<p>Don’t you love the statement form the hospital that calls her a “patient”? “Prisoner” is a more appropriate term, IMO.</p>
<p>Correction on Florida’s policy. Not quarantining, but requiring 21 day monitoring with twice daily temperature readings of anyone who is returning from an ebola stricken location. <a href=“http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gov-rick-scott-orders-21-day-monitoring-ebola-26463732”>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gov-rick-scott-orders-21-day-monitoring-ebola-26463732</a></p>
<p>Who is paying for her “care”? She has no diagnosis so insurance won’t cover a hospital stay.</p>
<p>Cuomo is the smarter politician of the two. </p>
<p>"When anyone returns to New York from the affected countries an in-depth interview will take place to find out the facts and circumstances, Cuomo said.</p>
<p>“If it’s a health care worker, they know better than anyone,” he said. “These people are really heros in my mind.” </p>
<p><a href=“Governor defends new Ebola protocol”>http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Cuomo-Ebola-quarantine-legally-enforceable-5848963.php</a></p>
<p>I think the Florida requirement sounds reasonable.</p>
<p>Hope the nurse doesn’t get a bill from the hospital.</p>
<p>A bill would add insult to injury. She should get Christie to pay it. And officially she isnt in the hospital. She is in a tent, am guessing nearby outside?? Am assuming the photo is the tent. <a href=“http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/10/nurse-returning-from-africa-outraged-at-callous-quarantine-treatment-in-new-jersey-108434.html”>http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/10/nurse-returning-from-africa-outraged-at-callous-quarantine-treatment-in-new-jersey-108434.html</a></p>
<p>So I took a look at this article that frugaldoctor posted, which studied the potential of transmission of the virus on different surfaces and by different bodily fluids: <a href=“http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/196/Supplement_2/S142.full.pdf+html”>http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/196/Supplement_2/S142.full.pdf+html</a></p>
<p>You can’t draw very many conclusions from this. The only clear conclusion is that cleaning with bleach is an effective way to clean surfaces that have been contaminated. Sweat, one of the more worrisome secretions that could be a vector since it’s hard to know when they are being deposited on surfaces, was negative for ebola but there was only a sample size of one. Saliva did come up positive for ebola at least in 3/4 of samples (12 samples tested), at least by RT/PCR analysis. It is unclear why RT-PCR gives more positive readings than the virus culturing, although the article cites 3 reasons: 1) enzymes in the specific body fluid may inactivate virus but not alter genetic material (good news), 2) RT-PCR is more sensitive, 3) collection, storage, and shipping of the samples may not have been controlled (this could mean that the virus is not terribly robust, but casts doubt on the results all the same.) Things which should be positive controls came up negative, like nasal blood from one of the patients who still had ebola. Vomit also came up negative.</p>
<p>Samples were collected a week after onset. This does suggest that before or the day that symptoms appear, virus is even less likely to be present. </p>
<p>It is still said that the virus can be shed in sweat and in saliva, and it’s not at all clear how long in the environment it may last. There are also two main strains of the virus in Africa, which may not be of equal virulence. According to the New Yorker article, a single viral particle can end up killing somebody, and a single strand of RNA is not going to show up by RT-PCR; it’s pretty sensitive, but not that sensitive. </p>
<p>Yes, someone is much less likely to get the virus from someone’s bowling shoes who just developed symptoms that day, but there is some uncertainty there. I wouldn’t necessarily stake my life on it. </p>
<p>
A week after onset of what? A week after the patients were diagnosed with ebola or a week after symptoms began? Or a week after onset of treatment?</p>
<p>" According to the New Yorker article, a single viral particle can end up killing somebody,…"</p>
<p>What kind of scientific evidence do they base this on? Could you provide that reference, please?</p>
<p>@jym ^I looked in the methods and the legend for the table and it’s not clear. I assumed it meant a week after symptoms.</p>
<p>I assumed the “tent” is an isolation tent inside a building rather than an actual tent.</p>
<p>“What kind of scientific evidence do they base this on? Could you provide that reference, please?”</p>
<p>This is from The New Yorker. The author wrote it rather than it being a quote from an expert, and there are no citations.
</p>
<p>For more info, pubmed.org is the best place to find primary research articles. I don’t see anything in the titles that jump out at me as being about this specific issue, though.</p>
<p>“For more info, pubmed.org is the best place to find primary research articles. I don’t see anything in the titles that jump out at me as being about this specific issue, though.”</p>
<p>Of course I am well familiar with Pubmed. I could not find anything on that topic in Scifinder either. The key word is “one particle in the bloodstream”. What are the chances of one isolated particle ever making it into the bloodstream from a surface that was touched by a carrier who has not exhibited any symptoms?</p>
<p>It is very convenient of the media to reference “experiments” without ever giving a reference to the actual studies.</p>
<p>Collegealum–read the whole article, though. When the author gets into specifics and talks to experts, it’s much more circumspect than t hat quote.</p>
<p>Treating these heroic healthcare workers like criminals will * predictably, inevitably * result in fewer of them going to Africa, at a time when we desperately need every one of them, and many more.</p>
<p>Jym, maybe the cost of her “care” will come of the prison budget. I doubt they even thought about this before they instituted the policy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Geniuses. That’s precisely the protocol that DWB already had in place.</p>
<p>Good point, garland. </p>
<p>
Sounds like she is in an outdoor tent, swimcatsmom. Well, I guess its not much worse than what she lived in when treating patients in africa 8-| <a href=“Doctors Without Borders slams N.J.'s treatment of Ebola nurse - nj.com”>Doctors Without Borders slams N.J.'s treatment of Ebola nurse - nj.com;
<p>Except that she’s in an unheated tent, dressed in paper in a place where the overnight lows tonight are forecast to be in the 40’s. </p>
<p>But it’s worse treatment than actual criminals get in NJ, I bet. And think about this – she’s being held by the authorities against her will, without charge, and without counsel (and for no medically valid reason, but that’s neither here nor there). Smells just the teeniest bit unconstitutional to me. </p>
<p>It’s just wrong on every level! Why can’t she be in her apartment? This is worse than any prior “quarantined” person has been subjected to! Where is DWB and ACLU? They should file an injunction on her behalf.</p>