Second Ebola Case in Dallas

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree. I also noticed that one of the speakers at the press conference was Judge Clay Jenkins who transported the members of the household where Duncan was staying to a secure location. I was thinking that it might be wise for him to isolate himself "just in case".

 

Why?  None of them were displaying symptoms so he was not at any risk of catching Ebola from them.

[Seasider]

I agree. I also noticed that one of the speakers at the press conference was Judge Clay Jenkins who transported the members of the household where Duncan was staying to a secure location. I was thinking that it might be wise for him to isolate himself "just in case".

If no one were symptomatic at transport time, he should be fine. Makes me wonder to what extent the residents were sent through a decontamination process prior to entering the transport vehicle.

 

Surely everybody considered every point in that process, right? Right?

 

We will see. I did catch something in a post above about it being "untrained" workers making protocol mistakes. I would suggest that even highly trained caregivers can make mistakes, subconsciously or due to fatigue. That's why the buddy system is being advocated - a partner to keep the donning/doffing caregiver highly focused on the process.

 

If I were in charge (thank heaven I am not!), I would be identifying and preparing regional centers that can be biocontained like those at Emory and in Nebraska, and focus on proper training and developing safe transport methods/systems in preparation for more patients.

[jelbe5]

Why? None of them were displaying symptoms so he was not at any risk of catching Ebola from them.

I realize that, but I am concerned we may not fully understand how this is transmitted. He entered the apartment with no protective gear . . . I don't see any harm in being extra careful, again, "just in case".

[mathnerd]

Why?  None of them were displaying symptoms so he was not at any risk of catching Ebola from them.

 

The CDC said today that the spread of Ebola to the American is "worrisome" - this is the same CDC that said before that it was 100% positive that the Ebola in the US is completely under control and that it has a good handle on the situation. This same CDC said today "It is possible in the coming days that we will see additional cases of Ebola," from the Texas health center where they treated Mr. Duncan. The fact is that Ebola is an unknown disease - even the CDC does not have all its facts right on this disease because it is an unknown disease (not completely known to even the CDC).

So, I would take reassurances from CDC that this is not an easily communicable disease with a pinch of salt.

[mathnerd]

I am concerned we may not fully understand how this is transmitted. 

 

Exactly. Nobody, including the CDC is an authority on this disease. The CDC already publicly admits that it is "worried".

[Katy]

I can't find any sources which confirm this.  Do you have a source?

 

This morning's Good Morning America.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The CDC said today that the spread of Ebola to the American is "worrisome" - this is the same CDC that said before that it was 100% positive that the Ebola in the US is completely under control and that it has a good handle on the situation. This same CDC said today "It is possible in the coming days that we will see additional cases of Ebola," from the Texas health center where they treated Mr. Duncan. The fact is that Ebola is an unknown disease - even the CDC does not have all its facts right on this disease because it is an unknown disease (not completely known to even the CDC).

So, I would take reassurances from CDC that this is not an easily communicable disease with a pinch of salt.

 

I think we can look at how it has transmitted elsewhere to see that the CDC seems to be correct.  If it was able to spread as easily as some here believe, the outbreak in West Africa would be significantly worse.  And there has been success containing it in some areas based on what we do know about the disease.

[mathnerd]

I think we can look at how it has transmitted elsewhere to see that the CDC seems to be correct.  If it was able to spread as easily as some here believe, the outbreak in West Africa would be significantly worse.  And there has been success containing it in some areas based on what we do know about the disease.

 

We can look at all kinds of data - but can any one authority step up and explain what the definitive properties of this virus are? Even the CDC can not do that at this point when they are contradicting themselves. There are many reasons why this virus is not spreading more rampantly in Africa - do the Africans have exposure to other pathogens similar to this virus and hence making them more resistant to Ebola than people in other parts of the world? Who knows? Again, there is no definitive authority on Ebola.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

We can look at all kinds of data - but can any one authority step up and explain what the definitive properties of this virus are? Even the CDC can not do that at this point when they are contradicting themselves. There are many reasons why this virus is not spreading more rampantly in Africa - do the Africans have exposure to other pathogens similar to this virus and hence making them more resistant to Ebola than people in other parts of the world? Who knows? Again, there is no definitive authority on Ebola.

 

I am not sure what you mean by definitive, but Ebola has been studied for decades now and they do know quite a bit about it.  Do they know everything? Probably not but I believe they do have a good grasp on how it is transmitted at this point.  Obviously that could change if the virus mutates.

