Quarantined Nurse’s Scorching Anti-CDC Rant Goes Viral

allnurses Guide · Mar 9, 2020

The handling of this crisis has been horrifically botched. Yes, testing doesn't sway treatment all that much, but what it DOES impact is tracking the spread, tracking the virulence (ie: if more people die in one area than in another...we can begin investigating why), assigning government assistance and then retrospective learning from mistakes and successes. We can't begin to get our arms around this appropriately and save lives if we don't even know how many people have it.

At our hospital, and likely at yours, there are different levels of "emergency" intervention. If we don't know how many are positive, we cannot leverage against it with the training and plans that we already have in place for just such a situation.

Its absurd how screwed up this is.

Susie2310 · Mar 9, 2020

1 hour ago, KalipsoRed21 said:
And honestly do you want a nurse who has been exposed to the Coronavirus, had symptoms of the illness, but has not been tested clear of the virus taking care of your most vulnerable family members...your infant or your parents?
What is unreasonable about this whole thing is that there aren’t more testing materials. Not who they are triaging to have the test. Also the fact that both this nurse’s doctor and local health department agreed that she needed testing and then for the government (non medical bureaucractic dumb butts) to come back and say she is not going to get tested because she doesn’t have the Coronavirus because she was wearing the correct protective equipment is just NUTS! If they came back and said, we do not have enough testing materials at this time and due to the stability of your illness we are not going to test you, that is one thing. But how is she suppose to get back to work? Why would any reasonable employer take the risk of letting her come back to work without knowing if she is clear of the virus or not? Talk about community spread! Look if we had a clear picture of how deadly this illness truly is it a vaccine for it, then none of this would be a big deal.

I said that it is important that health care workers who become sick when taking care of patients who are suspected to be infected with the Coronavirus are tested also.

Guest1030015 · Mar 9, 2020

On 3/7/2020 at 6:20 PM, Kooky Korky said:
This might be a simplistic or stupid remark but here goes. Since care for the virus is only supportive, does it matter that there is a lack of testing materials?
I think the nurse should be tested because she can help others. Jump ahead of others? Who knows?
God bless us all.
When do we think this threat will be over?

It matters to that nurse if she is trying to submit a worker's compensation claim for her medical costs or complications. If she doesn't have a positive test on record, then her employer can claim no harm, no foul.

Walti, LPN, LVN, RN, EMT-I · Mar 9, 2020

As always, work acquired illness is going to be denied as it can not be proven that it was not community acquired.

brownbook · Mar 10, 2020

Is it time to panic yet ?.

Honestly I just glance an information about COBID 19. When I do I try to glance at articles from reliable trustworthy sites...like the CDC.

I don't think now is the time for just a (???? we don't don't know ???) floor nurse from northern California to be denigrating the CDC. Putting doubts in the minds of the public.

Call me naive but I trust the CDC's recommendations over some scathing story from a nurse.

Walti, LPN, LVN, RN, EMT-I · Mar 10, 2020

Just a floor nurse? Seriously?! What happens to heads of government agencies when they displease DJT. I would imagine that the CDC heads are on pins and needles about this. Keep the public informed while still trying not to lose their jobs. They can't do their job if they get fired for displeasing him. Remember Sharpie-gate! You trust the CDC, I'll trust the Lancet and WHO.

brownbook · Mar 10, 2020

Call me naive, but I have too much respect for doctors, researchers, scientists, with 15 plus years of schooling to think they'd tremble in fear of Trump.

toomuchbaloney · Mar 10, 2020

Lots of Americans are naive to the realities of living under the control of a despot...

allnurses Guide · Mar 10, 2020

14 hours ago, brownbook said:
Is it time to panic yet ?.
Honestly I just glance an information about COBID 19. When I do I try to glance at articles from reliable trustworthy sites...like the CDC.
I don't think now is the time for just a (???? we don't don't know ???) floor nurse from northern California to be denigrating the CDC. Putting doubts in the minds of the public.
Call me naive but I trust the CDC's recommendations over some scathing story from a nurse.

I would have agreed with you once upon a time. Then I had to work with them when Ebola arrived at my hospital.

brownbook · Mar 10, 2020

1 hour ago, Nurse SMS said:
I would have agreed with you once upon a time. Then I had to work with them when Ebola arrived at my hospital.

Thanks, you have first hand knowledge, what did the CDC do or not do?

42pines · Mar 10, 2020

It's a difficult scenario.

It sounds as if, indeed, this nurse has Covid-19. She's "currently sick and in quarantine," presumably at home. This indicates that assuming she is Covid-19 + that she currently has a mild case. Clearly there are lots of mild cases that never need hospitalization. So just what good is seeing a "positive" for Covid-19 on a piece of paper, going to do, versus a "presumptive +?" The reality is, it won't do any good other than convincing this nurse that she truly is infectious and therefore she should honor the quarantine.

As MunroRN states: "For hospitalized patients it's extremely important to identify whether or not coronavirus is the culprit since it does actually guide decision making." The nurses' case is obviously mild, the patients that MunroRN refers to are far from mild.

She "need(s) to know if I am positive before going back to caring for patients." Fair enough, and she won't be allowed back until she has a negative test. Two weeks hence the amount of tests may be exponentially more available that on the day she wrote her statement. When she wrote her statement clearly there was a severe shortage. The shortage might not last.

The nurse says: "I am appalled at the level of bureaucracy that’s preventing nurses from getting tested." Perhaps she should be appalled/concerned to the question of just why there are not plenty of tests available. Clearly CDC has had problems with tests. Clearly CDC has had problems with fixing an early issue, then producing tests, then facilitating testing centers. Whether we should be appalled is a question that is not readily answered. One does not "snap their fingers," and a valid, reliable, test with high specificity and sensitivity instantly appears. Still, there are enough questions that we are left wondering about how efficiently this crisis has been dealt with. The question of why there are not adequate tests/test facilities can't be answered (or won't be) today, but they will sometime in the future.

Nurse SMS mentions, "... testing doesn't sway treatment all that much, but what it DOES impact is tracking the spread..." "Tracking" is extremely important. Known exposure tracking and isolation stops the virus dead in its track (assuming infected individuals do honor isolation). Once tracking breaks down and "community spread," occurs, the ability to stop the spread of the virus ceases. One cannot stop the spread of a virus that cannot be seen.

SubieRN states: "It matters to that nurse if she is trying to submit a worker's compensation claim for her medical costs or complications. If she doesn't have a positive test on record, then her employer can claim no harm, no foul."

Interesting subject SubieRN. Workers' Comp is state-related. Based on my experience in Massachusetts, you may be correct. In New Hampshire, you probably are incorrect. In Vermont you are undoubtedly incorrect, that's my take based on my WC case management in three states. If complications occur, that would likely put her back into hospital where she (might) would be tested. Perhaps some lawyers do not fear the virus.

Walti states, "As always, work acquired illness is going to be denied as it cannot be proven that it was not community acquired." True, however I'll bet that as time goes by tests will become far more available and for a health-care-worker who cared for any proven + patient, WC will kick in. For mild cases such as the one discussed, WC really does not matter much, most states do not pay wages for a week or two anyway. Also, undoubtedly antibody tests will likely become available even if the virus does not create a lot of antibodies. Workers' Comp can be nightmarish, or not.

Brownbook asks "Is it time to panic yet?"

Panic serves a function. "They (panic/anxiety) are a goad to action." (Neuman, The Evolution of an Anxious Feeling, Psychology Today, 2014). Perhaps the extent of either should be taken into account.

Just an hour ago I said "no," to a job that I had applied for, and had just been given an offer. (It was a 6-week temp, non-medical, but very well-paying job) If I was age 48, I would have said, "yes," but I'm not, I'm (almost) 70. According to Roser & Ritchie Ritchie in the excellent article "Coronavirus Disease (COVID 19) (Updated March 9, 2020) there is a graph showing "Coronavirus: early-stage case fatality rates by age-group in China which shows increasing age is correlated with higher case fatality rates. If I were aged 48 then 2 cases out of 100 might die. But I'm 70 and (at least based upon China's data) an expected 8 out of 100 might die and if 80 or older then almost 15 out of 100 might die. The 15/100 chance does not bother me as much as knowing that if 15/100 die that means that probably 35/100 end up in hospital and I hate hospitals.

Therefore, I'd say that panic would be unwise but risk analysis for oneself or one's loved ones (or when consulting with an anxious client) might be wise.

In my case I was not anxious in the short-term because I live in a rural area in New Hampshire. NH has four cases and there does not appear to be experiencing "community spread." However if I had accepted this job that I just said "no" to, training would be close to Massachusetts.

Cases just rose 68% in the state of Massachusetts last night. I reviewed them and, not that it matters much, my opinion is that in MA "community spread" is likely existent. My prediction (which I hope is wrong) will see Massachusetts in an increasing "community spread," over some months, possibly exponential increase. I analyzed and thought, under my circumstances, the risk was greater than the reward. I'll find another job when things calm down.

Therefore the usefulness of panic/anxiety really depends upon the person(s) and their situation. The real problem with panic is that it's often herd-type panic without a useful direction. You can see this in a Youtube video where a fellow at Costco has over 130 rolls of toilet paper stacked on his cart for a disease that doesn't create diarrhea. Should things get really rough, perhaps he intends to eat the TP. I think he would have been better off buying some rice and beans.

JKL33 · Mar 10, 2020

On 3/8/2020 at 7:44 PM, KalipsoRed21 said:
Not to mention the more concerning piece of this nurse’s complaint which was the fact that she followed her hospital and CDC guidelines for infection prevention and STILL contracted a POTENTIALLY DEADLY illness.

Hi, @KalipsoRed21, not to argue with you, but those are not the facts of the matter as we know them, and the nuance is important: It sounds as though she has some possibly viral symptoms and as we know these could be a result of COVID-19 or some other mechanism. Influenza, common cold viruses, etc.

We also have zero knowledge that her exposure (to whatever viral illness) occurred at work or that they occurred despite proper PPE use. That is to say, she could have perfectly followed the protocols and used the PPE and could have a common cold which she was exposed to through other means.

On 3/9/2020 at 6:39 AM, KalipsoRed21 said:
The CDC told this nurse that she didn’t have the Coronavirus because if she had worn the appropriate PPE she shouldn’t have been exposed!?!?!?!? Really!?!???! That is stupid.

That is not at all the nature of what they said, even according to her own paraphrase. They tried to convey that if she were wearing proper PPE then her risk of exposure is low. The past tense nature of the comment comes into play not because this is an accusation but because it is simply something that already occurred. Say I'm having a problem with my car, and I've told the mechanic that I follow all recommendations for oil changes. The mechanic might then say to me, "If you get your oil changed, it wouldn't be [X problem] ." He doesn't mean "if you had been getting oil changes this wouldn't be happening" but rather "since you follow recommended maintenance, I doubt this problem is related to [something way more likely to happen without regular oil/maintenance]."

A better and more clear way for them to state it (which, it's possible they did and we don't know that) would have been: Since you were using proper PPE and following proper protocols, your risk of having been exposed through this patient, is very low.

Saying "if you were wearing PPE" is not the same as saying "if you had been." The former is a reassurance, the latter is an accusation. They were not attempting to accuse her; in fact, their rationale for not testing her upon her demand involves their belief that she was indeed properly protected by PPE.