Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by Col. Quisp » Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:33 pm
by fruhmenschen » Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:08 pm
by DrEvil » Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:02 pm
Years ago, while in the army, I received extensive NBC training because of my speciality. NBC = Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare.
One thing that was pointed out many times was that the most dangerous part of wearing protective gear is removing the gear safely. During training there was a substantial emphasis on making certain that the outer layers that had been exposed were thoroughly cleaned and decontaminated before removal, and even after that to avoid contact with the outer surfaces.
It was harder than I expected to remove protective gear using the correct procedures. It only needs a moment of inattention to be contaminated. As I recall, everyone on the course failed to remove their protective gear correctly at some point. Fortunately this was only a test - hopefully we would have been much more careful in a "live" situation.
I can't help wondering how much training the medical staff have received - and how much they remember when the need to use the equipment is unexpected and the training is not recent.
by seemslikeadream » Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:47 pm
WHO says Ebola is 'most severe acute health emergency in modern times'
The World Health Organisation issues stark warning as the Government is set to announce "important changes" in the NHS to tackle a possible outbreak
By Leon Watson11:35AM BST 13 Oct 2014
The Ebola outbreak is the "most severe acute health emergency in modern times", the World Health Organisation has warned.
The agency's director-general Margaret Chan said the epidemic had proved "the world is ill-prepared to respond to any severe, sustained, and threatening public health emergency".
She added that new cases of Ebola are now "rising exponentially" in the three hardest-hit countries, Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.
In a statement to a regional health conference in the Philippine capital Manila, she said: "I have never seen a health event threaten the very survival of societies and governments in already very poor countries.
"I have never seen an infectious disease contribute so strongly to potential state failure."
Her statement was read by a WHO official who said Mrs Chan was unable to attend because "she is fully occupied with coordinating the international response to what is unquestionably the most severe acute public health emergency in modern times".
The warning comes as the Government is set to announce "important changes" in the NHS to tackle a possible outbreak.
Enhanced screening for the virus at two of the country's biggest airports is due to be introduced this week after Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt announced that calls to the NHS's non-emergency 111 phoneline will also be screened for potential Ebola sufferers.
Call handlers on the service are to question anyone ringing up with possible symptoms of the disease about their recent travel history to see if they have been to west Africa, where the death toll has passed 4,000 people, Mr Hunt said.
He told BBC Breakfast: "We have to prepare for the situation getting worse. I want to make sure we are prepared.
"It is now more likely that someone will eventually be diagnosed in the UK with Ebola. It is crucial that we are prepared for what happens when they make their first contact with the NHS.
"That's why we're introducing later to Parliament some very important changes across the NHS just to prepare ourselves for the eventuality it might get worse."
A spokesman for Heathrow Airport said enhanced screening for Ebola is due to be introduced "in the next couple of days", while Gatwick and Eurostar rail terminals are also set to introduce checks.
A Gatwick Airport spokesman said: "We have been in constant contact with Public Health England on planning and contingency measures and will continue to work closely with them in relation to Ebola.
"While the risk of contracting Ebola remains low, any additional screening measures following Government advice will be implemented. In addition, our airport medical responders are fully prepared to recognise the symptoms of Ebola and take any necessary action in the event of a suspected case."
Mr Hunt has insisted that the UK has "robust and well-tested systems for dealing with any imported case of Ebola" but the need for further measures was "under review and we will never be complacent".
He said: "Now all call handlers on the NHS 111 service are asking anyone reporting potential symptoms of Ebola, such as respiratory problems, high temperatures, or diarrhoea and vomiting, about their recent travel history, so appropriate help can be given to people who might be at higher risk of having come into contact with the virus.
"If the person with symptoms has recently been to west Africa and is at high risk of having been in contact with Ebola, 111 will immediately refer them to local emergency services for assessment by ambulance personnel with appropriate protective equipment.
"The NHS and Public Health England are well prepared for Ebola, and I am determined to make sure that we continue to do everything we can to protect the public, based on the best medical advice."
UK chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies said the country should expect a "handful" of Ebola cases in the coming months after a major exercise to test the country's readiness for such cases was carried out over the weekend.
