Help me bring this into the public!

Horseshoe, BSN, RN · Oct 30, 2014

Did you read far enough to get to the end of your own link? I see why you posted it (the title of the piece suggests it supports your position), but the actual article concludes with the following statement:
"On the plus side, this pattern of infection also explains why people infected with Ebola aren't a risk to others until they actually fall ill with symptoms."

Oh, how I wish we had a "LOVE LOVE LOVE" button.

toomuchbaloney · Oct 30, 2014

I'm not a fan of her choices but I also don't like taking away people's choices either. I especially don't want government more involved in the health field. Government is too involved already. I think she's already proven that she's not very willing to follow protocol and it will bite her back later. However, I refuse to sign a petition to take away her license and her livelihood. That's bullying and the nursing field needs less bullies in it.

How has she proven that she's not very willing to follow protocol? She took direct care of ebola patients for goodness sake and DID NOT CONTRACT THE DISEASE. In my view that is following protocol pretty well given that it was nicely demonstrated that hospitals which cheap out of supplies and training in proven protocols put their staff at risk.

toomuchbaloney · Oct 30, 2014

Everyone keeps saying evidence based practice, please show me these studies that you are defending that support this nurse's stance of refusing quarantine. I would also like to know which of you would be willing to participate in a study to find out exactly how quickly it can be contracted or exactly how long it takes to incubate. For the nurses saying that commend her, when you paid your fee to be licensed by your home state, you willingly accepted to follow the laws of your state (however ridiculous they may sound to you). If she willingly decides to break that law, she should be punished just as any other law abiding citizen. Now I am really concerned about how many nurses are breaking laws because they do not agree with them. What's crazy is the hospital does this all the time to patients. How many times have we argued with patients about not leaving the floor, or not to take their personal medications, or not to smoke in their rooms, or not to eat when they are NPO, or that we're not disclosing the results of their test because the physician has not spoken with them first, or restricting visitation because their family is worrisome. To be honest, we as nurses violate the simplest of civil rights each day at the hospital because the patient has a right to all of these things. Yet, civil rights only become an issue when it is done to us? Be for real. And it's not fear, it's being cautious. It is a law to wear your seatbelt. By your arguments, I should be demanding that my right to do what I want in my car supersede the state's law because it's my civil right to be able to move freely in my car without restriction. By your arguments, it isn't guaranteed that I will get into a car accident, nor is it guaranteed that if I do that I will be seriously injured for not wearing one. Until I actually get into a car accident of course. There is money that has to be paid for decontamination, money for tracking possible contacts, and money for watching these contacts. Then there is the factor of trust; can we trust this individual to report symptoms if he or she knew that they would be isolated. She already threw a temper tantrum when she read a 101 temp at the airport before getting a normal oral temp. This, I believe, is probably the reason they were so particular with her. She said she was angered about something and that's why her forehead was hot. So it seems everyone would rather chance bringing another disease to America that has no cure, no vaccination, and no treatment because a study has not been done. I don't care how "uneasy" anyone claims it is, the fact that it has a 70% mortality rate and can kill you within a matter of days is reason enough to be particularly careful in preventing its spread on American soil. Why play with people's lives like that all because you are too selfish to stay at home for a few weeks. If it's not causing you harm to stay at home, then why not do it. Because you could surely cause harm by not doing so. Be safe, not sorry.

First, I would recommend using paragraphs to make reading your posts easier.

Second, it would be less time consuming for you to provide links to credible medical sources which state that quarantine of afebrile, asymptomatic persons is needed or necessary.

Third, Texas already did a "little study" when it confined Thomas Duncan's family in his small apartment with all of his heavily soiled bed linens for days without proper PPE or cleaning supplies. None of those folks came down with the disease.

Fourth, what is the morbidity and mortality of ebola patients in the USA?

Fifth, I might be a bit warm under the collar if I was detained for 6 + hours in the airport for no good reason and without much consideration for my needs or concerns in the process. Wouldn't you?

Finally, taking action out of fear is not being cautious it is being fearful. Fearful people are frequently irrational and unreasonable.

kids · Oct 30, 2014

"Not very willing to follow protocol" how?? She was treating Ebola patients in W. Africa and came home healthy, so she must have been pretty good at the protocols there. Are you referring to her refusing to comply with an asinine, pointless "quarantine" protocol concocted by non-healthcare people pandering to the irrational fears of the public?

