It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ebola Patient in Atlanta Hospital

page: 52
128
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Shouldn't they both have on SCBAs? If Emory is the supposed BSL-4 facility they are saying it is, why are they wearing BSL-3 suits? I can see the infected doctor not needing a positive pressure suit, but the other guy? And should Dr. Brantly at least have an SCBA?

Why? Its not an airborne disease.
You only need to contain any fluids, which are much larger and easier to prevent then anything that is transmitted through the air.




posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: defcon5

Thanks for the added info. I didn't think of this at all.

Des



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: defcon5

That was Druid'42s post. Around page 36. I couldn't figure out how to repost it too well. I was reposting it for Des because things can get to be hard to keep up with or find in these long threads.

The thing Druid was noting was that one had air and one (actually two) didn't. As in air for the person to breathe.

ETA: Let's not get into the airborne or not thing again. But level-4 is level-4. And this thing requires level-4 containment. They were making it sound like he'd be stretchered and tented along the whole route. Apparently he wasn't. Again it that was even him.

ETA: From the CDC:

BSL-4 builds upon the containment requirements of BSL-3 and is the highest level of biological safety. There are a small number of BSL-4 labs in the United States and around the world. The microbes in a BSL-4 lab are dangerous and exotic, posing a high risk of aerosol-transmitted infections. Infections caused by these microbes are frequently fatal and without treatment or vaccines. Two examples of microbes worked with in a BSL-4 laboratory include Ebola and Marburg viruses. [Link]

edit on 8/3/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: VashKonnor

originally posted by: 00nunya00

But what you SAID was that he wasn't infectious, he only had the virus *in* him. Which is, despite your giggles in that post, just wrong. He was, in fact, infectious.


You are just repeating something to which I already replied.

I'm not really going to dive into this semantics discussion, sorry. Already said I explained myself poorly. Live with it.


It's cool, a simple "mea culpa" is all that's needed, it was the general condescending tone of your post that most of us are trying to avoid in this thread when correcting misinformation. I've already had to concede being wrong about a fact here, as have many others, and when facts are being corrected, people tend to be more receptive to the correct info when it's said respectfully (ie: minus comments like "the audience gasps"). Flies, honey, vinegar, all that.


So, back to the topic, I haven't had a chance to see Gupta's explanation on "not infectious," does anyone have a link for that?



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I'm posting this for thread reference.




Ebola_death_rates_2

These death rates were calculated by adding up the records of cases and deaths from all known outbreaks. Individual outbreaks can vary, and Zaire ebolavirus is often cited as having death rates up to 90 percent.

Not all Ebola viruses are the same. As happens often with viruses, close relatives can have very different effects.

The current Ebola outbreak is of the Zaire ebolavirus species. This one has historically had the highest death rate of the five different species of Ebola virus. The species was named after Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo), where it was first found in 1976.

Des



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00


it was the general condescending tone of your post that most of us are trying to avoid in this thread when correcting misinformation.


Really? Because it seems that anyone that doesn't beat the "we are all going to die now" drum is considered ignorant. That is condescending.

A joke is just a joke.


I've already had to concede being wrong about a fact here, as have many others, and when facts are being corrected, people tend to be more receptive to the correct info when it's said respectfully


Good for you!


(ie: minus comments like "the audience gasps")


I'm sorry you disapprove of my sense of humor, but there are far worst practices around these forums. (I'm not going to change it)


So, back to the topic, I haven't had a chance to see Gupta's explanation on "not infectious," does anyone have a link for that?


From what I understand it was said to him as a correction, but it wasn't to be heard by everyone else (as in, capted by microphone).

The person saying it was provably one of the commentators virologists that was keeping up, and said it. My take, is that he said "he's not infectious" as in a short way of saying "he is walking on his own, he is not hemorrhaging or vomiting".



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: VashKonnor

Sigh. Whatever, dude, have fun with that.

If anyone does have that link to the video, I'd rather interpret it for myself. Obviously can't trust explanations from this poster. Thanks in advance.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Infectious in layman's means shedding the virus to others. There is a small period when infected person does not shed viruses and that would be in the middle of his sickness.before that and after he is shedding the virus (aka infectious) .it's not written instone however quarantine apply to all the time.nobody knows the exact current incubation period but the specialists there Aka the French. It won't be available in Wikipedia in time!.
The argument is he shedding viruses now is worthless because he will be shedding in no time and lots of it he will shed the more they revived him. Even after recover or he will keep shedding AKA. Infectious. It's impossible to guarantee the spread will not happen even with top procedures in the world or even what's a available to the Marsians!!.
just like Flu, it's impossible. Point blank. Period. Absolutenmou!!



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Destinyone

I prefer more optimistic charts:






As of July 27, there were 1,323 documented cases of Ebola in west Africa, including 729 deaths. That makes it roughly as deadly as the SARS outbreak that happened 10 years ago, which killed 774 people. It’s probably worth noting, however, that the SARS victims were spread out over five different continents while Ebola is so far limited to four west African nations.