Britain's latest Ebola aid flight delivering beds, personal protection suits, tents and 10 vehicles landed in Freetown today, International Development Secretary Justine Greening said. It includes equipment for a 92-bed unit being built by a UK team.
Aid delivered so far includes ambulances, water tanks, incinerators for disposing of clothing and other materials, generators and personal protection equipment.
The United States has announced its second case of Ebola, in a Texas hospital worker who was in contact with Thomas Eric Duncan, who died from the virus last Wednesday.
Officials in Dallas said there had been been a breach of protocol that led to the unnamed woman becoming infected after she wore full protective gear while treating Mr Duncan.
by seemslikeadream » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:06 pm
University of Kansas Hospital isolates patient, runs Ebola tests
Official says patient at low to moderate Ebola risk
UPDATED 6:45 PM CDT Oct 13, 2014
KANSAS CITY, Kan. —The University of Kansas Hospital said a person who came into the hospital with a high fever and other serious symptoms has been placed in isolation and is undergoing tests.
The patient had recently worked on a medical boat off the western coast of Africa, the region hit hard by Ebola. Officials said the patient is a medic who had been treating patients with a lot of different types of illnesses.
The hospital said that while doctors can't rule out the possibility of Ebola, the patient is at a low to moderate risk. Dr. Lee Norman said many other diseases fit the patient's symptoms.
The patient had been sick on the medical boat but showed signs of recovery after returning to the United States. On Sunday, the patient started to feel worse and came to the hospital.
Hospital staff met the patient wearing personal protection equipment and followed the hospital's plan for this type of situation. The staff treating this particular patient will not treat any others until the patient's diagnosis and treatment plans are complete.
Norman said the patient had nausea, vomiting and dehydration, but has not shown signs of hemorrhaging, which is a common indicator of Ebola.
"The gentleman today has done well," Norman said. He said the improved health is a reason why the hospital thinks the patient has a low to moderate risk. He said typhoid might be a more likely diagnosis, but the hospital is taking an abundance of caution.
The tests for Ebola are expected back on Tuesday afternoon or evening.
"We'll know a whole lot more by tomorrow at the end of the day," Norman said.
Officials said that regardless of the diagnosis, the patient is in an isolated part of the hospital and poses no health risk to other patients, staff or visitors. The emergency room at the hospital remains open.
This story is developing. Refresh this page for updates.
4000 Deaths And Counting: The Ebola Epidemic In 4 Charts
Comment Now Follow Comments
Ebola deaths in West Africa (Data: WHO / Chart CC BY 4.0: JV Chamary / Source: http://onforb.es/1sCVxE1)
The figures are frightening. As you can see from the above chart, the death toll for Ebola virus disease in West Africa has now passed 4000. The total number of cases exceeds 8000.
To help explain why the current outbreak is so deadly, I’ve summarized the main results of a study led by epidemiologists from the WHO Ebola Response Team (cited with [1], see references) and compiled data from the World Health Organization (see methods) to visualize the trends over time. You can explore the figures in more detail using the interactive graphics on my Plotly page.
Ebola deaths in West Africa
In terms of sheer numbers, the 2014 West African Ebola epidemic is the deadliest outbreak to date. As of 10 October, the total number of victims in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone is 4024. But death toll isn’t the only way to assess deadliness.
The virulence of a microbe is measured by its ‘case fatality rate’, the percentage of cases that lead to death. Early estimates for the virus behind the current epidemic gave a fatality rate of 55% – below the 67% average for the previous 24 outbreaks.
Read: Ebola Outbreaks Visualized In 5 Charts
But the 55% figure is an underestimate of the true deadliness of the ongoing epidemic. This is because many reports (including those from WHO) calculate case fatality rates using the number of cases and deaths on the same date, which doesn’t account for the time lag between when victims are diagnosed and the clinical outcome of their disease (recovery or death). Based on cases with known outcomes, the fatality rate for the 2014 epidemic is actually similar to the average for past outbreaks: 70.8% [1].
Ebola trends in West Africa
The first cases of the 2014 epidemic were reported to WHO on 23 March. On 8 August it was declared a ‘public health emergency of international concern’. The outbreak originated in Guinea and probably began in December 2013.
Neighbouring countries have overtaken Guinea for both cases and deaths: Sierra Leone cases overtook 19 July, deaths 8 October; Liberia cases 6 August, deaths 15 August.
