TexasCHLforum.com

Just stated in media that the individual claimed they had direct contact with 'Patient Zero' from Dallas. Will see if this is the truth or not.

Deputy sheriff tests negative for Ebola. Just an upset tummy and slight fever which has subsided. No link yet.

Dragonfighter wrote:Let's review. This guy goes into Presbyterian ER and says he's sick and he's from West Africa. They send him home.

The fact that someone is from West Africa is not that startling to anyone who works in healthcare. Tying that to the current Ebola outbreak would require that the individuals involved were aware of the outbreak. As numerous comedians have demonstrated through on the street interviews, there are numerous people in our society who are completely oblivious to things you might think would be patently obvious. What the man SHOULD have said was, I was recently exposed to a person infected with Ebola and that person is now dead. I guarantee you the hospital's reaction would have been different.

Dragonfighter wrote:He exposes neighbors, goes outside to vomit and exposes a school aged child that goes to help him up. An ambulance is called and the step daughter warns the paramedics so that they glove up and put on masks. They transport back to Presbyterian and THEN he is placed in isolation. The ambulance itself continues in service for an additional 48 hours before it is quarantined exposing numerous other patients and firefighters. Then the firefighters themselves are quarantined at home.

Now it's a big deal and hazmat contractors come in to mitigate the contamination. Public health officials now try to quarantine the entire population of the complex and one does not cooperate and flees. He has multiple high risk health issues already and exposes untold numbers of other people. Dallas Police with an embedded public health doctor locate this guy and detain him and the same ambulance gets to pick him up and transports him to Parkland.

So do you all think, with this information it is contained? ZERO chance of anyone on the flight getting infected?

First of all, it would be flights. He flew to Belgium before flying to America. Secondly, unless he was symptomatic, there was no risk of transmission. And it appears he wasn't symptomatic until after he had arrived in Dallas.

Dragonfighter wrote:Really? CDC and associates has been playing catch up ever since the proper protocol was first ignored by Presbyterian. Now firefighters, police, ER staff and untold others are at risk because a selfish (and IMHO evil)individual lied to come here knowing he was infected. It's like that old shampoo commercial, "He coughed on two friends, and they coughed on two friends and so on and so on."

The proper protocol was not ignored by Presbyterian.

baldeagle wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:Let's review. This guy goes into Presbyterian ER and says he's sick and he's from West Africa. They send him home.

The fact that someone is from West Africa is not that startling to anyone who works in healthcare. Tying that to the current Ebola outbreak would require that the individuals involved were aware of the outbreak. As numerous comedians have demonstrated through on the street interviews, there are numerous people in our society who are completely oblivious to things you might think would be patently obvious. What the man SHOULD have said was, I was recently exposed to a person infected with Ebola and that person is now dead. I guarantee you the hospital's reaction would have been different.

The whole basis of the current investigation on how Presbyterian handled the case was that he DID indicate exposure to the disease AND that he was from the "hot zone". Since Dr. Brantley's case, emergency departments were supposed to activate isolation protocols when anyone presented with symptoms AND indicated they were from one of the countries in West Africa. They did not.

baldeagle wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:He exposes neighbors, goes outside to vomit and exposes a school aged child that goes to help him up. An ambulance is called and the step daughter warns the paramedics so that they glove up and put on masks. They transport back to Presbyterian and THEN he is placed in isolation. The ambulance itself continues in service for an additional 48 hours before it is quarantined exposing numerous other patients and firefighters. Then the firefighters themselves are quarantined at home.

Now it's a big deal and hazmat contractors come in to mitigate the contamination. Public health officials now try to quarantine the entire population of the complex and one does not cooperate and flees. He has multiple high risk health issues already and exposes untold numbers of other people. Dallas Police with an embedded public health doctor locate this guy and detain him and the same ambulance gets to pick him up and transports him to Parkland.

So do you all think, with this information it is contained? ZERO chance of anyone on the flight getting infected?

First of all, it would be flights. He flew to Belgium before flying to America. Secondly, unless he was symptomatic, there was no risk of transmission. And it appears he wasn't symptomatic until after he had arrived in Dallas.

