Ebola diagnosed in Dallas

Parent Cafe
721

<p>"News flash - it is the CDC that is responsible for classifying viruses and diseases and determining their clean-up, transport and disposal.</p>

<p>It was the CDC that had the virus classified wrong and thus the DOT had no authority to grant transport permits given the guidelines it had. In short, the DOT did not have a transport procedure set out for it by the CDC specific to the transport of Ebola."</p>

<p>Yes, it was a DOT issue.What you wrote above^^^ is just plain wrong. CDC long ago “classified” Ebola - just take a look at the list of substances that are classified as “infectious agents”. Pretty much every major research institution has one posted, for example, this one (Ebola is among the others):</p>

<p><a href=“http://cancer.ucsf.edu/_docs/cores/forms/crc_specimen_transport.pdf”>http://cancer.ucsf.edu/_docs/cores/forms/crc_specimen_transport.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The guidelines for Class A agents are out there. It is the responsibility of the shipper and the carrier to be compliant with the shipping regulations, and the DOT has jurisdiction over what is traveling on the roads and in the air, not the CDC. </p>

<p>“The keyword here is “Special”. Obviously, there was no permit even available to be given, i.e., the CDC had not given the DOT specific Ebola transport instructions, which is the CDC’s job”</p>

<p>Some not so bright lightbulb scared of the word Ebola decided that the carrier could not take the waste as “medical waste”, it had to package it up as “infectious agent,” and the carrier had to fill out paperwork. Yahoo writers sound soooo smart when they put “special” out there, but in reality every permit is “special”. Ever tried to ship a carton of 32P waste that still had a couple of weeks to go until it could be thrown in the regular trash? :wink: </p>

722

<p>Re: wedding plans not disclosed. I can see why they did not want to tell anyone, if he came here on a visitor visa. Planning to marry and having a wedding would be a violation of his visa terms, technically.</p>

723

<p>Bunsen, ever tried to ship out a liquid MIX of 32P and 3H? Now that’s really fun!</p>

724

<p>LOL!!! That sounds like a ton of fun.</p>

725

<p>Some things are just stupid. This joke did not fly well with the public:</p>

<p><a href=“NFL National Football League News, Expert Analysis, Rumors, Live Updates, & more - Yahoo Sports”>NFL National Football League News, Expert Analysis, Rumors, Live Updates, & more - Yahoo Sports;

<p>Ooops.</p>

726

<p>

</p>

<p>Ah, the MailOnline. That fount of journalistic integrity. The “friend” seems to be referring to Louise’s daughter, who reportedly refers to Duncan as her “stepdaddy.” The only problem with this supposed denial on her part is that she is the one who called the ambulance, warned the EMTs, cleaned the place with bleach, and it taking significant sanitary precautions in her own apartment, according to the detailed and thoughful interview with the woman herself–not some anonymous “friend”–in the WP that I linked earlier. Unless the airport woman is yet another relative who calls him “daddy.”</p>

<p>While you are saying “no comment” about what you apparently feel is an insufficient age difference, why not point out that Louise is apparently 12 years older than Duncan, too? Is there any way in which these people cannot be smeared?</p>

<p>Regarding the transporting of waste issue, I read about that days ago in an article that pointed out that all hospitals do not have incinerators these days. It had absolutely nothing to do with how the hospital handled Duncan’s initial visit. As the article states, it simply meant that they stored the waste in his room temporarily. Clearly it did not interfere with the ability to treat him.</p>

727

<p>Wait. Are you saying the quotes are fake? Look, I have no clue which story is real and which is fake. There are too many versions and some really strange behavior by people we are calling family members. Such as not knowing his condition until contacted by press, for one. And, the information is coming out in really strange dribs and drabs seemingly when needed. I think we can agree this was not your typical wedding planning since she didn’t tell the pastor about the guy until he was here and in the hospital… Someone above suggested that may have been for visa reasons which is certainly possible depending on her status. But, there’s no smearing. There’s wondering, “What the heck?” I have no idea how many women call him daddy.</p>

<p>The entire backstory here is heresay from distant relatives who haven’t seen him lately, if ever. Btw, I don’t think it really matters at all. He lied to get here for some reason and he’s in big trouble one way or another and the Dallas hospital messed up. And, the CDC seems ill-equipped to deal with the first US Ebola case.</p>

728

<p>I was thinking about the little irony that HIV seemed to get it’s initial impetus here, and has since raged through Africa with the vengeance of Satan. Shouldn’t they have shut their borders to us decades ago? As time goes by…</p>

