OK, here it is. I was about out the door this morning when I scanned the article. Apologies for the above misinformation.

Why CDC chief must go




(CNN) -- This week Thomas Frieden, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, stepped up to the microphone and took responsibility for the worst mistake in Dallas' Ebola-stricken hospital: its utter lack of preparedness.

After insisting for months that any U.S. hospital could handle an Ebola case by following CDC guidelines, Frieden now wishes he had provided Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital with the robust CDC clinical support team it desperately needed to care for Thomas Eric Duncan -- the first of three people to be diagnosed with Ebola on American soil.
.........
This weekend Frieden told reporters: "I'm not familiar with any prior patient with Ebola who has undergone either intubation or dialysis," and speculated that such measures could have increased the risk of contamination surrounding Duncan's care in Dallas.

He didn't seem to be aware that Emory University Hospital in Atlanta used both measures in its treatment of Ebola patients. Dr. Bruce Ribner, who's heading Emory's Ebola team, discussed these procedures in a conference call with hospitals and health care workers Tuesday.

Frieden's out-of-the-loop status on core clinical details seemed to have pointed him in the wrong direction entirely for a cause of contamination, as further details about the Dallas hospital's difficulties with Ebola protective garb have come to light. In fact, using chocolate sauce as a stand-in for bodily secretions, CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta demonstrated how easily self-contamination can occur: While taking off the CDC's recommended personal protective gear, he inadvertently smeared his arm and his neck.

As it leaves necks exposed, the gear doesn't compare to the hazmat-style suits aid workers are using in West Africa, and workers use at Emory -- and in fact Frieden wore such superior protection when visiting Liberia.

When the first nurse's infection was announced Sunday, Frieden immediately blamed a "breach in protocol" for her situation. It was perhaps beyond his imagination that the CDC protocols themselves -- including the training and infrastructure -- failed in Dallas.
..........
Frieden should have known the closest equivalent to the level of personal protective equipment required by Ebola in American hospitals is found in operating rooms, and even that doesn't compare. In ORs we're mostly concerned about not infecting the patient, and we're able to remove garb with little fanfare. Now we're learning that doctors and nurses treating Duncan didn't wear the recommended protective suits for two days while they suspected Ebola but didn't have the diagnosis confirmed. Why wasn't the CDC guiding them?
When Frieden said this week he'll now send a robust, hands-on clinical team anywhere in America that Ebola is diagnosed, I thought, my word, we aren't doing that already? Instead, once his lab confirmed Duncan's diagnosis, Frieden provided epidemiologists and contact tracers, and the CDC offered passive guidance. Far too passive, it seems, as Vinson, the Presbyterian nurse, flew to Cleveland, a violation of the CDC's guidance on controlled movements while under monitoring, which doesn't include such public transportation.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/16/opinion/v ... Stories%29

Has it been established yet that this ebola thing is God's punishment for something we are doing?

Same-sex marriage? Benghazi?

Same sex marriage in Benghazi?

Sex for fun in Murrica?

i am tired of people getting fired for small screwups. if someone makes a small screwup, you generally give them the opportunity to redeem themselves, rather than bringing in someone without any experience on that job, and a much greater potential to repeat those mistakes.

I'm trying to find another tidbit that I neglected to "save to post later" yesterday where someone admitted that they did not follow the CDC protocols last summer to train for the handling of Ebola patients ~ Sooz

Dallas hospital official admits: ‘We made mistakes’ in handling Ebola patient
Reuters | 16 Oct 2014 at 13:48 ET

A senior official of the Texas hospital system that treated a Liberian national with Ebola said on Thursday “we made mistakes” in diagnosing the man who later died and in giving inaccurate information to the public, adding that he was “deeply sorry.”

Dr. Daniel Varga, chief clinical officer and senior vice president of Texas Health Resources, also said there was no actual Ebola training for staff before that first patient was admitted. Varga made his comments at a congressional hearing on Ebola cases in the United States.

(Reporting by Will Dunham; Editing by Susan Heavey)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/dallas-hospital-official-admits-we-made-mistakes-in-handling-ebola-patient/

Yeah sooz. That's what I'm talking about. It was lack of training, then a lack of guidance from the CDC. This AFTER the matter had been splashed all over the media.

In Texas, it could have been a "it can't happen HERE" attitude too. After all, it was happening thousands of miles away, right? Africans. Who cares?