Liberia’s death toll passed that in Sierra Leone on 11 August, cases the week after. The situation in Liberia is scary, and might be spiralling out of control.
Ebola cases in West Africa
The total number of cases is rising at an exponential rate. As of 14 September, the doubling time is 16 days in Guinea, 24 days in Liberia and 30 days in Sierra Leone [1].
In epidemiology, the speed at which an infectious agent spreads is measured by its reproductive number, ‘R’ – the average number of new cases created by infectious individuals exposed to a susceptible population. When R is greater than 1, the chain of transmission is sustained as each primary case produces at least one secondary case.
At the start of an outbreak, the rate is called ‘R0′ (the basic reproductive number). R0 indicates whether or not a contagious disease has the potential to become an epidemic. Populations can evolve natural immunity or gain artificial protection through health interventions like vaccination, reducing the proportion of susceptible people, so the reproductive number for later periods of time is ‘Rt’.
R0 was 1.7 to 2 during the initial period of exponential growth in West Africa, while the current Rt is 1.4-1.8 [1]. (Calculations by the WHO Ebola Response Team are roughly in line with estimates by other researchers.) R = 2 doesn’t sound high until you hear that the deadliest pandemic in recorded history, the 1918 Spanish flu, killed up to 100 million people even though the influenza virus had an R of 2.
If public health authorities can lower the reproductive number of Ebola below the critical value of 1, the current epidemic will eventually fizzle-out.
Ebola cases around the world
Nigeria reported it had Ebola on 31 July, but there have been no new cases or deaths since 5 September. The densely-populated city of Lagos (20 million people) has managed to escape the outbreak, which may be due to rigorous control measures [1].
The country is a hub for air travel around the world, so preventing a Nigerian Ebola outbreak is vital to reducing the risk that other countries will import a case.
Read: Ebola Is Coming. A Travel Ban Won’t Stop Outbreaks
Ebola trends around the world. *The Democratic Republic of Congo outbreak is unrelated to the epidemic in West Africa, which has spread to Nigeria, Senegal, Spain and the US (Data: WHO / Chart CC BY 4.0: JV Chamary / Source: http://onforb.es/1sCVxE1)
Ebola trends around the world. *The Democratic Republic of Congo outbreak is unrelated to the epidemic in West Africa, which has spread to Nigeria, Senegal, Spain and the US (Data: WHO / Chart CC BY 4.0: JV Chamary / Source: http://onforb.es/1sCVxE1)
Other countries have only experienced small outbreaks. As of 10 October, there have been single cases in Senegal, Spain and the US (where one person has died).
An Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo is also shown on the above chart. Genetic tests comparing viral DNA sequences revealed the DR Congo outbreak is unrelated to the epidemic that began in Guinea. This is good news as it means the epidemic hasn’t spread from West to Central Africa.
Because biological characteristics of the West African virus are similar to previous outbreaks, WHO believes the size of the current epidemic is simply down to “attributes of the affected populations and because control efforts have been insufficient to halt the spread of infection” [1]. Rural towns and villages are geographically well-connected by roads to densely-populated urban areas, which facilitates the spread between Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.
The Ebola epidemic might also be much larger than reports suggest. WHO depends on data from field teams, which can understate the true scale of an outbreak. According to projections by the US Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, by late January 2015 there will be 550,000 cases in West Africa – but when you correct for underreporting the figure rises to 1.4 million.
As the WHO Global Response Team conclude in their recent study: “These data indicate that without drastic improvements in control measures, the numbers of cases of and deaths from [Ebola virus disease] are expected to continue increasing from hundreds to thousands per week in the coming months.”
References: 1. WHO Ebola Response Team (2014) Ebola Virus Disease in West Africa — The First 9 Months of the Epidemic and Forward Projections. The New England Journal of Medicine.
Methods: Data are official figures provided by each country's health authority, collated from two WHO sources: disease outbreak news and situation reports (one report was added for the outbreak in DR Congo). If WHO provided no update, it was assumed there had been no changes since the previous report. Data are as originally presented in reports, with no attempt to retrospectively correct numbers, with the exception of excluding cases of 'viral haemorrhagic fever' in Mali that were later proven to be unrelated to Ebola. Charts use dates when reports were published and count all cases and deaths (confirmed, probable and suspected), including those described as 'clinically compatible' during early weeks of the epidemic. Although 'total number' is a cumulative amount – and therefore should only go up – the figure can go down because cases are sometimes reclassified after, for example, laboratory tests are negative for the Ebola virus.
