Posted on 10/25/2014 5:12:21 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The biggest two words right now at the intersection of government and public health might be “travel ban.” But despite many politicians framing such a ban as a “common sense measure” to protect us from Ebola, a closer look at both the logistics and the history of such bans show that they are anything but.
First, what are these “travel bans” all about? They’re a moving target, and they’ve morphed a bit just in the last few days. Initially they were a call to ban flights from the affected countries—Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea—into the United States, in order to reduce the possibility that another person silently incubating the Ebola virus would show up in our cities. This is how Ebola entered Texas, via Thomas Eric Duncan, who had been exposed to the virus in Liberia before entering the United States to visit family. Visa restrictions have also been discussed. Would these bans make us safer?
Let’s take each potential model in turn:
1) Stopping flights to the affected countries Shutting down flights from these countries sounds straightforward. Unfortunately, what many proponents of such a flight ban didn’t realize was that there actually aren’t any direct flights from any of those countries into the United States. Nate Silver searched and identified direct flights from Senegal, Ghana and Nigeria, but none from Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea.
Most flights from the affected countries instead route through Europe or the Middle East, but even for those, Silver found, “In total, this represents just 18 weekly flights from Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone combined, nine of which are currently suspended or are not yet operating.”
Duncan was routed through Europe, flying out of Monrovia, the Liberian capital, to Brussels, Belgium, then on to Washington-Dulles Airport and finally to Dallas-Fort Worth.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I agree. It seems a little like: let's focus on beating Japan, then -- maybe in 1945 -- we can begin an invasion of North Africa ...
Once upon a time, we fought Japan, Italy and Germany all at once. It wasn't easy, but it was easier than a travel ban, a visa ban, and health care assistance to Africa. Sheesh!
Thanks for the ping!
This is why the US president has to be a natural born citizen. No loyalties to our own country.
“two nurses infect themselves” ????????????????
Damn poor choice of words IMO. What is that conclusion based on?
Apparently, the CDC decided their early guidance was not sufficient, because they changed it.
Damn poor choice of words IMO. What is that conclusion based on?
In my experience, the majority of accidents, including accidental infection, are due to operator error. Whether or not they were aware of pertinent safety procedures is irrelevant to that fact. If someone works with something like hydrogen fluoride in the lab and breathes in a fatal dose, it was their action in working with the acid that led to their death, regardless of whether they ignored or did not know the established precautions.
Apparently, the CDC decided their early guidance was not sufficient, because they changed it.
Apparently, the new CDC guidance has been dumbed down. The PPE recommendations are basically the same, but there is more "spelling out" of what precautions need to be used under which circumstances. There is danger in dumbing down precautions...
To state that “two nurses infect themselves” is a poor choice of words, and your response clearly shows that it is just based on assumptions-not direct knowledge of these people or investigation of the situation.
Very poor on your part to use those words in that fashion. I would expect better from someone who claims that everything they say can be proven in fact.
Obtuse Hill, CT.
Very poor on your part to use those words in that fashion. I would expect better from someone who claims that everything they say can be proven in fact.
Let's put it this way. Acting as if the nurses were doing everything right, and Ebola is some supernatural entity that will get people regardless of what they do means that absolutely nothing will be done to correct the situation that led to the nurses infecting themselves in the first place.
It is obvious that they were not adequately trained--someone posted that they "had read the CDC recommendations", as if that constitutes proper training (it does not). I don't know about the hospital environment, but I can guarantee that in the lab, no one touches a single piece of equipment until they have trained and demonstrated adequate mastery.
I'll bet just about anything that when those nurses sue that hospital, first and foremost in their claim will be the lack of proper training. It is inexcusable how that hospital messed things up--first, by sending an extremely ill man home, which possibly led to his death--second, by not making sure that proper infection control measures were implemented until after a definitive diagnosis and the CDC showed up, leading to the secondary infections of two nurses. That hospital is going to be hammered in the courts, when the lawsuits come pouring in.
What I said was that your choice of words(two nurses infected themselves)was poor.
Your first response tried to justify this and indicated assumptions made by you-not facts. The facts have yet to be established, so you made assumptions-not very scientific, and you also used a poor choice of words.
Nor is it very scientific to exaggerate and mischaracterize statements of others. I never said that these nurses did everything right, and I sure as H#ll didn't say anything about Ebola being some supernatural entity.
All I said was that your choice of words was poor. To that you have now replied with several assumptions and incorrect statements, but have at least acknowledged now, that the hospital and PPE provided by the hospital might have played a part.
The nurses were infected-not doubt of that. All the details of exactly how and why is not yet proved, but your post was that “two nurses infect themselves
That was a poor choice of words and not a proved fact at all.
