JJkizak Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Latest news around here is the second health care worker that has Ebola took two flights to Cleveland from and to Texas and that the aircraft is in quarantine at the airport. She visited folks in the Akron area but they are not specific about anything yet. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 This will never be contained by being reactive. There needs to be proactive steps taken. Maybe congress will appoint a committee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven1963 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) Masks will not help you,,,You can pick it up on your finger,,, . . . This is why I am afraid that this thing is going to get out of control. Edited October 15, 2014 by Steven1963 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted October 15, 2014 Author Share Posted October 15, 2014 Latest news around here is the second health care worker that has Ebola took two flights to Cleveland from and to Texas and that the aircraft is in quarantine at the airport. She visited folks in the Akron area but they are not specific about anything yet. JJK see that's why boggles my mind ... i understand people shouldn't live in fear to a ridiculous level; but, when you're treating people that have Ebola, wouldn't a person naturally want to limit their contact with the general public until they're in the clear beyond a reasonable doubt? Now, if you're working with infected people on a daily basis, that's not practical; but, to assume you're clean until proven otherwise is dangerous. I see people all the time with a cold and doing nothing to contain their germs. They'll rub their nose, sneeze or cough into their hand, then go about their business. Clearly, we don't have the answer yet; but, I think the solution will come from a rational mind not a paranoid one (like mine). Sadly, i long ago lost confidence in mankind to do the right thing--once in a while they surprise me--hopefully this will be one of them (but we're off to bad start). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven1963 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 The second they identified that first nurse with Ebola they should have immediately quaranteened all the others. Even after she was diagnosed the head of the CDC said 'there may be more.' Well, then why are you letting them all run around?? Surprising to me is, none of Duncan's relatives seem to be showing any symptoms. At least the news isn't reporting anything, that I've heard. They are the ones who lived in the house with him for days after he showed signs...that's a mind-bender. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joessportster Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Just a couple days ago I was blasted as Bizarre for expecting healthcare professionals to act responsibly after being in contact with Ebola patients. Our PC society cant even look far enough ahead to protect itself from the most dangerous virus currently being spread on the planet Anyone in contact with these infected people needs to quarantined for the 21 day incubation period, The rights of the few do not outweigh the rights of millions to live There are laws in 47 states that allow the government to take DRASTIC measures in a Public Health threat, They can confiscate your food, money, property it is a crime to resist. We are already basically a police state we just have politicians that are afraid X or Y will not get re-elected if they hurt someones feelings We need to institute a 21 day quarantine off american soil of ALL incoming passengers from Africa, or an all out Ban, And anyone that has been known to be in any degree of contact with a known carrier needs to be quarantined, But hey I am just paranoid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted October 15, 2014 Author Share Posted October 15, 2014 The second they identified that first nurse with Ebola they should have immediately quaranteened all the others. Even after she was diagnosed the head of the CDC said 'there may be more.' Well, then why are you letting them all run around?? Surprising to me is, none of Duncan's relatives seem to be showing any symptoms. At least the news isn't reporting anything, that I've heard. They are the ones who lived in the house with him for days after he showed signs...that's a mind-bender. i agree on both points. On the radio during my drive home yesterday, the host made the comment that "...and tonight a plane from Liberia is landing here." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted October 15, 2014 Author Share Posted October 15, 2014 Just a couple days ago I was blasted as Bizarre for expecting healthcare professionals to act responsibly after being in contact with Ebola patients. Our PC society cant even look far enough ahead to protect itself from the most dangerous virus currently being spread on the planet Anyone in contact with these infected people needs to quarantined for the 21 day incubation period, The rights of the few do not outweigh the rights of millions to live There are laws in 47 states that allow the government to take DRASTIC measures in a Public Health threat, They can confiscate your food, money, property it is a crime to resist. We are already basically a police state we just have politicians that are afraid X or Y will not get re-elected if they hurt someones feelings We need to institute a 21 day quarantine off american soil of ALL incoming passengers from Africa, or an all out Ban, And anyone that has been known to be in any degree of contact with a known carrier needs to be quarantined, But hey I am just paranoid Perhaps we should put the IRS in charge of public safety? Not everyone agrees with your philosophy though, I asked someone is it okay to risk the lives of many to save one person (not talking about Ebola) and surprising he said, Of course the answer is yes," Guess this guy wasn't a Star Trek fan as Spock sacrificed himself because the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. THAT said, if you're in the minority, then that philosophy sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven1963 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) I asked someone is it okay to risk the lives of many to save one person (not talking about Ebola) and surprising he said, Of course the answer is yes," Depends on the circumstances, I suppose. But it sure isn't worth the lives of many to allow one person the freedom to move around if they have been in/around/near anyone who had this virus. A persons Constutional Rights end where my begin. And visa-versa. Simply put, you don't have the right to endanger my life if you risk carrying a deadly virus. Edited October 15, 2014 by Steven1963 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 