Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by Harmony 2, Oct 17, 2014.
The nurse isn't hiding in the bathroom and she isn't denying symptoms because she doesn't have them.
Do you mean for (gasp) 21 days? I'm guessing so....
or they could just send them over to work in Pediatric ICU? What would you want if you or your child was in that hospital?
Slightly OT But we have been watching The Knick on the Max channel. Clive Owen, surgeon,really good imho . But they have been covering Miss Mary Mallon. I have no idea if it's historically accurate but it's interesting nonetheless. I guess after the season ends, I will read up on her to see how accurate it was. Tks for bringing her up !
But we do have to look at it realistically. What they are doing would be like LE anticpating you might commit a crime and arrest you just in case. That is what they are ddoing. It has IMO become a power control issue - she tested negative more than anyone else I know that was set out upon the world after one negative test. She is like a double money back guarnatee. Throw in no fever at all and we got a really good chance that she is not infecting anyone , casue she is not sick, nor is the virus present in her bloodstream.
If an xray says a bone is fine you dont get crutches "just in case"!
That was NOT my point. I was pointing out human nature is to deny you are sick, deny you are of any danger, even lie (yes! we've seen that already) about things for your own selfish benefit. This was in 1901 and in spite of all of our advances.... some things are eerily the same when it comes to responses to these things. I'm sure Mary had her defenders then, too.
This is what I originally posted and you responded:
Since I was talking about Dr Duncan, who was out and about before he even developed a fever, I asked if you had any links to show that people at his stage of the illness were actually infectious or had passed on the disease.
It was then suggested that I was saying people with fever shoud not be isolated - not so.
The reason I asked, is because when I said that I did not believe anyone would pick up Ebola from Dr Spencer, you suggested that was a credible risk:
I do not believe that Dr Duncan posed a risk or that what he did had the potential to cause the death of anyone. He monitored his temperature, his temperature went up - he referred himself in to medical care before it even reached the threshold.
So I asked if there were any links to evidence which showed that the procedure he followed had indeed resulted in the spread of Ebola.
Anyway, I think this discussion has probably run its course so we may have to agree to disagree.
It is very late where I am and I need to sleep.
Um... So then, you can't catch ebola when the only symptom is fever. But you might be able to catch ebola having intercourse with a person before they got the fever. Is that what you are saying? Does that make sense? It doesn't to me. Spencer would be showing good judgement having intercourse before his 21 days were up??
The fact is that people are getting tracked if they had contact with someone that only had a fever. Look how they cleaned up the plane Amber was on and notified all the passengers. Even quarantined Nina's dog, and she only had a mild fever. Bottom line: If you are not contageous with only a fever, why is all this tracking going on. This is why people are so fearful. The powers that be are sending mixed messages.
Both Amber AND Nina were ill with the virus. We don't know what the precise moment was WHEN they may have become contagious. Your point about cleaning the plane and quarantining a dog when there was in fact potential of spreading the virus is WHAT?
Precaution, possibility, probability.
Sweet . . . :dance:
A happy ending: Bentley is officially Ebola-free, will be reunited with Nina Pham on Saturday
While we know enough about HIV now to determine treatment based on virus load - or perhaps CD3/CD4 levels, there has been an admission that we don't know EVERYTHING there is to know about the ebola virus. This stuff is uncharted territory. Generalizing one to another is akin to generalizing a whale to an elephant!!! Sure both are mammals but there are VAST differences.
perhaps until it is better understood, erring on the side of caution is the best approach?
seems to me that I've been involved in collecting samples to measure sloughing of virus other than HIV- H1N1 springs to mind.... so, that is an incorrect statement. it is not " solely in HIV", it doesn't determine when damage is done from the virus or inflammation simply that the illness is over.
Terrific! I bet that'll be one heck of a happy reunion!
Three cheers for Bentley!!!!!!
Tonight I heard on NBC nightly news that WHO said many of it's HCW returning from Africa were spending the 21 days in Europe rather than returning to the ebola stigma in the US. Can't say that I blame then. It's a no brainer..............spend 21 days touring in Europe or spend 21 days looking at the 4 walls of your house.
New thread: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?261012-Ebola-outbreak-general-thread-9
This thread will close in 10 minutes... please click the link to move the discussion over.
So you are saying the CDC is fearful?
Well, there can't be many of them. There have only been 148 total who have gone over ever.
Huh??? Spencer, Spanish nurse, mystery patient etc....
And I was responding to the definitive statement as to how ebola patients feel and behave.
Some health care professional expressed concern about why Dr Spencer did not seek treatment earlier as they felt that he was significantly ill. "A health care worker at the hospital said that Dr. Spencer seemed very sick, and it was unclear to the medical staff why he had not gone to the hospital earlier, since his fever was high." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/n...-bellevue-hospital-in-new-york-city.html?_r=0