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 and Media: Pennsylvania Patient

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I was searching around on the web looking for the latest news on ebola, and since I live in the Keystone State, I of course occasionally check to see if anything has showed up locally. It appears that yesterday a patient showed up at a hospital in Berks County, Pennsylvania to be tested for ebola because they had recently been in Liberia and they were concerned that they might have contracted the virus.

When I did a google search for "ebola pennsylvania berks county" one of the results was "Patient Tests Negative for Ebola in Reading". Makes you feel all warm and toasty inside, right? But then I click on the actual link to read about it... The title is completely different and the article specifically states that the hospital DID NOT test the patient for ebola, they merely screened them for symptoms. What's up with that?

Here is the link:

After being in Liberia, patient shows up for ebola screening

Why did they not test the patient? And why does the article say they did exactly as the CDC says to do, which apparently is to not test the patient?




posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Ummm. Shouldn't they have run the Ebola test? Sounds like another Texas hospital we have learned about. Seems you need two trips to the ER to get anything discovered. There is probable cause to administer the test. We're in for some big trouble, the ones who are supposed to be checking are blowing things off.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

I'm wondering if maybe some of these hospitals don't draw blood to test for ebola because they are afraid to do so? Or better yet, if it is because the patient does not have the money or insurance to cover the cost of the test?



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: HillbillyHippie1

Maybe the Ebola test is not covered by insurance if there is no solid evidence. Now that evidence will manifest in a couple of days if the guy has Ebola, after he has contaminated others. The CDC should be picking up the tab for the Ebola test part of the ER if there is a situation like this involving travel to an effected area and also some symptoms to justify it.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

That makes me curious as to whether or not the governments of the world, and particularly the United States (or at the very least my own Commonwealth), have risk management procedures in place for the financial costs of a pandemic. That is, do they have special funds or programs that will pay the costs for properly evaluating and testing patients who are unable to pay? If so, are those funds and programs adequate?

I don't think such funds or programs, if used specifically for that reason, would be wildly unpopular at all. That is, I can't see any sane person saying "don't test the welfare bums with my money!" 'cause "their money" would actually be going to protect them by having such programs. I'm not saying these particular funds and programs should also pay for treatment (although that would be ethical), but they should at least be in place to pay for testing and diagnoses.

Actually on another note, I am surprised drug companies and pharmacies don't develop some sort of home tests for various viruses like ebola that could be bought up by institutions like the CDC and distributed during outbreaks. Apparently they make HIV home test kits, so why not for other serious viruses? For that matter, why not influenza? Well, it appears they are working on the influenza one...

Home test kits would go a long long way in helping to prevent and control serious pandemics, I would think.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: HillbillyHippie1

Not to worry. He'll be back in a few days bleeding from every orifice and they'll test him then. I'm sure he'll keep a list of everyone he came in contact with since the first time he was there. Then we can wonder which of those people is the next patient.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: HillbillyHippie1
Well if you live in this, best state in the universe like I do them you would know how crappy our medical care is around here.

I mean it's a joke to get proper care in this state. The medical treatment I received in California was better by far.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: HillbillyHippie1

Maybe the Ebola test is not covered by insurance if there is no solid evidence. Now that evidence will manifest in a couple of days if the guy has Ebola, after he has contaminated others. The CDC should be picking up the tab for the Ebola test part of the ER if there is a situation like this involving travel to an effected area and also some symptoms to justify it.



Insurance companies better pony-up and pay, or they may end up with a small % of their customers left alive to pay their precious premiums.

But really, it is the government's job to make sure citizens are safe. What is the point of having a government if they don't put their own people first???

As far as I'm concerned, this Ebola mess is a matter of national security, in the strictest sense of the term. While we pay out wads of money to other countries (buying friends & allies) in the name of national security, our true security is at risk of completely unraveling right here on the home front. The brewing panic is almost as dangerous as the threat of an outbreak.

