New York Ebola case

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

EM Junkie

SDN Donor
20+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
557
Reaction score
97
So the latest Ebola case is a doctor in New York City who reportedly returned from Africa 10 days ago. Reports are he was out in public bowling as recently as yesterday. At least the mass hysteria can move farther away from my neck of the woods (Texas).

BTW a quick check of the ABMS website confirms he's ABEM certified (residency trained and board certified in EM for all you newbies).

Members don't see this ad.
 
Apparently he's currently an International EM fellow at Columbia-New York Presbyterian
 
We had Dallas Ebola. Now we have NYC Ebola. It appears that the policy some of you and your so-called consensus of "experts" supported, to allow more people with Ebola to fly back into the United States has done exactly what some of us ignorant fools predicted it would (see "Dallas Ebola" thread).

Your policy to allow people with Ebola to come into the US, has in fact, yes....allowed more people with Ebola to come into this country. Until you support common sense over your feel-good political correctness, it will continue to do so.

You want to go to West Africa to help those with Ebola? I'm fine with it. It's a noble goal. Just don't come back to this country until you've quarantined for 21 days before returning. He cavorted around Manhattan, took mass transit, took a cab that God knows how many other people have been in since then. All while having Ebola virus. In the most densely populated American City. How many have been on that subway car since then? And we allowed this. The next thing you're going to say is, "Ebola is not very contagious." How come it keeps getting through your fool-proof protocols and even the hazmat suits worn by even the experts in dealing with Ebola, themselves?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/2...hospital-in-new-york-city.html?_r=0&referrer=

Obama, why are you letting Ebola fly to this country? Why is Dr. Ben Carson not president? Why is Dr. Rand Paul not president?

We've had how many case now? 5? How many more are you going to allow to come over? 10?

100?

1000?

10,000?

There's a warped sense of political correctness that somehow it's "not fair" for other countries to have Ebola and not the US. You're putting your midterm election over American lives.

#KeepEbolaOut
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 12 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm curious I know the doctor's without borders regulations say to take your temperature twice daily, but there is no mandatory quarantine. Other than birdstrike do most of the people on this forum agree, that you would quarantine yourself for 21 days (even if there is no policy holding you to this) if you were providing medical care in west africa?

I appreciate the guys guts to go to west africa and his dedication to international medicine, but I have to wonder would I put my friends or family at risk (even if that risk is probably VERY LOW). Not passing blame, just curious what other docs on this forum think?
 
met him years ago in Queens. ER is a small world. Thoughts go out to him in New York.

Maybe a little concerning, music bloggers are reporting he attended a popular music marathon this week. Sounds sweaty.
 
you would quarantine yourself for 21 days (even if there is no policy holding you to this) if you were providing medical care in west africa?
I am likely going for 6 weeks with my disaster medical team in the next few months. my plan upon returning(unless I am provided with other options, which may happen) is to go directly from the airport to a hotel close to the local tertiary care hospital, watch a lot of movies, read a lot of books, and eat a lot of take out for 3 weeks. I won't see my family or go home until day 22. I will check my temp (neurotically most likely) several times daily. I will probably venture out to go food shopping every few days, but other than that will be a hermit. I feel like seeing my family or doing anything in public beyond what is absolutely necessary would be irresponsible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
The main public health impact from this doctor is going to be a strain on the system as the worried well who may have been in the same area as this guy seek medical attention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I'm curious I know the doctor's without borders regulations say to take your temperature twice daily, but there is no mandatory quarantine. Other than birdstrike do most of the people on this forum agree, that you would quarantine yourself for 21 days (even if there is no policy holding you to this) if you were providing medical care in west africa?

I appreciate the guys guts to go to west africa and his dedication to international medicine, but I have to wonder would I put my friends or family at risk (even if that risk is probably VERY LOW). Not passing blame, just curious what other docs on this forum think?
My best wishes go out to him, and I hope he beats this disease promptly. The point: I don't think this person in question did anything wrong because he followed US Ebola policy.

Current US Ebola national policy to allow Ebola into the country is doing what it was designed to do. It is allowing Ebola into the country.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
My best wishes go out to him, and I hope he beats this disease promptly. The point: I don't think this person in question did anything wrong because he followed US Ebola policy.

Current US Ebola national policy to allow Ebola into the country is doing what it was designed to do. It is allowing Ebola into the country.
This. All this talk of "well, the other guys self-quarentined!" is pointless. The "experts" alluded to in other threads have created a situation where what this gentleman was doing was precisely aligned with our national policy. That seems...sub-optimal considering the outcome. Why he couldn't have quarantined in place, having been purposefully exposed to EVD, for the full 21 days is beyond me. "But, that would decrease the incentives for other Western providers to go to West Africa and help!" I hear some of you screaming at your monitor. Yes, that may be true. I'm ok with that. I'm more concerned that an index case of EVD, contracted many thousands of miles away spent the last few days strolling around and trying to knock out 1-10 splits with a deadly communicable disease in the heart of our most populace, and most densely populated, city. How is this the best we can do for policy?
 
