Ebola virus outbreak

InTheTrees

WakeUp wrote: »

the nurses have had a few choice words for the powers that be alright.

Suddenly a "healthcare" system that is geared to cater for the wealthy and insured is faced with a quandary, it seems they cant just turn these people away at the door after all.

WakeUp

InTheTrees wrote: »

Suddenly a "healthcare" system that is geared to cater for the wealthy and insured is faced with a quandary, it seems they cant just turn these people away at the door after all.

well actually, no. I dont think its that I think that might be unfair. the powers that be would never tell lies or willfully misinform some of the more naive among us would have you believe. yet here we have these nurses claiming such a thing. shock phukin horror. there is a statement on the national nurses united website this is some of it. make of it what you will.
__________________________________________________________

Statement by RN’s at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital as provided to National Nurses United:


This is an inside story from some registered nurses at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas who have familiarity with what occurred at the hospital following the positive Ebola infection of first the late Thomas Eric Duncan and then a registered nurse who cared for him Nina Pham.

The RNs contacted National Nurses United out of frustration with a lack of training and preparation. They are choosing to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation.

The RNs who have spoken to us from Texas Health Presbyterian are listening in on this call and this is their report based on their experiences and what other nurses are sharing with them. When we have finished with our statement, we will have time for several questions. The nurses will have the opportunity to respond to your questions via email that they will send to us, that we will read to you.

We are not identifying the nurses for their protection, but they work at Texas Health Presbyterian and have knowledge of what occurred at the hospital.

They feel a duty to speak out about the concerns that they say are shared by many in the hospital who are concerned about the protocols that were followed and what they view were confusion and frequently changing policies and protocols that are of concern to them, and to our organization as well.

When Thomas Eric Duncan first came into the hospital, he arrived with an elevated temperature, but was sent home.

On his return visit to the hospital, he was brought in by ambulance under the suspicion from him and family members that he may have Ebola.

Mr. Duncan was left for several hours, not in isolation, in an area where other patients were present.

No one knew what the protocols were or were able to verify what kind of personal protective equipment should be worn and there was no training.

Subsequently a nurse supervisor arrived and demanded that he be moved to an isolation unit– yet faced resistance from other hospital authorities.

Lab specimens from Mr. Duncan were sent through the hospital tube system without being specially sealed and hand delivered. The result is that the entire tube system by which all lab specimens are sent was potentially contaminated.

There was no advance preparedness on what to do with the patient, there was no protocol, there was no system. The nurses were asked to call the Infectious Disease Department. The Infectious Disease Department did not have clear policies to provide either.

Initial nurses who interacted with Mr. Duncan nurses wore a non-impermeable gown front and back, three pairs of gloves, with no taping around wrists, surgical masks, with the option of N-95s, and face shields. Some supervisors said that even the N-95 masks were not necessary.

The suits they were given still exposed their necks, the part closest to their face and mouth. They had suits with booties and hoods, three pairs of gloves, no tape.

For their necks, nurses had to use medical tape, that is not impermeable and has permeable seams, to wrap around their necks in order to protect themselves, and had to put on the tape and take it off on their own.

Nurses had to interact with Mr. Duncan with whatever protective equipment was available, at a time when he had copious amounts of diarrhea and vomiting which produces a lot of contagious fluids.

Hospital officials allowed nurses who had interacted with Mr. Duncan to then continue normal patient care duties, taking care of other patients, even though they had not had the proper personal protective equipment while caring for Mr. Duncan.

Patients who may have been exposed were one day kept in strict isolation units. On the next day were ordered to be transferred out of strict isolation into areas where there were other patients, even those with low-grade fevers who could potentially be contagious.

Were protocols breached? The nurses say there were no protocols.

Some hospital personnel were coming in and out of those isolation areas in the Emergency Department without having worn the proper protective equipment.