So, our national defense should forgo the purchase of the next fighter jet (or 3 or 10) and fully fund the fight against the true terror-- the very real potential of an Ebola epidemic in America. Pay for tests, top-of-the-line PPE's for our medical personnel, training for same, equipment (including sterilization/incineration of hazardous waste.) Etc, etc...

edit on 10/16/2014 by new_here because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Urantia1111

All it would take for this entire thing to get out of hand is... for example...

Let's say someone contracted the ebola virus who worked for Walmart and they either worked the register or, even worse, unloaded the trucks (not that I have had experience with the latter, but I have it on good authority (myself) these people get cuts all the time because they unload dilapidated truckloads everyday, and they must do so quickly). So they get cut and boxes get touched (every single box gets touched by this one person) and they go down the line and get stacked on pallets which later go to the floor. No one notices there is blood on the boxes because Walmart pushes their workers like a bunch of slave drivers. Heck, the individual unloading the truck probably doesn't even notice they got cut! Now you have thousands of ebola ridden boxes sitting in a very popular department store. Do you see where I am going with this?

I "unloaded" trucks for Walmart as a Backroom Supervisor for 2 1/2 years. I will be the first to tell you that disease spreads like wildfire through Walmart, and I picked up the virus that causes common warts while doing that job - a virus that spreads much like ebola (through open wounds). I know I picked it up there because several other people developed warts on their fingers before I did (the first, being some of the unloaders).

If the ebola virus can live on surfaces for several weeks... What if someone who works at a distribution center (who loads trucks that go all over the place) gets something like ebola?

That would be "why" they should test people and not screen them, I would think.

What is the response from just about every supervisor in the world if an employee gets a cut? "Suck it up!" Especially if it is just a little paper-cut. Why? Because in our society "production" and the bottom dollar is what keeps jobs! The hospitals need to test people because corporations sure as hell will not stop production for a paper-cut. That's a fact!



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   
they did this same thing to the guy in OKC.

headline said it was confirmed, but they didnt even test him. they said because the person he was exposed to (who had come from west africa) wasnt in "any of the 3 hotzones" he must not have been exposed. they sent him home.

a) he could have lied
b) guinea,sierra leone, and liberia arent the only places in west africa with cases
c) he could have fled one of those countries and flew in from a neighboring one.


but the story was buried and forgotten after his discharge.

edit on 16-10-2014 by LurkingRelentlessly because: forgot a word



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: LurkingRelentlessly

There is definitely something seriously wrong with the response in all of this. Common sense is extremely lacking (of course that could be because compulsory education does not teach common sense) - this could simply be a result of what the "beast" creates (numb-nuts everywhere).

I just do not understand what is so wrong with being overly cautious and actually testing potential contractors of ebola, at least in the early stages of an outbreak. I can understand later, when you have to have the facilities not bogged-down so truly potential patients can be tested, but what is so wrong with being overly cautious and testing everyone who "may" be infected, early on?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   
It is interesting to question the potential problems with the ebola versus finances though. I mean, how much of what appears to be incompetence is plain greed? How much of the odd decisions we see are based on money and not simple common sense?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   
I like your idea of a home Ebola test kit. That would be great. It just has to be accurate, or else all hell will break loose... as we can imagine.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: MarkJS

It would probably be accurate enough to warrant going and getting a more accurate test or spending the money on such, I would think.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 04:19 AM
link   
EDIT: this was a response to Rickymouse. On whether Ebola is covered by health insurance/providers.



This was mentioned on another thread earlier. Out of curiosity. While paying my health insurance here in Pittsburgh. I ask my concierge if I was covered. ( because I looked in my 2 inch thick 2014 coverage book ). Its not mentioned.

HOWEVER. I was told. The policy covers TROPICAL DISEASES AND INFECTIONS. And there are a hand full of Doctors here for that.

I would also like to point out. The University of Pittsburgh, has a very unique lab of techs and doctors. That work on these " Viruses ". In fact. You need a Government clearance to work there.
It a bit hush hush.
While as a student there. A lifelong family friend, whom works at this lab.
Told me their purpose was to find cures. BUT THEY ALSO WORK ON BIO WEAPONS.