Someone find any document for me that shows anywhere in our current policy anything about keeping Ebola cases out of this country. Anything. So far, all I've seen is what we're going to do when they get here, once they've arrived. I haven't seen one mention of anything that would do that. Our policy says, "Come with your Ebola to the US. Then we will..."

We need to change it to, "Stay where you're at. Don't bring Ebola here. It's a deadly plague with epic potential. However, if this first line of defense breaks down, our contingency plan for dealing with cases that get through, is..."
 
Last edited:
sure... let's just blame the President for this problem, too...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
sure... let's just blame the President for this problem, too...
Agency responsible for protecting public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease: CDC

Director of CDC: Thomas Frieden MD

Dr. Thomas Frieden is appointed by and reports to (through the executive branch hierarchy):

President Barack Obama
 
Eh. The advice the POTUS is receiving from his public health and infectious disease experts, as they've stated publicly, is that such drastic quarantine as you call for will simply make it more difficult for active surveillance of possible future cases to occur.

I'm not qualified to have a better opinion. Birdstrike, however, is. As are all the same politicians who say "I'm not a scientist" when discussing climate change, who are now perfectly happy to be infectious disease and public health specialists when it suits them.

I usually at least agree or find your position reasonable, Birdstrike, but not this time.

It's easy to give into hysteria, and it sure plays well on TV for everyone who dislikes the current administration to gleefully find more possible blame to pile upon. Everyone's freaking out about his subway ride even in the absence of symptoms – yet the initial Dallas case spent several days, quite ill, at home, and none of those exposed were infected. Unless you're in direct contact with the fluids of the deathly ill – as all these health workers were – there's simply no basis for concern.

It's certainly possible the experts advising the President could be proven wrong again. They've already made missteps. But the headline "Barack Obama: The President Who Invited Ebola To America" is such drivel it erodes your credibility as an intelligent voice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Eh. The advice the POTUS is receiving from his public health and infectious disease experts, as they've stated publicly, is that such drastic quarantine as you call for will simply make it more difficult for active surveillance of possible future cases to occur.

I'm not qualified to have a better opinion. Birdstrike, however, is. As are all the same politicians who say "I'm not a scientist" when discussing climate change, who are now perfectly happy to be infectious disease and public health specialists when it suits them.

I usually at least agree or find your position reasonable, Birdstrike, but not this time.

It's easy to give into hysteria, and it sure plays well on TV for everyone who dislikes the current administration to gleefully find more possible blame to pile upon. Everyone's freaking out about his subway ride even in the absence of symptoms – yet the initial Dallas case spent several days, quite ill, at home, and none of those exposed were infected. Unless you're in direct contact with the fluids of the deathly ill – as all these health workers were – there's simply no basis for concern.

It's certainly possible the experts advising the President could be proven wrong again. They've already made missteps. But the headline "Barack Obama: The President Who Invited Ebola To America" is such drivel it erodes your credibility as an intelligent voice.
There's absolutely nothing, that improves the health risk of anyone in the United States, by not trying to quarantine Ebola cases on the other side of the border first. I don't care what your politically driven "experts" say, who have to temper their medical-policy recommendations through the political ideology of the one who gave them their jobs and whom they must please to stay employed.

I hope you're right, that Ebola turns out to be no big deal and fizzles out. And you can say my post is "drivel," and call me names or whatever. But if this outbreak doesn't get quashed it will be part of Obama's legacy that his policy was too reactive and not proactive enough. He's doubled down on a policy that makes many people, myself included as a doctor, uncomfortable. Even the governors of NY and NJ have apparently agreed at least in part, having decided to institute stronger quarantine protocols than those imposed by the federal government. You apparently put great trust in his CDC advisors based on their performance to date. Personally, I'm not so sure. Even if it does get stamped out, Ebola isn't going away at it's source and we'll face this all over again at some point. And if this continues and enough cases come here, be damn sure he'll flip the policy, but not before it's too late. And yes, my headline was an attention-getter. But it's true isn't it? The policy is, "If you have Ebola, feel free to come to the US and we'll quarantine you here." Yet we've already seen this fail. We've already seen transmission precautions fail miserably as many Ebola expert physicians have gotten ill, some even having died of the disease overseas. You can get upset when it's mirrored back to you because of how ridiculous it appears, and because it reflects poorly on someone you support, but it's a fact. By not stopping people to quarantine before they come, we are inviting a communicable disease here. And it's a calculated political risk Obama has taken. I hope he turns out to be right.

Everyone is saying that you can't stop flights coming from Africa because there are no direct flights from West Africa. If what I'm saying is "drivel" then answer one question for me. Why can't we make an effort, at least make an effort, to stop and quarantine suspected Ebola patients before they get on their flight, and arrive here? Why do they have to quarantine here? Quarantine in Europe. Quarantine wherever you're connecting from. Many of these countries have modern healthcare systems. Many of them could do just as good of a job as us. In fact many of them have health care systems some of you have been claiming are "superior" to the US healthcare system, and by that logic these patients have an even better chance of surviving there. These countries are our allies, and apparently they're more than content to let these patient get on planes and fly out of their countries and heap the responsibility of quarantine and risk of a plague on the US.