U.S. CDC head criticized for blaming 'protocol breach' as nurse gets Ebola
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Some healthcare experts are bristling at the assertion by a top U.S. health official that a "protocol breach" caused a Dallas nurse to be infected with Ebola while caring for a dying patient, saying the case instead shows how far the nation's hospitals are from adequately training staff to deal with the deadly virus.
Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, made the declaration on Sunday at a news conference and called for an investigation into how the unidentified nurse became infected while caring for Liberian national Thomas Eric Duncan, the first Ebola patient diagnosed in the United States. Duncan died last week at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital.
Healthcare and infection control experts said that hospital staff need to be coached through the stages of treating an Ebola patient, making sure they have the right safety equipment and know how to use it properly to prevent infection.
It was not immediately clear whether the Texas hospital prepared its staff with simulation drills before admitting Duncan, but a recent survey of nurses nationwide suggests few have been briefed on Ebola preparations. Officials at the hospital did not respond to requests for comment.
Some experts also question the CDC's assertion that any U.S. hospital should be prepared to treat an Ebola patient as the outbreak ravaging West Africa begins to spread globally. Given the level of training required to do the job safely, U.S. health authorities should consider designating a hospital in each region as the go-to facility for Ebola, they said.
"You don't scapegoat and blame when you have a disease outbreak," said Bonnie Castillo, a registered nurse and a disaster relief expert at National Nurses United, which serves as both a union and a professional association for U.S. nurses. "We have a system failure. That is what we have to correct."
More than 4,000 people have died in the worst Ebola outbreak on record that began in West Africa in March.
In recent months, the CDC has published detailed guidelines on how to handle various aspects of Ebola, from lab specimens and infectious waste to the proper use of protective equipment.
How that information gets communicated to frontline workers, however, varies widely, Castillo said.
In many cases, hospitals "post something on a bulletin board referring workers and nurses to the CDC guidelines. That is not how you drill and practice and become expert," she said.
CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said the agency is still investigating the case of the Dallas nurse, but stressed that "meticulous adherence to protocols" is critical in handling Ebola. "One slight slip can result in someone becoming infected."
Skinner said the CDC is going to step up its education and training efforts on how to triage and handle patients, and may consider designating specific hospitals in each region as an Ebola treatment facility.
"We've been doing a lot over the past few months, but clearly there is more to do," he said. "The notion of possibly transporting patients diagnosed with Ebola to these hospitals is not something that is out of the question and is something we may look into."
LEGAL RECOURSE
Dr. Gavin Macgregor-Skinner, an expert on public health preparedness at Pennsylvania State University, also disagreed with the talk of a breach of protocol, saying it just puts the onus on the nurse.
"I think that is just wrong," said Macgregor-Skinner, who helped the Nigerian government train healthcare workers when a traveler from Liberia touched off an outbreak of Ebola this past summer.
"We haven't provided them with a national training program. We haven't provided them with the necessary experts that have actually worked in hospitals with Ebola," he added in reference to U.S. hospital staff.
Legal experts said the Dallas nurse may be entitled to compensation if the hospital carries workers' compensation insurance. If it doesn't, she would have the right to sue the hospital for damages under Texas law, said Jay Harvey, a lawyer in Austin, Texas.
Her ability to show that the hospital was negligent by, for example, not providing proper training, would be key to winning such a suit, Harvey said.
Sean Kaufman, president of Behavioral-Based Improvement Solutions in Atlanta, helped train healthcare staff at a special isolation unit at Atlanta's Emory University which treated U.S. aid workers Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol, the first two Ebola patients to be treated on U.S. soil.
He would observe the nurses and doctors as they cared for patients and keep detailed notes when someone would accidentally touch their sleeve or mask with an infected glove.
He then helped coach them through the process of carefully removing their infected gear. Facilities caring for Ebola patients are encouraged to use a buddy system so that colleagues are watching each other to make sure they don't take risks.