That is the problem I have with N. Americans. Their isolationist (or superior?) attitudes prevent them from seeing that we have long been a global community. From the first days of inter-continental travel when native inhabitants were wiped out by "foreign" diseases to today's world with more people traveling than ever. International business is flourishing. Immigration is not just a few Europeans coming to escape something, but regular people trying to chase the dream of a better life.

We expect that our "experts" are prepared and know all of this. Evidently, they are not. We think that all serious diseases are wiped out. They are not, as is evidenced by people's refusal to vaccinate their children.

Get with the program, people! YOU are vulnerable. Not in the sense of "Fox News" panic, but it is a reality and that reality can grow to unmanageable numbers unless everyone understands, and does what they can to diminish that vulnerability.

The fact being ignored here is that the GOP/TPers slashed the CDC budget for each of the last several years ~ I'll try to find the exact percentage of cuts, but that has forced the CDC to [for lack of a better descriptor] prioritize what it focuses on ~ I can understand foregoing or cutting back research on a disease that is limited to a continent far away from home when $$$ is tight ~ there are too many needs for those $$$ here ~

Sooz

See, I disagree. There is no such thing as a disease that is limited to " a continent far away" anymore.(see my above post) Remember AIDs.
Besides Ebola has been known for decades and should have been researched before any budget cuts. (again because of the things I mentioned in my above post)


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ebola-emer ... d=24740453

On top of that, we now know that viruses are masters at mutation, so ongoing research should have been done from 1976 onward with new samples to check for that. (blah, blah my post lol)

I don't understand any budget cuts for anything that affects health. Without a healthy citizenry, we won't have a healthy, productive country. Look at the $$$ being spent, now that it has shown up on our shores...............

Points taken ~ I stand corrected ~

Sooz

I disagree with the premise that the research should have been done before the budget cuts. There has been ongoing research on ebola. It has been lower priority for funding because of the relatively few people affected by it. Up until this outbreak, it had only affected "thousands" of people worldwide.It has also disappeared for years at a time. Cancer and flu are far more widespread affecting millions globally. Another reason ebola research has not been effective prior to budget cuts is that many technologies used now were not available then and the way we approach the treatment of viral infections has evolved. There is nothing that will come from pointing fingers at the past and what we did or did not do. Now is a really good time to work on it- we have modern technology, antiviral drugs, improved ways to stimulate immunity, and plenty of human cases for trials.

queenie, I meant that it WAS done before the cuts and after it was discovered as per usual when new diseases/viruses are found.

Finger pointing is good, imo, as it helps further the discussion on how things should proceed from this point forward and why. (my post again) We, as a global community, can no longer ignore deadly diseases even if they are continents away. One may be coming/flying to a neighborhood near you. I am much more concerned about that than I am terrorism (unless they go hand in hand? )

Yes, now is a good time, but "now" (as in the period of time we've had "modern" technology) and NOW are two different things. If funding was cut before NOW and the research fell by the wayside, NOW is a little too late for anyone who has contracted it. Isn't it? You say it's ongoing. Really? How and why? Just to "look at it" or to find a vaccine/cure? If it has just been studied to see how it works, but nothing further, it's a waste of time and money.

Thank goodness for those Canadian scientists.

Thank goodness for those Canadian scientists.

And USians guinea pigs.

There's no profit in drug development for a disease in Africa.

This terrific commentary is from my "saved to read/maybe post later" file ~ emphasis/bolding below is mine, and there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

AlterNet / By Amanda Marcotte
Inside the Bizarre Right-Wing Panic over Ebola Virus Coming to the US
The conservative mindset is tailor-made for opportunities for paranoia and isolation.

October 7, 2014 | Of all the issues you would think would be non-partisan, ebola should be at the top of the list. The disease is just a mindless germ that doesn’t check your race, gender, social class, sexual orientation or party identification before it strikes, suggesting both liberals and conservatives have a stake in treating people exposed to the disease with compassion and care. And yet, to flip on Fox News or turn on any conservative media at all, you’d think that ebola was some kind of plague designed by the Democratic party in order to wipe out Republicans.

Blowing the threat of ebola out of proportion and trying to link it to Obama has been a constant theme on the right in recent days. Elisabeth Hasselbeck of Fox News literally demanded that we put the country on lockdown, banning all travel in and out. In a bit of race-baiting, Andrea Tantaros of Fox suggested that people who travel to the country and show symptoms of ebola will “seek treatment from a witch doctor” instead of go to the hospital. Fox host Steve Doocy suggested the CDC is lying about ebola because they’re “part of the administration”. Fox also promoted a conspiracy theorist who is trying to claim the CDC is lying when they caution people not to panic.

