'Occupy Atlanta' Shelter Tests Positive for Tuberculosis

reply to post by My.mind.is.mine

I didn't say we HAD to get tested... It was more so to stop the rumors.

That's incredibly encouraging. "We just went through the motions..."

Might explain why you have such a chip on your shoulder despite the fact that, presuming your PPD was administered the moment the story broke, it would only just now be able to give a legitimate readout.

www.medicinenet.com...

"Reading" the skin test means detecting a raised, thickened local area of skin reaction, referred to as induration. Induration is the key item to detect, not redness or bruising. Skin tests should be read 48-72 hours after the injection when the size of the induration is maximal. Tests read after 72 hours tend to underestimate the size of the induration.

Of course, the test was a waste of money. . . .

www.medicinenet.com...

An incubation period of two to 12 weeks is usually necessary after exposure to the TB bacteria in order for the PPD test to be positive. Anyone can have a TB test, and it can be given to infants, pregnant women, or HIV-infected people with no danger. It is only contraindicated in people who have had a severe reaction to a previous tuberculin skin test.

So, take it again in six weeks.

See Creative Loafing thought it would be a good idea, but the thing is, though Occupy Atlanta is operated out of a homeless shelter, it is based in an office space outside of the common area. Soooooo please, give it up.

This... is horribly ignorant of how disease is spread.

"I was in another room... attached to a common room... but in another room." Because it is a well known fact that disease is spread by rooms, not the people who travel between those rooms (and do not interact with each other outside of the room in question).

reply to post by Aim64C


Your sarcasm and condescending attitude toward what I have said is definitely understood. That I don't thank you for.

However......in the rest of your post....you make some very good points...food for thought.

reply to post by Aim64C

An incubation period of two to 12 weeks is usually necessary after exposure to the TB bacteria in order for the PPD test to be positive. Anyone can have a TB test, and it can be given to infants, pregnant women, or HIV-infected people with no danger. It is only contraindicated in people who have had a severe reaction to a previous tuberculin skin test.

So when were the two people in the homeless shelter that were alledgedly diagnosed with TB, infected, and tested? Could be as long as 12 weeks ago?

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by Aim64C

 

An incubation period of two to 12 weeks is usually necessary after exposure to the TB bacteria in order for the PPD test to be positive. Anyone can have a TB test, and it can be given to infants, pregnant women, or HIV-infected people with no danger. It is only contraindicated in people who have had a severe reaction to a previous tuberculin skin test.

So when were the two people in the homeless shelter that were alledgedly diagnosed with TB, infected, and tested? Could be as long as 12 weeks ago?

edit on 12-11-2011 by CaptainInstaban because: (no reason given)

Thats 12 weeks min until it show up on tests. They could have caught it years ago without showing any signs of illness.

reply to post by Aim64C

Thats 12 weeks min until it show up on tests. They could have caught it years ago without showing any signs of illness.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


So these people could have been infected, way before OWS even began?

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
The filthy dirty horde is turning into a disease ridden cesspool in the early hours of an epidemic.
Join now, get your disease today.

Tell us how you really feel buddy.
Well, it looks like you have your mind made up, so instead of telling you how biased and ignorant you are being about two (count em.. two) people have TB in a homeless shelter of all places (perhaps they were REAL LIVE homeless people who just so happened to have TB long before!? No.. thats to simple)
Ill just tell you to climb back into that lil shoe box of yours.
TB is not uncommon, my entire staff gets tested for it once a year, or should i say my filthy dirty horde?
Welcome to the real world.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

Thats 12 weeks min until it show up on tests. They could have caught it years ago without showing any signs of illness.

You fail to understand.

Our resident OWS member has quite a chip on his shoulder. He's been tested - he's not been exposed to TB from the homeless shelter, right?

OWS is safe and in the clear - he's been tested.

Except... what if our ATS member in possession of his own mind was exposed to this just days before the homeless shelter tested positive.

The test will not show a positive until TB has been given plenty of time to incubate. However - if our member has been exposed to TB even just a week ago - his mucous membranes are likely quite contagious - even though he is showing no signs and will not test positive for, at the bare minimum, another week (could be as long as another three months before he will test positive).

Are you starting to get my point?