CDC officials who are in the hospital and Infectious Disease personnel have not kept hallways clean; they were going back and forth between the Isolation Pod and back into the hallways that were not properly cleaned, even after CDC, infectious control personnel, and doctors who exited into those hallways after being in the isolation pods.
http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/blog/entry/statement-by-registered-nurses-at-texas-health-presbyterian-hospital-in-dal/

Egginacup

InTheTrees wrote: »

Suddenly a "healthcare" system that is geared to cater for the wealthy and insured is faced with a quandary, it seems they cant just turn these people away at the door after all.

I understand that they're is no Surgeon General in the US right now because a bunch of simpletons in Congress blocked his assignment on the grounds that he spoke out against the proliferation of firearms and espoused the need to control weapons in order to "imporve" the health (read: life expectancy) of many whose health he is charged to consider.

So now that America needs a "Top Doctor" to explain the issues behind this entire Ebola scare....they don't have one, thanks to **** who couldn't tell the difference between Socialism, Capitalism and Botulism.

But it gets even more hysterically laughable. There is now an American Military ex-Captain who has stated that ISIS could infect themselves with Ebola and then just be 'carriers'....or something?

“The individual exposed to the Ebola virus would be the carrier,” he said. “In the context of terrorist activity, it doesn’t take much sophistication to go to that next step to use a human being as a carrier.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2014/10/05/ebola-as-isis-bio-weapon/

...and they actually PAY people like this.
:pac:

gozunda

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I would imagine they'd fall Ill quickly and the people they were in close contact with then quarantined in the event they get sick (which I believe unlikely unless they were sitting right next to the infected person who started vomit on them like a scene out of 28 Days Later). Bear in mind that anyone infected on the flight isn't infectious themselves for a few weeks.

As in this example?

http://news.yahoo.com/traveler-liberia-first-ebola-patient-diagnosed-u-003007621--finance.html

wexie

WakeUp wrote: »

well actually, no. I dont think its that I think that might be unfair. the powers that be would never tell lies or willfully misinform some of the more naive among us would have you believe. yet here we have these nurses claiming such a thing. shock phukin horror. there is a statement on the national nurses united website this is some of it. make of it what you will.
__________________________________________________________

Statement by RN’s at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital as provided to National Nurses United:


This is an inside story from some registered nurses at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas who have familiarity with what occurred at the hospital following the positive Ebola infection of first the late Thomas Eric Duncan and then a registered nurse who cared for him Nina Pham.

The RNs contacted National Nurses United out of frustration with a lack of training and preparation. They are choosing to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation.

The RNs who have spoken to us from Texas Health Presbyterian are listening in on this call and this is their report based on their experiences and what other nurses are sharing with them. When we have finished with our statement, we will have time for several questions. The nurses will have the opportunity to respond to your questions via email that they will send to us, that we will read to you.

We are not identifying the nurses for their protection, but they work at Texas Health Presbyterian and have knowledge of what occurred at the hospital.

They feel a duty to speak out about the concerns that they say are shared by many in the hospital who are concerned about the protocols that were followed and what they view were confusion and frequently changing policies and protocols that are of concern to them, and to our organization as well.

When Thomas Eric Duncan first came into the hospital, he arrived with an elevated temperature, but was sent home.

On his return visit to the hospital, he was brought in by ambulance under the suspicion from him and family members that he may have Ebola.

Mr. Duncan was left for several hours, not in isolation, in an area where other patients were present.

No one knew what the protocols were or were able to verify what kind of personal protective equipment should be worn and there was no training.

Subsequently a nurse supervisor arrived and demanded that he be moved to an isolation unit– yet faced resistance from other hospital authorities.

Lab specimens from Mr. Duncan were sent through the hospital tube system without being specially sealed and hand delivered. The result is that the entire tube system by which all lab specimens are sent was potentially contaminated.

There was no advance preparedness on what to do with the patient, there was no protocol, there was no system. The nurses were asked to call the Infectious Disease Department. The Infectious Disease Department did not have clear policies to provide either.

Initial nurses who interacted with Mr. Duncan nurses wore a non-impermeable gown front and back, three pairs of gloves, with no taping around wrists, surgical masks, with the option of N-95s, and face shields. Some supervisors said that even the N-95 masks were not necessary.