He presented with advanced symptoms very rapidly following arrival in Dallas. The more discreet symptoms are present days before we see coughing, sneezing, hemorrhage, et al. He obviously wasn't too forthcoming with anyone in authority so I stand by my question as to whether there is really ZERO chance of infection on the flight(s).

baldeagle wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:Really? CDC and associates has been playing catch up ever since the proper protocol was first ignored by Presbyterian. Now firefighters, police, ER staff and untold others are at risk because a selfish (and IMHO evil)individual lied to come here knowing he was infected. It's like that old shampoo commercial, "He coughed on two friends, and they coughed on two friends and so on and so on."

The proper protocol was not ignored by Presbyterian.

The proper protocols WERE ignored by Presbyterian for reasons stated above and other details not relayed via MSM. The isolation protocols have been in place long before this incident. The blame doesn't stop there , leaving Rescue 37 in service for two more shifts after transport of an infectious patient, delaying quarantine on those known to be exposed and information being held rather than being disseminated with due haste to all involved. Whether anyone is held to account is another issue entirely.

I rarely (almost never) disagree with you but in this case I have to. All I can say is that there are a lot of details not being publicly shared and that the CDC says one thing to the public and something else to the public health and safety sector.

Dragonfighter wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:Let's review. This guy goes into Presbyterian ER and says he's sick and he's from West Africa. They send him home.

The fact that someone is from West Africa is not that startling to anyone who works in healthcare. Tying that to the current Ebola outbreak would require that the individuals involved were aware of the outbreak. As numerous comedians have demonstrated through on the street interviews, there are numerous people in our society who are completely oblivious to things you might think would be patently obvious. What the man SHOULD have said was, I was recently exposed to a person infected with Ebola and that person is now dead. I guarantee you the hospital's reaction would have been different.

The whole basis of the current investigation on how Presbyterian handled the case was that he DID indicate exposure to the disease AND that he was from the "hot zone". Since Dr. Brantley's case, emergency departments were supposed to activate isolation protocols when anyone presented with symptoms AND indicated they were from one of the countries in West Africa. They did not.

I have not heard any report that he indicated exposure to Ebola. Every report I have read and heard has said that he told them that he had been to West Africa or that he had recently traveled to Liberia. IOW, even though he KNEW he had been exposed to Ebola, he never told the ER staff that.

Do you seriously believe that if a person came to an ER presenting with the symptoms of Ebola and told the personnel in ER that he had been exposed to Ebola that they would ignore that information? That the personnel in that ER don't even care enough about their own lives to take proper precautions when warned? That beggars the imagination. Human nature and self-preservation would dictate that the moment that medical staff realized they were dealing with Ebola the ER would be on red alert and isolation procedures would be followed to the letter as they were once it was understood that he had Ebola. He was diagnosed with a low grade viral infection during the first visit. I find the idea that the hospital would have released a patient they KNEW had Ebola preposterous. It assumes a level of callousness that goes well beyond anything I can imagine. You would have to not even care for your own life, much less the life of the patient.

baldeagle wrote:...snip... I find the idea that the hospital would have released a patient they KNEW had Ebola preposterous. It assumes a level of callousness that goes well beyond anything I can imagine. You would have to not even care for your own life, much less the life of the patient.

With Ebola, it would be silly to think the only people at risk are the patient and the doctors. You would essentially not have to care about society as a whole as that is what is at risk with something like Ebola.

baldeagle wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:<SNIP>

The whole basis of the current investigation on how Presbyterian handled the case was that he DID indicate exposure to the disease AND that he was from the "hot zone". Since Dr. Brantley's case, emergency departments were supposed to activate isolation protocols when anyone presented with symptoms AND indicated they were from one of the countries in West Africa. They did not.

I have not heard any report that he indicated exposure to Ebola. Every report I have read and heard has said that he told them that he had been to West Africa or that he had recently traveled to Liberia. IOW, even though he KNEW he had been exposed to Ebola, he never told the ER staff that.

Do you seriously believe that if a person came to an ER presenting with the symptoms of Ebola and told the personnel in ER that he had been exposed to Ebola that they would ignore that information?

