Our dog trainer recommended I carry Spray Shield (see http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0002XKIV6/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1413683705&sr=8-2&pi=SY200_QL40 - sorry for the long link - I'm on my phone) when walking our dog in case of encounters with aggressive off-leash dogs. It's a citronella spray that is supposed to be as effective as pepper spray but won't hurt you in case of blow-back. You have to spray it right in the dog's face. I've never had to use it, so I can't say how well it works in practice. ETA: In other threads, I've seen people recommend air horns.

I thought this DKos diary contains a lot of interesting information that hasn't been shared here yet: Are UK Ebola Protocols the Gold Standard? The setup for isolating highly infectious patients in the UK is described as follows: "Effectively the patient is in a bed sized protective capsule. All items that need to be taken into or out of the tent are through an airlocked, separate tented trolley. The necessary face masks, sleeves and internal gloves are built into the tent as "half suits" so the medical staff can safely wear just scrubs and light gloves. The blue device round Breda Athan's neck in the photos is an air cooled vest to keep the staff cool when using the half suits, you can see the tube for the air supply in the first picture. The CDC appear to also use isolation tents but simple ones which require the staff to enter the tent to treat the patient. That of course requires that they wear full PPE and have to take this off properly, with all the risks we know that involves." The photos mentioned can be found at the Huffington Post UK article. The DKos diary also mentions screenings taking place at Heathrow Airport - although it sounds like there are complaints about the effectiveness of its implementation.

That's awful that people have been so rude. I've had good luck in my area; the worst problem I have to deal with is the occasional no-show. I did have one person get grumpy once when they didn't show and I gave the item to someone else. Most of the people have picked up on time and been very kind and grateful. I like the idea of specifying a time limit in our original correspondence, so I think I will start doing that.

When I list items on Freecycle, I say that it's "easy porch pickup" which means that I'll put the items in a bag on my porch for the person to stop by and pick them up without needing to ring the bell. I ask the person to let me know when they can pick up and I don't give out my address (via private email not on the Freecycle board) until a date and time have been stated. What do you do when the person doesn't show? How long do you wait after the no-show until offering it to the next interested person or re-listing the item? Do you email the original person and tell them it's no longer available?

The article says: "The four aren't allowed to touch one another, or anyone else. As a replacement, Mason wraps his arm around himself and makes eye contact with family members when he visits. They mimic the motion. It's the closest they can come to hugging, he said." But why would the four people in quarantine not be allowed to touch one another? The CDC has maintained that the virus cannot be transmitted in the absence of symptoms. They are checking their temperatures twice a day and I'm sure they're monitoring how they're feeling. If they're asymptomatic, they cannot spread the disease.

Our 65 lb. border collie is allowed on the sofa and loves to cuddle with us. But he knows that It's not his sofa, it's ours and we invite him to join us. Being allowed up there is a privilege - he "asks" before getting on (at least most of the time) by standing and looking longingly at the sofa and then at you with his best puppy dog eyes. And he gets down when asked.

:iagree: One thing that worked well for me when my girls were around those ages (although my girls are only 3 years apart in age, and due to differing maturity levels are really closer to the equivalent of 1-2 years apart in age), was to: 1. Put them in positions where they needed to get along in order to have something to do. For example, we would regularly take screen breaks, where TV, video games and computers were unavailable. It's fairly easy to entertain yourself when you have such electronic devices handy. But take those away and the girls were suddenly much more interested in getting along and finding compromises so that they would have someone to play with. 2. Help them to make positive memories together. Take the two of them on outings where they can enjoy doing something together - e.g., amusement parks, go out for ice cream, bowling, etc. Keep the outings short and positive, as much as possible.

OK, I'll accept that it may be the journalist's word choice, but I've usually seen that reported as "did not return requests for comment." And I'm not assuming it's nefarious, just incompetent. The CDC is handling their PR and public image very poorly.

If this is accurate, then it does sound like a heart attack. However, this closing line to the article: "The CDC declined to comment on the passenger." is absolutely ridiculous. The CDC doesn't get to decline comment on this stuff, if they want people to trust them. They need to explain what went into their determination that this man did not have ebola.

I'd toss it.

I have to imagine that this varies depending on the shop. The shops often have a specific clientele who shop there, so some shops will be very picky about what they keep. It doesn't mean the other items are necessarily trash. That doesn't mean that I'm justifying giving obviously trashy items - large holes & stains, cracked / broken, etc. - to charity drives. It's just that the range of what people think is or isn't trash is a wide range. For example, my husband used to toss his shoes unless they were in excellent condition. I convinced him that men at a homeless shelter might appreciate his worn but warm and dry hiking boots. I've sometimes given boots that I wasn't quite sure if I should donate or toss, leaving that decision to the shelter, becsuse I didn't know if they had tons of shoes (in which case they'd probably toss them) or if they had a desperate need for shoes (in which case they'd probably use them). It wasn't my goal to foist my garbage off on the charity; it was my goal to give a pair of shoes that still had some good use left in them to somebody who needed warm shoes. It would have been faster and easier to just chuck them in the trash. I guess that individuals, churches and charities need to keep in mind that if they're doing a drive for in-kind donations, they need to expect that they'll get some stuff they can't use. They will need to be prepared to spend time sorting through those donations and have plans made for discarding or donating the items that they can't use.