Your last two paragraphs are full of assumptions, and some may eventually be established as true(perhaps in court as you said), but they are still assumptions at this point. You even used the phrase, "I'll bet just about anything..."
I would expect better of someone who claims to post only things that have been proved by scientific and learned studies. It erodes your credibility.
I think you are upset because you assume that I am placing a moral judgment on the nurses by pointing out that they infected themselves by improperly using PPE.
It’s nothing of the sort.
In the safety business, you can’t afford to be paralyzed by the fear that pointing out the victim’s mistakes that led to the accident is going to be perceived as some sort of moral judgment.
In the handful of safety incidents I have personally witnessed, and the hundreds I have studied over the years, I’ve only seen a handful where the victim of the accident really did nothing to cause the accident. The reality is that most people who end up hurt or killed caused it themselves, whether they meant to or not. In the case of those nurses, it has been documented that two full days passed while they were taking care of the patient before the positive Ebola result came in, during which the staff were using improper PPE.
Would you rather see nurses die because everyone is so afraid of hurting their feelings that they won’t tell them what they did wrong, or would you rather the safety personnel disregard their feelings and tell them exactly what they did wrong, so that they learn to be more careful and continue to live?
Here is your original post:
I happen to be a research scientist with a lot of education and experience in this area. I have never said anything that is not supported in the scientific literature, and I am always willing to provide references to back up anything I say. The information I have provided on mode of transmission is absolutely accurate, and supported by research.
The thing about the scientific world, is that we constantly discuss how things are done, and if they could be done better. We always try to improve things. Ebola really has not significantly changed, but what is clear when a situation like Dallas comes up and two nurses infect themselves is that communication, education, whatever, fell down somewhere along the way.
The protocols are sound, people have been responding to Ebola outbreaks for decades without getting infected. So, when a couple of nurses get infected, we need to understand what went wrong so as to prevent it from happening again.
*******************************************************
I merely pointed out that you used a poor choice of words by saying that “two nurses infect themselves”, and I pointed out that the CDC protocol at the time was perhaps not as good as it should have been.
You have spent quite a bit of time justifying your choice of words with assumptions and a bet, and even stated that the CDC didn’t really change their guidelines.
Well, I saw people from the CDC and NIH state out right that the protocol they had was not sufficient for the hospitals, and that they were changing them.
Now here’s your current post:
I think you are upset because you assume that I am placing a moral judgment on the nurses by pointing out that they infected themselves by improperly using PPE.
It’s nothing of the sort.
*********************************************************
No I am not upset. I think you used a poor choice of words. I stand by that. In addition, I have merely pointed out that your posts in response to my first reply to you, were not scientific, and not based on research but had a lot of assumptions.
This undermines your credibility, especially when you claim that everything you say can be backed up by scientific research.
We do know that lots of health care workers (some with lots of experience) have died this time. Why that has happened as well as what happened with these nurses is at this point unknown, and does need to be investigated.
Your last question is beyond ridiculous. Nothing I have posted would even suggest such a thing, and is you again making assumptions, and being emotional rather than scientific.
No, you are upset. Just accept that I stand by my "poor choice of words."
Properly used PPE works. Hundreds (thousands) of people have managed to treat Ebola and Marburg patients without infecting themselves over the last few decades. Therefore, if an infection of a health care worker occurred, it was due to improper use of PPE. There is no other explanation. It does not require any leaps to conclusions: the nurses did not use the proper PPE, or did not use the proper PPE correctly. Either way, their actions resulted in their infections.
It seems, from the few reports on the issue, that the nurses were using improper PPE during the two days after Mr. Duncan was admitted and before he was definitively diagnosed.
Well, I saw people from the CDC and NIH state out right that the protocol they had was not sufficient for the hospitals, and that they were changing them.
The CDC's mistake was assuming that they could provide the PPE guidelines, and everyone would be experienced enough to use them. They have not significantly changed the guidelines, but they rewrote them to try to make them idiot-proof. It's the same principle that causes product warnings such as "Do not iron clothes while wearing them."
There you go again. Now you are telling me that you know better than me whether I am upset or not. Well you don’t.LOL
In fact I have found your responses on this to be hysterically funny, non accurate, full of assumptions and non-scientific.
You used a poor choice of words, and rather than admit it you continually post paragraphs trying to justify it. In one of your posts you even stated that you didn’t mean to make moral judgements on the nurses and pointed out how it wasn’t all their fault.
***********************************************************
Here’s another one of your posts:
It is obvious that they were not adequately trained—someone posted that they “had read the CDC recommendations”, as if that constitutes proper training (it does not). I don’t know about the hospital environment, but I can guarantee that in the lab, no one touches a single piece of equipment until they have trained and demonstrated adequate mastery.