Other right-wing media joined in. Tammy Bruce blamed ebola on the “Obama legacy”. Laura Ingraham said Obama was prevented from doing more to stop the disease because of his “core ties to the African continent”. Rush Limbaugh even went as far as to accuse Obama of letting the disease spread because he supposes liberals believe “we kind of deserve a little bit of this”.

Even politicians are getting in on the act. Former South Carolina Republican Party executive director Todd Kincannon tweeted, “The protocol for a positive Ebola test should be immediate humane execution and sanitization of the whole area.” Republican presidential hopefuls stopped short of wishing death on people who have the disease, but are nonetheless crawling all over each other to make a bigger deal out of ebola than it really is. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan and Bobby Jindal have all suggested that we ban travel in and out of the country, at least some travel, in order to keep a lid on ebola.

None of this is even in the realm of reasonable, of course. There’s only been one case of ebola in the entire country and the CDC has a well-practiced strategy for tracking and containing the disease. PBS science correspondent Miles O'Brien denounced the coverage as “irresponsible” and asked people to “take a deep breath” before fear-mongering about ebola.

With the threat being so small, why are conservatives going crazy like this? Part of it is pure political opportunism, trying to hitch their anti-Obama obsession to whatever scary news story is making headlines. Part of it is cynical fear-mongering for its own sake, as conservative pundits know that when people are afraid, they are more open to reactionary ideas. But a large part of it might be that conservatives are just far more prone than liberals to getting wound up over the fear of disease and by the idea that people who are different than themselves are undeserving of care.

Researcher Jonathan Haidt is the architect of the “moral foundations” theory that suggests that political inclinations, at least in modern times, are rooted in five different foundations: harm, fairness, ingroup, authority, and purity. Liberals and conservatives weigh these five considerations very differently. For instance, liberals are more likely than conservatives to factor in whether an action causes harm when deciding if it’s wrong or not. Liberals also worry more about fairness and have more regard for people that are outside of their “group” than conservatives. Conservatives, on the other hand, put far more trust in authority. Conservatives are also far more obsessed with “purity” and far more likely to get hung up on the idea that the body “is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants,” as Haidt explains.

You can see these differences play out with the response to ebola. For liberals, the proper response to ebola patients is to reduce harm by caring for them and to treat the people who got it fairly, by understanding that they didn’t do anything wrong to get it.

But ebola touches, for conservatives, two big, red buttons. First, it’s a disease, so of course it’s going to set off the fears of contamination that Haidt demonstrates plague conservatives far more than liberals. Second of all, conservatives associate ebola with people who are different from them---from different countries, often of different races---and they have little regard for people in “out groups”, which is Haidt’s term for people who are different. And because conservatives are less worried about harming others or being fair, it becomes easy for them to demonize people with ebola, demand that they be left to die without care, and simply kept from “contaminating” the rest of us.

You see this tension with many other issues. Abortion? Conservatives are grossed out by women who gave up their “purity” by having sex, but liberals are more worried about the harm done women who lose abortion rights. Gay rights? Conservatives see gays as impure and different, but liberals are worried about treating them fairly. Ferguson protests and the Mike Brown shooting? Conservatives love authority and support the police, especially against black protesters that are seen as an “out” group. Liberals worry about the harm done to Brown and the protesters and are angry about the unfairness of a policeman shooting an unarmed man or attacking unarmed protesters. Indeed, the ebola panic quite resembles the way many conservatives reacted in the early days of AIDS, demonizing sufferers as disgusting people who should be isolated and left to die.

Once you know these patterns, the conservative reaction to ebola---to panic, to treat the people who have it like pariahs, to demand that we shut off all contact with outsiders, and to even reject the idea of caring for the afflicted---was entirely predictable. Even if they didn’t have cynical political motivations, which many clearly do, their worldview makes it nearly impossible for them to react with compassion instead of fear.

http://www.alternet.org/inside-bizarre-right-wing-panic-over-ebola-virus-coming-us?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

Another terrific commentary from my "saved to read/maybe post later" file ~ Sooz

AlterNet / By Joe Conason
The Real Lessons of the Ebola Crisis
But will budget-slashing conservatives learn them?

October 8, 2014 | Even if Africa's Ebola emergency never mutates into a global catastrophe, those of us who live in the world's most fortunate country ought to consider what this fearsome virus can teach us. The lessons are quite obvious at this point -- and contain implications that are political in the most urgent sense.