The suits they were given still exposed their necks, the part closest to their face and mouth. They had suits with booties and hoods, three pairs of gloves, no tape.

For their necks, nurses had to use medical tape, that is not impermeable and has permeable seams, to wrap around their necks in order to protect themselves, and had to put on the tape and take it off on their own.

Nurses had to interact with Mr. Duncan with whatever protective equipment was available, at a time when he had copious amounts of diarrhea and vomiting which produces a lot of contagious fluids.

Hospital officials allowed nurses who had interacted with Mr. Duncan to then continue normal patient care duties, taking care of other patients, even though they had not had the proper personal protective equipment while caring for Mr. Duncan.

Patients who may have been exposed were one day kept in strict isolation units. On the next day were ordered to be transferred out of strict isolation into areas where there were other patients, even those with low-grade fevers who could potentially be contagious.

Were protocols breached? The nurses say there were no protocols.

Some hospital personnel were coming in and out of those isolation areas in the Emergency Department without having worn the proper protective equipment.

CDC officials who are in the hospital and Infectious Disease personnel have not kept hallways clean; they were going back and forth between the Isolation Pod and back into the hallways that were not properly cleaned, even after CDC, infectious control personnel, and doctors who exited into those hallways after being in the isolation pods.
http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/blog/entry/statement-by-registered-nurses-at-texas-health-presbyterian-hospital-in-dal/

Or, as it's called in the US : one helluva lawsuit

ProfessorPlum

WakeUp wrote: »

well actually, no. I dont think its that I think that might be unfair. the powers that be would never tell lies or willfully misinform some of the more naive among us would have you believe. yet here we have these nurses claiming such a thing. shock phukin horror. there is a statement on the national nurses united website this is some of it. make of it what you will.

I hope that's not a little dig at me after out conversation yesterday - that was about misinformation regarding modes of transmission, remember?

Now it would only be the very naive among us who would believe that a hospital administration (or almost any organisation run almost exclusively by bean counters) would not be capable of getting involved in serious amount of arse covering in a situation like this. It's almost even more amazing that people think that hospitals are kitted out with the 'proper gear' for this kind of disease. They are not. My first reaction when I heard the nurses' 'breach of protocol', both in Texas and Spain was ' well, that's a little convenient, isn't it'. There's understandably a lot of 'learning as we go' here. I think the hospitals in question would be better served if they were a little more honest. At this rate they are loosing the confidence of their communities rapidly, and that will only lead to panic and hysteria.


As a point of information, although I think it's a technicality at this point, Nigeria and Senegal are not officially Ebola free yet. The WHO will declare them free after 42 days (Senegal tomorrow and Nigeria Monday), so including those two, we have 5 African countries affected with this outbreak, and a separate outbreak in DRC.

wexie

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think the hospitals in question would be better served if they were a little more honest. At this rate they are loosing the confidence of their communities rapidly, and that will only lead to panic and hysteria.

The problem with that is that being more honest would pretty much entail informing the public that 'we're not actually in any way equipped, trained or experienced to deal with this ****, we're trying our best though'

I don't really think that will help confidence much either.

ProfessorPlum

wexie wrote: »

The problem with that is that being more honest would pretty much entail informing the public that 'we're not actually in any way equipped, trained or experienced to deal with this ****, we're trying our best though'

I don't really think that will help confidence much either.

I think the secret is out, don't you?

I was thinking more along the lines of 'we've made some mistakes, but we've learned a lot, and in cooperation and with the help of the CDC, this is what we're going to do now. We're confident that these measures will be effective in containing this disease'

youtube!

So the 2nd nurse who became infected had flew on a plane with 132 on board, this is gonna be interesting to see how many (if any) get the disease, if nothing else it will tell us a lot about transmission chances.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29632433

Creative Juices

testicle wrote: »

So close? When was the last time you looked at a map? It's about 1000 miles!

5 countries in Africa have Ebola at the moment, not 4 as mentioned above. DRC also has an active strain, unrelated, but still Ebola.

