otherwise, nurses AND assistants AND orderlies need to understand the protocol so they do not expose themselves or others to infection and also do not deprive the patient of needed care - most of which will be administered by nurses. The time to educate nurses and those lower down in the pecking order is before it is needed, not once a patient has been diagnosed. The diagnosing doctor running around telling every health care worker their responsibilities and necessary precautions as the patient is being placed into quarantine is not exactly a smart plan.