Yes this issue is heated. Yes it's getting political when it shouldn't. Whether someone voted for Obama and doesn't want to see him perform poorly is much less important is than stopping an Ebola plague in the US. Saving face for Obama is secondary. I don't think we need to have a policy which says, "Come with your Ebola to America. Then..." Get offended, but that is the policy of your and my President. The policy should start here, "Stop. Quarantine where you are, and then fly back after 21 days and cleared by a foreign government. Then..." I just don't see how having people with Ebola quarantine before they get on a plane could do anything other than lessen our risk of a Ebola here in the US, or at worst, have no effect.

Answer the question, please. Why not quarantine before getting on the plane?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Answer the question, please. Why not quarantine before getting on the plane?

As I said above, I'm not an expert, and it's silly for me – or you – have such illusion of expertise in the matter. An argument, however persuasive and well-written – if the foundational premise is fractured, it's meaningless. And my knowledge base re: infectious disease and quarantine is insufficient to provide such counter-argument.

So, I'm not going to argue. I'll let other sources do so:
http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-slam-ebola-travel-ban-2014-10
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/the-argument-against-an-ebola-travel-ban/381577/
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/18/6994413/research-travel-bans-ebola-virus-outbreak
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...estrictions-might-hurt-health-worsen-epidemic

And if those are not sufficiently relevant to your concerns, why not directly ask an expert? Why SDN?
 
I'm not taking about a travel ban. I'm talking about quarantining before they get on a plane to the US, not from Africa but from their connecting countries. That can be done as much at the source country as it can be here. I think we should at least try to quarantine as many as we can before they get here, even if it doesn't contain the virus 100%. And why discuss this on SDN? The same reason we discuss anything on SDN.

The doctor connected through Brussels, Belgium. He could have been quarantined there, rather than schlepping around the high-line and the rest of Manhattan.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/retracing-steps-dr-craig-spencer-ebola-diagnosis/story?id=26418093

Then they tell us, "Don't worry. Ebola is not contagious," as they break out decon-suits and equipment that looks like a scene from Outbreak. All because it's "not very contagious."

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...st-ebola-case-as-man-brought-to-hospital.html

Why no effort to quarantined at the source? These are competent first world countries. They're happy to out these people on planes and let us deal with it. There's no reason we can't make at least some effort to do this. As a doctor, voter and US citizen, I think we need to get more aggressive with this. That's all I'm saying. Don't tell me on one hand this is the worst potential plague of our time, them on the other hand tell me that it's "no big deal," and "not very contagious," and that somehow the best way to keep it under control is to let more of it come to America. I'm not buying what the experts are selling. They've been wrong before. Some of these experts are "world health" experts and want the US to go back and forth with help. Their primary concern may be with getting the outbreak under control at it's source and know US help is needed. Whether the US gets a few cases may not be their primary concern. In fact, they may be hoping that if the US gets afflicted with this at a greater scale, that US drug companies may light a more aggressive fire to get some more effective therapies for this disease. Politics my friend. Politics.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/10/ebola-graphics
 
Last edited:
Barack Obama: The President That Invited Ebola to America

By Birdstrike M.D. Emergency Physician


We had Dallas Ebola. Now we have NYC Ebola. It appears that the policy some of you and your so-called consensus of "experts" supported, to allow more people with Ebola to fly back into the United States has done exactly what some of us ignorant fools predicted it would (see "Dallas Ebola" thread).

Your policy to allow people with Ebola to come into the US, has in fact, yes....allowed more people with Ebola to come into this country. Until you support common sense over your feel-good political correctness, it will continue to do so.

You want to go to West Africa to help those with Ebola? I'm fine with it. It's a noble goal. Just don't come back to this country until you've quarantined for 21 days before returning. He cavorted around Manhattan, took mass transit, took a cab that God knows how many other people have been in since then. All while having Ebola virus. In the most densely populated American City. How many have been on that subway car since then? And we allowed this. The next thing you're going to say is, "Ebola is not very contagious." How come it keeps getting through your fool-proof protocols and even the hazmat suits worn by even the experts in dealing with Ebola, themselves?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/2...hospital-in-new-york-city.html?_r=0&referrer=

Obama, why are you letting Ebola fly to this country? Why is Dr. Ben Carson not president? Why is Dr. Rand Paul not president? Why am I not President? I don't know if I can take this anymore. I may have to out myself and go public.

We've had how many case now? 5? How many more are you going to allow to come over? 10?

100?

1000?

10,000?

There's a warped sense of political correctness that somehow it's "not fair" for other countries to have Ebola and not the US. You're putting your midterm election over American lives. Well, you're getting what you want. Fairness in political correctness and fairness in plague.