THAT is why there is an active investigation. Some deny he said the word "ebola" others say he did. Regardless of whether he said that, the protocol for someone presenting with ANY of the symptoms AND a history of travel to or from West Africa is to immediately activate isolation procedures.

baldeagle wrote:That the personnel in that ER don't even care enough about their own lives to take proper precautions when warned? That beggars the imagination. Human nature and self-preservation would dictate that the moment that medical staff realized they were dealing with Ebola the ER would be on red alert and isolation procedures would be followed to the letter as they were once it was understood that he had Ebola. He was diagnosed with a low grade viral infection during the first visit. I find the idea that the hospital would have released a patient they KNEW had Ebola preposterous. It assumes a level of callousness that goes well beyond anything I can imagine. You would have to not even care for your own life, much less the life of the patient.

They released a patient that was a high risk patient and chose not to follow protocols in place for such patients. They didn't need to KNOW he had Ebola for the protocol to trigger, just that he was symptomatic and had a travel history involving high risk locations (no one denies he presented with fever, nausea/vomiting AND had declared his travel from West Africa). That is what I believe you are missing, that the protocol was in place and this guy met the trigger points yet the ER staff did not activate said protocol the way they were supposed to.

It's not a disregard for their own lives but an apathy toward certain patients that was this failure's lynchpin. If you've had any experience in the emergency services you will have witnessed it to one degree or another. He simply wasn't taken seriously. It SHOULD tumble your gyros thinking that failure on this level was possible.

But Presbyterian is not the only culpable party in this debacle.

Dragonfighter wrote:They released a patient that was a high risk patient and chose not to follow protocols in place for such patients. They didn't need to KNOW he had Ebola for the protocol to trigger, just that he was symptomatic and had a travel history involving high risk locations (no one denies he presented with fever, nausea/vomiting AND had declared his travel from West Africa). That is what I believe you are missing, that the protocol was in place and this guy met the trigger points yet the ER staff did not activate said protocol the way they were supposed to.

There has been no reporting of nausea and vomiting when he first went to the ER. Only a mild fever.

Dragonfighter wrote:It's not a disregard for their own lives but an apathy toward certain patients that was this failure's lynchpin. If you've had any experience in the emergency services you will have witnessed it to one degree or another. He simply wasn't taken seriously. It SHOULD tumble your gyros thinking that failure on this level was possible.

But Presbyterian is not the only culpable party in this debacle.

I don't believe for one second that medical personnel, seeing symptoms of Ebola, would dismiss a patient simply because he was black and poor. The hospitals are filled with black and poor patients. The idea that he would have been dismissed because of his skin color or lack of money is insulting in the extreme.

And this debacle, as you call it, has so far resulted in one infected person dying and no secondary infections. Not a very impressive debacle.

baldeagle wrote:<SNIP>
There has been no reporting of nausea and vomiting when he first went to the ER. Only a mild fever.

There was, then there was not. I have been trying to tell you that there is a lot of information that is simply not reported or spun in the reporting. There are several pieces of information reported early on, with basis in fact, that have been redacted by later press releases.

baldeagle wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:It's not a disregard for their own lives but an apathy toward certain patients that was this failure's lynchpin. If you've had any experience in the emergency services you will have witnessed it to one degree or another. He simply wasn't taken seriously. It SHOULD tumble your gyros thinking that failure on this level was possible.

But Presbyterian is not the only culpable party in this debacle.

I don't believe for one second that medical personnel, seeing symptoms of Ebola, would dismiss a patient simply because he was black and poor. The hospitals are filled with black and poor patients. The idea that he would have been dismissed because of his skin color or lack of money is insulting in the extreme.

Best believe it. The signs of Ebola are, by and large, the symptoms of the ordinary flu, at least initially. That said those symptoms with a report of travel to or from West Africa is supposed to trigger an immediate and aggressive isolation/quarantine protocol. It didn't.

Yes the hospitals do have a number of black and or indigent patients in them, and that is actually irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is that many patients, of which there is a large minority contingent, that uses ERs as their primary care provider. There is most definitely a pervasive apathy arising from this. Sometimes they are given prescriptions, a lot of times they aren't. It is evident that our patient zero was lumped into this group and the protocols in place were not activated. I am sorry this is insulting, but it happens more regularly than we'd like to think. I have seen this time and again.