And again, if it was spreading as easily as some here seem to want to believe, we would already be seeing additional cases related to exposure from Mr. Duncan.

[mathnerd]

 we would already be seeing additional cases related to exposure from Mr. Duncan.

 

This is what the head of the CDC said today: "It is possible in the coming days that we will see additional cases of Ebola,"

[Seasider]

I think perhaps we forget that most all things in life involve a learning curve. It is unfortunate that many things learned "the hard way" have stiff consequences. I think that's what we are seeing here. We thought we were prepared, but we've learned through the initial experience with Mr Duncan that we need to be better prepared, and perhaps in ways different than originally anticipated.

 

I wish that the Ebola learning curve were not so fraught with risks. But what's happening/happened - including the associated media reports - will hopefully provoke a more educated future response.

 

I don't mean to sound callous, I think it's tragic that Duncan was sent away from his first visit. On the post that was deleted, a boardie who works in an ER posted a bullet pointed list of things that could have gone wrong on that visit. I understand why the thread was deleted, but I am sorry that the insights she shared were lost. If another of you remembers specifically whom it was, perhaps she could share some of her points again on this thread.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is what the head of the CDC said today: "It is possible in the coming days that we will see additional cases of Ebola,"

 

Possible is not imminent.  If he said anything else and there was an additional case we would get posts about how the CDC is lying.  The CDC is truly entering damned if you do/damned if you don't territory.

People did have contact with Mr. Duncan when he was contagious, so we *could* see additional cases.  My point is that if what as easily spread as some here believe, we *would* be seeing new cases.

[Aura]

I agree with Katy and ashleysf.

 

First, the world is in uncharted territory and no one really knows what is happening right now, much less where we're headed. There's just too much unknown, too much failure in infrastructure, etc. over in Africa to get a completely accurate picture.

 

Secondly, I am very annoyed at the push the media is giving with blaming the nurse for not following protocol. I see no reason to assume that she did not do just what she said...EVERYTHING THEY TOLD HER TO DO, especially when viewed in light of what I said above. (Also, you can go back and read Katy's post toward the bottom of page 2. Very good post.)

 

I don't have time to rant on the way the nurse is being villainized (from articles I've read), and it really isn't productive, but it appears to me that the media, or perhaps the medical professionals informing the media, are trying to use the nurse as a scapegoat to avoid a panic. But this is exactly what I do not want to see. DON'T SPIN, FABRICATE, OR LIE IN ANY OTHER MANNER IN SOME MISGUIDED ATTEMPT AT AVOIDING A "POSSIBLE" PANIC. They don't know how she got infected. So just admit it and say they're studying that and until they know for certain, let's focus on what we do know, and redirect the attention. I do this all. the. time. The media are experts at redirecting focus. They could do this easily.

 

Edited to clarify: I'm talking about the media (in various news reports I've read) villainizing the nurse.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree with Katy and ashleysf.

 

First, the world is in uncharted territory and no one really knows what is happening right now, much less where we're headed. There's just too much unknown, too much failure in infrastructure, etc. over in Africa to get a completely accurate picture.

 

Secondly, I am very annoyed at the push the media is giving with blaming the nurse for not following protocol. I see no reason to assume that she did not do just what she said...EVERYTHING THEY TOLD HER TO DO, especially when viewed in light of what I said above. (Also, you can go back and read Katy's post toward the bottom of page 2. Very good post.)

 

I don't have time to rant on the way the nurse is being villainized (from what I've read), and it really isn't productive, but it appears to me that the media, or perhaps the medical professionals informing the media, are trying to use the nurse as a scapegoat to avoid a panic. But this is exactly what I do not want to see. DON'T SPIN, FABRICATE, OR LIE IN ANY OTHER MANNER IN SOME MISGUIDED ATTEMPT AT AVOIDING A "POSSIBLE" PANIC. They don't know how she got infected. So just admit it and say they're studying that and until they know for certain, let's focus on what we do know, and redirect the attention. I do this all. the. time. The media are experts at redirecting focus. They could do this easily.

 

I have read numerous articles about the nurse and have yet to see her villainized.

[Aura]

*shrug* Maybe it's perspective. Maybe it's word choice or semantics. Maybe "villainous" is a strong word. If you don't like my word choice, that's okay. Call it what you want.

 

Here's one from the Times that makes a point of emphasizing how likely the nurse is at fault for breaching protocol, even though she says she didn't. But the emphasis seems to be on the suspicion that the nurse did not completely follow protocol, NOT that the protocol might be inadequate.

