Ebola calm-mongering?????

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: dianajune

Someone said they can do it in an hour at special facilities. Was he lying?

I heard that some faster tests (other than the ones that take two or three days) are being developed but it seems to me that they wouldn't be ready so soon.

According to this report out of NYC, they claim that the Ebola test results will be back within 12 hours. Again, that seems to be a very short timeframe:

newyork.cbslocal.com...

Here's another example of calm-mongering from this report:

“The chances of the average New Yorker contracting Ebola are extremely slim,” officials said. “Ebola is spread by directly touching the bodily fluids of an infected person. You cannot be infected simply be being near someone who has Ebola.”

This is a big fat lie. Let's say someone is feeling quite ill.....thinks it's the flu and goes to the local Walmart to get some medicine. He hops on a city bus to get there.....coughing all over the place....sneezing too. Then uses the restroom because of g.i. issues....inc. bleeding. Throws up too.

Goes to the pharmacy to get his meds and hops the next bus to go back home, feeling more crummy as time goes on.

I could go into further detail, but the above scenario shows how many contamination points there could be. If an infected person is sitting a few feet away from you and sneezes, you're exposed. If you touch the handrail of a bus, for example, and an infected person got on board just before you after having used the restroom - and didn't wash his hands - you're exposed.

In NYC you'd have to multiply this times the number of New Yorkers who take public transportation each day. This is a recipe for disaster.

Does anyone still think this is over?

originally posted by: D4rcyJones
Testing does not take several days. We can have a test turn around in as little as 4 hours at our designated lab.
The reason it can take 3 days is because not all labs can do the test so have to be sent elsewhere.
Also its only ever a confirmed ebola once its been confirmed at a WHO reference lab. Basically if we have someone we can do a test and very quickly rule out ebola however if our lab results are positive we still have to get a sample packaged and sent to either a lab in south Africa (NIV) or to Atlanta (CDC) to be officially confirmed because of how long it takes to get there it might be 3 days before its confirmed evd but we are able to rule out evd very quickly. Also pretty much every suspected case turns out to be malaria, they test for malaria before doing anything else and point f care malaria tests are rapid and so can rule out ebola extremely quickly

Just wondering... what if they have malaria and Ebola at the same time?

a reply to: MarkJS

Yep that is a concern and is addressed in various contingency plans.
In this unlikely scenario there would be little risk to lab staff as they are already aware that they are doing a malaria test on potential ebola patient so wiukd be using appropriate ppe.
while the tests are being conducted the treating team would also be using appropriate ppe because at this stage they are suspected of evd.
If a positive malaria test came back treatment woukd begin straight away and patient would respond quickly to this treatment. If they do not respond to treatment then patient get escalated again to a higher evd risk and testing takes place again for evd.
During all this the patient would not be able to leave or even move freely around a hospital, hcw contact would be limited and while the patient isolated, lab staff would already be in ppe as per their usual guidelines. So there would be very little risk of transmission.
The main concern would be for the patient, as treatment for evd would have been delayed and in this time the patient could rapidly deteriorate.

Didn't know that patients with Malaria need HCW using PPE. Good to know.

You wrote:
"hcw contact would be limited and while the patient isolated"

Brings the idea of Ebola treatment centers to mind. Separate from the hospitals proper. Good idea?

a reply to: MarkJS

Sorry i probably shouod have been clearer.. our contingency plan is huge and I'm trying to summarise.

Normally they would not be wearing and additional ppe for malaria but as ebola is currently on everyone's watch list and with malaria being the main differential diagnosis hcws would be approaching with ebola as highly unlikely (depending on epidemiological evidence) but with the view that just in case and so take extra precautions then they would normally.
If the hospital has on site rapid testing for malaria then the turn around can be as little as 15mins.. we esitmate in one of our hospital we could have a person go from walk in to low risk -> suspected -> probable within an hour. During this whole time they would be in isolation room from the point of saying "i feel sick just came fron west africa". We would receive lab confirmation of ebola within 3 hours and official confirmation from a reference lab with 48hours (depending on time of presentation and if its a weekend or not)

As to having ebola treatment take place off site of hospital this is what is taking place in Africa and for there it is a good idea as otherwise ebola patients fill all the hospital beds and other people cant be seen. Id take a guess and say that in some areas there are just as many people dying from non ebola related health issue as there are ppeople dying from ebola simply because there is no resources let for them.
In western countries where we only have to worry about individual imported cases it would create a greater risk then having them seen in a proper hospital just due to the logistics of creating an entirely separate facility that has the equipment needed to treat.

Maybe it was just me misunderstanding you concerning Malaria and PPE.

Thank you for your time, feedback and clarification.