TOTALLY GEEKED!

I have not seen much information as to how this is spread. Airborne? Through sweat, saliva, etc.? What kind of contact spreads this thing? And how long after you have had this contact does it become full blown? Just not enough information about this at all. Although it is a completely different disease, the lack of information reminds me of the beginning of the AIDS epidemic years ago...

They burn the bodies.

karl, it is spread through bodily fluid. Sweat, vomit, stools, blood. And there is a LOT of all of it. There is a strain that can be spread through air. The fear is this strain will mutate.

And yeah, I believe this is going to expand. It started with one here. Now there are two. If the pattern continues there should be 4 more any time now and then 8 and then 16 and so on and so on.

Well, it isn't fair if people are dying of Ebola in other countries. So, we had to import it here to spread it and kill some Americans since we are such selfish people.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

VoiceOfReason wrote:

---

I'm wondering how other countries are dealing with this.

---

The one in Spain was quarantined and her dog was put down.

This first nurse in Dallas has a dog as well. But they have found a place to quarantine the dog to watch for symptoms.

I hadn't even thought about pets spreading the disease.  

 

---

 The dog won't get ebola - but it could spread it.  At least, that's what they said in Spain.  Dogs lick too much.

---

I heard watch for symptoms.

But either way. I still hadn't thought about it.  

They are testing an inmate now in Inova Loudoun. In Virginia.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

An inmate? How would an inmate come in contact with it?

---

 The guards? That's all I can think of. Or a visitor.

VetteGirl wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

An inmate? How would an inmate come in contact with it?

---

 The guards? That's all I can think of. Or a visitor.

---

Yes. But where? Shouldn't that be important too? They would have to have it from someone on the outside. So who?  

Yes, I would think if an inmate was at risk for ebola - WHERE that risk came from would be a tad bit more important.

Oh, nm.

Thanks, Lily. I also heard on TV that it is between 2 and 21 days before symptoms appear.... Wow.
I also saw the TV clip of the woman being put in an ambulance by two medical personnel in hazard gear, BUT another man (civilian, it appeared) just walked up behind them and went over to see what they were doing.... Huh??

Here in Japan, they have 45 hospitals so far that have sterile rooms and/or isolation rooms. The hospital that serves Narita Airport has been conducting drills and test runs on how to handle any patients like this. As far as traveling to or from those heavily infected areas, no embargo that I have heard of as of this a.m. Just warning posters at all International airports....

Looks to me like someone is trying to put the blame on the nurses for this and I believe that is way out of line.... If that continues, I would be tempted to leave the nursing profession or at least to become a private nurse..... Just saying...

karl271 wrote:

---

Thanks, Lily. I also heard on TV that it is between 2 and 21 days before symptoms appear.... Wow.
I also saw the TV clip of the woman being put in an ambulance by two medical personnel in hazard gear, BUT another man (civilian, it appeared) just walked up behind them and went over to see what they were doing.... Huh??

Here in Japan, they have 45 hospitals so far that have sterile rooms and/or isolation rooms. The hospital that serves Narita Airport has been conducting drills and test runs on how to handle any patients like this. As far as traveling to or from those heavily infected areas, no embargo that I have heard of as of this a.m. Just warning posters at all International airports....

Looks to me like someone is trying to put the blame on the nurses for this and I believe that is way out of line.... If that continues, I would be tempted to leave the nursing profession or at least to become a private nurse..... Just saying...

---

 That is what should be done. It should have been done here.

I do not believe it is about blame. I have this from the beginning. I believe it is about finding out where and what went wrong so it does not happen in the future.

 

And I have also said, I don't really care if these nurses feel blamed. We need the answers so we don't have the same situation they have in Liberia. It's time to take this serious and stop playing with it.

 

 

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentary-health-workers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola

We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.¹

The minimum level of protection in high-risk settings should be a respirator with an assigned protection factor greater than 10. A powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) with a hood or helmet offers many advantages over an N95 filtering facepiece or similar respirator, being more protective, comfortable, and cost-effective in the long run.

We strongly urge the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to seek funds for the purchase and transport of PAPRs to all healthcare workers currently fighting the battle against Ebola throughout Africa—and beyond.

There has been a lot of on-line and published controversy about whether Ebola virus can be transmitted via aerosols. Most scientific and medical personnel, along with public health organizations, have been unequivocal in their statements that Ebola can be transmitted only by direct contact with virus-laden fluids^2,3 and that the only modes of transmission we should be concerned with are those termed "droplet" and "contact."

These statements are based on two lines of reasoning. The first is that no one located at a distance from an infected individual has contracted the disease, or the converse, every person infected has had (or must have had) "direct" contact with the body fluids of an infected person.

This reflects an incorrect and outmoded understanding of infectious aerosols, which has been institutionalized in policies, language, culture, and approaches to infection control. We will address this below. Briefly, however, the important points are that virus-laden bodily fluids may be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity to an infectious person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited throughout the respiratory tract.

