Jump to content

Ebola part 3: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T PANIC!


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

...At the Disco.



Sorry, needed to get that out of my system.



Anyway, there's a world of difference between panic and being concerned about the handling of the situation up to this point.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.



And I don;t even know why anyone is arguing that letting the nurse get on the plane wasn't a fuckup by the CDC, since the CDC has admitted it was a mistake.



Another good illustration of my point earlier that a lot of people seem to be downplaying the situation for the sole purpose of either trolling or trying to prove how much smarter and more reasonable they are than everyone else.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.

And I don;t even know why anyone is arguing that letting the nurse get on the plane wasn't a fuckup by the CDC, since the CDC has admitted it was a mistake.

Another good illustration of my point earlier that a lot of people seem to be downplaying the situation for the sole purpose of either trolling or trying to prove how much smarter and more reasonable they are than everyone else.

I would argue that the nurse herself is just as much at fault. Even in normal circumstances, flying with a fever shows a total lack of regard for your fellow passengers.

Whoever was on the CDC's hotline probably makes $8 a hour and was following the script. No professional judgment involved at all.

I could be wrong, I admit. If it was a doctor or nurse who told her it was okay, I'm going to be really upset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that the nurse herself is just as much at fault. Even in normal circumstances, flying with a fever shows a total lack of regard for your fellow passengers.

Whoever was on the CDC's hotline probably makes $8 a hour and was following the script. No professional judgment involved at all.

I could be wrong, I admit. If it was a doctor or nurse who told her it was okay, I'm going to be really upset.

What you are saying does nothing to contradict the fact that the CDC screwed up. it simply offers some possible reasons why the screwup happened.

Which has been my point all along. These screwups are BOUND to happen, regardless of how well written the policies are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aemon, from the previous thread you stated, in response to my post =:

Mudguard: I can't believe you are asking this question. No, wait, I can. [url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/health/texas-ebola-outbreak/index.html?hpt=hp_t1]
Do you really believe that there's a magical difference between a fever at 99.5F and a fever at 100.4F, where you're not infectious at 99.5F and infectious at 100.4F? .

Aemon: Of course there is. That's what a fever is, and we don't consider a temp abnormal until it's at least close to 38 C and, really, only once it exceeds it.

I don't care if you want to call a temp of 99.5F a low grade temp, slightly elevated temp, or whatever, but on what basis do you assert that a person with a temp of 99.5F is not infectious for ebola, while a patient with a temp of 100.4F is infectious for ebola? There's some magical cutoff number? To be clear, you are saying that for a person infected with the ebola virus with a temp of 99.5F, you can safely come into contact with their blood, vomit, diarrhea and other bodily fluids because they aren't infectious?

Seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are saying does nothing to contradict the fact that the CDC screwed up. it simply offers some possible reasons why the screwup happened.

Which has been my point all along. These screwups are BOUND to happen, regardless of how well written the policies are.

Er, where did I say that CDC didn't screw up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that Ms. Vinson should not have been travelling. She is an RN and was already on a self-monitoring program. She should have been fully aware of the risk she was taking. She did contact the CDC, but they never gave her approval to fly on a COMMERCIAL plane.



Ms. Vinson knew better and selfishly ignored her obligation to the public so she could go home to attend some wedding preparation appts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that Ms. Vinson should not have been travelling. She is an RN and was already on a self-monitoring program. She should have been fully aware of the risk she was taking. She did contact the CDC, but they never gave her approval to fly on a COMMERCIAL plane.

Ms. Vinson knew better and selfishly ignored her obligation to the public so she could go home to attend some wedding preparation appts.

Defenders of the CDC unite!!! Bonus points for throwing the nurse under the bus in the process.

If you have an issue with the fact that the CDC screwed up, take it up with the CDC. They admitted it.

You are trying to make an argument in defense of them that is in conflict with their own admission, and that they are not making for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're downplaying it. For what reason I have no idea.

Um, I wasn't in that part of the last thread at all. CDC screwed up--they know it, they've admitted it. I'm just pointing out that it was really bad judgment on the part of the nurse herself to even show up at the airport under the circumstances. Under any circumstances, really. Have some consideration for the other passengers.

I fail to see what's so difficult to understand about that.

You don't think she bears any responsibility here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that Ms. Vinson should not have been travelling. She is an RN and was already on a self-monitoring program. She should have been fully aware of the risk she was taking. She did contact the CDC, but they never gave her approval to fly on a COMMERCIAL plane.

Ms. Vinson knew better and selfishly ignored her obligation to the public so she could go home to attend some wedding preparation appts.

Totally agree. It was very selfish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aemon, from the previous thread you stated, in response to my post =:

I don't care if you want to call a temp of 99.5F a low grade temp, slightly elevated temp, or whatever, but on what basis do you assert that a person with a temp of 99.5F is not infectious for ebola, while a patient with a temp of 100.4F is infectious for ebola? There's some magical cutoff number? To be clear, you are saying that for a person infected with the ebola virus with a temp of 99.5F, you can safely come into contact with their blood, vomit, diarrhea and other bodily fluids because they aren't infectious?

Seriously?

Yes. Like, seriously, there is a range for normal human body temps and a range for what is considered a fever. The very fact that your body temp can change and reflect the state of your health very much implies that there is a "magical" cutoff number. One temp indicates a fever, another doesn't.

I get the feeling you trying hard not to understand the whole concept of body temperature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what reason are you trying to do the opposite?

I'll take a crack at that. Because it's the big bad gubmint and we have to blame everything on them?

I can't imagine the howls of rage if there was a total quarantine in place. Losing your personal freedoms and all that. They'd say the gubmint was overstepping its bounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...