"Doctors and nurses get lost in patient care. They do things that put themselves at risk because their lens is patient-driven," Kaufman said. In Dallas, "I suspect no one was watching to make sure the people who were taking care of the patients were taking care of themselves," he said.
CDC and Texas health officials said the nurse who became infected had been wearing the recommended personal protective gear for Ebola, which consists of gloves, a gown, a mask, and a shield to protect the eyes from possible splatters from the patient.
According to experts, that gear offers the minimum level of protection. When an Ebola patient enters the latter stages of the disease, as Duncan did, they become so-called fluid producers, Kaufman said.
"Towards of end of the illness, the virus is trying to live and thrive. It's trying to get out of the person's body. It's producing massive amounts of fluid," he said.
At that point, caregivers need to add more layers of protective gear, such as double gloves and a respirator or a full bodysuit. Those kinds of decisions need to be made by managers who are constantly assessing the risk to healthcare workers, Kaufman said.
Macgregor-Skinner said all U.S. hospitals must be ready to identify and isolate an Ebola patient, but should also be able to turn to a regional facility that is better prepared to receive them.
"Every hospital can then prevent the spread of Ebola, but not every hospital in the U.S. can admit a patient in the hospital for long-term care," he said.
by 8bitagent » Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:04 pm
by Belligerent Savant » Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:49 am
by winsomecowboy2 » Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:20 am
by 8bitagent » Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:53 am
winsomecowboy2 » Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:20 am wrote:The elephant in the room is how easily it could be [if it wasn't already] 'weaponised'.
The team, comprised of researchers from the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease, the University of Manitoba, and the Public Health Agency of Canada, observed transmission of Ebola from pigs to monkeys. They first inoculated a number of piglets with the Zaire strain of the Ebola virus. Ebola-Zaire is the deadliest strain, with mortality rates up to 90 percent. The piglets were then placed in a room with four cynomolgus macaques, a species of monkey commonly used in laboratories. The animals were separated by wire cages to prevent direct contact between the species.
Within a few days, the inoculated piglets showed clinical signs of infection indicative of Ebola infection. In pigs, Ebola generally causes respiratory illness and increased temperature. Nine days after infection, all piglets appeared to have recovered from the disease.
- See more at: http://healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/ ... JzhDF.dpuf
by 8bitagent » Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:56 am
by tazmic » Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:51 am
Recent CDC estimates put the amount of possible Ebola cases at around 1.4 million as of January 2015. This is just four months from now; however, they do not say what will happen one year from now based on their own, projective, logic.
If the current rate of transmission persists, with an exponential doubling time around 1 month, the human population will be infected by 2016. This will happen.
http://brighterbrains.org/articles/entry/does-the-ebola-virus-constitute-an-existential-risk
You’re clearly a misinformed sensationalist idiot. Where to even begin?
A) the current mortality rate for this outbreak is only 47% (6574 cases, 3091 deaths).
B) Ebola is a zoonotic disease, meaning humans are end hosts - they either die, or become immune.
C) single-strand - sense RNA viruses do mutate rapidly in their hosts. We humans are not a host (see C). Also, ss - RNA viruses tend to mutate toward LOWER virulence, not higher.
D) bats as the natural reservoir has still not been confirmed. It’s just the best guess at the moment.
E) incubation period is anywhere from 3-21 days. The 21-day mark is there because if you’ve possibly been exposed, if you don’t get it after 21 days, it’s assumed you’re safe.
F) Ebola has never been found in sperm. It’s a blood-borne pathogen.
G) If you don’t actually know anything about viruses; don’t write sensationalist articles, and stop being an idiot.
Thanks.
Laurie Garret [senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations] has an article out in the Washington Post. She say that there’s no point in trying to block the spread of Ebola by travel bans.
The problem is, she’s full of crap. Look, there are two possible scenarios. In both of them, r, the number of new cases generated by each case, is greater than 1 in parts of West Africa – which is why you get exponential growth, why you have an epidemic. If r < 1.0, the series converges – a case generates a few extra cases before dying out.
Everything we know so far suggests that even though it is greater than 1.0, r in West Africa is not all that big (maybe around 2), mostly because of unfortunate local burial customs and incompetent medical personnel.