The tea party mania for shrinking federal budgets and rejecting international organizations -- both of which are bedrock policy among the current Republican leadership -- is not only bad for our national prestige but also exceptionally dangerous to our health. At the insistence of House leaders, whose answer to every problem has been cutting government and reducing taxes, the United States has steadily starved the budgets of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization.

The disturbing consequence is that in both this country and the world, humanity lacks the full arsenal of weapons needed to combat Ebola and other potentially devastating outbreaks of tropical disease.

Politicians who identify themselves as "conservative" have failed in their duty to conserve the nation's public health infrastructure, built over decades of hard scientific work with many millions of taxpayer dollars, precisely to cope with an emergency such as Ebola. Instead, they have proposed budgets that would decimate every federal agency that protects us, including the CDC. And the budget deal that they enacted, which depends on sequestration, has led to severe, ham-handed cutbacks in the programs that protect us.

Testifying in Congress a few weeks ago, Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health said sequestration has inflicted "a significant impact. It has both in an acute and a chronic, insidious way eroded our ability to respond ... to these emerging threats." He said the cuts have been "particularly damaging" to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which he directs -- and which is responsible, he noted, for "responding on the dime to an emerging infectious disease threat."

Specifically, sequestration forced the NIH to shave its budget by $1.55 billion, or 5 percent, in 2013, according to Mother Jones magazine. That may not sound like a lot -- and it is nothing in terms of closing deficits -- but it can be ruinous during an emergency when an agency is suddenly scrambling for every dollar.

The CDC's National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases -- meaning those that can be transmitted between species -- also suffered severe cuts. The center lost $13 million last year, according to Beth Bell, its director, who pleaded with Congress to increase funding sharply.

Sequestration took a similar toll on U.S. spending for international aid -- a budget category that American voters tend to assume is roughly 20 times more than the measly 1 percent or so that it actually represents. The tea party mentality that wildly exaggerates how much we spend abroad is just as ignorant about the importance and usefulness of that spending.

"If even modest investments had been made to build up a public health infrastructure in West Africa previously, the current Ebola epidemic could have been detected earlier, and it could have been identified and contained," testified Bell. But the sequester cut global health programs by $411 million and the U.S. Agency for International Development, which oversees most of our foreign aid, by $289 million.

The World Health Organization, an agency of the United Nations that forms the front line of disease defense in Africa, has likewise suffered massive budget reductions, at the very moment when its services may be most needed. In 2010, the United States paid $280 million toward the WHO's operating costs; by 2013, that contribution was cut by nearly a quarter, to $215 million. But much of that money is earmarked for specific programs, when what the WHO needs in an emergency such as Ebola is unrestricted funding.

Cutting funds to the WHO surely thrilled congressional Republicans, tea party leaders and everyone else in this country who expresses irrational hostility toward the U.N. But that was a very perilous way to gratify our country's isolationist faction, which evidently cannot understand that this is one planet -- and that the fates of its peoples are inseparably joined.

If we want to improve our security, if we want our children to live in safety, it is long past time to rid Washington of the partisan enemies of strong, competent government and international cooperation. We don't yet know the full cost of their mindless actions, but if we are unlucky, it could be incalculable.

http://www.alternet.org/world/real-lessons-ebola-crisis?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

Perspective! ~ I have not yet read thru Judy Stone's full analysis [live-linked below] ~ but the chart itself is not only eye-opening but damning as well ~ ~ Sooz

TPM LIVEWIRE
CHART: Public Health Emergency Funding Has Taken Major Hit
By Caitlin MacNeal Published October 12, 2014, 12:01 PM EDT

A writer for Scientific American recently pointed out that the Center for Disease Control's funding for public health preparedness has taken serious hits over the course of the past decade.

According to funding data analyzed by Judy Stone, annual funding for preparedness efforts have fallen by $1 billion between 2002 and 2013.


Stone, an infectious disease specialist, said that this reduction in funding hampered the U.S. in its response to the first Ebola patient in Dallas.

She lamented that politicians who are poorly informed about infectious disease prevention are in charge of resources for such efforts. She said that funding cuts have led to job losses at the local level, impacting local health officials ability to prepare for an outbreak.

"At this rate, what is happening in Dallas is going to be about as effective as the shameful response to Hurricane Katrina was," she wrote.