The second line of reasoning is that respirators or other control measures for infectious aerosols cannot be recommended in developing countries because the resources, time, and/or understanding for such measures are lacking.⁴

Although there are some important barriers to the use of respirators, especially PAPRs, in developing countries, healthcare workers everywhere deserve and should be afforded the same best-practice types of protection, regardless of costs and resources. Every healthcare worker is a precious commodity whose well-being ensures everyone is protected.

If we are willing to offer infected US healthcare workers expensive treatments and experimental drugs free of charge when most of the world has no access to them, we wonder why we are unwilling to find the resources to provide appropriate levels of comparatively less expensive respiratory protection to every healthcare worker around the world.

How are infectious diseases transmitted via aerosols?

Medical and infection control professionals have relied for years on a paradigm for aerosol transmission of infectious diseases based on very outmoded research and an overly simplistic interpretation of the data. In the 1940s and 50s, William F. Wells and other "aerobiologists" employed now significantly out-of-date sampling methods (eg, settling plates) and very blunt analytic approaches (eg, cell culturing) to understand the movement of bacterial aerosols in healthcare and other settings. Their work, though groundbreaking at the time, provides a very incomplete picture.

Early aerobiologists were not able to measure small particles near an infectious person and thus assumed such particles existed only far from the source. They concluded that organisms capable of aerosol transmission (termed "airborne") can only do so at around 3 feet or more from the source. Because they thought that only larger particles would be present near the source, they believed people would be exposed only via large "droplets" on their face, eyes, or nose.

Modern research, using more sensitive instruments and analytic methods, has shown that aerosols emitted from the respiratory tract contain a wide distribution of particle sizes—including many that are small enough to be inhaled.^5,6 Thus, both small and large particles will be present near an infectious person.

The chance of large droplets reaching the facial mucous membranes is quite small, as the nasal openings are small and shielded by their external and internal structure. Although close contact may permit large-droplet exposure, it also maximizes the possibility of aerosol inhalation.

As noted by early aerobiologists, liquid in a spray aerosol, such as that generated during coughing or sneezing, will quickly evaporate,⁷ which increases the concentration of small particles in the aerosol. Because evaporation occurs in milliseconds, many of these particles are likely to be found near the infectious person.

The current paradigm also assumes that only "small" particles (less than 5 micrometers [mcm]) can be inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract. This is not true. Particles as large as 100 mcm (and perhaps even larger) can be inhaled into the mouth and nose. Larger particles are deposited in the nasal passages, pharynx, and upper regions of the lungs, while smaller particles are more likely to deposit in the lower, alveolar regions. And for many pathogens, infection is possible regardless of the particle size or deposition site.

It's time to abandon the old paradigm of three mutually exclusive transmission routes for a new one that considers the full range of particle sizes both near and far from a source. In addition, we need to factor in other important features of infectivity, such as the ability of a pathogen to remain viable in air at room temperature and humidity and the likelihood that systemic disease can result from deposition of infectious particles in the respiratory system or their transfer to the gastrointestinal tract.

We recommend using "aerosol transmissible" rather than the outmoded terms "droplet" or "airborne" to describe pathogens that can transmit disease via infectious particles suspended in air.

Is Ebola an aerosol-transmissible disease?

We recently published a commentary on the CIDRAP site discussing whether Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, especially in healthcare settings. We drew comparisons with a similar and more well-studied disease, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).

For Ebola and other filoviruses, however, there is much less information and research on disease transmission and survival, especially in healthcare settings.

Being at first skeptical that Ebola virus could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, we are now persuaded by a review of experimental and epidemiologic data that this might be an important feature of disease transmission, particularly in healthcare settings.

 

just Czech wrote:

---

Oh Lord, it is in the process of mutating.

---

 No, it is NOT mutating.  it has always had the ability to be airborne.  We just didnt have the research into it. 

I mean come one, Reston showed it.  Two years ago, a group of Canadians postulated that it was airborne when infected pigs on the ground 'gave it' to clean monkeys in cages up above.  

Do I think that its as infectious as, say the Flu?  NO.  But if you are a nurse, relying on a mask to keep out the microscopic particles out is stupid. 

I have heard so many people say "this is not a big deal" and "don't panic, it can't be spread easily" or "I'm more worried about the flu." Really? The CDC is looking so completely incompetent ("We're open to ideas" OMG) and our leadership is not exactly the most confidence inspiring. We have people who are selfish and don't think of the good the public. Yes, I think that stupid nurse who flew to Ohio because of her wedding is selfish, selfish, selfish. I know the CDC told her she could fly (again, incompetent) but she knew she had treated patient zero and as a nurse she should have self-quarantined. But noooooo got to plan that wedding that now she might not make because she could die. And what about the lady on the cruise ship who is now quarantined on the ship? Why didn't she just skip the trip? She knew she handled ebola specimens. THINK OF OTHERS, PEOPLE!!!! And use some common sense.

I am absolutely furious that it's gotten this far.

so she was quarantined preemptively. Good. That is what SHOULD be done.

If she has been in quarantine then she has been less apt to infect others.