This site is very good (but I cant post full links yet)

...internationalsos.com/ebola/index.cfm?content_id=421&language_id=ENG

1. Guinea: Major problems all over the country.
2. Liberia: Major problems all over the country.
3. Senegal: 1 case in August. WHO to declare country ebola free on Oct 17th.
4. Nigeria: Has been successfully contained after 20 cases. No new cases since early September. WHO to declare country ebola free on Oct 20th.
5. Sierra Leone: Major problems all over the country.
6. Congo: Only a problem in one part of one province (Equateur)

By Monday it is very likely that only 4 countries will have ebola with the Congo outbreak being very localised.

Maximus Alexander

Creative Juices wrote: »

This site is very good (but I cant post full links yet)

...internationalsos.com/ebola/index.cfm?content_id=421&language_id=ENG

1. Guinea: Major problems all over the country.
2. Liberia: Major problems all over the country.
3. Senegal: 1 case in August. WHO to declare country ebola free on Oct 17th.
4. Nigeria: Has been successfully contained after 20 cases. No new cases since early September. WHO to declare country ebola free on Oct 20th.
5. Sierra Leone: Major problems all over the country.
6. Congo: Only a problem in one part of one province (Equateur)

By Monday it is very likely that only 4 countries will have ebola with the Congo outbreak being very localised.

Shouldn't the US be in there at the moment?

MadYaker

Congo is a failed state and not safe for western aid agencies to enter.

Creative Juices

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Shouldn't the US be in there at the moment?

It is but I was replying to a post about African countries. Follow the link for all countries.

ProfessorPlum

MadYaker wrote: »

Congo is a failed state and not safe for western aid agencies to enter.

True, but they are there none the less.

Creative Juices

MadYaker wrote: »

Congo is a failed state and not safe for western aid agencies to enter.

They seem to be able to handle it somehow nonetheless.

PREVIOUS OUTBREAKS
The Democratic Republic of Congo has had several deadly outbreaks of Ebola disease in the past. These include:

1976: the world's first Ebola outbreak, which killed 280 people
1977: 1 person died
1995: 254 people died
2007: 187 people died
2008: 14 people died
2012: 29 people died

Cantona's Collars

There's always an idiot with a clipboard somewhere:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/16/1413418145946_wps_8_As_coverage_of_the_transp.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/16/1413418315034_wps_11_As_coverage_of_the_transp.jpg

So much for protocols.

Peist2007

So how long will it be before it is known whether anyone on that nurse's flight was infected? As someone says above, that will tell us a lot about transmission. It will certainly test the "you can sit beside someone on a plane with Ebola and not be in danger" line that was being trotted out over the past couple of weeks.

Canis Lupus

gozunda wrote: »

As in this example?

http://news.yahoo.com/traveler-liberia-first-ebola-patient-diagnosed-u-003007621--finance.html

So the original case in the US back on the 1st Oct? I would hope lessons have been learned since he was brought in and treated. They are already in the process of tracking the contacts of the recent nurse who travelled.

ProfessorPlum

Peist2007 wrote: »

So how long will it be before it is known whether anyone on that nurse's flight was infected? As someone says above, that will tell us a lot about transmission. It will certainly test the "you can sit beside someone on a plane with Ebola and not be in danger" line that was being trotted out over the past couple of weeks.

95% of cases will have incubated by 21 days, 98% by 42 days. 42 days is where the WHO have drawn the line to declare regions Ebola free.

Akrasia

Peist2007 wrote: »

So how long will it be before it is known whether anyone on that nurse's flight was infected? As someone says above, that will tell us a lot about transmission. It will certainly test the "you can sit beside someone on a plane with Ebola and not be in danger" line that was being trotted out over the past couple of weeks.

If there are no symptoms and if test results come back negative after about 21 days, the passengers are in the clear. But We don't really need to wait 3 weeks. There won't be any infections from the nurse on the plane. Ebola is no more contagious than AIDS before the patient is severely symptomatic and the viral loads are high. Even when the nurse first started to feel feverish, she may still have shown up negative on an ebola test because viral loads would still have been low.