Just as the OWS movement seems to have serious qualms with the concept of economics - they also seem to have serious qualms with the concept of disease. Do not confuse this with an attack on hygiene. Like I said - in boot camp, we had considerable focus on cutting down on infections (to include hygiene - of course - though that was mostly to prevent staph infections), and we cleaned the living piss out of that compartment on a daily basis.

OWS cannot afford to take this example and simply turn their nose up at it or use it as a shilling point. It raises a very valid concern - not just for the health of the OWS crowd but of the 99% they claim to represent. If OWS gets infected, the communities around them have considerable risks for communicable diseases, as well.

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by Aim64C

 

Thats 12 weeks min until it show up on tests. They could have caught it years ago without showing any signs of illness.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

So these people could have been infected, way before OWS even began?

edit on 12-11-2011 by CaptainInstaban because: (no reason given)

If the OWS hasn't been going on for 12 weeks then its an absolute guaranty.

reply to post by Aim64C


According to your own sources, the people must´ve been infected before OWS even started there, in order for their tests to be positive at this time, if I´m not mistaken.

So what does it have to do with OWS?


Occupy Wall Street started on Sept. 17th, in New York. So it started later in Atlanta, definately shorter than 12 weeks.

reply to post by CaptainInstaban

So these people could have been infected, way before OWS even began?

Are we that single-minded?

"It wasn't OWS who started the infection!"

Rather irrelevant when you're looking at a crowd of people using improvised housing methods in a park, known to regularly interact with people from the homeless shelter that tested positive for Tuberculosis.

They are outside, in the cold - their mucous membranes are diluted in the body's attempt to protect itself from the moisture-robbing cold, cutting its effectiveness as a barrier for the immune system. They are also interacting with plenty of people outside of their local biosphere - which translates to strains of bacteria alien to their bodies as well as some entirely new pathogens (to them). They are under stress and perhaps not on an optimal diet.

It should raise some eyebrows when uncommon diseases start rearing their head in the region. Not because the people in the tents may have started it - but that they are potentially going to catch it and it spread amongst their ranks rather quickly.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


This is very predictable, why I say this because just a few weeks ago I was talking about what kind of propaganda the government will used to stop the OWS and one of the topics was infections diseases, like somebody else said, what is next Cholera? I bet very soon it will be no only Cholera added but Typhoid and small pot I will no put on doubt that infections could be introduced by outside forces.

So predictable. Specially when the CDC is in Atlanta.

reply to post by Aim64C

Are we that single-minded? "It wasn't OWS who started the infection!"

LOL.

`2 people got TB, it´s OWS´fault!`

Rather irrelevant when you're looking at a crowd of people using improvised housing methods in a park, known to regularly interact with people from the homeless shelter that tested positive for Tuberculosis.

It is relevant, when the story is being used to discredit OWS, as if the infections are a direct result of OWS, when they probably are not, and when we are talking about a mere two cases.

reply to post by CaptainInstaban

According to your own sources, the people must´ve been infected before OWS even started there, in order for their tests to be positive at this time, if I´m not mistaken.

So what does it have to do with OWS?

You've seen my real reply to this. "Who started it" is rather irrelevant to the conditions the OWS crowd are in, and the fact that TB is showing up nearby - which should be prompting concern for the health of the OWS crowd. Not because they are "dirty" or "unhealthy" - but because the conditions they are choosing to 'occupy' are conducive to the spread of diseases - which means the people participating in it are vulnerable should they be exposed to diseases that are uncommon these days. . . such as, say... TB.

However, I'll play.

Did the OWS crowd simply come into existence two months ago?

No. They came from an existence (and way of life) prior to camping out in parks. For some - OWS is not a change of pace in the slightest. That way of life could easily lead to a number of infections (the least telling of which being TB) - and then they show up in support of OWS (or, just move their coin-cup a few blocks over).

OWS represents a mentality that predated the movement. The mentality, those that bear it, and the lifestyles they had all predate the OWS event.

Which means the argument of "OWS didn't create the TB infection because it isn't 12 weeks old" is a bit silly.

Like I said - I'm merely playing with the shadows of ignorance at this point. I like taking things apart - it's a hobby.

reply to post by Aim64C

It should raise some eyebrows when uncommon diseases start rearing their head in the region.

if 1/3 of the worlds population has TB i wouldn't call it uncommon.

Also to say that everyone at the OWS protests were living in tents in parks before all this started is a bit of a broad statement.

reply to post by CaptainInstaban


Again... you just don't seem to get it.

