<p>The CDC assures us that the temperature screenings are adequate yet a study published last month on a large group of Ebola patients shows that 13% do not show fever initially. They would not be detected with the temp screenings.</p>
<p>What are the latest reports on the availability of medications for treatment? Vaccines? I do worry about the world’s supply of these types of things in general. It seems, over the years, the manufacture of some life saving medications has been limited…some limited to just one manufacturer, some limited because there is not immediate demand…making it tough to supply when there suddenly is demand.</p>
<p>@Dad II, I can understand about reconsidering a trip…keeping an eye on the news. We have a trip planned which will involve flying and other public transportation. No plans to cancel now, but definitely watching the news for reports about the disease, but also for reports on how travel is being affected. We are also in the college search mode and this situation does make me think again about choosing a college that would require air travel…it may (hopefully [-O< ) become a non-issue for travel, but it could have far reaching effects over the next several months. </p>
Not sure if someone was at risk of contracting a deadly virus with the potential for a horrible death that they would take “shortcuts”. More likely a careless rubbing of the nose or eye or something.</p>
<p>From a medical and science standpoint, it is not unusual that she did not get sick. And, actually, can be expected. </p>
<p>For any disease, there are several “hurdles,” which must be overcome for the disease state to take hold. And, there are many who upon exposure, for one reason or another, will not become sick.</p>
<p>We could take HIV, as one example. It is estimated that 4- 5X more people are exposed to HIV than who actually show antibodies in their system, meaning they do not harbor quantifiable, detectable amounts of virus, but that does not mean they were not exposed or infected. No different than flu season, i.e., even upon direct exposure not everyone develops the disease state.</p>
<p>The problem with Ebola is that it is so easy to get exposed that eventually it infects the people who will get sick from it, which still a lot of people. </p>
<p>This is different, however, than deducing that everyone exposed will get the disease, because that has never been the case for any disease. The percentage of people who will not get sick upon exposure is anyone’s guess right now.</p>
<p>Also, as this strain mutates, our bodies fight back as well. There are people in Arica who have developed immunity (medically there has to be), but finding them and studying the pathway of said immunity is the problem.</p>
<p>This reminds me of the book “The Great Influenza” about the flue on 1918. A lot of similarities in regard to careless and untested attempts to stop the spread of disease. We are more informed now and should be exercising more stringent attempts to avoid the spread. </p>
<p>As far as protocol when removing protective gear, I wonder if each worker had a partner who stood by and watched them remove it, giving verbal prompts and reminders. Subconscious touching of the face could be stopped with verbal reminders and a talk through of the proper way to remove equipment safely.</p>
<p>As the mom of a nursing student who is doing her clinicals at a major Boston hospital, this is very concerning.</p>
<p>I read that book. Very, very interesting. That flu strain affected the younger and healthier, rather than the usual infant/elderly set. The stronger your immune system, the more horrible reaction to the influenza virus.</p>
<p>“I thought the late ebola victim came here to see his son graduate HS. Was there any current relationship with the mother of the child? He reportedly said he wanted to marry her, but was the feeling mutual.”</p>
<p>We don’t know. And, we will never know. He didn’t come for the graduation because he didn’t have the money for a plane ticket. That’s according to Louise during one of her live rants on CNN. But, there are other versions. This is awful and someone really should be doing something. And, no, taking temperatures at a handful of airports is not doing something at all.</p>
<p>CDC head says that ‘there clearly was a breach of protocol’ in explaining how the Texas nurse contracted Ebola. In effect, he’s saying that the nurse got careless. </p>
<p>Heaven forbid, he blame the CDCs protocols or the fact that they didn’t strongly advise the administration to block non-necessary travel from the affected countries to the U. S. </p>
<p>Human behavior is both conscious and unconscious. </p>
<p>It is the unconscious habits, muscle memory issues, which are the problems. When something is difficult to get off, muscle memory and habit says pull harder. When something is tough to twist off, we instinctively twist harder. And right there is a small microscopic tear and holes in a suit etc. Even though we do not think of them as shortcuts, those actions are shortcuts because the strength used exceeds tensile strength of the fabric or lid material.</p>
<p>And the human will do this no matter how much he consciously thinks about not doing it - unless of course he trains for months and months and develops new habits. </p>
<p>The term “Old habits die hard” unfortunately fits here quite well. </p>
<p>Do you expect anything else given past actions? </p>
<p>He was not there. And I bet he has nothing on video showing proving any of the nurse’s actions, but darn it, she is at fault.</p>
<p>But here is the CDC’s real problem - I did not hear him blame the healthcare workers in Africa for breeching protocol, and some of them got the disease? And they are the most careful in the world by now!! Hum… Why does he praise them, but not her?</p>
<p>How low can someone get? Not much lower, given the 60 -90% chance the healthcare worker has received a death sentence. </p>
<p>Ebola has historically been a virus that flared up in the outback of African countries, killed a few hundred people in small villages, and essentially burned itself out. While there has been some work on vaccines and medications, this is exactly the kind of research that gets very little funding. Who is going to pay for the vaccines and medicine for a disease that is primarily a problem in 3rd world countries? And scientific research hasn’t exactly been rolling in dough for the past several years – this is what humanity gets if they don’t want to invest in prevention. I assume it will get attention and funding now. But especially in recent years, seems like we have to wait until the house is burning before we think about purchasing a hose or fire extinguisher.</p>
<p>If someone is smart, they are making a killing on selling the strongest fever reducers on the market. I put money there is a strong black market there already.</p>
<p>Why? Do you think people are running around trying not to be diagnosed? Doubt this is the case… most people would want to get medical care ASAP if they knew they had it and were in a country with a decent medical system.</p>