#KeepEbolaOut
Holy **** this is melodramatic. The experts have said there's no reason to stop flights from overseas. I know you don't trust them, but there's no reason for the hyperbole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Holy **** this is melodramatic. The experts have said there's no reason to stop flights from overseas. I know you don't trust them, but there's no reason for the hyperbole.
I hope you're right. If the outbreak gets snuffed out and never recurs, then I'll be happy to eat my words. If not, then I suppose we will have much bigger problems on our hands then whether I was "melodramatic" or not.
 
Last edited:
I hope you're right. If the outbreak gets snuffed out and never recurs, then I'll be happy to eat my words. If not, then I suppose we will have much bigger problems on our hands then whether I was "melodramatic" or not.
Are you truly worried about Ebola? There are worse things on this planet, and they are not viruses.
 
hopefully by the time the health care response gets into full swing the accommodations and treatment will be better than an unheated tent and a granola bar:

http://www.nytimes.c...ebola.html?_r=0

this is shameful treatment of a health care worker who went out of her way to help others. if they thought she was sick, she should have been in an isolation unit/icu. if they thought she was well, she should have been provided appropriate housing and food. more stories like this and I might reconsider my trip...
Free Motel 6, mcdonalds, and pizza is looking pretty good right about now...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Eh. The advice the POTUS is receiving from his public health and infectious disease experts, as they've stated publicly, is that such drastic quarantine as you call for will simply make it more difficult for active surveillance of possible future cases to occur.

I'm not qualified to have a better opinion. Birdstrike, however, is. As are all the same politicians who say "I'm not a scientist" when discussing climate change, who are now perfectly happy to be infectious disease and public health specialists when it suits them.

I usually at least agree or find your position reasonable, Birdstrike, but not this time.

It's easy to give into hysteria, and it sure plays well on TV for everyone who dislikes the current administration to gleefully find more possible blame to pile upon. Everyone's freaking out about his subway ride even in the absence of symptoms – yet the initial Dallas case spent several days, quite ill, at home, and none of those exposed were infected. Unless you're in direct contact with the fluids of the deathly ill – as all these health workers were – there's simply no basis for concern.

It's certainly possible the experts advising the President could be proven wrong again. They've already made missteps. But the headline "Barack Obama: The President Who Invited Ebola To America" is such drivel it erodes your credibility as an intelligent voice.

I don't think Birdstike is stirring up hysteria at all. There is a difference--somewhere in-between hysteria and being rather laissez-faire. It is perfectly reasonable to want to find the balance.
But we shall see what happens. Beyond having an intellectual understanding of a condition, situation, or a deadly, infectious virus such as Ebola, we are obligated to think prudently beyond that immediate understanding and 'make ready' in the event this virus affects our citizens here in America. Oh, but wait. That's right. It already has.

I genuinely hope we don't get caught unaware, all b/c we didn't employ the good ole Boy Scout adage of "always be prepared." If this things moves beyond isolated incidences here or there, people won't be calling anyone hysterical. They will be wanting to kick someone's butt as they avoid loathing their own for not calling for better controls earlier on.
 
hopefully by the time the health care response gets into full swing the accommodations and treatment will be better than an unheated tent and a granola bar:

http://www.nytimes.c...ebola.html?_r=0

this is shameful treatment of a health care worker who went out of her way to help others. if they thought she was sick, she should have been in an isolation unit/icu. if they thought she was well, she should have been provided appropriate housing and food. more stories like this and I might reconsider my trip...
Free Motel 6, mcdonalds, and pizza is looking pretty good right about now...


Well, I am sorry, but Oh brother. No one as yet can pin down that she was absolutely in a tent outside the hospital for a prolonged period of time. They are not clear on that. Also, she and others are going to feel like horse's butts if she down come down with the virus. I certainly hope she doesn't. This media bit, however, is a little dramatic--even the ACLU is jumping at this--and of course along with certain "brands" of media.

I am sincerely glad for her work in these areas and with these patients. She is right. They need more help. No question. But if I were her, I'd want to be sure I didn't pose any kind of threat to others. If that means I'd have to hunker down for those annoying 21 days, well that's what I'd have to do. I wouldn't like it; but I'd do it. And if I didn't become sick, I'd be thanking God and moving forward with my life.

I do, however, think that if they are going to enforce this, they should take measures to keep her comfortable and provide for her. Sitting in a tent, in Newark, NJ, of all places, if true, is just ridiculous. So, I agree emedpa, they should provide the appropriate accommodations for this person and any others in a similar predicament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
hopefully by the time the health care response gets into full swing the accommodations and treatment will be better than an unheated tent and a granola bar:

http://www.nytimes.c...ebola.html?_r=0

this is shameful treatment of a health care worker who went out of her way to help others. if they thought she was sick, she should have been in an isolation unit/icu. if they thought she was well, she should have been provided appropriate housing and food. more stories like this and I might reconsider my trip...
Free Motel 6, mcdonalds, and pizza is looking pretty good right about now...
People are ****ing idiots.
 