Ebola also has killed more people than dengue did in Pakistan in 2011. However, Cholera outbreaks in Zimbabwe in 2008 and Haiti in 2010 remain far more deadly than the current Ebola epidemic.

By far the most deadly disease to spike in recent years was the flu pandemic that began in 2008, which killed 284,000 people worldwide.


Just so that people know the scale we are talking about.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Whoa, while searching for the video I wanted, I came across this one, Gupta talking to the ambulance workers who transported him, and one guy says they put up drapes inside the ambulance "which makes it much easier to clean." Am I interpreting this comment wrong, or are they saying that the drapes will be disposed of, and the "hard surfaces" of the ambulance won't be disinfected as much as they might be had they not used the drapes? I mean, I'm twisting my brain trying to understand why drapes would make any difference in "how easy it is to clean hard surfaces" in an ambulance holding a guy already in a HazMat suit? Are they not going to spray every single nook and cranny of that ambulance with the most powerful antiseptic possible, just because they used drapes?




posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

maybe a RICH germa phobe, can purchase the ambulance and have it "incinerated"




sorry Howie



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: VashKonnor

Not to be Debbie Downer, but you're comparing a virus (flu) that kills very few of its victims (the elderly, babies and the weak) and is airborne (so how many millions get it every year?) versus a virus (ebola) which kills up to 90% of its victims and doesn't discriminate on health or age.

So, which one sounds more scary, the common flu bug or the very deadly Ebola?



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: VashKonnor

Not to be Debbie Downer, but you're comparing a virus (flu) that kills very few of its victims (the elderly, babies and the weak) and is airborne (so how many millions get it every year?) versus a virus (ebola) which kills up to 90% of its victims and doesn't discriminate on health or age.

So, which one sounds more scary, the common flu bug or the very deadly Ebola?
the common flu infects 3m-5m people a year. I think it is 300,000-500,000 die from it a year



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: 00nunya00
Whoa, while searching for the video I wanted, I came across this one, Gupta talking to the ambulance workers who transported him, and one guy says they put up drapes inside the ambulance "which makes it much easier to clean." Am I interpreting this comment wrong, or are they saying that the drapes will be disposed of, and the "hard surfaces" of the ambulance won't be disinfected as much as they might be had they not used the drapes? I mean, I'm twisting my brain trying to understand why drapes would make any difference in "how easy it is to clean hard surfaces" in an ambulance holding a guy already in a HazMat suit? Are they not going to spray every single nook and cranny of that ambulance with the most powerful antiseptic possible, just because they used drapes?

but what about the guy taking the video? Is he in a hazmat suit? It is passed as an aeresol. Better hope its not airborn



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: manna2

and what about the guy, watching the guy, taking the video of the guy, watching the guy,,ya what about people just watching the video?? ,,

no,, bad,, no,,wrong,,



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: manna2

your quote,,It is passed as an aeresol. is wrong,,

unless u count "projectile Vomit" as an "aeresol" which actuall denotes "pressurized" containment.

aeresol,,,no,,,



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 00nunya00

The thing about drapes, is they act like sticky bug trapping paper for Ebola. 100% cotton is best for absorption.

These are not the droids you're looking for..



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: VashKonnor

Not to be Debbie Downer, but you're comparing a virus (flu) that kills very few of its victims (the elderly, babies and the weak) and is airborne (so how many millions get it every year?) versus a virus (ebola) which kills up to 90% of its victims and doesn't discriminate on health or age.

So, which one sounds more scary, the common flu bug or the very deadly Ebola?


Common flu? It was H1N1 that killed 280,000 people.

I don't think Ebola is scary... The disease itself is, but not the outbreak. At least, not for now.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Ebola scare locks down US hospital for short time



St. Luke's Cornwall Hospital was put on lockdown for two and a half hours as police and hazmat teams responded for reports of an ER patient who had strange symptoms after traveling overseas. Police say the unidentified patient had just returned to the states from overseas and exhibited some of the unusual symptoms. He also alerted hospital staff to an unknown powdery substance on personal items that he returned to New York with. The hospital went into lockdown at around 11 a.m. It was later determined that there was no threat, and the emergency room was reopened.


How are they determining that there's "no threat" after only a few hours? Are we seriously relying so heavily on this test that has known false-negative results? How on earth can we say we're taking the best precautions when someone who has just returned from overseas travel and exhibits the "unusual" symptoms is just declared safe after a few hours? I mean, wouldn't it be safest to do the test, and even if comes back negative, to hold on to that person for another day or two and re-test them just to be sure?



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: 00nunya00

The thing about drapes, is they act like sticky bug trapping paper for Ebola. 100% cotton is best for absorption.

These are not the droids you're looking for..


Maybe so, but would you want to be the next person riding in that ambulance with an open wound knowing that a sheet of cotton was what they relied on, instead of a powerful scrub-down with super-bleach (or whatever they use, lol)? It just seems insane that on the one hand, they're using the highest level of containment possible for dealing with this guy, but on the other hand, they're relying on freaking woven fabric. Doesn't seem very consistent to me, IMHO. Why chance cutting any corners with this?



new topics

top topics



 
128
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join