 

Interestingly, here's another article that just came out where others agree with me and are a little "bristly" at the notion that it's the nurse's fault.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If she didn't have adequate training (very possible and an issue that needs to be addressed) that doesn't change the reality that the disease was most likely transmitted when the protocols were not followed properly. Acknowledging how she most likely contacted the disease is not turning her into a villain.

[Katy]

If she didn't have adequate training (very possible and an issue that needs to be addressed) that doesn't change the reality that the disease was most likely transmitted when the protocols were not followed properly. Acknowledging how she most likely contacted the disease is not turning her into a villain.

 

She's an RN/BSN.  She not only has adequate training, she's qualified to do the training herself.

 

When you see articles that nurses are demanding more training, it's not that we don't know how to handle it properly.  We've all had to pass numerous exams on getting decontaminated from airborne diseases like TB, which are considered MORE dangerous than ebola per CDC guidelines. Nurses have ongoing continuing education, and those are generally in staff meetings where you can discuss serious issues with your bosses when all of your colleagues are there to support you.

 

I guarantee you the nurses who are protesting are protesting because they feel their lives are just as valuable as the hazmat teams who've done apartment cleanup and they want to know why nurses don't deserve the same protection as the people spraying down sidewalks that are already sanitized by sun light.  By not having special training meetings they are denying nurses the ability to collectively bargain for safer working conditions as a whole department.

 

And also, hospital admit procedures are not designed for something as serious as ebola.  They're not.

[LucyStoner]

If that is true, that is very concerning. A pinprick hole? So a minute amount of virus got through the hole? How? Through air? Liquid? Then, once it was inside the suit, how did it infect her?

 

I am not asking these questions to be argumentative, and you don't have to answer if you think I am. These are genuine questions.

Didn't you claim in a previous Ebola related thread to have some specialized or expert level knowledge of infectious diseases? I am confused.

[Seasider]

I think we have two things at play here. First a strict PPE (personal protective equipment) protocol that has been proven to be an effective barrier to the spread of Ebola (for the example, let's say in regular care circumstances short of invasive measures such as intubation and kidney dialysis in late disease stages - things I'm wondering if had been part of typical treatment prior to Mr Duncan?). When followed to the letter, it works.

 

Second, we have a large margin for human error. How many times in the last hour did you scratch your face or rub an eye without washing hands first? It happens without your knowledge, on a regular basis. So while the nurse remembers doing nothing wrong, there's always the possibility that she did. If the nurse in Spain had not remembered touching her face with a gloved hand, we'd have the same scenario.

 

So we ask, how do we reduce the margin for error in a system that has proven effective? Better training, constant vigilance, buddy systems, well-rested caregivers, and the like. Or, we go ahead of the current game and follow an idiot-proof (no derision intended) PPE system, one that goes beyond the line of known effectiveness into the realm of complete and total barrier.

 

I don't think anyone is intentionally villianizing the nurse. The CDC guy stated the truth as factually as possible.

 

Our health care workers are traditionally underpaid, overworked and much more valuable than the general public gives them credit for being. I think we would do them right by instituting policies that overprotect and thus preserve them for future service. They are the front lines in our defense of this enemy.

[zoobie]

The family identified the nurse and provided a picture of her and her dog. I can't help but think of the Spanish nurse's dog. I wonder what the local officials will do in this situation.

[Perry]

The family identified the nurse and provided a picture of her and her dog. I can't help but think of the Spanish nurse's dog. I wonder what the local officials will do in this situation.

 

Last I heard they have someone feeding the dog and there are no plans to euthanize.

[Katy]

The family identified the nurse and provided a picture of her and her dog. I can't help but think of the Spanish nurse's dog. I wonder what the local officials will do in this situation.

 

They mayor of Dallas has said the dog will not be put down, at least not for now.  The dog was put into isolation, and I assume it will be tested to see if it is carrying the virus before any decisions are made.

 

The dogs who have previously been found to be carriers were scavengers, not house pets.

[Perry]

From ABC

Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins' office confirmed earlier today that the nurse's dog remains in the apartment. Water and food have been delivered for the dog, a King Charles spaniel, and authorities are developing a longer-term plan for how to deal with the dog while it's owner is being treated.

"If that dog has to be the boy in a plastic bubble... We are going to take good care of that dog," Jenkins said earlier today.

Jenkins said the dog would not be euthanized. A dog named Excalibur that belonged to a Spanish nurse with Ebola was destroyed despite a worldwide outcry.

 

 

I <3 Judge Jenkins.

[Aura]

I think we have two things at play here. First a strict PPE (personal protective equipment) protocol that has been proven to be an effective barrier to the spread of Ebola (for the example, let's say in regular care circumstances short of invasive measures such as intubation and kidney dialysis in late disease stages - things I'm wondering if had been part of typical treatment prior to Mr Duncan?). When followed to the letter, it works.

 

Second, we have a large margin for human error. How many times in the last hour did you scratch your face or rub an eye without washing hands first? It happens without your knowledge, on a regular basis. So while the nurse remembers doing nothing wrong, there's always the possibility that she did. If the nurse in Spain had not remembered touching her face with a gloved hand, we'd have the same scenario.

 

So we ask, how do we reduce the margin for error in a system that has proven effective? Better training, constant vigilance, buddy systems, well-rested caregivers, and the like. Or, we go ahead of the current game and follow an idiot-proof (no derision intended) PPE system, one that goes beyond the line of known effectiveness into the realm of complete and total barrier.

 

I don't think anyone is intentionally villianizing the nurse. The CDC guy stated the truth as factually as possible.

 

Our health care workers are traditionally underpaid, overworked and much more valuable than the general public gives them credit for being. I think we would do them right by instituting policies that overprotect and thus preserve them for future service. They are the front lines in our defense of this enemy.

 

The nurse did not have the same PPE (specifically, the hazmat suit) that has been proven to be an effective barrier. She used different protocols than what has been shown in labs to prevent spread. She used scrubs, gloves, mask and shield. Not a respirator and not the same level of protection as a fully enclosed hazmat suit. But this is what the protocols called for. She wasn't supposed to need a hazmat suit. This is the problem.

[Aura]

And then to turn around and say, "You were infected because you didn't follow protocol"?! Is it any wonder health workers are upset about this?

[mathnerd]

But this is exactly what I do not want to see. DON'T SPIN, FABRICATE, OR LIE IN ANY OTHER MANNER IN SOME MISGUIDED ATTEMPT AT AVOIDING A "POSSIBLE" PANIC. They don't know how she got infected. So just admit it and say they're studying that and until they know for certain, let's focus on what we do know, and redirect the attention. I do this all. the. time. The media are experts at redirecting focus. They could do this easily.

 

Edited to clarify: I'm talking about the media (in various news reports I've read) villainizing the nurse.

 

This is my point exactly. Nobody knows how the nurse got infected - they are assuming that she was at fault. The CDC is being criticized for saying that. CDC is running an investigation into how this happened and we will know for sure how the Ebola spread to the nurse when the results are out.

 

ETA: This is what I mean - here is a video from the CDC chief saying that he did not mean that "protocols were breached" - http://www.video11.com/news/cdc-chief-backtracks-after-blaming-nurse-who-got-ebola-h142124.html

PS: I am sure that the video is legit even though I don't know if the website is legit.

[Seasider]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/health/ebola-fatu-family/

[Susan in TX]

The nurse has been identified http://abcnews.go.com/Health/dallas-nurse-ebola-identified/story?id=26160328

 

This is all so sad. She is only 26...not much older than my eldest daughter. At least they are taking care of her dog.

 

 

Susan in TX

[Sun]

This is a helpful graphic.  Also, a PP said no shoe covers are required- not quite accurate.  These are required on a case by case basis.  Further, Duncan's case had some unusual features:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/12/us/how-hospital-workers-are-supposed-to-treat-ebola-safely.html

 

Not "required." I don't think any of the CDC recommendations are required, and I'm not sure if they can even "require" something in that context since hospitals set policies. If you look at the CDC links in that article or in the link I posted ( I think I'm the one you're referring to), you'll see that the most they have are recommendations, not requirements. The CDC uses the word "required" once in that context, but it is under a section titled "Recommendations." I think there may be a lot of gray area in that second recommendation below, copied from the CDC site:

• All persons entering the patient room should wear at least:
  • Gloves
  • Gown (fluid resistant or impermeable)
  • Eye protection (goggles or face shield)
  • Facemask
• Additional PPE might be required in certain situations (e.g., copious amounts of blood, other body fluids, vomit, or feces present in the environment), including but not limited to:
  • Double gloving
  • Disposable shoe covers
  • Leg coverings

 

I do wish that the CDC recommended at least a buddy system to check for proper PPE usage and removal. They list it under things to consider, but we're talking about people's lives when using a system that has high potential for very costly errors.

[Laurie4b]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/13/health/ebola-cdc/index.html?hpt=hp_t1   I thought this article had very reasonable suggestions for things that can be changed to better treat ebola patients and protect our workers.

[catz]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/13/health/ebola-cdc/index.html?hpt=hp_t1   I thought this article had very reasonable suggestions for things that can be changed to better treat ebola patients and protect our workers.

 

:iagree:   I was coming here to post this list.  :)

[Seasider]

Great article!

[Colleen]

Can't help but note that the dog is getting more immediate care and attention than did the family with whom Thomas Duncan was staying.  

[Katy]

Can't help but note that the dog is getting more immediate care and attention than did the family with whom Thomas Duncan was staying.  

 

 

 

I hope that has more to do with Duncan just being the first case, and for his family officials still had to work out the logistics of what to do, how to get around permit regulations for HAZMAT teams, etc.

 

I feel bad for the dog. He's being fed, but he can't leave the apartment, and except for being fed he's alone. Dogs are very social, the poor thing must be feeling miserable.  Plus he might be so anxious at this point that he could be getting destructive.

[VeganCupcake]

Can't help but note that the dog is getting more immediate care and attention than did the family with whom Thomas Duncan was staying.  

 

I felt a little bit yucky about that, too. 

[Colleen]

I hope that has more to do with Duncan just being the first case

 

I'd like to think so ~ but I don't.  I have no doubt there are a lot of people who feel worse for that dog than they did or do for either Thomas Duncan or his friends & relations.  

[Twolittleboys]

I'd like to think so ~ but I don't.  I have no doubt there are a lot of people who feel worse for that dog than they did or do for either Thomas Duncan or his friends & relations.  

 

I kind of disagree, at least as far as the people in charge in Dallas are concerned. I think that after making a complete mess of everything by a) sending Mr. Duncan back home when he first went to the hospital b) not taking care of the apartment/family c) not being able to save Thomas Duncan and d) now having a nurse get infected they are trying to do whatever they can to make no further mistakes. It seems they were caught completely off-guard, did not expect ebola to begin with, had no procedure for decontamination, no prior experience in treating ebola, and apparently not sufficient training or adequate procedures for their health professionals. Whatever their personal feelings may be, noone enjoys having their mistakes spread through the media worldwide. So given the public outcry about the dog in Spain it makes sense that they would act differently in this case, especially as there seems to be a very minute chance that the dog has been infected (I believe this time the nurse was quarantined at the very first sign of illness).

[Colleen]

(G)iven the public outcry about the dog in Spain it makes sense that they would act differently in this case

 

This is unrelated to my earlier observation, viz. many people are more concerned about the dog than they were/are about the earlier patient and those connected with him.

[Pawz4me]

I kind of disagree, at least as far as the people in charge in Dallas are concerned. I think that after making a complete mess of everything by a) sending Mr. Duncan back home when he first went to the hospital B) not taking care of the apartment/family c) not being able to save Thomas Duncan and d) now having a nurse get infected they are trying to do whatever they can to make no further mistakes. It seems they were caught completely off-guard, did not expect ebola to begin with, had no procedure for decontamination, no prior experience in treating ebola, and apparently not sufficient training or adequate procedures for their health professionals. Whatever their personal feelings may be, noone enjoys having their mistakes spread through the media worldwide. So given the public outcry about the dog in Spain it makes sense that they would act differently in this case, especially as there seems to be a very minute chance that the dog has been infected (I believe this time the nurse was quarantined at the very first sign of illness).

 

:iagree:

 

Plus they certainly don't want people who suspect they may have Ebola to NOT seek care immediately due to fear that their pets will be euthanized.

[Trish]

 

I saw Clay Jenkins' press conference, I don't think he looked well. Hopefully it's just due to stress! Didn't he waltz into that apartment with no protective gear, and PRIOR to its decontamination?

 

I think the CDC has wrongly suggested there is no danger when proper protocols are followed. Those protocols should include a respirator. If the Dallas hospital that had just received ebola training was not ready to handle one case, how ready are the rest of the hospitals in the U.S.? And why are we still allowing flights from West Africa? Checking people's temperatures is not going to do much to contain this problem.

 

From the Center of Disease Research and Policy:  We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.

[Halftime Hope]

Can't help but note that the dog is getting more immediate care and attention than did the family with whom Thomas Duncan was staying.  