OWS is a large group of people, in close-quarters, in conditions straining to their immune systems.

A highly contagious, and notoriously lethal pathogen has been detected in a nearby homeless shelter used to organize the OWS movement, not to mention the OWS movement has regular interaction with the OWS crowd.

One of the members seems to believe he is safe (and seems to have an attitude as though he represents the whole - which I hope not to be the case) - because he has been tested. The problem is that the test does not verify a lack of exposure or infection, at this point. It can't.

Tuberculosis has an equal opportunity policy. A large group of people is a large group of people - whether you are at a fancy ballroom dance among wealthy people or gathering around a burning barrel for warmth. It doesn't care if you are rallying to support Hitler or rallying to denounce a dictator.

It really doesn't care who started what. It's an organism. It seeks resources to survive and reproduce, and will take what it can get - and thrive where it is easy to get it.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


"The filthy dirty horde"

Very adult of you to find clever ways to describe those who you never even met.
Now not knowing zero about them,other than they are protesting,I havent anything to go by in order to label them.

However you,which can only be judged by what little info you present by your remarks,are well.......
I think you could find a few labels suitable for you.

Well cheers to ya anyways,as well as hopeing you find a friend who can remove your head from your backside.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

if 1/3 of the worlds population has TB i wouldn't call it uncommon.

www.cdc.gov...

In 2010, a total of 11,181 tuberculosis (TB) cases were reported in the United States, for a rate of 3.6 cases per 100,000 population, which was a decline of 3.9% from 2009 and the lowest rate recorded since national reporting began in 1953 (1).

There are a lot of things common in the human population of the planet that we, in developed countries (or, in our case, an entirely developed continent) don't have to deal with much.

Among U.S.-born persons, the number and rate of TB cases declined in 2010. The 4,378 TB cases in U.S.-born persons (39.5% of all cases in persons with known national origin) were a 3.7% decrease compared with 2009, and a 74.9% decrease compared with 1993 (Figure 2). The 1.6 cases per 100,000 population TB rate among U.S.-born persons represented a 4.6% decrease since 2009 and a 77.8% decrease since 1993.

Among foreign-born persons in the United States, the number and rate of TB cases declined in 2010. A total of 6,707 TB cases were reported among foreign-born persons (60.5% of all cases in persons with known national origin), a 3.4% decrease from 2009. The 18.1 per 100,000 population TB rate among foreign-born persons was a 4.3% decrease since 2009 and a 46.8% decrease since 1993. In 2010, four countries accounted for 50.3% of TB cases associated with foreign birth: Mexico (1,539 [23.0%]), the Philippines (738 [11.0%]), India (577 [8.6%]), and Vietnam (518 [7.7%]).

Also to say that everyone at the OWS protests were living in tents in parks before all this started is a bit of a broad statement.

I will quote myself:

"For some - OWS is not a change of pace in the slightest."

I can be a bit of an odd person to communicate with. Extreme care is taken to choose words, most of the time. This is because I enjoy plays-on-words, double-meanings, homonyms, homophones, etc. I included the word "some."

Further:

"Like I said - I'm merely playing with the shadows of ignorance at this point. I like taking things apart - it's a hobby. "

Which denoted I was mostly presenting a line of logic to counter the proposed.

"Who started it" is, as I've already explained, an exercise in futility that largely misses the issue.

reply to post by Aim64C

I will quote myself:

"For some - OWS is not a change of pace in the slightest."

I can be a bit of an odd person to communicate with. Extreme care is taken to choose words, most of the time. This is because I enjoy plays-on-words, double-meanings, homonyms, homophones, etc. I included the word "some."

I had misread that statement. Not sure i agree with it but i misread what you were saying.

reply to post by My.mind.is.mine

PERFECT excuse to break up the protest though isn't it hmmmm?

I think we know why this 'story' is being circulated, and it's not about worrying over TPTB (The Protesters TuBerculosis)

First we have armed protesters getting ready for a 'war' with police, and here we have health scares, so there's two useful excuses to break up the OWS folks...what better than violent thugs and rampant, infectious disease to end public sympathy?

Originally posted by TinfoilTP


This is what will happen to you if you go live in a tent city with strangers all packed in closely together with no sanitary facillities.

I'm not sure the folks at Troy university would take kindly to you describing their facilities like that

tuberculosis confirmed at troy university