NY just reversed their stance and will allow monitored in-home quarantine.
 
NY just reversed their stance and will allow monitored in-home quarantine.


Let's hope she will keep her butt at home and secluded until she is fully cleared. The problem is that there are people that don't do that. I'd be scared out of my mind to interact with others until cleared. Healthcare workers are used to pushing themselves. Scratchy throat, a little bit a temp, no big deal. So this is part of what makes them more dangerous--it's that mentality to keep going and not accept that the achy, sicky feeling might be something OTHER than a cold or such--even when they knew that had had direct and routine contact with very ill Ebola patients.

But hospitals and centers are notorious for not giving a crap about a nurse or doctor being ill with a cold or even walking pneumonia. Stupidly they don't even set aside pure sick time. It's all a part of PTO cutting into a person's vacation time. Basically, it's a pretty unhealthy mentality and system. We can take care of sick people; but we are to be damned if we get sick or want to proactively take care of ourselves. It's a form of rationalized insanity. Meanwhile health workers come on in to the hospital, sharing their cold-viruses or GI-viruses with other healthcare personnel, patients, other staff, and visitors. And guess what? These doctors, nurses, staff, family members, etc get to take it home to their families. It's really an intelligent approach. :rolleyes:
 
There's absolutely nothing, that improves the health risk of anyone in the United States, by not trying to quarantine Ebola cases on the other side of the border first. I don't care what your politically driven "experts" say, who have to temper their medical-policy recommendations through the political ideology of the one who gave them their jobs and whom they must please to stay employed.

This letter in NEJM, strongly disagrees with you on the risk issue:

"A cynic would say that all these “facts” are derived from observation and that it pays to be 100% safe and to isolate anyone with a remote chance of carrying the virus. What harm can that approach do besides inconveniencing a few health care workers? We strongly disagree. Hundreds of years of experience show that to stop an epidemic of this type requires controlling it at its source. Médecins sans Frontières, the World Health Organization, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and many other organizations say we need tens of thousands of additional volunteers to control the epidemic. We are far short of that goal, so the need for workers on the ground is great. These responsible, skilled health care workers who are risking their lives to help others are also helping by stemming the epidemic at its source. If we add barriers making it harder for volunteers to return to their community, we are hurting ourselves."
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1413139

I quickly googled the authors and while they seemed to have pretty good credentials, none were employees of the president you blame for inviting Ebola into the country. They just happen believe that the only way to really stop Ebola is to extirpate it in Africa, and creating circumstances that will reduce the flow of volunteers will make that more difficult. You may disagree with these experts on that point, but it is hardly a radical position, and certainly not one that ought to trigger your enormous outflow of hateful bile.

Consider:

Yes this issue is heated. Yes it's getting political when it shouldn't. Whether someone voted for Obama and doesn't want to see him perform poorly is much less important is than stopping an Ebola plague in the US.

or this:

In fact, they may be hoping that if the US gets afflicted with this at a greater scale, that US drug companies may light a more aggressive fire to get some more effective therapies for this disease. Politics my friend. Politics.

Here's a tip, Birdstrike. If you really want to persuade people and change minds, rather than just posturing for the anti-Obama choir, stop spouting nonsense like the above. Do you really, in your heart of hearts, forgetting for a moment the tough-talking, truth-teller-to-the-liberal-establishment image that you so carefully cultivate, do you really and honestly believe that Obama voters believe it is "much less important" to stop Ebola in the US than to not have Obama be seen to perform poorly? Do you really think public health authorities want Ebola in the US on a "greater scale"? If you truly believe that, I pity you. And the fact that you could attribute such views to others says a lot more about you than it does about the people you intend to smear.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is a prime example of how government overreach can actually make matters worse, and I applaud Obama for listening to the policy experts rather than the hoi polloi. Some of the people who are normally very wary of government intervention are screaming the loudest that the federal government must act. They are the ones playing politics.

Thought experiment: What would be their view if Obama had immediately instituted a severe travel ban and quarantine regime? Probably ridiculous comparisons to the Nazis/Fascists/et. al.

Anyone with eyes to see has seen this game for the past 6 years and isn't fooled.
 
althcare workers are used to pushing themselves. Scratchy throat, a little bit a temp, no big deal. So this is part of what makes them more dangerous-- :rolleyes:

Ji Lin, no disrespect but this is a huge, obvious fallacy -- false equivalency. You simply cannot compare a nurse with a sore throat to a person who has been in continuous close contact with Ebola in Africa and has returned to the U.S! They are two totally different situations, and I think it's safe to assume that HCW's returning from Africa are on high alert both for their own sake (it's scary stuff!) and for the possibility of spreading the infection. I don't believe they'd ignore symptoms and go to work just like a nurse with a slight tingle in his throat during cold season. Get real.
 