Back on track. Your health insurance should cover "Tropical Diseases and Infection".

edit on 16-10-2014 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: HillbillyHippie1

Maybe the Ebola test is not covered by insurance if there is no solid evidence. Now that evidence will manifest in a couple of days if the guy has Ebola, after he has contaminated others. The CDC should be picking up the tab for the Ebola test part of the ER if there is a situation like this involving travel to an effected area and also some symptoms to justify it.



Here is the corrected Quote
Thank you.


ETA: Keywords are. Presently showing Signs And Symptoms.
edit on 16-10-2014 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: new_here

I think they should make sure they take the best of care for the nurses that get sick from taking care of others with diseases like this. If a nurse dies from catching this from work, the CDC should have a life insurance benefit for it, like about an extra ten to twenty grand to help with the funeral expenses and etc. I wouldn't think it should be much higher than this because some people might purposely expose themselves for a hundred grand. The problem is that this could actually increase the spread if the payment is too high.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Good Lord, Reading Hospital? A little close to home for me. I was born there. My mother, now retired, worked there for 30 years.

I don't care about symptoms. If someone traveled to the affected countries in West Africa and requests an ebola test, YOU TEST HIM.
edit on 16-10-2014 by sweetpeanc because: grammar



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

The problem is that the test for a rare disease is not often covered unless there are multiple symptoms that the disease is present. I have to have evidence that proves I have a good chance I have AIP to even get the testing done. I now have the proof from genetic testing, but to get proper designation I need to have specific testing done to show the extent of reduction of an enzyme. That will cost ten grand.

So my evidence and family history only gets me in the door and it is still questionable whether the insurance will cover this. I will just write on my dr's info sheet that I have the disease and supply a copy of my genetic report which is considered 99.9 percent accurate. It is adequate to keep the doctors from prescribing meds that can negatively effect me. There are safe meds that can be prescribed. I do not need to be having this ten grand of tests done. Once I mark this on my paperwork, Drs have to watch not to give me these medicines.

I understand that testing should not be covered if there are no symptoms and not much of a chance of exposure, but in the case in this thread it should have been done. If this disease starts spreading here, I think it should be covered.


edit on 16-10-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Bigburgh

The problem is that the test for a rare disease is not often covered unless there are multiple symptoms that the disease is present. I have to have evidence that proves I have a good chance I have AIP to even get the testing done. I now have the proof from genetic testing, but to get proper designation I need to have specific testing done to show the extent of reduction of an enzyme. That will cost ten grand.

So my evidence and family history only gets me in the door and it is still questionable whether the insurance will cover this. I will just write on my dr's info sheet that I have the disease and supply a copy of my genetic report which is considered 99.9 percent accurate. It is adequate to keep the doctors from prescribing meds that can negatively effect me. There are safe meds that can be prescribed. I do not need to be having this ten grand of tests done. Once I mark this on my paperwork, Drs have to watch not to give me these medicines.

I understand that testing should not be covered if there are no symptoms and not much of a chance of exposure, but in the case in this thread it should have been done. If this disease starts spreading here, I think it should be covered.




Wow... 1k. That's criminal..
Especially in a time we have CDC asking everyone to use precautions.

My situation is, I've had back surgery 7 times...
And I got Staph every time..
One case I had an " Un-specified Phlegmon ..
Then... in nursing school.. I got my 3 series of hepatitis vaccinations...
Afterwards the blood bank called.. they needed type O pos.
I donated.. then got a call saying I had a new disease called C-Crusi.
You get this in south America...
I've never been to south America and gave blood 3 times a year for 10 yrs before that.

So point here is.. my Personal physician start RE WORDING my blood test.. I was never denied...
I don't have C-Crusi or hepatitis c.. because of the vaccinations, I have the Antibodies.

Find a new doctor... my co-pays for any test is never more than $45 for blood work. And $180 for any MRI X-ray altrasoundor nuclear scan..

It's all how the doctor words his orders.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join