Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:05 am
TechnoWeenie wrote:Ebola is airborne, according to a new report by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota.
So....
Rats, Pigs, Monkeys, etc all were infected via airborne particles, from studies done decades ago, and they finally admit that it might be airborne...scientists are now warning both health care providers and the general public that surgical facemasks will not prevent the transmission of Ebola. According to the airborne Ebola report, medical workers must immediately be given full-hooded protective gear and powered air-purifying respirators.
Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:10 am
dan360 wrote:TechnoWeenie wrote:Ebola is airborne, according to a new report by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota.
So....
Rats, Pigs, Monkeys, etc all were infected via airborne particles, from studies done decades ago, and they finally admit that it might be airborne...scientists are now warning both health care providers and the general public that surgical facemasks will not prevent the transmission of Ebola. According to the airborne Ebola report, medical workers must immediately be given full-hooded protective gear and powered air-purifying respirators.
That's not the definition of airborne. ....and Ebola Reston already *is* airborne--the real airborne-- however this is not the Ebola Reston virus that is currently causing all this fiasco. Not to mention the Reston strain has shown to be non-pathogenic in humans.
Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:16 am
skey wrote:An Ebola outbreak was probably not on their radar when they signed up to be nurses.
Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:38 am
glockgirl wrote:I'll just leave this here, for those who think that it'd be A-okay for nurses to abandon their stations if confronted with an Ebola patient:
Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:38 am
Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:42 am
mycyclonegt wrote:...should they act the same if the hospital is unable to provide them with the proper equipment to handle Ebola as outlined by the CDC?
Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:55 am
glockgirl wrote:
Nurses in Africa right this minute are making due with plastic garbage bags and duct tape.
Thu Oct 16, 2014 8:45 am
Thu Oct 16, 2014 8:46 am
glockgirl wrote:mycyclonegt wrote:...should they act the same if the hospital is unable to provide them with the proper equipment to handle Ebola as outlined by the CDC?
Nurses in Africa right this minute are making due with plastic garbage bags and duct tape. Texas Presbyterian obviously fucked up big time by not having any kind of decent isolation protocol in place for any infectious disease (and as I've stated before, how they managed to get away with this for probably years, I don't know) and that lack of a decent isolation protocol has probably led to hundreds of nosocomial infections at that hospital over the years.
However, as of now, I doubt that there is any hospital in the U.S. (and the rest of the Western world) that is not closely examining its own isolation protocols and industriously ordering PPE equipment to cover their own asses in the event of an Ebola patient arrival. As to your question, well, if the hospital refuses to provide proper equipment to handle an infectious patient, it becomes a little tricky. The hospital is violating OSHA protections and the law in general, but the nurse could potentially still be brought up on patient abandonment charges before the state Board of Nursing if she refuses to care for the patient.
So I guess my answer is, I would personally protect myself as best I could, I would file a complaint with OSHA, but I would still care for the patient. That's me, personally.
Thu Oct 16, 2014 8:52 am
Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:18 am
TechnoWeenie wrote:Now you're putting others' lives at risk when someone has to try and save your dumb ass...
Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:06 am
glockgirl wrote:TechnoWeenie wrote:Now you're putting others' lives at risk when someone has to try and save your dumb ass...
Really? Did you not read my previous post where I said that I might not go home, I might not leave the hospital, I might put my boys into the care of my parents, all to eliminate the risk of spreading the infection? You're calling me a dumbass for saying that I would rather risk my own life than leave a patient who needs me? Nice. Very nice.
Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:40 am
glockgirl wrote:TechnoWeenie wrote:Now you're putting others' lives at risk when someone has to try and save your dumb ass...
Really? Did you not read my previous post where I said that I might not go home, I might not leave the hospital, I might put my boys into the care of my parents, all to eliminate the risk of spreading the infection? You're calling me a dumbass for saying that I would rather risk my own life than leave a patient who needs me? Nice. Very nice.
Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:14 pm
TechnoWeenie wrote:Do you stay? Knowing that they'll be dead anyway, and you died keeping them somewhat comfortable in their last days?
Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:25 pm
glockgirl wrote:TechnoWeenie wrote:Do you stay? Knowing that they'll be dead anyway, and you died keeping them somewhat comfortable in their last days?
I would stay, yes. I already have provisions in place (and have had for years, even when I was still married) for the care of my sons should some natural/civil disaster or MASCAL occur that would require, morally or at the request of public authorities, that I go immediately to my hospital, or if that proves impossible, to the nearest/most accessible hospital to assist in the care of the injured. However, that is just me, me and my (obviously incomprehensibly stupid, to you) belief that putting others above self is the right and moral thing to do.