Ji Lin, no disrespect but this is a huge, obvious fallacy -- false equivalency. You simply cannot compare a nurse with a sore throat to a person who has been in continuous close contact with Ebola in Africa and has returned to the U.S! They are two totally different situations, and I think it's safe to assume that HCW's returning from Africa are on high alert both for their own sake (it's scary stuff!) and for the possibility of spreading the infection. I don't believe they'd ignore symptoms and go to work just like a nurse with a slight tingle in his throat during cold season. Get real.


You have completely missed THE POINT--and it referred to not only nurses, but doctors, and other healthcare personnel, like RRTs, etc. No kidding the two are different, lol.

The mentality pounded into healthcare workers like physicians, nurses, RRTs, etc is one of "Suck it up and come into work, regardless if you have a cold, walking pneumo, and contagious GI bug..." Once you have programmed people to think like that (and as an aside point, I am saying that alone is so WRONG for more reasons that I care to elaborate on at this point), it's tough to break it. So they (healthcare people) begin to think as they were programmed to think, and they push out of their mind their symptoms and so forth and go on with life. This is just ONE of the very things that make healthcare workers that have worked closely with sick Ebola patients even riskier--as we have seen with Dr. Spencer in NY. What did he do? He went out and about, on subways, bowling, out to dinner, etc. He went on with life as usual; b/c, first, it's a human response to think, "Oh it will never happen to me." Secondly, healthcare workers are trained to blow off sickness, bugs, etc, because the hospitals want their butts at work no matter what. So, it's more of a built in mechanism pounded into healthcare people. It's almost some horrible shame to admit you may have something or are coming down with something, and the HC employers expect you are there no matter what--infecting others with WHATEVER cold virus or GI virus--and somehow, the whole HC world cannot function without you when you are ill. It's nonsense.

So, now you have people working with very contagious patients who have been trained in that same mentality--built into them over time. What makes anyone think they will routinely bypass this conditioning after they come home from caring for Ebola patients? You can tell them, as a mother does to her children, not to do something; but once a habit is established--a mentality is ingrained, it's tough to break.

Interestingly I would add, that the nurse in Texas named Amber that got on a flight to carry on with business as usual was raked over the coals, even after being directed by someone at the CDC that's she's good to go; whilst the physician in NY is called a hero by many--even though he was flagrantly irresponsible. So, yes, in fact, healthcare workers already have ignored tingles in their throat and general viral malaise.

The point had nothing to do with comparing Ebola to a typical cold virus or the like. It is about how we program HCWs, and how that is a problem for Ebola as well as the stupid other colds and GI bugs we expect them to go into work with and share with everyone else. In short BH, it is about a trained/ingrained mentality and how it already posses a problem when it comes to the various general colds and GI bugs, etc, and how this makes these folks perhaps more of a danger, b/c they have been taught and trained over time to suck it up and carry on with life. They may in their conscious minds think one way; but people often function by what is programmed and mixed in subconsciously. This is the point of indoctrination--so you don't have to worry about thinking things through all the time. It's been used in the military and other areas for forever for heaven's sake. Do you really think every thing you do, think, rationalize, is out of immediate, intellectual and logical reasoning? Are you really that naïve?

Medicine, nursing, and HC, well it hasn't really gotten the hypocrisy in this programmed attitude. We should be examples to society and the general population by taking care of ourselves. We only push this with things like smoking; b/c employers want to reduce the insurance costs from their HC employees. They say it's to be an example to the GP; but in reality that is BS. It's about money. If they truly cared about being examples of good health and wellness to the GP, they would not beat into HCWs about how they just need to ignore their contagious illnesses and keep on going--whilst they come in to the hospitals and clinics sharing their bugs with everyone else.
Again, this is something that has been ingrained into HC Ws over years. It is now part of the culture. It's part of the subconscious "think," not necessarily the conscious reasoning.

And please, before anyone goes there, I am not talking about making job-skipping babies out of healthcare workers. I am talking about when they are legitimately ill, and they need to take care of themselves in order to take care of their patients--as well as not make others sick around them. ONLY one hospital out of many have I seen administration not tolerate HC people--nurses, docs, etc, be sent home if they came in ill with a cold, GI bug, etc. Only one over two decades. And this was a non-profit cardiac/lung hospital. They had the integrity to say, "Go the hell home and get better, and don't expose the patients and other healthcare people and families to whatever you have." I wanted to stand an applaud them. Overall they had great post-operative recovery stats--the best in the country at that time. Someone there had some good sense.

Anyway, once more my point: since this ignore-attitude has been beaten into us, this mentality is also a problem when it comes to things like Ebola. Yes. I say our mentality may well be part of the problem, b/c everyone knows, healthcare workers are miraculously or stoically NEVER get sick or at least acknowledge it. It's not merely what you tell people to do; it's how you have trained/programmed them to think over periods of time.

And might I add, have you never seen, how, often, HC people make the worst (least compliant) patients many times? I have worked in the HC field for decades. Yep. I have repeatedly witnessed this. Yes, it's anecdotal; but in general, we don't want to be the patients in a strong way; b/c it goes against who and what we are supposed to be. Some level of HC supermanism or superwomanism.

