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.

 

Texas health worker with Ebola wore full protective gear

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
www.rawstory.com...





A Texas health care worker who treated a Liberian man who died of Ebola was wearing full protective gear but was infected with the dangerous virus anyway, health officials said Sunday.

The caregiver, whose gender and identity were not revealed by Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, tested positive for Ebola on Saturday in a preliminary test and is currently in the hospital, in isolation and in stable condition.

A confirmation of the case — which would be the first contracted on US soil — by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is expected later in the day.


Faulty protection leak in the protective gear. This makes me think that perhaps ebola can be an airborne virus after all despite what the CDC says.





“This is not news that should bring about panic,” said Dallas county judge Clay Jenkins.


Since when does a county judge speak for the medical community?
edit on 12-10-2014 by olaru12 because: ,ter9,




posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

What exactly do they mean by "full protective gear"? Like a level A1 HAZMAT suit? If you look at the WHO and CDC pictographs depicting the steps to take for PPE to deal with Ebola, they are very very very wrong with the info they share on how to don and doff the PPE.

The WHO tells people that the first step in doffing PPE is to REMOVE THE GLOVES first!

The CDC has been saying that it is good practice to DOUBLE GLOVE.

Both are the exact opposite of what should be done. One would think the health care workers would know better, but who knows really.

I'll try and find the PDFs for both of these documents. I saw them on another Ebola related thread on here a week ago.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
^ And this is why containing this disease will be nearly impossible.
edit on 12-10-2014 by JoeDaShom because: Forgot to quote.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
a reply to: olaru12



What exactly do they mean by "full protective gear"? Like a level A1 HAZMAT suit? If you look at the WHO and CDC pictographs depicting the steps to take for PPE to deal with Ebola, they are very very very wrong with the info they share on how to don and doff the PPE.



The WHO tells people that the first step in doffing PPE is to REMOVE THE GLOVES first!



The CDC has been saying that it is good practice to DOUBLE GLOVE.



Both are the exact opposite of what should be done. One would think the health care workers would know better, but who knows really.



I'll try and find the PDFs for both of these documents. I saw them on another Ebola related thread on here a week ago.

Couldnt have put it better myself. Good Job



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: JoeDaShom

True. Then again, only 5000 dead in basically the biggest cesspool on earth? Im really not sure if that's something real to worry about, at least from a western perspective. I mean, Monrovia basically doesn't have running water and millions live there. You'd think the numbers would be higher... Then again, maybe they are.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I don't think that, because the nurse was wearing protective gear, that it necessarily proffers a jump to it being airborne. The thing about protective gear is that once you put it on, you have to take it off after it's been contaminated. The other possibility is a quick wipe to the eye to clear it of debris as Ebola does have a point of entry through the eyes. It's most likely an eye swipe or improperly removing gear to avoid contamination here.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sparkymedic

It's not necessarily the number of deaths so much as it's the ratio of deaths to infected.

Since I see it brought up a lot that the flu kills many more, let's break down the proportions.

I'm going to use the numbers given on this link to work off of.

US population in 2013 = 317 million
Ave. US cases of flu per year = 5 - 20% (CDC estimates)
Ave. number of US flu deaths per year = 36,000

Let's use worst case of 20% population infected.

63,400,000 is 20% of 317 million.
36,000 deaths out of 63,400,000 million people infected.
That's .056%.
Even rounding up to 6%, the flu has a 94% survival rate.

Ebola's survival rate currently seems to be 50/50.
It would take 72,000 Ebola cases to get the same 36,000 deaths that happen with 63,400,000 flu cases.

THAT'S why the number of Ebola deaths is scary.
edit on 10/12/2014 by halfpint0701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/12/2014 by halfpint0701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
This caught my eye reading the article.......
"But Dan Varga, the chief clinical officer for Texas Health Resources, said officials were “very concerned” that the worker had apparently contracted the virus despite following safety protocol.

“This individual was following full CDC precautions,” he said, noting that the gear would have included a mask, gown, and gloves."

The above quote is directed at all the naysayers that claim the Ebola virus is not easy to transmit.
Well folks it sure looks like this strain is a bit Robust and aggressive too!

All my opinion only.

S&F to the OP for bringing this to the table.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
The disease is so aggressive that it will fizzle out before reaching the American public.
This bug is really a danger to healthcare workers, because full protective gear remains unacceptably poor.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join