*****************************************************
You state as fact that they were not adequately trained based on “some one posted that they had read the CDC recommendations” - Then you admit that you don’t know about the hospital’s environment-Scientific???? Not even close.LOL
**********************************************************
Then you continued your accusations against the hospital:
I’ll bet just about anything that when those nurses sue that hospital, first and foremost in their claim will be the lack of proper training. It is inexcusable how that hospital messed things up—first, by sending an extremely ill man home, which possibly led to his death—second, by not making sure that proper infection control measures were implemented until after a definitive diagnosis and the CDC showed up, leading to the secondary infections of two nurses. That hospital is going to be hammered in the courts, when the lawsuits come pouring in.
*******************************************************
So you are now stating that there is other contributing factors- not just 2 nurses infecting themselves. And you are stating that the hospital failed to have adequate training, failed to ensure proper infection control measures were implemented, even though you admit you don’t know about the hospital’s environment. Tsk, Tsk, Contradictory statements based upon assumptions and lack of knowledge. LOL
It was a poor choice of words, and it’s very entertaining to see all the additional and contradictory stuff you write to avoid admitting it.LOL
The more you write about this the more your credibility goes down and the less scientific you appear to be. By all means, continue on. It’s better than any comedy on TV.
You are getting very tedious.
You would make a horrible safety officer. Your insistence that there is something wrong with pointing out the victim’s role in an accident makes no sense whatsoever. I guess you’re part of the culture that believes that no matter what happens, the person who caused it is not responsible.
You can’t even explain *why* my word choice is supposedly poor, choosing instead to start quoting from my previous posts over and over. What is the purpose of that? Are you trying to illustrate some contradiction that exists only in your own mind? I’ve explained the exact same thing every time, but explained it in different ways so as to try to break through your wall of incomprehension. It has become clear that your inability to understand is based purely on emotion, not on any logic. You apparently want to believe that the nurses who got sick were doing absolutely everything correctly, but this supernatural entity got them anyway, and you just don’t want to see anything contradict that belief.
If you know that conditions A, B, and C have to be met in order to prevent X, and X happens, it is a logical conclusion that one or more of those conditions were not met. You don’t have to know why or how they were not met in order to make that conclusion. The investigation will determine the why and how.
If you can’t tell me exactly *why* you think I am wrong, then I have to conclude that you do not, in fact, think I’m wrong.
Hint: Quoting me explaining the same thing over and over in different ways does NOT tell me how I am supposedly wrong.
How does your garden grow? I just got the garlic in in the nick of time!
Anyway, I just saw this thread. The person with whom you are arguing has been proven wrong on several other threads regarding the infected nurses’ protocol. It’s kind of funny and pathetic at the same time.
I have garlic about 5 inches tall. May still plant some more when I rip up the bell peppers.
Yes, I’ve seen those other posts. Mostly was ignoring them, but something about the choice of words “nurses infected themselves” just gave me an urge to respond.LOL
You are getting very tedious.
**************************************************
LOL. Sorry you think so, but are you reading your responses that I have quoted? If you don’t like tedium, quit responding.
I have never said that the nurses actions should not be investigated, but have indicated that other contributing factors should also be considered.
So once again you accuse and guess incorrectly. Tsk Tsk Very unscientific. Sort of emotional.LOL
*******************************************************
Already answered that several times. Go back and reread my other posts-wouldn’t want to overload you with yet more of my tedium.
If you know that conditions A, B, and C have to be met in order to prevent X, and X happens, it is a logical conclusion that one or more of those conditions were not met. You don’t have to know why or how they were not met in order to make that conclusion. The investigation will determine the why and how.
**********************************************************
The investigation will determine the why and how-agreed. Do you have a link to the investigation and evidence? Did the investigation reveal that the “nurses infected themselves” as you asserted? If so, how did they do it?
If you can’t tell me exactly *why* you think I am wrong, then I have to conclude that you do not, in fact, think I’m wrong.
Hint: Quoting me explaining the same thing over and over in different ways does NOT tell me how I am supposedly wrong.
********************************************************
I have tried to explain why “two nurses infected themselves” was a poor choice of words, and I am sorry that you don’t understand it, but I am beginning to wonder whether you would admit it even if you did. It seems obvious to me even without an explanation.
I have quoted you, to point out the contradictions in your posts, as well as to demonstrate the assumptions and inaccuracies in your responses.
You claim to post only scientific information based on evidence, but once again you fill your post with emotion, accusations, assumptions, and inaccuracies.
Congratulations on yet another unscientific post undermining your credibility.LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.