Community Chat

[Dam Yankee]

On 10/29/2014 kittymomNC said:

My question about that would be, what do those few specially trained and equipped hospitals/personnel do if every group who treats a patient is quarantined, and then they do get new patients, which is still possible with the outbreak as large as it is in Africa? I would think they would run out of trained personnel... just a thought.

Last I heard, there were only a handful of hospitals in the USA which were going to be treating Ebola patients. All of the talking heads have assured us that there will not be an "outbreak" here in the USA. I think I heard that we should expect 3 to 8 new patients, per month. If that is true, it sounds perfectly doable, to me.

[Jig Saw]

Oh if only...

[Dam Yankee]

On 10/29/2014 kittymomNC said:

But someone would still have had to be in contact with his bodily fluids to be infected. So even if he was in the subway or a cab, how would anyone be in that situation? The doctors have said it can't even be transmitted by sneezing. Do we completely ignore the experts?

What's to stop someone who has just started showing symptoms from throwing up on the subway? Or in the grocery store? Or on an airplane?

[focksie]

I am still unclear about transmission as far as what people are saying here. This is from the CDC website and I have underlined and bolded conditions under which this doctor could have conceivably transmitted the disease if he was symptomatic on Wednesday and Wednesday evening.

So Dr. Spencer wouldn't even need to vomit on anything. It could be much more subtle. Let's suppose he was running a fever on Wednesday night. He inadvertently licks his fingers before picking up a bowling ball or holding on to a pole in the train. Or, he wipes sweat from his forehead and touches someone or something. Or, his nose is running and he inadvertently wipes his nose with his hand and touches someone or something. Or, he can simply sneeze or cough on someone (which is different from the definition of airborne; this is a bit confusing to a lot of people). Any of these scenarios is a possibility.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/qas.html

"Ebola has been detected in blood and many body fluids. Body fluids include saliva, mucus, vomit, feces, sweat, tears, breast milk, urine, and semen.

Unlike respiratory illnesses like measles or chickenpox, which can be transmitted by virus particles that remain suspended in the air after an infected person coughs or sneezes, Ebola is transmitted by direct contact with body fluids of a person who has symptoms of Ebola disease. Although coughing and sneezing are not common symptoms of Ebola, if a symptomatic patient with Ebola coughs or sneezes on someone, and saliva or mucus come into contact with that person’s eyes, nose or mouth, these fluids may transmit the disease.

Direct contact means that body fluids (blood, saliva, mucus, vomit, urine, or feces) from an infected person (alive or dead) have touched someone’s eyes, nose, or mouth or an open cut, wound, or abrasion.

Ebola is killed with hospital-grade disinfectants (such as household bleach). Ebola on dry surfaces, such as doorknobs and countertops, can survive for several hours; however, virus in body fluids (such as blood) can survive up to several days at room temperature.

[Tyak]

The more I hear of this woman, the more I can't stand her. She's despicable.

[Qwackertoo]

Never Say Never. This articles is from LATimes in early October.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ebola-questions-20141007-story.html#page=1

It Is Not Set In Concrete in regards to transmission.

Scientific proof tends to evolve.

As more precise methods and testing are completed.

It is NOT static.

Please feel free to read the article before throwing any darts at me.

[minkbunny]

I have heard it said that a patient is symptomatic when they start not feeling well.

That would be so subjective, I mean lots of people don't feel well on any given day yet they don't have the flu or ebola or anything.

[Dam Yankee]

Thank you for the link, Quackertoo.

[pitdakota]

On 10/29/2014 Buck-i-Nana said:

On 10/29/2014 Dam Yankee said:

On 10/29/2014 adelle38 said:

If she doesn't have support on the internet, she must be wrong. Just ignore the entire medical community that says these quarantines are harmful.

She's wrong because the 10th amendment guarantees states' rights. Each state has the right to quarantine, or not, however it sees fit.

Guaranteeing states rights does not give states the right to violate the God given rights talked about in the Constitution no matter how many people on the internet think she's wrong.

That is my understanding, as well Buck-I-Nana.

After a meeting today, I asked an attorney about this. He is an attorney for the University Health Science Center so I thought what the heck. He said there isn't a lot of case law out there, the law does establish that states have the right to impose a quarantine, but it cannot violate their civil rights & Constitutional rights. He also said there 4 thresholds that have to be met. 1) the person must pose an actual threat to the public (there is no compelling interest in quarantining/isolating someone that is not contagious. 2) the intervention must be reasonable & effective 3) quarantine or isolation must be imposed in a manner that does protects the individual's Constitutional rights and afford due process and I forgot the 4th one. lol

He was saying it would make an interesting case on the 1st 3 thresholds (which is probably why I remember those 3) He didn't think the 4th threshold would meet requirements to argue that the threshold had not been met, but I just can't remember what it was. He did think there was good cause to argue the 1st 3 thresholds had not been met, but wouldn't say which way he thought the court would go.

Of course since he is attorney, he was hoping it would go to court. Obviously he has an interest in this since he also represents the medical school and their faculty. There are several med school faculty that work with Doctors Without Borders, so he does have a vested interest in seeing what a court would rule.

[tansy]

That's interesting, pitdakota, and sounds similar to some points her attorney made today.