Ebola is here, Dallas, Texas

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Just read where they are saying the nurse on the flight had a 'slight' fever the day she flew. When are they actually going to treat this like a problem and start making people stay put where they are. Now they have to track down everyone on that flight...

 
Just read where they are saying the nurse on the flight had a 'slight' fever the day she flew. When are they actually going to treat this like a problem and start making people stay put where they are. Now they have to track down everyone on that flight...




Just to play devils advocate, but what level is it really the government's responsibility? I blame the nurse, who really probably knew she had a "slight fever" and I'm SURE knew she had dealt with an Ebola patient. Not a single person has said a word about her poor decision. So we are blaming the government for failing to anticipate that a person in the medical field was uneducated enough to "inadvertently" expose the people on the plane... and POTENTIALLY EVERYONE ELSE she came in contact with?

Yes I understand that mistakes happen, and that everyone becomes lax with some procedures here and there, but it's not like the first case wasn't all over the media and being made into a big deal that these people didn't have a constant reminder in their faces of what they were dealing with.

The government should only have to focus on restrictions of incoming passengers (which they HAD restrictions in place but the first dude full out lied so it wouldn't have been caught- now we need to consider escalating them). Ensuring that the public utilities are protected, ensuring that the food chain is not contaminated in any way, ensuring that the professionals who are dealing with it are fully trained and aware and focusing on healing those that have contracted it.

It was actually nice to hear how the story played out locally. Woman returns from Liberia, goes to Christian clinic to seek treatment for cold. Doctor believes nothing out of her mouth about not being exposed to Ebola, closes the entire clinic down and arranges transport to the large hospital where she is isolated and tested. While the tests have come back negative, she's still in isolation until the CDC can confirm.

 
When I blame the government, it's both local and national. Hospitals and medical professionals are regulated to protect the public. But, the local regulators should also be concerned about the medical professionals making sure they have the training and tools to deal with and properly protect the public. If the nurse didn't have the training or tools to safely treat the victim, that's on the hospital and the entity that regulates them.

 
At least Emory was able to treat two Ebola patients without getting anyone else infected. This Dallas hospital seems to be F-ing things up at every opportunity.

We are doooooooooooomed!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the emory situation is different. They we're awaiting the arrival, CDC was next door..

When your patients just show up and don't tell you hey I was in Africa last week , now I got a little sniffle...sorry I just killed you....

Most hospitals are not ready to deal with an infectious disease in all reality...

Wife's old hospital back home (kennestone- level 4 trauma ) which is actually fairly ahead of the game as compared to both place she has worked here...they don't even have the "hazmat" type suits in the building... CDC is telling them that the paper gowns and mask / gloves is all you need.... Yeah fuck that....

 
I don't think the WRF response to sewer exposure to ebola fully answers the concerns:

  • Ebola is not a foodborne, waterborne or airborne illness. The virus is transmitted to humans from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission. Ebola is transmitted through direct contact with infected bodily fluids (e.g., blood, vomit, feces). The Ebola virus can only replicate within host cells. Therefore, it cannot survive long in water because it does not have its host — either a human or an animal.
  • Because of Ebola’s fragility when separated from its host, bodily fluids flushed by an infected person would not contaminate the water supply. Researchers believe Ebola survives in water for only a matter of minutes. This is because water does not provide the same environment as our bodily fluids, which have higher salt concentrations. Once in water, the host cell will take in water in an attempt to equalize the osmotic pressure, causing the cells to swell and burst, thus killing the virus.
Maybe there is nothing to worry about, but again I ask: if ebola is transmitted from contact with bodily fluids, and sewage by definition is a collection of (dilute) bodily fluids, why is Ebola-contaminated sewage not considered infectious?? By the WRF reasoning, Ebola in bodily fluids, outside the body, is not infectious. And we know that is not true. So, once again, at what point does Ebola sewage become non-infectious? And if that point is anywhere outside the patient's body, then Ebola-contaminated sewage is not safe.

 
Here's one the sources cited by the WRF for their response above:

Can Ebola be spread through a drop of water or carried through the water system?

"[The virus] will not remain for a long time in the water," Gonzalez says. "It's not a very rich medium to protect the virus."

It's important, he adds, to remember that viruses aren't as resistant outside the body as bacteria are. Rather, they depend heavily on the cells of their host — animal or human — for survival.

In water, the Ebola virus would be deactivated in a matter of minutes, Schmaljohn says. That's because each Ebola virus is encased in an envelope taken from the outer surface, or membrane, of a host cell.

So what about cells in water that are infected with Ebola? Could you get the virus from infected cells in contaminated water?

Infected cells don't live long inside a liquid that doesn't have the same salt concentration as in our bodily fluids.

Drinking water has a lower salt concentration than that found inside human cells. As water rushes inside the cell to balance the salt concentration, pressure builds ups. Eventually the cell bursts, killing the virus in the process.
OK - fine. But this does not mean that the sewage is safe. For some period of "minutes", it is potentially infectious. As others have noted here, aside from sewer workers, there are animals that live within sewer systems (rats, cockroaches) that could serve as hosts and therefore vectors for the virus.

I am sure that I am overblowing this.... no doubt. But I also think that every possible avenue of prevention should be examined. Just assuming, in this case, might do a hell of a lot more damage than just making an ass of u and me.

 
It would be nice if you could run your concerns up your chain of command....,

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we can all agree that raw wastewater is not safe. But at this point, one is more likely to get hepatitis A than ebola from contact with wastewater.

 
They probably don't let patients go directly in the toilet anyway, right? They probably make them use those hospital toilets (buckets), and then pour some bleach in before disposing.

 
^That's not what the CDC interim guidance says. CDC says they can use the regular toilet, with no other precautions specified.

 
Amazing. I'm sorry but I'm not buying any sob stories about being thrown under the bus anymore. This second nurse's behavior shows she is completely oblivious to any sense of responsibility.

 
2nd nurse flew on a frontier flight.....,
This. According to a story that I read last night, she called the CDC ahead of her flight and said that she was experiencing a slight fever. They told her not the fly, yet she did anyway.

 
7aff8552f3501517f83baf353bf36256.jpg


 
Back
Top