Read Judy Stone's full analysis here.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/funding-decrease-cdc-preparedness-ebola

i disagree. i think the guidance was adequate. i am not even sure the training was all that terrible. but the mistakes made were horrendous, particularly in terms of hazardous waste disposal. horrendous. it appeared that this hospital had basically NO protocol for dealing with hemorrhagic viruses. this, DESPITE the fact that these diseases have been around for nearly half a century, and have a well known protocol for treatment and isolation.

if the CDC is to be blamed for this, it is due to WOEFUL underfunding. blaming the director is, imo, barking up the wrong tree.

incidentally, i want to take a moment to point out that the CDC director has probably the best training for this outbreak imaginable. he is not only an MD, but one with extensive training in transmissible diseases. sure, he might not address the issue in the most politically aggressive or nuanced way- that would be the job of the SURGEON GENERAL. you know, that person that we have not had one of for OVER A YEAR NOW?

Ditto, mac's posts.

you know what i think is interesting about this debate? it almost seems like all of the anti-government buffoons are suggesting that the CDC should have taken charge of the hospitals, and nationalized them to deal with this problem. what is amazing is that the "liberals" in this debate are not calling for any such thing.

it just goes to show you how political this debate about "socialism" is. it is a rhetorical struggle more than a practical one.

How good a job can a carpenter do if you take away his tools?

It's official!
The panic is on!

Ebola outbreak: US nurse criticises quarantine treatment

A nurse quarantined on her return to the US from treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone has criticised the way she was dealt with at Newark airport.

Kaci Hickox said the experience was frightening and could deter other health workers from travelling to West Africa to help tackle the Ebola virus.

Illinois has become the third state after New York and New Jersey to impose stricter quarantine rules.

Meanwhile the US ambassador to the United Nations is to visit West Africa.

Samantha Power will travel to Guinea on Sunday, continuing later to Liberia and Sierra Leone - the three worst-hit countries.

"For me the benefits of having first hand knowledge of what is happening in these countries gravely outweighs the almost nonexistent risk of actually travelling to these countries, provided I take the proper precautions," she said on Saturday.

She said she hoped her trip would "draw attention to the need for increased support for the international response".

The White House has expressed concern that strict quarantine restrictions such as those imposed by state governments in New York, New Jersey and Illinois could put off aid workers and others travelling to West Africa to help mitigate the crisis at its source.

More than 10,000 people have contracted the Ebola virus, with 4,922 deaths, according to the World Health Organization's latest figures.

Only 27 of the cases have occurred outside Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea.

Airport ordeal

Ms Hickox, of medical charity Doctors Without Borders, described seeing a "frenzy of disorganisation, fear and most frightening, quarantine" on her return from Sierra Leone on Friday.

Writing for The Dallas Morning News, she asked whether fellow health workers would "face the same ordeal".

"Will they be made to feel like criminals and prisoners?" she questioned.

She said she was kept in isolation at the airport terminal for seven hours and given only a cereal bar to eat.

She also denied that she had had a fever, saying she was merely flushed because of the upset caused by her treatment at the airport.

Though Ms Hickox tested negative in a preliminary test for the virus, she will remain under quarantine for three weeks and continue to be monitored by health officials.

Stricter quarantine measures were put in place in New York and New Jersey after a doctor, Craig Spencer, tested positive for the virus on his return from Guinea last week.

He is currently being treated at New York's Bellevue Hospital in isolation.

'Facts not fear'

The new measures mean that anyone who has had contact with Ebola victims in West Africa now faces a mandatory 21-day quarantine period.

Illinois governor Pat Quinn announced on Saturday that his state would start imposing the same measures, without providing further details.

Meanwhile, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said he was not consulted over the new rules, which were ordered by the state governors of New York and New Jersey.

"The state has the right to make its decision, just like the CDC [US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] does, and we're going to work with them," he told reporters on Saturday.

US President Barack Obama said in his weekly radio and online address that Americans had "to be guided by the facts - not fear", reiterating that people cannot contract Ebola unless they have come into direct contact with an infected patient's bodily fluids.

His comments follow the release of the WHO's latest report, which warned that the number of Ebola cases in West Africa could be much higher than recorded, as many families were keeping relatives at home rather than taking them to treatment centres.

Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita sought to allay fears after Mali became the latest nation to record a death from Ebola.

He told French radio on Saturday that "all measures" had been taken since the start of the epidemic, adding: "We are doing everything to prevent panic and psychosis."

More than 40 people known to have come into contact with the two-year-old girl who died have been quarantined, and the authorities are still trying to track down others.

He said the border with Guinea would remain open.

However, officials in neighbouring Mauritania said it had closed its borders with Mali in response to the case.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29775698#

yeah. it is fully redonkulous at this point. three states have quarantine restrictions now, including Illinois, apparently.