Know what? I am really beginning to think it's a good idea that the new MCAT will have more subjects like psychology and social sciences. Wow.

My point was not a difficult connection to make.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Wow, it really takes you a lot words to express your thoughts, huh?

So you're arguing that HCWs who have been in hazmat suits in a hot zone in Africa for three-plus weeks, working closely with the dead and dying, in an atmosphere of extreme vigilance and caution, are going to shrug off early symptoms when they return because . . . . they've been trained to shrug off general malaise in a normal working environment.

That very well could be. Jury's out.

For his part, Dr. Spencer did monitor his temperature twice daily and reported the first symptoms immediately, so I don't think he was shrugging anything off.

Could have skipped the bowling alley. Bad call, but anyway, moving on...
 
Following the news very closely in the last few weeks, I feel like I just need to get this off my chest. I am so sick and tired of politicians using the term "an abundance of caution" when referring to efforts to contain ebola as if the efforts are excessive or unnecessary. It is also ridiculous for the CDC to infer that before someone manifests a fever or are symptomatic, they shed 0 virus and pose no risk for infection to spread. What exactly constitutes symptomatic? Dr spencer felt fatigued before he became febrile, was he infectious before he became febrile? Are these guys monitoring themselves with temporal, oral, or rectal temps? As ED docs, do we assume someone with mild viral dx aren't infectious unless they are febrile? That is preposterous and stupid. What if their temp was 100.1? If he wasn't infectious why did they decontaminate his apt with hazmat suits?

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no white and black moment when someone is infectious or not when they have been exposed to ebola and the CDC knows this and hence are recommending using an "abundance of caution" instead of saying the chances of transmitting the disease is absolutely zero.

So I'm tired of this argument that the nurse who has worked with ebola patients daily for weeks should just be allowed to run amok because she's "asymptomatic." And the argument that it would discourage volunteers from going over there? Really? If volunteering in an Ebola stricken country isn't enough of a discouragement then a 21 day in home or mandatory quarantine isn't going to discourage anyone.
 
Confirmed by Washington Times: State Department plans to bring foreign Ebola patients to U.S.


"Some countries 'are implicitly or explicitly waiting for medevac assurances' before they will agree to send their own medical teams to join U.S. and U.N. aid workers on the ground, the State Department argues in the undated four-page memo, which was reviewed by The Washington Times."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ns-to-bring-foreign-ebola-pati/#ixzz3HUaSUM00
 
Following the news very closely in the last few weeks, I feel like I just need to get this off my chest. I am so sick and tired of politicians using the term "an abundance of caution" when referring to efforts to contain ebola as if the efforts are excessive or unnecessary. It is also ridiculous for the CDC to infer that before someone manifests a fever or are symptomatic, they shed 0 virus and pose no risk for infection to spread. What exactly constitutes symptomatic? Dr spencer felt fatigued before he became febrile, was he infectious before he became febrile? Are these guys monitoring themselves with temporal, oral, or rectal temps? As ED docs, do we assume someone with mild viral dx aren't infectious unless they are febrile? That is preposterous and stupid. What if their temp was 100.1? If he wasn't infectious why did they decontaminate his apt with hazmat suits?

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no white and black moment when someone is infectious or not when they have been exposed to ebola and the CDC knows this and hence are recommending using an "abundance of caution" instead of saying the chances of transmitting the disease is absolutely zero.

So I'm tired of this argument that the nurse who has worked with ebola patients daily for weeks should just be allowed to run amok because she's "asymptomatic." And the argument that it would discourage volunteers from going over there? Really? If volunteering in an Ebola stricken country isn't enough of a discouragement then a 21 day in home or mandatory quarantine isn't going to discourage anyone.
Em4life, you silly, silly man. Obviously the previous US policy regarding Ebola outbreaks for the past 30 years, desperately needed to change. After all, over several decades it lead to a grand total of zero Ebola cases on US soil. After all, any ***** knows that to keep Ebola out of our country, we need to send as many volunteers as possible to fight Ebola overseas at its source, to contract Ebola, then return to the country with Ebola. If you had any brain, you'd know Ebola is not very contagious and couldn't ever possibly mutate the ability to be spread by respiratory droplets. To suggest anything else, is pointless fear-mongering and akin to yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Don't you know those hazmat suits everyone is wearing, are only because it's Halloween? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Also, I see the use of 6 unauthorized question marks in your post. Please, don't be silly, and think you are qualified to use that punctuation mark in the act of "questioning" anything regarding this, or any other matter, including those medical in nature. You are not qualified. Only those labeled as real "experts" are authorized to question, as such experts by definition have proven track records of infallibility, and are deathly allergic to all forms of opinion bias and conflicts of interest. After all, don't you know this involves Science? Sir, in Science, we don't "question." Clearly you are a bile-filled right-wing hate monger. You probably watch Fox News. Puh-lease. Get up to speed, Sir. /EndSarcasmFont




(Edit: Replace all "Sir" with "Ma'am" and all "man" with "woman")
 
Last edited:
That is WOman and ma'am to you birdstrike :)

Now this is an ebola hazmat Halloween costume
ImageUploadedBySDN Mobile1414547691.800619.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Wow, it really takes you a lot words to express your thoughts, huh?