It seems highly likely that r in US conditions is well under 1.0 which means you can’t get an epidemic.
http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/the-coming-plague/
by conniption » Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:17 pm
Published on Oct 9, 2014
Ebola and HIV/AIDS are bioweapons produced in the USA.
by coffin_dodger » Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:24 am
Second Health Care Worker Tests Positive for Ebola
News Release - Texas DSHS
Oct. 15, 2014
https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/news/releases/20141015.aspx
by seemslikeadream » Wed Oct 15, 2014 11:32 am
Nurses' union slams Texas hospital for lack of Ebola protocol
By Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN
updated 7:52 AM EDT, Wed October 15, 2014
Watch this video
Nurses union: 'No protocols' at hospital
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Nurses claim "guidelines were constantly changing" at the hospital, a union says
When protective gear left their necks exposed, they say they were told to use medical tape
A hospital spokesman says safety is the top priority
The union hasn't revealed how many nurses they spoke with or identified them
(CNN) -- The Texas hospital where two health care workers contracted Ebola while caring for a patient had guidelines that were "constantly changing" and didn't have protocols on how to deal with the deadly virus," a nurses' union claims.
"The protocols that should have been in place in Dallas were not in place, and that those protocols are not in place anywhere in the United States as far as we can tell," National Nurses United Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro said Tuesday night. "We're deeply alarmed."
Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas treated Thomas Eric Duncan before his death from Ebola last week. Nurse Nina Pham, who cared for him, is being treated for the virus.
Mayor: 'Concerned' about Ebola spreading Understanding Ebola protocols Director: Nurse's infection 'unacceptable'
On Wednesday, the Texas Health Department said a second health care worker who also cared for Duncan has tested positive for the virus.
CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta said the claims, if true, are "startling." He said some of them could be "important when it comes to possible other infections."
2nd health care worker tests positive for Ebola at Dallas hospital
Officials from National Nurses United declined to specify how many nurses they had spoken with, nor identify them to to protect them from possible retaliation. The nurses at the hospital are not members of a union, officials said.
Here's a look at some of the allegations the nurses made, according to the union:
Claim: Duncan wasn't immediately isolated
On the day that Duncan was admitted to the hospital with possible Ebola symptoms, he was "left for several hours, not in isolation, in an area where other patients were present," union co-president Deborah Burger said.
Up to seven other patients were present in that area, the nurses said, according to the union.
A nursing supervisor faced resistance from hospital authorities when the supervisor demanded that Duncan be moved to an isolation unit, the nurses said, according to the union.
Perry heads to Europe despite Ebola situation
Claim: The nurses' protective gear left their necks exposed
After expressing concerns that their necks were exposed even as they wore protective gear, the nurses were told to wrap their necks with medical tape, the union says.
"They were told to use medical tape and had to use four to five pieces of medical tape wound around their neck. The nurses have expressed a lot of concern about how difficult it is to remove the tape from their neck," Burger said.
Claim: At one point, hazardous waste piled up
"There was no one to pick up hazardous waste as it piled to the ceiling," Burger said. "They did not have access to proper supplies."
Claim: Nurses got no "hands-on" training
"There was no mandate for nurses to attend training," Burger said, though they did receive an e-mail about a hospital seminar on Ebola.
"This was treated like hundreds of other seminars that were routinely offered to staff," she said.
Claim: The nurses "feel unsupported"
So why did the group of nurses -- the union wouldn't say how many -- contact the nursing union, which they don't belong to?
According to DeMoro, the nurses were upset after authorities appeared to blame nurse Pham, who has contracted Ebola, for not following protocols.
"This nurse was being blamed for not following protocols that did not exist. ... The nurses in that hospital were very angry, and they decided to contact us," DeMoro said.
And they're worried conditions at the hospital "may lead to infection of other nurses and patients," Burger said.
A hospital spokesman did not respond to the specific allegations, but said patient and employee safety is the hospital's top priority.
"We take compliance very seriously. We have numerous measures in place to provide a safe working environment, including mandatory annual training and a 24-7 hotline and other mechanisms that allow for anonymous reporting," hospital spokesman Wendell Watson said.
Concern grows about the spread of Ebola
The Dallas mayor declined to comment on the accusations against the hospital.