The fact is, he presented with symptoms and information that according to IDC protocols should have triggered the isolation/quarantine protocols. It didn't. Again, that is why there is an ongoing investigation.

baldeagle wrote:And this debacle, as you call it, has so far resulted in one infected person dying and no secondary infections. Not a very impressive debacle.

Merriam-Webster wrote:de·ba·cle
dāˈbäk(ə)l,dəˈbäk(ə)l/
noun
noun: debacle; plural noun: debacles

a sudden and ignominious failure; a fiasco.

There but for the grace of God go I. Your kind of conflating epidemic and debacle here. The fact that we don't have a wildfire of Ebola infections (the window is not closed yet) in the D/FW metroplex does not diminish the fact that, starting with Presbyterian, a lot went wrong in the chain of events. It most definitely was/is a debacle.

Since you are discussing the bungling hospital, there might be more to it than what we know so far. It might be a system wide problem.

Seems the hospital's software from a major Barry Obola donor:


http://nypost.com/2014/10/09/an-ebola-g ... ama-crony/

My wife is an RN ar the med center in houston. This tis the tip of the spear. Healthcare professionals are concerned.

baldeagle wrote:I don't believe for one second that medical personnel, seeing symptoms of Ebola, would dismiss a patient simply because he was black and poor. The hospitals are filled with black and poor patients. The idea that he would have been dismissed because of his skin color or lack of money is insulting in the extreme.

And this debacle, as you call it, has so far resulted in one infected person dying and no secondary infections. Not a very impressive debacle.

Baldeagle, I don't think the dismissal is racially based, if for no other reason that people of color are also well represented in the healthcare industry. I think it is has more to do with a certain general fecklessness among some folks. A lot of people working the healthcare system aren't working there because they feel a calling to be in healthcare. They are there because it's a job, and healthcare represents a certain amount of job security in times of uncertain employment. Among those people, a lot are just serving time, going through the motions. It's no different than working for Walmart or Target.

When I worked in healthcare, people generally fell into one of two groups, regardless of their job title. The way to tell them apart was to ask a simple question: "Here, can you please give me a hand with this?" Those who said "that's not my job" (a surprisingly large number) made up one group. The others who said "Sure, let me give you a hand" made up the other group. In that regard, they are no different than people outside of healthcare. (Don't get me wrong, some of the finest people I've ever known were those I worked with for 6 years at a large hospital; but there were some real lemons in there too.) As in any organization made up of a mixture of the feckless and the responsible, most of the work gets done by the responsible, who carry the dead weight of the feckless. They don't see more patients than the feckless, they just get more done with the ones they do see. The ones seen by the feckless simply do not receive the same attention to detail, and consequently, they do not receive the same standard of care.

So when you arrive at an ER with a 103º fever and a blossoming case of Ebola.....which until you start bleeding through your eyes and rectum, looks a lot like flu..... it's a 50/50 proposition whether you'll be triaged by someone who is genuinely interested in helping, or just another time-server. It is terrible and wrong that Mr. Duncan was sent away after his first visit, but as dragonfighter pointed out, it isn't terribly surprising, particularly to someone who has worked in healthcare long enough to be disillusioned a bit by the experience.

This thing could already be out of control...


"DEVELOPING – The Texas Department of State Health Services said in a statement early Sunday that a health care worker at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, where patient Thomas Eric Duncan died of Ebola last week, tested positive for the virus, according to preliminary results."

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/1 ... for-ebola/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rbwhatever1 wrote:This thing could already be out of control...


"DEVELOPING – The Texas Department of State Health Services said in a statement early Sunday that a health care worker at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, where patient Thomas Eric Duncan died of Ebola last week, tested positive for the virus, according to preliminary results."

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/1 ... for-ebola/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trying to narrow down everyone a health worker has had contact with will be close to impossible. If you are a praying type, now would be the time to say a few if you haven't already.

It can be controlled in US. But, we need to shut down all air travel from West Africa to anywhere else. There Ebola cases are doubling each 3-4 weeks. Imagine 4 months from now we will have over 1,000,000 persons infected there. And all numbers all under reported.
And if Ebola spread in the saliva and threw sneezing, it is already airborne transmissible for personal contact distances.