This will never be contained by being reactive. There needs to be proactive steps taken. Maybe congress will appoint a committee. Maybe I'm being selfish, but I'm glad I no longer work in a hospital. Thinking getting a couple truck loads of grub and toilet paper in before it makes its way here. Enough for a couple months at least. Service the firearms and inventory the ammo. If it does get here I'm staying home and not taking visits from anyone. They can call or email. That includes everyone from ambulance to police. May seem harsh, but those in my house are in our care. If it does not make it here and we get control of it we can still eat the food, or save it for nest emergency. Best wishes for all that have it. And sincere hopes that we get this under control asap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven1963 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 This will never be contained by being reactive. There needs to be proactive steps taken. Maybe congress will appoint a committee. Maybe I'm being selfish, but I'm glad I no longer work in a hospital. Thinking getting a couple truck loads of grub and toilet paper in before it makes its way here. Enough for a couple months at least. Service the firearms and inventory the ammo. If it does get here I'm staying home and not taking visits from anyone. They can call or email. That includes everyone from ambulance to police. May seem harsh, but those in my house are in our care. If it does not make it here and we get control of it we can still eat the food, or save it for nest emergency. Best wishes for all that have it. And sincere hopes that we get this under control asap. I certainly do not consider you paranoid. I actually think the steps you are taking sound prudent and responsible. And I'll let you know I've already done some of what you are talking about. Thinking ahead in these situations may save your life or the life of someone close to you. Waiting for the CDC or some politician to tell you to take prudent steps is.....too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 The second they identified that first nurse with Ebola they should have immediately quaranteened all the others. Even after she was diagnosed the head of the CDC said 'there may be more.' Well, then why are you letting them all run around?? Surprising to me is, none of Duncan's relatives seem to be showing any symptoms. At least the news isn't reporting anything, that I've heard. They are the ones who lived in the house with him for days after he showed signs...that's a mind-bender. The fact that none of Duncans immediate relations have not gotten ill is very interesting. He was actively and violently ill during his stay with these people. Makes me think that perhaps they knew it was most likely Ebola and kept their distances and washed like fiends. It sure seems to me that there should be some better precursor biomarker to infer this infection than waiting for a fever. Sed rates, whites cell counts..... something in a blood test that could be conducted serially on exposed populations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZAKO Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 BLOOD COUNTS ??? WHOS GONNA DO THE COUNTING ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted October 15, 2014 Author Share Posted October 15, 2014 Makes me think that perhaps they knew it was most likely Ebola and kept their distances and washed like fiends. My initial reaction was to say that even if they did, the normal protocol at a hospital for general health & safety would be better. I decided that wouldn't necessarily be a true statement. I have seen nurses give shots without wearing gloves, i have seen people wipe up (small amounts) of blood and then handle charts, paperwork without removing their gloves. Last flu season, i visited my doctor and someone is in the waiting area coughing violently--the worker that takes the co-pay and insurance card was sitting behind the counter eating potato chips. I washed my hands after signing in and giving her my co-payment--couldn't believe that she handles stuff from sick people and touches her food in between. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 The Cleveland news has been on most of the day. The Nurse visited with her mother in Akron along with her mothers' fiancé and 3 workers at Kent State University. The aircraft has been cleaned three times and is on it's way to Atlanta. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven1963 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 i have seen people wipe up (small amounts) of blood and then handle charts, paperwork without removing their gloves. I have to have my finger pricked from time to time. Every time the nurse does it she doesn't have on gloves. She gives me a cotton ball to press onto my finger while she runs the test. After the test she takes the cotton ball, inevitably with my blood on it, WITHOUT WEARING GLOVES the whole time. These are our front lines against this? This is the 'protocol' I've heard so many praise that will protect us? No thanks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven1963 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) The Cleveland news has been on most of the day. The Nurse visited with her mother in Akron along with her mothers' fiancé and 3 workers at Kent State University. The aircraft has been cleaned three times and is on it's way to Atlanta. JJK And now here's the rest of the story. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-15/second-ebola-infected-nurse-identified-was-symptomatic-995-degree-fever-while-flying "But what is worse, is that as the WaPo reports the nurse had a fever of 99.5 degrees Fahrenheit before boarding a passenger jet on Monday, a day before she reported symptoms of the virus and was tested, according to public health officials." Edited October 15, 2014 by Steven1963 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjd Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) Just a couple days ago I was blasted as Bizarre for expecting healthcare professionals to act responsibly after being in contact with Ebola patients. Our PC society cant even look far enough ahead to protect itself from the most dangerous virus currently being spread on the planet Anyone in contact with these infected people needs to quarantined for the 21 day incubation period, The rights of the few do not outweigh the rights of millions to live There are laws in 47 states that allow the government to take DRASTIC measures in a Public Health threat, They can confiscate your food, money, property it is a crime to resist. We are already basically a police state we just have politicians that are afraid X or Y will not get re-elected if they hurt someones feelings We need to institute a 21 day quarantine off american soil of ALL incoming passengers from Africa, or an all out Ban, And anyone that has been known to be in any degree of contact with a known carrier needs to be quarantined, But hey I am just paranoid Perhaps we should put the IRS in charge of public safety? Not everyone agrees with your philosophy though, I asked someone is it okay to risk the lives of many to save one person (not talking about Ebola) and surprising he said, Of course the answer is yes," Guess this guy wasn't a Star Trek fan as Spock sacrificed himself because the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. THAT said, if you're in the minority, then that philosophy sucks. Not everyone agrees with your philosophy though, I asked someone is it okay to risk the lives of many to save one person (not talking about Ebola) and surprising he said, Of course the answer is yes," Guess this guy wasn't a Star Trek fan as Spock sacrificed himself because the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. THAT said, if you're in the minority, then that philosophy sucks. The Star Trek writers sure knew how to put an extreme spin on situations and challenge the philosophical views of a person. The person you reference may still have been a Star Trek fan; therefore, if he is, I suspect that the “real question” probably should be, who would you emulate, “Kirk” or “Spock”? In Kirk's view of the world, "the needs of the one seemed to outweigh the needs of the many." In the Star Trek movie following the movie where Spock made his memorable quote, Kirk indirectly kills his own son, blows up the Enterprise, kills an army of Klingons, and essentially destroys the careers of his crew and himself, all done in the process of “narrowly” saving the lives of a few. Think about it, an entire planet dies in the process and Kirk surely thinks the cost was worth it. Of course, from Spock’s perspective, taking the needs of the many on blind faith can be dangerous too. With all things being equal, let’s break down the notion that Spock’s "principle" suggests that it is preferable to satisfy the needs of many people compared to few people. On the surface Spock's statement sure seems intuitive. However, in practice, an individual person’s morality has a self-referencing aspect too it. Think about it this way, if a person would cruelly, or relentlessly ignore the well-being of their own child to greatly assist another group of children numerically greater than one child, I believe that most would NOT consider that premise to be a healthy state-of-affairs. Now from another perspective, would Spock find it logical to eliminate 100 geniuses that love Ketchup to ensure the survival of 1,000,000 idiots that hate Ketchup? I believe that the fundamental problem with his premise is that it fails to take into account the legitimacy of the “need.” For example, there are people that "need" various types of illusions to maintain a sense of self-worth, and can be "righteously indignant" toward others when those illusions are shattered. Think about any one of the forum threads (hint.....cable threads seem to come to mind ) that can quickly digress and on that basis one can probably justify, within "their own sense of illusion," the silencing or elimination of a minority portion of the forum that don't agree could be beneficial to the argument. Since Spock knew he was going to die either way (by explosion or by radiation), was he really “sacrificing” himself since he was not faced with the dilemma of choosing between his own interests over the interests of the crew? Spock’s statement, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" was more gratis, and not necessarily relevant to the situation at hand. He should have said something like, "I'll be burnt to a crisp either way, Captain, live long and prosper and be sure to ask for Ketchup with those fries." Edited October 15, 2014 by Fjd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joessportster Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Just a couple days ago I was blasted as Bizarre for expecting healthcare professionals to act responsibly after being in contact with Ebola patients. Our PC society cant even look far enough ahead to protect itself from the most dangerous virus currently being spread on the planet Anyone in contact with these infected people needs to quarantined for the 21 day incubation period, The rights of the few do not outweigh the rights of millions to live There are laws in 47 states that allow the government to take DRASTIC measures in a Public Health threat, They can confiscate your food, money, property it is a crime to resist. We are already basically a police state we just have politicians that are afraid X or Y will not get re-elected if they hurt someones feelings We need to institute a 21 day quarantine off american soil of ALL incoming passengers from Africa, or an all out Ban, And anyone that has been known to be in any degree of contact with a known carrier needs to be quarantined, But hey I am just paranoid Perhaps we should put the IRS in charge of public safety? Not everyone agrees with your philosophy though, I asked someone is it okay to risk the lives of many to save one person (not talking about Ebola) and surprising he said, Of course the answer is yes," Guess this guy wasn't a Star Trek fan as Spock sacrificed himself because the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. THAT said, if you're in the minority, then that philosophy sucks. If you think about it they already are in charge of almost everything public, They take in the funds and everything in this country is money driven That said I think the IRS should be disbanned and the country should move to a flat tax system. We have 4 hospitals in this country that are actually set up to battle something like this and they have extensive training in dealing with this stuff, In my opinion someone with these skills and training should be in charge of stopping this threat in the USA I have no desire to infringe on anyones rights however there is a point where individual rights must not affect masses For myself and my family we have a decent food stock of non perishables and we can move our motorhome as necessary till the fuel runs out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted October 15, 2014 Author Share Posted October 15, 2014 Now from another perspective, would Spock find it logical to eliminate 100 geniuses that love Ketchup to ensure the survival of 1,000,000 idiots that hate Ketchup? you think Ebola is bad ... imagine a world without Ketchup. That was a lucid and well-thought out argument--i reject it completely Just joking, of course. Kinda fun to put fictional characters in real world situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.