"I don't comment on anonymous allegations," Mike Rawlings said.
But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a statement following the union's claims.
"For health care workers in Dallas and elsewhere, the Ebola situation is extremely difficult," CDC spokeman Tom Skinner wrote.
"The CDC is committed to their safety, and we'll continue to do everything possible to make sure they have what they need so they can prepare to safely manage Ebola patients."
by seemslikeadream » Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:43 pm
.OCTOBER 15, 2014
We Haven’t Seen Anything Yet
Ebola Catches Fire
by CHARLES R. LARSON
Well, we’ve let it scare the hell out of us.
In total ethnocentric, self-serving fashion, Americans didn’t worry about Ebola until a man died from it in the United States. Now people are reacting as if Ebola will bring about the end of the world by next Tuesday (or is it Thursday?)
It ought not to have happened this way. We’ve known what it is from earlier outbreaks; we even waited and watched as it spread beyond the usual limited areas, until the numbers should have told us that, this time, it could mushroom into something huge and have a significant impact on other areas of the world besides West and Central Africa (which we basically don’t care about).
Two weeks ago, Bloomberg Businessweek documented the way government agencies (and Republican parsimony) treated the disease’s urgency, refusing to support adequate funding for basic research that could have been completed at a fraction of the expense that the current outbreak will now cost us. And that doesn’t even factor in the enormous human suffering. We believed that we could save money by pushing the problem into some vague time in the future—the same way we deal with our crumbling infrastructure. Well, this will be much more horrific and costly than rebuilding a collapsed bridge.
It’s taken until the last ten days, with the initial cases of Ebola in the United States, for most Americans even to become aware of the problem. Now people are panicked, likely to respond in completely irrational ways. Last week, FOX news commentator Elisabeth Hasselbeck asked Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, why we simply can’t seal our borders and keep Ebola out. That may be one of the most naive questions ever asked on Fox TV, but it typifies the ignorance of most people concerning the disease. Dr. Fauci was so taken aback by Hasselbeck’s question that he hardly knew how to respond.
Ebola’s going to be almost impossible to fix by waving a wand, because most Africans have no access to basic health care. Nor do they have that much knowledge of preventive health: sanitation, washing hands, cleanliness. The reason? The majority of them do not have access to safe water; they live in remote areas, where news still travels slowly; they believe in indigenous solutions for confronting sickness and disease. They want to attend to their dead in a respectful way, which means touching the bodies. But safe water is still the basic health problem. Even in big cities like Lagos, Nigeria (with its millions of people), you can’t drink the tap water.
African governments have extremely limited resources for dealing with any health problem, let alone Ebola. Have we already forgotten the way that AIDS spread across Africa twenty-five years ago? Hopefully, Ebola will not become such a big killer, but in the process of being contained, it is likely—as most Africanists have already speculated—to destabilize a number of already fragile countries, resulting in mass starvation, social breakdown, and chaos, as people (the ones who are affluent and mobile) try to get OUT of the path that they now see spreading Ebola.
Before its full retreat in Africa, Ebola will spread to most of the continent and to the Western world, not in large numbers but enough cases for Westerners to become much more worried than they already are. African borders are mostly porous; people can easily move from one country to the next. There will be affluent Africans who will start doing whatever it takes to get away from the troubled areas. They will cross borders in lorries, taxis and other inexpensive methods of transportation and keep going until they reach a destination from where they will be able to hop on a flight or a boat that will take them outside of Africa. Can you blame them? This outflow of people—some of them already infected, as Thomas Duncan, the Liberian who died in Texas must have suspected he was—will bring Ebola with them in increasing numbers.
Fortunately, Western countries will be able to contain these cases, but the panic—as we have already observed—will become huge. Again, remember the fear about AIDS? So we’re going to see individual cases of Ebola pop up in hundreds of places outside of Africa, not just the few we’ve already observed. And this will—besides putting a strain on our own health systems and frighten people even more—hopefully finally get us concerned enough to fund the research and complete it for a vaccine or vaccines. In the meantime, it’s not going to be pretty.
Watch carefully, as the uninformed continue to spread the fear of contagion by their noise, their desire to blame someone, and the ugly incidents we are likely to observe as they throw alway everything rational for the hysterical
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests
