Quarantined Nurse’s Scorching Anti-CDC Rant Goes Viral

Nurses COVID

Updated:   Published

Quote

National Nurses Union President Deborah Burger released a scathing statement from a quarantined nurse criticizing the CDC for its purported refusal to test her for coronavirus even though she had been exposed to the pathogen.

Read article in its entirety:

Quarantined Nurse's Scorching Anti-CDC Rant Goes Viral: 'I'm Appalled at the Level of Bureaucracy' on Coronavirus Testing

Everyone just calm down! I'm sure the ANA is taking swift measures to represent frontline nurses by doing their darnedest to compose a mildly worded letter written by their HQ nurses who were at best, last on the frontlines in 1918 for h1n1.

5
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
On 3/14/2020 at 5:59 PM, MunoRN said:

Trump did actually shut down the CDC's Pandemic Response department, you're thinking of the CDC's global health initiative for preventing pandemics.

The Pandemic Response unit is what is responsible for identifying emerging pandemics and initiating the development of testing capabilities. So in retrospect...

Top White House official in charge of pandemic response exits abruptly

May 10, 2018 at 1:32 p.m. PDT

The top White House official responsible for leading the U.S. response in the event of a deadly pandemic has left the administration, and the global health security team he oversaw has been disbanded under a reorganization by national security adviser John Bolton...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/10/top-white-house-official-in-charge-of-pandemic-response-exits-abruptly/

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×

My hospital will give 2 weeks of paid time off IF you test positive. If you can’t get tested (and you have it - probably from wearing a surgical mask per cdc recs) you will use your own cto for your time off. Lawd.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Surgical Specialty Clinic - Ambulatory Care.
On 3/10/2020 at 12:52 PM, JKL33 said:

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.

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.

To me it does not address the eventuality that she will need to go back to work and the fact that we don’t know yet enough about this illness to say for sure when it is no longer in her system to expose it to other patients. They have an idea about exposer time but not a solid grasp. Second, from what I’ve been reading they have also come to find this virus has more damaging effects to “young” people’s lungs than they originally suspected. I’m sorry, but she would have needed a test to confirm she had it to know if she should be concerned about future complications caused by this virus. And yes, because she is a healthcare worker, she should have been tested I don’t care how low her potential for infection “should” be based on her wearing appropriate PPE. The 2 cases in Dallas where the RNs still got Ebola were wearing PPE as instructed, just turned out those handling the infection prevention at the time didn’t have a damn clue as to everything that should have been covered to keep the RNs safe. Those nurses were almost stuck with the hospital bill for their Ebola care. Ebola was not as wide spread as this virus so they were eventually able to get the work man’s comp. they deserved. But had the test not been done at all they probably wouldn’t have had a foot to stand on. I don’t care how dire the situation is, either the caregivers get taken great care of or we don’t come to work because the risk is not worth it.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×

It's difficult to determine whether or not this nurse should have been tested on a timely basis without the relevant assessment information. At present this thread contains six pages of posts; I've read them all and yet I STILL don't know how many points per game she averages, how many rebounds she's made, how many triple doubles she's had so far this season.....or even how many movies she's made or produced, or what political office she or her family holds or has held or even her millionaire/billionaire status.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU/Mother-Baby/Peds/Mgmt.
On 3/6/2020 at 6:18 PM, MunoRN said:

I agree with the nurse's complaint about our lack of testing abilities, which is unacceptably poor this far into it, but I don't agree she is a priority to be tested.

Hospitalized patients are a higher priority to be tested than staff since that actually guides decisions that need to be made, that's not really the case with a nurse who wants to be tested. If she has a fever and respiratory symptoms, she needs to stay home regardless of the culprit virus, so knowing whether or not it's coronavirus doesn't change much. For hospitalized patients it's extremely important to identify whether or not coronavirus is the culprit since it does actually guide decision making; the currently recommended isolation precautions are in extremely short supply in hospitals and without knowing which of the many patients with respiratory infection symptoms actually have coronavirus we can't meet those isolation goals.

We've got six coronavirus rule out patients, we sent tests on them to be run days ago and as of today they've only resulted on one of those patients due to high demand relative to the ability to test, and no, there isn't a justifiable reason for this nurse to cut in line in front of them.

But if she has C19 wouldn't she have to be out longer than if she has a bad cold or the flu? Doesn't it make sense that she know so she can be out on sick leave the least amount of time? And would she get 2 weeks for something that's not officially diagnosed?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.

Yes! They have to be out longer. After recovery they can continue to shed the virus for 2 week.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
20 hours ago, Elaine M said:

But if she has C19 wouldn't she have to be out longer than if she has a bad cold or the flu? Doesn't it make sense that she know so she can be out on sick leave the least amount of time? And would she get 2 weeks for something that's not officially diagnosed?

Not when at the time hospitals were having trouble getting their patients tested, which is an important part of limiting the spread through hospital patient and staff populations. It certainly would have been nice for her to be able to get tested for planning purposes, but it wouldn't not have guided any decisions, if she has respiratory symptoms and fever, whether that's due to the flu, RSV, or Covid, she needs to stay out from work.

8 hours ago, subee said:

Yes! They have to be out longer. After recovery they can continue to shed the virus for 2 week.

Fragments of viral RNA can be found by pharyngeal swabs for an extended period of time after the resolution of symptoms, but those RNA fragments are not infectious. The ability to infect others starts well before symptoms start, but does not appear to extend beyond the resolution of symptoms.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/09/people-shed-high-levels-of-coronavirus-study-finds-but-most-are-likely-not-infectious-after-recovery-begins/

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Non judgmental advisor.
On 3/9/2020 at 3:46 PM, SubieRN said:

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.

Thats what I was thinking more than anything else.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Cardio.
On 3/7/2020 at 7:20 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?

If she tested positive would it help the disease from being spread further?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Non judgmental advisor.
1 minute ago, Artemis said:

If she tested positive would it help the disease from being spread further?

No, but a positive test may mean more quarantine and time off work, and I find hospitals will do anything to not give you extended PTO ?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment