http://www.singtomeohmuse.com/viewtopic.php?t=5725&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=3705
Pixie
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 64213
Location: CT, USA
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 8:56 am
The CNN banner up right now asks: “Why are potential Ebola cases traveling freely?
All of these HCWs who had what any rational individual would term “contact with an Ebola patient” were free to travel, free to go wherever they wished. It is not poor decision making on the part of individuals that is at the heart of the problem, it is poor institutional decision making that has led to this mess.
What still hasn't been completely understood out there is that CDC’s own rules allowed for individuals who had had the MOST direct contact with Duncan, the Ebola patient, and his bodily fluids, to be considered to be in NO “at risk for exposure” category.
There was no list for “risk of exposure” that those 78 HCWs were on. There was no list - that's why CDC didn't even have a clue as to who these people were after Nina Pham tested positive. There was no list. CDC thought these HCWs had “no exposure” to Ebola.
The HCWs who cared for Duncan were not on the “low risk for exposure” list, according to CDC.
The HCWs who cared for Duncan were not on the “high risk for exposure” list, according to CDC.
The HCWs who cared for Duncan were not on any “at risk” list for exposure to Ebola.
None. Why?
CDC considered HCWs who cared for Duncan to be at NO “exposure to Ebola.”
None of the HCWs who had anything to do with Duncan's care was placed on a “low risk” or “high risk” list by CDC as long as they were wearing the CDC recommended PPE of gloves/gown/mask/shield at the time!
If the nurses and lab technicians and custodians were wearing the CDC recommended PPE while caring for Duncan or while coming in contact with his bodily fluids they were considered to have NO risk of exposure to Ebola!
So all the HCWs who had anything to do, at all, with Duncan at Presbyterian were completely free to go, to travel, to kiss newborn babies, to attend weddings, to serve food at the weekend potluck, to care for other patients, to do whatever!
This is so utterly insane that both top medical reporters and the congressional representatives are having a very hard time getting their heads around it. It is so utterly insane that no one in the public would ever DREAM that CDC could possibly ever think such a thing.
But CDC, until it suddenly changed its rules the other day after Nina Pham tested positive, did think such a thing. They only “changed” their guidance on this group of 77 because now they could say that there had been some breach in PPE or protocol. It wasn't their asinine recommendations that were at fault, it was the HCWs breach of them. So Frieden yesterday stood by his original asinine guidance without blinking.
It's the very definition of CDC hubris.
If HCWs caring for an Ebola patient were wearing the CDC recommended PPE (gloves/gown/mask/shield) they were protected by a magic force field and, according to CDC, they were at zero risk of contracting Ebola from their patient, his blood samples or other bodily fluids, or his environment.
It's CDC hubris at an unimaginable level.
And there is absolutely no one out there who willingly can believe that this is true, that CDC would consider the people who had the most contact with an Ebola patient during his most infectious period would be at no risk of Ebola exposure. As long as they played the CDC PPE game.
This is the big red flag that this agency has become utterly dysfunctional under Frieden’s ideological leadership.
So what drove this? Why did American’s lead health agency engage in such idiocy?
It is ideology and Frieden’s vision of a “grand plan” that drove this pivotal decision, this inane guidance.
HCWs caring for an Ebola patient HAD to be at zero risk, or “every hospital in America” couldn't care for them.
HCWs caring for an Ebola patient HAD to be outfitted in only “standard infection protocol PPE” or “every hospital in America” couldn't care for them.
HCWs caring for an Ebola patient had to be free to move about, anywhere they wished, anytime both during and after caring for an Ebola patient or “every hospital in America” couldn't care for them.
If Frieden’s premise is not true, and it has rapidly proven to be false, then “every hospital in America” CANNOT care for Ebola patients.
“Every hospital in America” cannot outfit their HCWS in “standard infection protocol PPE” if they are caring for an Ebola patient.
“Every hospital in America” cannot allow unlimited free movement of HCWs who are caring for an Ebola patient.
“Every hospital in America” cannot fail to monitor HCWs who are caring for an Ebola patient.
And if “every hospital in America” cannot be expected to welcome these restrictions and adhere to a much, much, stricter protocol as they care for Ebola patients, then “every hospital in America” cannot care for Ebola patients!
Which means only one thing: travel from the affected areas must be restricted because “every hospital in America” cannot care for Ebola patients!
The HCWSs cannot do this. They cannot take this risk - and they won't. They cannot be so restricted - and they won't. The hospitals cannot afford it - they simply cannot.
This entire mess — including the infections of Amber Vinson and Nina Pham — is a direct result not of bad science at CDC - that would be easier to fix.
This fine mess is the logical outcome of Frieden’s personal “right to travel” and “open borders” globalist philosophy.
Frieden is an embarrassment to Science and to the United States of America.
Sanity arrives in Texas, as the Public Health Department ditched CDC guidelines on regards travel and quarantine.
via the PFIF —
Travel ban for Texas health care workers in Ebola case
Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY 10:33 a.m. EDT October 17, 2014
Texas health officials have ordered any person who entered the room of the first Ebola patient at a Dallas hospital not to travel by public transport, including planes ship, buses or trains, or visit groceries, restaurants or theaters for 21 days, until the danger of developing Ebola has passed.
The instructions, issued by the Texas Department of State Health Service late Thursday, cover more than 70 health workers involved in providing care for Thomas Duncan, the Liberian national who became the first patient to test positive for Ebola in the United States.
[snip]
Duncan, 42, died Oct. 8 at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas.
The hospital workers were ordered to undergo monitoring twice a day, including one face-to-face encounter.
The health department said anyone failing to adhere to the rules “may be subject to a communicable disease control order.” The health workers were asked to sign a written acknowledgement of the directions when they appear for monitoring.
The new rules were issued in the wake of reports that one of the hospital nurses who treated Duncan — 29-year-old Amber Vinson — later flew to Cleveland and then took a return flight Oct. 13 on Frontier Airlines despite having a low-grade fever, indicating the possible onset of Ebola.
Vinson, who tested positive for Ebola on Tuesday, was hospitalized in Dallas and later transferred to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta. Another nurse, Nina Pham, 26, was the first nurse to test positive and has been transferred to the National Institute of Health hospital in Bethesda, Md.
Before Thursday’s order, the health workers involved in the Duncan case had only been asked to self-monitor for symptoms of infection after two nurses were diagnosed with the virus.
The order, signed by David Lakey, commissioner of the state health department, said any of the health-care workers affected can stay at the hospital to facilitate monitoring for the three-week period.
Comment:
Note that this “no travel” order was issued by the TEXAS public health authorities, not by CDC