Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Wait, I thought you could only catch ebola if you came in direct contact with fluids.... [View all]kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)59. This saying finds perfect application in this situation.
Idiots are indeed ingenious.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
66 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Wait, I thought you could only catch ebola if you came in direct contact with fluids.... [View all]
uponit7771
Oct 2014
OP
ah... this makes more sense... the hospitals awareness seemed REALLY REALLY low
uponit7771
Oct 2014
#7
It depends on if the Private For Profit hospital thinks it is worth it to have high awareness...
SalviaBlue
Oct 2014
#15
I can''t recall where I read it, but the report from CDC said HC workers there had no protocall
napi21
Oct 2014
#28
and when they expressed concern about their exposed necks, they were told to tape them up
magical thyme
Oct 2014
#66
There's more - Presbyterian workers wore no hazmat suits for two days while treating Ebola patient
herding cats
Oct 2014
#19
I'm not shocked at all. It's a red state that hates the federal government and
kestrel91316
Oct 2014
#53
not easy to get, must have contact with bodily fluids of someone showing symptoms
unblock
Oct 2014
#6
I have heard it said a person has to be symptomatic and have a fever to be contagious but
Autumn
Oct 2014
#9
Having been in their shoes, but with less-deadly circumstances, it's almost impossible
TwilightGardener
Oct 2014
#11
Ebola patients are splashy, that's my take. "Bodily fluids" is a sanitized name for....
Hekate
Oct 2014
#13
Studying her pets feces makes sense. I would think local primates would be
arthritisR_US
Oct 2014
#65
Whut? The guy I saw spraying wasn't in sandals, maybe I have it mixed up with the first nurse.
lonestarnot
Oct 2014
#47
It saddens me to see this because you were strongly in the CDC's corner
apples and oranges
Oct 2014
#18
I still am, I don't reflexively dislike gov agencies... I don't think the CDC is doing a good job...
uponit7771
Oct 2014
#39
I actually had a great deal of respect and trust in the CDC, but that was
apples and oranges
Oct 2014
#40
Exactly. They should've started wearing protective gear when they suspected Ebola.
Louisiana1976
Oct 2014
#29
Indeed. Bodily fluids is how you spread it. They weren't protected for too long. Appalling.
uppityperson
Oct 2014
#32
Wet fluids, teh patient himself, or contaminated objects collectively as fomites.
kestrel91316
Oct 2014
#35
There's no proof that they "touched" the patient with bare hands and we should question what doesn't
uponit7771
Oct 2014
#38
It's not CDC's job to prepare hospitals. It is their job to provide them with
kestrel91316
Oct 2014
#60
BINGO! CDC Downplayed the risk, Then just sent "protocol" to hospitals, then didn't make sure
uponit7771
Oct 2014
#61