Canis Lupus

Akrasia wrote: »

If there are no symptoms and if test results come back negative after about 21 days, the passengers are in the clear. But We don't really need to wait 3 weeks. There won't be any infections from the nurse on the plane. Ebola is no more contagious than AIDS before the patient is severely symptomatic and the viral loads are high. Even when the nurse first started to feel feverish, she may still have shown up negative on an ebola test because viral loads would still have been low.

That's not what he wants to hear.

littlemac1980

Canis Lupus wrote: »

So the original case in the US back on the 1st Oct? I would hope lessons have been learned since he was brought in and treated. They are already in the process of tracking the contacts of the recent nurse who travelled.

And all they will have then is a list of contacts.

Lists are just that - just lists. It's what you decide to do with them that counts.

The Nurse who took the flight was on a list. She was even on that list a few days after it had been discovered that one of her colleagues had in fact contracted ebola from Mr. Duncan - and that there was a much higher risk others would too (including her).

Yet they let her fly.

Why? Because they were over-confident and complacent.

The people responsible for reacting to possible Ebola cases in the Western World reacted like many of the less well informed posters here - like fools! - "Oh, sure its only really an issue in Africa where they haven't the sense nor knowhow to deal with anything"... "We'll be fine here, we have the best facilities and experts available".

One thing is for sure from the recent events in the US - the Africans are far more clued in to the dangers of this disease than the US are. The African's have been through it before. The US authorities are muppets.

Permitting that nurse to fly under circumstances where it was known another fellow nurse had already contracted the virus from Mr. Duncan, and the likelihood was there were going to be other cases among the list of medical staff and contacts of Mr. Duncan demonstrates the lowest level of intelligence imaginable - Far far lower than that we typically pre-judge may be common is Third-World countries.

Poor people in poor circumstances can be sensible despite their lack of formal education. All the education, degrees and experts in the World are no substitute for common-sense - which is clearly lacking in the US.

snubbleste

Madrid airport gone into panic mode due to a suspected ebola case arrival from Nigeria via Paris
http://www.abc.es/sociedad/20141016/abci-avion-france-ebola-201410161332.html

Lucy and Harry

http://bit.ly/1ocnn94 Person tested in Louth for Ebola.

realweirdo

youtube! wrote: »

So the 2nd nurse who became infected had flew on a plane with 132 on board, this is gonna be interesting to see how many (if any) get the disease, if nothing else it will tell us a lot about transmission chances.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29632433

Absolutely...and so many questions that could be answered too. Eg did she use the toilet? Did she shake hands with someone, did she touch anyone, what about the next person using the seat on the next flight? did she touch surfaces etc. This was a monumental c#ck up which could have put hundreds of people at risk. All that can be hoped is she wasn't shedding virus or if she was no-one picked it up. Luckily its not a truely airborne disease.

Streetwalker

Not going to take much for this thing to go south. The world just hasn't done enough.

Kenno90

Lucy and Harry wrote: »

http://bit.ly/1ocnn94 Person tested in Louth for Ebola.

It says right in the title that tests proved negitive

realweirdo

Akrasia wrote: »

If there are no symptoms and if test results come back negative after about 21 days, the passengers are in the clear. But We don't really need to wait 3 weeks. There won't be any infections from the nurse on the plane. Ebola is no more contagious than AIDS before the patient is severely symptomatic and the viral loads are high. Even when the nurse first started to feel feverish, she may still have shown up negative on an ebola test because viral loads would still have been low.

All the passengers will be subject to limited self monitoring I'd say. The texas outbreak, limited as yet shows how hard it is to track the spread of an outbreak. At least in liberia most people move around on foot which limits the spread geographically. In the US there all kinds of transport options which could make tracking impossible. I don't want to spread panic but theres cause for some alarm and burying our heads in the sand is certainly not an option.

Lucy and Harry

Kenno90 wrote: »

It says right in the title that tests proved negitive

Yeah but a close shave.We have not stopped planes landing fron infected places still.How is that quaranteen.:pac:

Peist2007

Canis Lupus wrote: »

That's not what he wants to hear.

Still annoyed over yesterday? Bless...