The CDC and her state health department are hardly "non-healthcare" people.

I agree, MSF has lots of experience.

They've also had at least 1 volunteer who became ill.

They also don't write CDC policy.

As a healthcare professional you don't get to pick and choose what public health or infection control policies you follow. She's firmly in the "Some Risk" category whether she chooses to acknowledge it or not.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/exposure/monitoring-and-movement-of-persons-with-exposure.html#table-monitoring-movement

Since I'm sure her local Board of Nursing is following this closely any White House petition is pointless. If she really cares about her future ability to do good works she'd be wise to not jeopardize her license.

LilBitty · Oct 30, 2014

Horseshoe I read it and I saw that. I don't disagree with it. I'm saying, what if she is out and about and begins to develop symptoms around your loved one? Unless she has a thermometer in her mouth 24hrs out of the day, she is going to have a hard time determining exactly when she developed a fever (if she develops one). There are way too many what ifs when the logical thing to do is keep the exposed person at home until there's an all clear. It seems like a ridiculous thing to chance when it can be contained at home for a defined period. Why risk lives, money, and time when it can be contained at home. CONTAINED AT HOME. What is so ******* uncivil about staying at home. They are willing to attend to your every need and want, so what is so inhumane? Why risk lives if this disease can transition at the drop of a dime. Why not stay at home? And Tiff you're right about the mortality rate in the US, but what happens if someone who has a compromised immune system contracts it. What happens if pregnant women contract it. And the people that did contract it were wearing PPE. I don't know too many people who aren't nurses that have an isolation gown, mask, gloves, and hazmat suit lying around. Why gamble with uncertainty when there is a least costly alternative to passive-aggressively monitoring people and that's STAYING AT HOME. I personally am not scared of Ebola, but I do not want my family to be exposed. I do not want to chance my children's health with an unknown disease because of this bratty nurse. People will disagree, it's human nature. But, I will not sit idly by and let this woman potentially start a chain reaction that could potentially have deadly consequences because her state's law are not fitting to her. If it is a requirement for healthcare workers who are directly exposed to ebola to be quarantined until clear, so be it. Like I said before, if the thought of actually catching Ebola didn't deter you, I highly doubt a quarantine will. Keeping her in a tent, I felt, was overkill. But allowing her to be in her home with comfort I feel is more than compromising. They tried her method of letting asymptotic people run free and self report, until three people actually later developed the disease while out and about. Three, IMO, is too many. One would have been good enough to put the hammer down and say "you know what, let's let them stay at home the duration of the 21 days so that we don't unnecessarily jeopardize lives." Like I said before, IF she breaks the law, she should be punished just as any other law abiding citizen. And the fact that she is comfortable with roaming while admitting to being uncertain herself speaks VOLUMES about her character. I personally, would hands down volunteer to be quarantined because I would be distraught if I unintentionally infected someone.

toomuchbaloney · Oct 30, 2014

Horseshoe I read it and I saw that. I don't disagree with it. I'm saying, what if she is out and about and begins to develop symptoms around your loved one? Unless she has a thermometer in her mouth 24hrs out of the day, she is going to have a hard time determining exactly when she developed a fever (if she develops one). There are way too many what ifs when the logical thing to do is keep the exposed person at home until there's an all clear. It seems like a ridiculous thing to chance when it can be contained at home for a defined period. Why risk lives, money, and time when it can be contained at home. CONTAINED AT HOME. What is so ******* uncivil about staying at home. They are willing to attend to your every need and want, so what is so inhumane? Why risk lives if this disease can transition at the drop of a dime. Why not stay at home? And Tiff you're right about the mortality rate in the US, but what happens if someone who has a compromised immune system contracts it. What happens if pregnant women contract it. And the people that did contract it were wearing PPE. I don't know too many people who aren't nurses that have an isolation gown, mask, gloves, and hazmat suit lying around. Why gamble with uncertainty when there is a least costly alternative to passive-aggressively monitoring people and that's STAYING AT HOME. I personally am not scared of Ebola, but I do not want my family to be exposed. I do not want to chance my children's health with an unknown disease because of this bratty nurse. People will disagree, it's human nature. But, I will not sit idly by and let this woman potentially start a chain reaction that could potentially have deadly consequences because her state's law are not fitting to her. If it is a requirement for healthcare workers who are directly exposed to ebola to be quarantined until clear, so be it. Like I said before, if the thought of actually catching Ebola didn't deter you, I highly doubt a quarantine will. Keeping her in a tent, I felt, was overkill. But allowing her to be in her home with comfort I feel is more than compromising. They tried her method of letting asymptotic people run free and self report, until three people actually later developed the disease while out and about. Three, IMO, is too many. One would have been good enough to put the hammer down and say "you know what, let's let them stay at home the duration of the 21 days so that we don't unnecessarily jeopardize lives." Like I said before, IF she breaks the law, she should be punished just as any other law abiding citizen. And the fact that she is comfortable with roaming while admitting to being uncertain herself speaks VOLUMES about her character. I personally, would hands down volunteer to be quarantined because I would be distraught if I unintentionally infected someone.