So you're arguing that HCWs who have been in hazmat suits in a hot zone in Africa for three-plus weeks, working closely with the dead and dying, in an atmosphere of extreme vigilance and caution, are going to shrug off early symptoms when they return because . . . . they've been trained to shrug off general malaise in a normal working environment.

That very well could be. Jury's out.

For his part, Dr. Spencer did monitor his temperature twice daily and reported the first symptoms immediately, so I don't think he was shrugging anything off.

Could have skipped the bowling alley. Bad call, but anyway, moving on...


Well be, I really wanted to make sure you didn't MISINTERPRET again. :) And still, I don't think you understand the power of subconscious and habitual programming with folks. Obviously, we have seen where people just decide to go into normal life mode WITHOUT thinking long and hard about the potential consequences. These people that have done this have made my point. Did you ever do something so often, that even if you had every initial intension of changing it or had to change (knew you had to take find a detour), you still took the one you had taken habitually?

[Off Topic Note: BTW, just so you know. I am not the kind of person that takes all the stuff online personally. I may disagree with you on one thread and thoroughly agree with you on another or like your post. I say this (off topic as it is), b/c I realize my tone was strong. I apologize for that. My strong tone doesn't mean I am against you at all. I was making a point. OK? :) No worries and peace.]

I think the shrugging off with the doc was in him not self-limiting his outings.

Of course we don't really know when any of these healthcare people or others with Ebola got their first inkling of not being A OK. Was it a weird tingle along with some fatigue--which may have been taken easily for jet lag or allergies or whatever. See that's the point. And Lord knows this gets to be worse with HCP, b/c they have been trained to tough it up. They have had to work under all conditions. So being a bit more on the alert to me, would be very beneficial in limiting the potential for spread--but people being people and programmed as they are, is this truly enough? I hope so, but I have to tell you, I wonder.

Likelihood aside right now, at some point, maybe there will be folks that have had "enough" exposure and who are sick enough to cough out droplet particles or wait until they are more than just a tad nauseated and start vomiting while they are out and about exposing others to this? I mean it surely is not beyond the realm of possibility. Self-reporting and counting on people to be self-limiting is problematic. But alas, we shall see.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the article. It recommends screening at source countries and source airports, first.

"Screening international travellers departing three airports would enable health assessments of all travellers at highest risk of exposure to Ebola virus infection."

It sounds like a good idea to me. Then what does one do when a potential Ebola patient is identified to be at high risk for as Ebola, at the source airport, in the source country?

Choice #1- Start the quarantine process immediately, in the source country, to prevent spread to other nations, or

#2 Get on a packed jet liner, connect through Europe, then fly to a major hub airport in the US, and voluntarily quarantine yourself (maybe) while at high risk of having Ebola.

The choice seems obvious to me, which makes the most sense, and which we are doing. You decide.
 
And the argument that it would discourage volunteers from going over there? Really? If volunteering in an Ebola stricken country isn't enough of a discouragement then a 21 day in home or mandatory quarantine isn't going to discourage anyone.

"International MSF staff members commit to burdensome four-to-six week assignments in the Ebola-affected countries. The risk of being quarantined for 21 days upon completion of their work has already prompted some people to reduce their length of time in the field. Others will be less inclined to volunteer in the first place. This will present significant operational disruptions at the field level for MSF and other organizations, and lead to an overall shortage of desperately needed health workers, precisely when the Ebola outbreak is as out of control as ever.

As it is, MSF draws on a small pool of people with highly specific skill sets required in an Ebola setting. Further restricting access to that group of aid workers could have devastating consequences. Since March, MSF has sent more than 700 international staff to West Africa as part of its Ebola response.

Enhanced restrictions on returned aid workers in the United States could lead to similar measures being adopted in other countries, leading to an even greater impact on the ability to fight the outbreak in West Africa."
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/ebola-quarantine-can-undermine-efforts-curb-epidemic

Some HCWs go treat Ebola patients during the limited periods they have off from work and would have to reduce in-field time by quarantine time, others take unpaid leave and would suffer financial hardship if forced to stay away from work for 21 more days (Cuomo did say the State would pay those in quarantine if their employer did not, which is essential). If there are going to be quarantines, a more thought and resources have to go into how to limit the number of HCWs in quarantine, how to make the quarantines better for the HCWs and how to get more HCWs to Africa since quarantines will reduce the numbers going and their time in field. Maybe more military personnel and members of the uniformed PHS with civilian contractors providing backfill at military hospitals; maybe financial subsidies (cash, student loan forgiveness, etc.); maybe formal honors; maybe preferred future immigration status (just thought I'd push that button).
 
Top