 

That's because there was a learning curve for the bureaucracy.  What concerns/annoys me is that they hadn't thought this through, and that the learning curve was so steep that it endangered people like Duncan's family.  I'm concerned about how much more of that there will be.

 

[Halftime Hope]

sorry, duplicate post 
 

[Halftime Hope]

This is unrelated to my earlier observation, viz. many people are more concerned about the dog than they were/are about the earlier patient and those connected with him.

 

You know, I've observed that a lot -- people, especially on FB -- caring more about pet/animal issues than they do about human concerns.  It rather boggles my mind.

 

But there's a world of difference between this phenomenon and thinking that the Dallas health officials (collectively) care more about the dog than they did about Duncan's family.  Yes, they've had a different response, but I cannot bring myself to believe that is it that they think more highly of the dog than of the people.  Public health is their job and their calling.  I suspect that what happened is that good, speedy, mind-engaged proactivity just isn't in the nature of bureaucrats and their helpers.  (I have a friend who works for WIC....oy....the stories!) 

Here's my question, only somewhat related to Ebola, that's been on my mind.  Let's say that you are working with some dangerous substance that you really don't want on your skin.  Maybe that's Ebola, maybe it is radiation, maybe it is cooties.  Let's say you have perfectly impervious gloves while you do your work.  How do you remove your gloves when you are done, so that you never touch the contaminated outside parts of the gloves, even accidentally?

[albeto.]

Can't help but note that the dog is getting more immediate care and attention than did the family with whom Thomas Duncan was staying.  

 

In what way?

[umsami]

Here's my question, only somewhat related to Ebola, that's been on my mind.  Let's say that you are working with some dangerous substance that you really don't want on your skin.  Maybe that's Ebola, maybe it is radiation, maybe it is cooties.  Let's say you have perfectly impervious gloves while you do your work.  How do you remove your gloves when you are done, so that you never touch the contaminated outside parts of the gloves, even accidentally?

 

This is how I was taught, but I don't know if there's other techniques for more dangerous biohazards  

[Laurie4b]

In what way?

 

Food for one thing. The family reported that they weren't allowed to leave, but didn't have food for part of the time.

Sanitized environment for another thing.

 

I think it's a result of a learning curve.

 

The powers-that-be were caught very flat-footed with the initial patient. I hope that those-in-charge-of-such-things in various parts of the country are reviewing their own plans as a result of all the publicity of the initial mistakes made in dealing with Mr. Duncan, his family, the health care workers, communications, etc.

[Joules]

This is how I was taught, but I don't know if there's other techniques for more dangerous biohazards

This is how I was taught, too, but in terms of chemicals and then mild biohazard, not Ebola. I still do this when I handle meat out of habit. (I was immuno-compromised and was supposed to do this for preparing meat, changing diapers, etc.)

 

It does take practice. If you slip when doing that single finger thing, the elastic pops back and liquid on the glove can splatter all over you. From working with chemicals, I know how hard it is to be perfect every time, but there is some minimum safe exposure in most cases. Ebola seems to be a zero tolerance situation. I can't imagine having to be that perfect all the time.

This is how I was taught, but I don't know if there's other techniques for more dangerous biohazards 

 

 

Thanks!  The "single finger trick" would seem to be difficult to get 100% right.

[Halftime Hope]

This is how I was taught, too, but in terms of chemicals and then mild biohazard, not Ebola. I still do this when I handle meat out of habit. (I was immuno-compromised and was supposed to do this for preparing meat, changing diapers, etc.)

 

It does take practice. If you slip when doing that single finger thing, the elastic pops back and liquid on the glove can splatter all over you. From working with chemicals, I know how hard it is to be perfect every time, but there is some minimum safe exposure in most cases. Ebola seems to be a zero tolerance situation. I can't imagine having to be that perfect all the time.

 

That's another one of the good reasons for the second pair of gloves.  You can get the first pair off without compromising the barrier, then removal of the second pair has much less chance of contaminating you.  (I learned this at Fermilab of all places--man, that was a lifetime ago.)

 

ETA:  for some reason, they also recommended thicker gloves on the outside and thinner as the second layer.  I can't remember why, but if I'm remembering it correctly, it was something like 8mil on the outer glove and 6 on the inner.  I think the outer was easier to grasp and more impermeable, and the inner more form-fitting and also, slightly shorter.  It was a whole, well-thought out protocol for working with chemicals that were somewhat radioactive.  I wish I could remember what we were doing.  Funny the details that stick and the ones that don't.