71–80 of 302 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...because during the flight you'd exchange bodily fluids? Or something?
Even if you had, they weren’t contagious at that point. Sigh.
Only after it already happened they confirm if it is safe.
On a global safety issue it isn't a problem, but on an individual level, it is scary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All hospitals can contain Ebola. This is not an airborne disease and therefore negative pressure isolation is not needed (unless performing aerosol generating procedures). All you need is a private room and proper PPE use and infection control procedures.
It may not be airborne but it's still highly infectious and you need proper facilities for that, a private room alone is not enough for that. A lot of hospitals, at least smaller ones, are unable to handle such diseases. In any case containing a patient you know has ebola, is the least of the problems. Ebola symptoms are not exactly distinctive and if you don't have reason to suspect ebola, it may very well be able t…
From the CDC website.
Yes – any U.S. hospital that is following CDC's infection control recommendations and can isolate a patient in a private room is capable of safely managing a patient with EVD. CDC recommends that U.S. hospitals isolate the patient in a private room and implement standard, contact, and droplet precautions.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/hcp/patient-management-us-hospi...
How are you all of you supposedly smart people (you're on hackernews - does that not mean anything anymore?) making such baseless and ignorant comments? If you don't have a degree in a related field or haven't spent any amount of time studying disease (and no, Pandemic the game does not count) you have NO BUSINESS making comments on the preparedness of the US healthcare system - or on how the disease may affect anyth…
If you have a legitimate criticism of any of these posts feel free to reply. Better yet, post the type of well-researched article you yearn for on here (you commented on this thread so I assume you have experience in studying disease).
I personally would be concerned if I was sat next to that person on the flight back home. Even if the fear is unrealistic. Don't tell me you would happily sitting and eating next to someone with confirmed ebola for 8 hours plus, because they haven't started showing symptoms at that very moment. I would at the very least go to a doctor to be sure.
...because during the flight you'd exchange bodily fluids? Or something?
Let's take a lot at what we can agree on:
* The number of cases of infected patients is fairly small.
* The vector of transmission is fluid exchange, so that reduces its ability to spread.
* The virus doesn't appear to lie dormant, and is only contagious when the patient becomes symptomatic.
The chances of contracting the disease in a western country so far is near 0. The chances of contracting the disease in AFRICA is fairly improbable too.
It really sounds like sensationalism at its finest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps the US is different(I work in IPC in Canada), but most isolation rooms are not negative pressure capable. It is very expensive to design a room to accommodate negative pressure (separate air handling, HEPA filtered exhaust, sealing the room to the true ceiling). Most isolation rooms are designed to handle contact isolation patients, and therefore no negative pressure is needed.
I'm mostly familiar with ER design so I may be off, as far as what "normal" rooms are like. But from my recollection there was a push after 9/11 to move any new isolation rooms to negative pressure and there were subsidies in place to encourage that. There was also a push to redo airhandling for standard rooms to approximate negative pressure but with less stringent scrubbing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...because during the flight you'd exchange bodily fluids? Or something?
Are you suggesting an ebola sneeze is a rare or harmless thing? That is the primary means of transmission.
I can't immediately find a source for your claim that sneezing is the "primary means" of transmission - can you provide one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if you had, they weren’t contagious at that point. Sigh.
Even if that is true, would you be happy about the unnecessary risk. Only after it already happened they confirm if it is safe. On a global safety issue it isn't a problem, but on an individual level, it is scary.
The passengers were screened for fever before boarding the plane. On the individual level there are thousands of better things to worry about.
How are you all of you supposedly smart people (you're on hackernews - does that not mean anything anymore?) making such baseless and ignorant comments? If you don't have a degree in a related field or haven't spent any amount of time studying disease (and no, Pandemic the game does not count) you have NO BUSINESS making comments on the preparedness of the US healthcare system - or on how the disease may affect anyth…