\

Again, paragraphs are your friend in the AN threads, they improve the readability of your comments.

Did you miss the part where this is an educated health professional who is very informed about ebola illness and transmission? Are you aware that there are exactly ZERO cases of the disease known to be contracted through casual contact with an infected person, ZERO cases of the disease known to be contracted through casual contact with a person exposed to others with the disease, and ZERO cases contracted through any contact including sexual intercourse with a person who is asymptomatic for the disease?

So tell us about the 3 people who got ebola while in the USA...

Be sure to tell us about the folks who caught ebola from them while they were "out and about".

volunterring to be quarantined because you are afraid is one thing, being forced into quarantine by someone who is afraid without scientific rationale for fear is quite another.

The folks who are afraid should start quarantining themselves immediately.

AmyRN303, BSN, RN · Oct 30, 2014

Doctors and nurses have been caring for people with Ebola since 1976. They've then been boarding planes, asymptomatic, and traveling home....since 1976. This woman has no symptoms. There is no reason for a 21 day quarantine. Just because Ebola is new to us doesn't make it a new and terrifying disease. If the evidence shows it is not communicable when a person is asymptomatic, then I'm siding with science. No one in the community has been diagnosed even with all the air travel both Mr. Duncan and Ms. Vinson took....no one in their intimate circles have been diagnosed either. This is hysteria.

SWM2009 · Oct 30, 2014

Actually I'd say the CDC should have been taking direction from MSF and other such groups who know about Ebola and have been in the thick of it for decades with much less money and resources available.

And politicians like Gov. Christie can shut up about Ebola any time now and stop trying to stoke an already panicked public for political gain.

LilBitty · Oct 30, 2014

I don't mind debating, as long as it's polite. You are entitled to feel however you want, and it is apparent that my threads are "readable enough" if you keep responding to them. I have already answered and/or mentioned your concerns in previous posts. And as far as Ebola is concerned, 1976 is not a long time ago. And what "evidence" are you basing your information on "casual contacts?" What study have you seen? Please drop me a link so I can see. It is evident that we won't agree and that's fine. Most on here have made their position known by stating they won't sign a petition. I will however, and plan to. It doesn't make me feel any less of a way towards anyone on here because they don't feel the same way I do about this matter. It is what it is :up: .

macawake, MSN · Oct 30, 2014

Doctors and nurses have been caring for people with Ebola since 1976. They've then been boarding planes, asymptomatic, and traveling home....since 1976. This woman has no symptoms. There is no reason for a 21 day quarantine. Just because Ebola is new to us doesn't make it a new and terrifying disease. If the evidence shows it is not communicable when a person is asymptomatic, then I'm siding with science. No one in the community has been diagnosed even with all the air travel both Mr. Duncan and Ms. Vinson took....no one in their intimate circles have been diagnosed either. This is hysteria.

You are absolutely correct. It is hysteria.

Also, let’s not forget of the Nigerian index patient who flew from Monrovia, Liberia to Lagos, Nigeria on July 20. He was visibly ill at the departure airport, lying on the floor while waiting for his flight to board. He vomited during the flight, on arrival at the airport in Lagos and yet again in the car that drove him to the hospital. This man was already in a rather advanced stage of the disease, symptomatic and infectious. He passed away five days later.

WHO | Nigeria is now free of Ebola virus transmission

(I recommend that you read the whole report, it’s interesting reading for healthcare professionals. The information on the index patient is at the top of the second page).

An aircraft is a confined space, where people get quite close. How many of the people who were on his flight did he infect? Not a single person. No one.

