Quote:Actually, it sounds like the for-profit Texas hospital this went down at, which I understand is currently a ghost town, simply did the bare minimum when it comes to requirements.
From the article:
'Nurses have voiced concern that they have never cared for Ebola patients before and feel unprepared and underequipped. "If hospital administrators had to take care of Ebola patients, they would have the gold standard and hazmat suits," said RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, a union with 185,000 members'
It seems to me that government regulations have been ramped up due to a lack of self-governing at the hospital by its administrators--in other words, nothing to do with not knowing how it's transmitted.
THR is non-profit. I know that doesn't fit the narrative, but it's true.
Quote:From what I understand prior to this week the cdc guidelines did not require complete covering of the skin while treating Ebola patients. So why do they now change the guidelines why wasn't it required before and now it is?
To me that suggest this virus is more contagious then they previously thought.
Nurses and administration at the hospital screwed up, so the CDC is recommending firmer guidlines to assure no breach in protocol happens again.
If the old protocol was ineffective, we'd have a LOT more people infected. We don't. Why? Because the transmission of Ebola is not a new concept. Stick to cars and circular political debates, man.
Health organizations like the CDC, EDC, WHO, etc. are all very, very familiar with how Ebola spreads.
Quote:THR is non-profit. I know that doesn't fit the narrative, but it's true.
Pretty sure it is.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Hospital_of_Dallas'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Hospital_of_Dallas</a>
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote:Pretty sure it is.<a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Hospital_of_Dallas'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Hospital_of_Dallas</a>
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Nope, they're owned by Texas Health Resources. You can Wiki them to confirm.
Quote:Nope, they're owned by Texas Health Resources. You can Wiki them to confirm.
Technically, the NFL is a non-profit. It appears this association has a similar model.
Quote:Technically, the NFL is a non-profit. It appears this association has a similar model.
they are np just like St Vincents and Baptist here locally.
Amber Vinson now free of the Ebola Virus.
Nina Pham's condition upgraded to good.
Nina Pham's dog tests negative for Ebola virus.
Science: 1
End of the world doomsday preppers: 0
Quote:Amber Vinson now free of the Ebola Virus.Nina Pham's condition upgraded to good.Nina Pham's dog tests negative for Ebola virus.Science: 1End of the world doomsday preppers: 0
What's one got to do with the other? Isn't the issue at hand how it's spread, not if it can be cured?
Quote:What's one got to do with the other? Isn't the issue at hand how it's spread, not if it can be cured?
Because they are no longer contagious once symptoms and the virus are gone. Vinson is clear and it does not appear that anyone that came in contact with her (ie. flight from Cleveland, or nurses caring for her) have caught the virus. Whatever protocols / precautions were taken to contain the virus to Pham and Vinson appear to have been successful.
Quarantine period has ended for the 50-ish people who had "close contact" with Duncan, including his family and those at the hospital he came in contact with the first time he tried to get admitted.
That doesn't suggest to me that it's somehow spreading in a way that's make it easier to get ebola.
Quote:they are np just like St Vincents and Baptist here locally.
That's misleading. Just because the entity is non-profit does not mean the administrators of the entity are not motivated by money. Their salaries and bonuses, especially the bonuses, are based on the fiscal viability of the entity.
They have incentive to increase the earnings potential of the entity. If that means cutting back on expenditures for things like, say, isolation room supplies because it aren't cost effective, they will do so, with impunity. Anyone who has spent any time in a hospital environment over the past few decades will tell you how greed has negatively affected the level of care in our health system, especially for people who cannot afford it.
Quote:That's misleading. Just because the entity is non-profit does not mean the administrators of the entity are not motivated by money. Their salaries and bonuses, especially the bonuses, are based on the fiscal viability of the entity.
They have incentive to increase the earnings potential of the entity. If that means cutting back on expenditures for things like, say, isolation room supplies because it aren't cost effective, they will do so, with impunity. Anyone who has spent any time in a hospital environment over the past few decades will tell you how greed has negatively affected the level of care in our health system, especially for people who cannot afford it.
Oh, absolutely. Money is the driving point for profit and not-for-profit hospitals. The hospital I work with use to be a not-for-profit hospital. Two years ago, it was bought out by a for-profit hospital. What changed on the clinical and patient care levels? Nothing.
Quote:Oh, absolutely. Money is the driving point for profit and not-for-profit hospitals. The hospital I work with use to be a not-for-profit hospital. Two years ago, it was bought out by a for-profit hospital. What changed on the clinical and patient care levels? Nothing.
The narrative would have extreme cuts in budgets and a reduction in clinical quality once they became for profit. Otherwise there was no need to infer a profit status in the original post to which I responded, "For profit" anything is lefty for "lower quality to bolster the bottom line."
Quote:So far, it's seemed that way, no?
Yes so far they've done a good job containing it as far as we know. Like I said I hope your right and we know how to keep it under control.
OMG EE-BOW-LAH IS IN NEW YORK CITY!!!
Now it's serious.
Quote:Well, being that the initial trade center attack (1993) happened under a democrat and that same administration had the chance to take out Bin Laden in the late 1990's but wimped out as they usually do in matters of foreign policy, I'd not be throwing the above stones....
I'm guessing that you believe that 9-11 was an inside job?
Pointing out your blatant and obvious bias is throwing stones? You act so proud of your closed minded bias though?
Why would I believe 9-11 was an inside job? Because it was a Republican president and you assume I am an evil evil liberal? Unfortunately there are way too many of your type.