729

<p>I don’t think the quotes are necessarily outright fakes, but the anonymous “friend” maybe spinning tales, and sounds like a very unreliable source. The Mail is the kind of rag that will print anything juicy they can get someone to say, even if they know damn well the person is speculating, embroidering, or outright lying, and they will play it in a way that skates along the edge of outright lies. </p>

<p>For example, the woman could have said she didn’t want to hear people talking about Ebola if they called her after his first trip to the hospital, because she was hoping against hope that he didn’t have it. As in “Don’t say that, I don’t want to hear it!” At that time. Later, obviously, she was pretty certain he did. But they’ll make the whole thing sound like she went on saying this after they knew for certain he did, and that simply doesn’t mesh with her other actions.</p>

<p>I agree that the story is emerging in dribs and drabs and that some of the “facts” seem to be directly contradictory, and the family relationships are confusing. I’m just not interested in condemning this unfortunate group of people for it.</p>

730

<p>Daily Mail is a tabloid, but they do get interesting photos sometimes. And tabloids have broken stories in the past.</p>

731

<p>Noticing inconsistencies and wondering is not condemning. I guess we could just say, “Oh, that’s too bad,” and ignore the glaring questions… How and why he is here in the first place is my biggest issue. But, that one seems resolved. The rest of their family drama can be kept private for all I care. But, if I’m going to have to read made-up sympathy stuff I might notice issues and conflicts. </p>

<p>Tabloids get news because they pay for news. Someone sold that airport photo for a nice wad of cash.</p>

732

<p>On HIV . . .</p>

<p><a href=“HIV/AIDS: Origins Traced to African City of Kinshasa in 1920s | Time”>http://time.com/3458868/aids-hiv-kinshasa-1920s-origins-drc-congo/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“HIV pandemic was created by 'perfect storm' of factors, study reveals | The Independent | The Independent”>HIV pandemic was created by 'perfect storm' of factors, study reveals | The Independent | The Independent;

<p>It is “raging through Africa” based on cultural sexual practices and superstitions. I’m pretty sure that closing their borders to American IV drug users and the gay population would have done anything to slow it down. Africa is not exactly a gay sex tourist Mecca.</p>

733

<p>

</p>

<p>This is a classic example of why bureaucracies create a mess of things.</p>

<p>My approach is always to find the responsible party, which makes the ultimate decision that drives other decisions. There is always such a person or entity. That party is then responsible for telling others what the directive is. </p>

<p>In the case of viruses, the CDC is responsible for two directives: 1) classifying the virus and 2) based on that classification, making sure the proper transport and handling procedures of that virus are understood by the DOT and for whichever other agencies involved to limit exposure.</p>

<p>The DOT clearly has history here and based on similar viruses, Infectious A-type, the DOT has specific CDC-approved transport procedures. However, the CDC decided to classify Ebola differently, even though it is like other Infectious A-type viruses. If the responsible party changes the standard, then it is responsible for informing others of said change. </p>

<p>I give the CDC Chief credit though, as he admitted that he thought it was handled. No one uses the term “I thought it was handled” unless he knows a change or exception has been made from SOP. He thought a change was handled, but it was not. </p>

<p>And the difference/change that was not transmitted (aka handled ) re the DOT is that even though all other similar type viruses are classified Infectious A-type for transit (and darn sure the CDC Chief knows that), the CDC classified Ebola differently and only told the hospitals. The CDC’s job was to tell everyone: the hospitals and all others agencies of any change from the standard. And the standard for such viruses was Infectious-type A, until now. And unless the CDC informed every entity downstream then the Ebola virus was classified wrong in the computers of the other agencies and thus they could not give a permit.</p>

<p>Looks like we just disagree here, as, to me, the CDC is the responsible party if it is directing the show. Since The CDC is directing the show, it cannot blame others if it tells Mr. X one thing, simultaneously fails to inform Mr. Y, and then thinks Mr. X and Y can work together. No, to work together, X and Y need the same info.</p>

734

<p>

</p>

<p>Would make no difference, as HIV is a blood-borne disease.</p>

735

<p>

</p>

<p>And this explains the failure of hospital personnel to put two and two together on his first ER visit – how?</p>

736

<p>“The DOT clearly has history here and based on similar viruses, Infectious A-type, the DOT has specific CDC-approved transport procedures. However, the CDC decided to classify Ebola differently, even though it is like other Infectious A-type viruses. If the responsible party changes the standard, then it is responsible for informing others of said change.”</p>

<p>If I have to ship a sample of filovirus to my buddies at another company, I will still have to follow the DOT paperwork for shipment of a Class A infectious agent. Can you please point me to the official documents that re-classify it? I have not been able to find any on the first pass.</p>

