<p>
Maybe there are no updates, just waiting. I was personally take aback by the WHO statement that transmission can occur up to 42 days. That’s a lot of days!</p>
<p>I wish the airlines would not contact everyone on the flights of an asymptomatic person. It is just adding to the hysteria. I am sure they are keeping their bottom line in mind, in case folks start flying another carrier. As soon as their profits drop, we the consumers will pay, as that will be a ‘reason’ for them to jack up fares, as if we are not being gouged enough! </p>
<p>Lots of people in this country with a particular concentration in Texas are quite opposed to the federal government “over reaching” and want limited federal power until such time as they want the federal government to stop flights and put people on house arrest. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Presumably nurses know how to take their own temperatures and don’t need a CDC agent to do it for them. HCW were supposed to be monitoring themselves. I’m sure it would have seemed a waste of resources to send a CDC worker to a registered nurse’s home to track her temp. Now because of this, that protocol may also have to change.</p>
<p>Airlines are probably being advised by their legal dept to notify the passengers.</p>
<p>Btw, BBC tweeted this about Ebola in the US:
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, that was addressed at this morning’s press conference. They reported that she and her family remain in quarantine and remain symptom free. They also reported that all other contacts of Mr. Duncan remain asymptomatic, including the EMTs.</p>
<p>
Or perhaps certain people think there are appropriate tasks for the federal government and appropriate tasks for state and local governments.</p>
<p>I am heartened that Dr. Frieden has now said that anyone being monitored for Ebola will not be permitted to utilize public transportation. Seems reasonable.</p>
<p>Are they going to work? Or are they staying home in self quarantine? Are the doctors who cared for Duncan still treating patients at the hospital? </p>
<p>Again, Duncan’s family LIVED WITH HIM for days when he was quite symptomatic, and so far none of them are sick. (not to mention living with his medically soiled clothing, sheets and towels for days afterward). I don’t get the hysteria about the nurse flying. Not smart on her part, but why does everyone on the flight need to be notified?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you see my post upthread #665? There is a report that the nurse did have a low-grade fever on the plane. Isn’t that a symptom?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s not blame the second nurse until we know a few more facts.
We don’t know how involved she was. We don’t know what the hospital said to the nurses as far as travel. As far as we know they may have said it’s ok as long as you don’t have symptoms. After all, the nurses caring for Duncan must have felt that they were safe enough, or they wouldn’t have treated him. They felt that if they followed the “protocols” they would be ok. </p>
<p>The hospital was having the nurses who were caring for Duncan care for other patients, sick patients, as well. I can imagine the reasoning of a young nurse, thinking that if she were really at risk, she wouldn’t be allowed to treat others simultaneously.
According to the TV press report, the Pham was not on their danger list. I imagine the second wasn’t, either.
So what message does that send to the nurses who cared for him?</p>
<p>Yes, she knew that her colleague was sick. But then she also may have felt that Pham had more contact, and maybe wasn’t careful. All speculation, of course, but I think it’s unfair to presume that these nurses had the kind of training that would instil enough fear of contagion of others that they would voluntarily eliminate contact with others without specifically being told to do so.
At least, until we know more facts. Personally, I am grateful that there are people willing to risk their lives to treat this disease, but until now, did they really know what they were dealing with? I’m not so sure.</p>
<p>
First of all, if the WHO is to be believed, it can be up to 42 days before it is confirmed that the family is not ill. They are staying put, so if they do become symptomatic they won’t spread the disease. Which is responsible on their part. Second, CNN is reporting that the second nurse had a fever when she flew. So who knows? Even if it was hours before the symptoms erupted, it’s not an on-off switch. Even Dr. Frieden thinks it’s prudent for exposed people to stay away from public transportation.</p>
<p>In Spain, those who came into contact with the sick nurse went into the hospital in isolation. Didn’t Pham’s boyfriend go into isolation? </p>
<p>Nancy Snyderman is now on mandatory quarantine having handled no bodily fluids yet the nurse is flying. </p>
<p>It’s these inconsistencies that make me think there is no clear plan of action here.</p>
<p>And I really worry about the young men and women in the military going into the hot zone. If the training and procedures were inadequate for nurses at a hospital, how assured can we be that the training and procedures for young men and women with no medical training will be? 3 or 4 thousand of them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, let’s be honest about that part. They were put under forced quarantine after they broke the voluntary one.</p>
<p>If you have a nursing degree and work in critical care, you should not need to be told to “self-isolate,” which let’s be clear, means you don’t put yourself amongst other people. I can give some leeway to the lay public in this instance, but I cannot, no matter how I support my fellow nurses, excuse the behavior of a nurse who works with an ebola patient who has died, and who has infected a co-worker (and she had to have known this by the time of her return flight) who proceeds to take public transportation and say she just didn’t know better. To do otherwise is just putting lipstick on a pig and calling it Julia Roberts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really hate it when people make political posts like this, but I have to respond that the people you are referring to often see the federal government’s role as somewhat defined and limited to protecting our borders. An argument can and has been made, that if the federal government had done something, anything to keep Ebola infected travelers out of our country, we would not be dealing with the problem at hand. Since they didn’t do that, then they should now have a role in cleaning up the mess.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since Texas is now a hot zone, then to be consistent, you believe that the federal government should do something, anything to keep Ebola infected travelers out of the other 49 states.</p>
<p>I am not opposed to it. But haven’t thought it all through yet. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good point. If they begin to get sick the 10 beds may not be enough.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like giving out a few thermometers to airport personnel? Since Ebola infection per capita is still far lower in Texas than in West Africa, how would the fed explain to take more stringent measures against Texas than the measures they are taking against West Africa?</p>