He did infect the driver who took him to the hospital and also healthcare staff at the hospital. As he denied having had contact with any persons known to have EVD, he was initially suspected of having malaria. The PPE and precautions used by staff reflected that.

So, even when a person is symptomatic and infectious, this disease isn’t all that easy to spread. It requires that you (mucous membranes, non-intact skin) actually come in contact with bodily fluids.

An asymptomatic person isn’t infectious, and doesn’t pose a risk to anyone.

There's no scientific rationale for a mandatory quarantine.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1413139

OCNRN63, RN · Oct 30, 2014

Horseshoe I read it and I saw that. I don't disagree with it. I'm saying, what if she is out and about and begins to develop symptoms around your loved one? Unless she has a thermometer in her mouth 24hrs out of the day, she is going to have a hard time determining exactly when she developed a fever (if she develops one). There are way too many what ifs when the logical thing to do is keep the exposed person at home until there's an all clear. It seems like a ridiculous thing to chance when it can be contained at home for a defined period. Why risk lives, money, and time when it can be contained at home. CONTAINED AT HOME. What is so ******* uncivil about staying at home. They are willing to attend to your every need and want, so what is so inhumane? Why risk lives if this disease can transition at the drop of a dime. Why not stay at home? And Tiff you're right about the mortality rate in the US, but what happens if someone who has a compromised immune system contracts it. What happens if pregnant women contract it. And the people that did contract it were wearing PPE. I don't know too many people who aren't nurses that have an isolation gown, mask, gloves, and hazmat suit lying around. Why gamble with uncertainty when there is a least costly alternative to passive-aggressively monitoring people and that's STAYING AT HOME. I personally am not scared of Ebola, but I do not want my family to be exposed. I do not want to chance my children's health with an unknown disease because of this bratty nurse. People will disagree, it's human nature. But, I will not sit idly by and let this woman potentially start a chain reaction that could potentially have deadly consequences because her state's law are not fitting to her. If it is a requirement for healthcare workers who are directly exposed to ebola to be quarantined until clear, so be it. Like I said before, if the thought of actually catching Ebola didn't deter you, I highly doubt a quarantine will. Keeping her in a tent, I felt, was overkill. But allowing her to be in her home with comfort I feel is more than compromising. They tried her method of letting asymptotic people run free and self report, until three people actually later developed the disease while out and about. Three, IMO, is too many. One would have been good enough to put the hammer down and say "you know what, let's let them stay at home the duration of the 21 days so that we don't unnecessarily jeopardize lives." Like I said before, IF she breaks the law, she should be punished just as any other law abiding citizen. And the fact that she is comfortable with roaming while admitting to being uncertain herself speaks VOLUMES about her character. I personally, would hands down volunteer to be quarantined because I would be distraught if I unintentionally infected someone.

Maybe you should just live in a bubble, since reality is so clearly disturbing to you. ZOMG! What if this? What if that? And then this could happen! And then that could happen!

I doubt you'll find a lot of "bratty nurses" working to help Ebola patients, but they sure are here by the boatloads, based on some of the comments I've read.

toomuchbaloney · Oct 30, 2014

I don't mind debating, as long as it's polite. You are entitled to feel however you want, and it is apparent that my threads are "readable enough" if you keep responding to them. I have already answered and/or mentioned your concerns in previous posts. And as far as Ebola is concerned, 1976 is not a long time ago. And what "evidence" are you basing your information on "casual contacts?" What study have you seen? Please drop me a link so I can see. It is evident that we won't agree and that's fine. Most on here have made their position known by stating they won't sign a petition. I will however, and plan to. It doesn't make me feel any less of a way towards anyone on here because they don't feel the same way I do about this matter. It is what it is .

The evidence that I am basing my opinion on is, let's see...pretty much all of the credible recommendations from reputable medical or scientific articles. It would make much more sense for you to detail exactly why you believe what you do about the virus in spite of the medical and scientific data, reports, and opinions.

If you don't care that your posts are difficult to read fine with me. I persevere where others might not in that area.

Please share with me the literature which describes transmission of this disease by casual contact or by airborne pathways. What studies have you read which support this fear? How many people are you aware of being infected either by casual contact or by airborne transmission?

So you will sign a link wanting this nurse to have her professional license revoked because...why is it that she should be stripped of her profession again?