<p>I am positive there will not be any found! The issue here is much more prosaic - not some mysterious re-classification of Ebola into some mysterious new class of pathogen. The issue was: do we ship it as medical waste or do we ship it as an infectious sample? No one at the hospital could make the decision, because they have not had the experience. They needed to find a carrier that was licensed to take class A agent (not all carriers can ship certain bio and chem hazards). THE HOSPITAL should have had the plans in their books! I’m not talking about Ebola, I’m talking about plans to handle a stream of medical waste from a patient who is infected with a class A pathogen! We have had cases of anthrax in the US, and once in a while a case of Yersinia pestis pops up. Those belong to the same class.</p>

<p>It sounds like the waste was not an issue at all, unlike the media made it sound - oooohhh, the sky is falling! It is actually good that they packaged it up more securely, but not because it was so dangerous. Imagine how the chicken littles would be running and screaming if something happened to the truck that carried the bag with those catheters, gloves, and needles? </p>

737

<p>I think the Ebola guy did us a favor - his case was sort of a kick in the seat of the pants that exposed inefficiencies at many levels. We really need to re-focus from yelling and pointing fingers at all sorts of agencies and work on solutions.</p>

<p>The problem with development of drugs like the Zmapp is that no VC wants to fund them unless there is a $1B market out there. But when the “it” hits the fan, company stocks soar. Someone makes money quickly, runs for the exit, and then back to square one. Big, big issue.</p>

<p>Even development of diagnostics is a huge issue.</p>

<p><a href=“The Dire Need For A Rapid Diagnostic Ebola Test In West Africa”>http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/09/18/the-dire-need-for-a-rapid-diagnostic-ebola-test-in-west-africa/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>How much more would you pay for your airfare to institute a testing at the airports? (Do you know that after the anthrax attacks the mail is now being screened for it?)</p>

738

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree 100% with this. However, exposing inefficiencies and make changes while keeping the same structure are not enough. There needs to be a total restructure of why it means to be in control of a situation and agency.</p>

<p>It took me a while, but I see why I could not even not understand the CDC and government approach to things. </p>

<p>Basically, I am expecting proactive CEO qualities from a bureaucrat, which really should not be expected. This illustrates quite well the difference between government and the private sector. </p>

<p>The CDC Chief is on TV saying he is in control and acting the part rather well, but then lo and behold others can be blamed for something not being done correctly. </p>

<p>In the private sector, when a CEO says he is in control he actually understands and has ACCESS to all pieces required to make something work smoothly. It is not a show position. This why a company can get 1,000 units of X made in an emergency and delivered in 1/2 the normal time. </p>

<p>Currently, my first assessment of the CDC Chief is he cannot even get one set of trash picked up correctly. It is his job to make sure the pieces are in place and that it does get done. A real CEO cannot function like that and be in the job for very long, much less have someone else to slide responsibility off to.</p>

<p>So, I do get it now. He is not really in control, as per my business experience. I am used to people, who have chief in their title, having their fingers on all buttons of a process and can push does buttons, and get things done, major things done and small things done.</p>

<p>I also agree with your stop the finger-pointing is a good start. The finger should be pointing at only one person, i.e., the guy who says he is in charge. Anything else is useless to getting things done on time and correctly; just ask any CEO that runs a business.</p>

739

<p>

</p>

<p>There are two other economic aspects that are the actual inhibitors, not necessarily the need of $1B market. Although, I agree that a $1B market does help.</p>

<p>A drug would be funded for smaller markets if two things happened: 1) the FDA did not drag out the testing period to the average of 7 - 10 years, which is the average length of development today, and 2) companies are allowed to charge a proper price per dose to recover R&D costs and to give a return to shareholders who funded the company. </p>

<p>The FDA in several areas regulates how much a company can charge for a drug and to whom the drug must be given. And if it deems a drug too expensive, it can even take it off the market, if it thinks it is not allocated the way it believes it should. That makes no business sense, if one wants the best researchers creating the best drugs. </p>

<p>There is a set of strong arguments that government regulation of the drug development cycle and regulation of pricing and dosage allocations are major disincentives to producing a drug, market size not withstanding. No doubt, a large market does help, but really only because the unnecessarily higher costs brought on by too much regulations.</p>

740

<p>

</p>

<p>Part of the reason people come up with negative stories about the family is because people bring up madeup sob stories,“She was supposed to be a beautiful bride dreaming a wedding, aloving mother and wonderful familyetc.” If you say that then people will have to point out that the wedding wasn’t in the books even a few days ago and can’t make out what kind of familiy that is. Let’s drop all this nonsense and just follow the virus.</p>