One of the questions that I had about the article is why did the person in Africa need an iPhone? Wouldn't any brand of cell phone with a good battery that would hold a charge for a long time be suitable? She said that the goal was to have a phone that would be usable during power outages. Also, how about a solar charger? An off-brand phone with a big battery (and even possibly a spare battery or two) plus a solar charger could be purchased for a lot less than $500. ETA: Also, the donated iPhone could have had a replacement battery installed, if the problem had been realised before the trip. It's not automatically worthless just because it needs a new battery.

I use Ecocolors and I dye my hair by myself at home. I use it to color the gray in my dark brown hair (I mix 2/3 dark brown and 1/3 black to match my natural color) and it works well. I'm probably at least 50% gray, at least on the top of my head and my bangs. Several years ago, I had a reaction to salon color. That's when I switched to Ecocolors.

I have some family heirloom antique table linens - mostly tablecloths that are monogrammed. They go back about 3 generations, to before WWII. They are in pretty great shape - mostly because they haven't been used much because they are huge - think a long table designed to seat 20 or so. I'm trying to decide if there's anything I can or should do with them, other than keep them in storage. Cut them down to my table's size? Use them as quilt backs? Any ideas?

Here's a current article about the current state of air service into and out of the effected countries. "There’s no central decision-making body overseeing airline service into Ebola-ravaged areas. The airlines have made their own decisions." According to the article, only two major airlines have maintained service to the effected countries: Brussels Airlines from Belgium and Royal Air Maroc from Casablanca. Air France has also kept its flight from Paris to Guinea. British Airways has suspended service to Sierra Lione and Liberia at least through March. Emirates has stopped flights to Guinea's capital. Britain refused to allow an African-based carrier to resume flying into London from Sierra Lione. Interesting article about a reporter's experience flying out of Liberia (it's 4 days old). She had her temperature taken twice and had to wash her hands in chlorinated water twice, plus fill out a questionnaire (and I assume that the medical people were also observing her for other signs of illness), before she could even get into the airport terminal, and her temperature was taken again before she boarded the flight.

This doesn't seem credible to me. I think it's pretty well known at this point that your best chances at surviving are to get medical assistance at the earliest signs of the disease. The whole premise of the idea of people sneaking out of the affected countries is that they want to get away from the disease so they don't contract it and die - or that, if they think they may have been exposed, they want to get to countries with superior health care so they have a better chance of surviving. It makes no sense that if they began to show symptoms, they wouldn't promptly seek medical help.

Although the news that continues to come out about the handling of Mr. Duncan's case is abysmal, I think the current state of affairs is much more hopeful: * So far, no people who were exposed to Mr. Duncan during the four days from the time he began showing symptoms until he was hospitalized have contracted Ebola. We are 4 days away from the end of their 21-day quarantine period. Assuming that they do not show signs of the disease in the next 4 days, this will suggest that the disease is not highly contagious even during the early stages of symptoms. This gives strong hope that the the disease can be well controlled from spreading among the general population using the techniques of monitoring possible contacts for symptoms and hospitalizing them when they show the first symptoms. * Although the response to Mr. Duncan and his family was exceedingly poor, officials do seem to be handling the subsequent cases in a much better manner. Hazmat teams were quickly dispatched to clean their apartments; their contacts have been quickly identified, monitored and even isolated in some cases. Collateral issues (such as the dog) have been identified and addressed promptly. * It appears that the greatest risk may be to the HCWs who care for the patients during the late stages of their disease. The CDC seems to be ready to respond much more aggressively to prepare and protect those HCWs. My thoughts are with the HCWs who heroically helped Mr. Duncan as they wait through the next 2 weeks.

I just decided yesterday to address the clutter that has been building up in our upstairs rooms, where we don't spend as much time so I don't see it as often. I have two parts to my plan: * I set a goal of decluttering three items per day from my stuff (my closet, bedroom, books, and our linen closet), and three items per day from the girls' stuff. That is a manageable amount each day, yet should allow us to get rid of a good amount of stuff before the holidays. * And I'm starting with the items that are easy to part with - no big decisions. As it feels good to see the areas empty out, I expect it to make it easier to make the harder decisions.

The one requirement that I have for snow boots is that they be waterproof and not just water resistant. That will take your options down to just a few, and the price might be up slightly (but not always). But to me it's worth it to have dry feet.

I hope that this single case will be the only one to result from Mr. Duncan's illness, and that no more than one case results from this person's illness, and so forth. Because once you hit transmission to 2 people, you're at the start of an exponential growth curve. See "The Ominous Math of the Ebola Epidemic": "Global health officials are looking closely at the 'reproduction number,' which estimates how many people, on average, will catch the virus from each person stricken with Ebola. The epidemic will begin to decline when that number falls below one. A recent analysis estimated the number [in West Africa at] 1.5 to two. Ebola cases in West Africa have been doubling about every three weeks, and no data suggests a major change in that trend line." ETA: The description of the protective garments being worn by this nurse and the nurse in Spain also made me think of this article that had been linked on a prior Ebola thread, but I'll link it here in case anyone hasn't seen it and is interested: "COMMENTARY: Health workers need optimal respiratory protection for Ebola." In the article, the authors argue the possibility that ebola could be transmitted through the inhalation of aerosol droplets of saliva or mucous that hang in the air after a patient coughs or sneezes, and urge that in order to adequately protect health care workers, "The minimum level of protection in high-risk settings should be a respirator with an assigned protection factor greater than 10." As I understand it, neither of the nurses that contracted the disease were wearing respirators. Of course, the nurse in Spain said that she touched her face with her gloves and that may be how she was exposed. We'll have to wait and see what further facts come out about the TX nurse and whether she can remember any similar breaches in protocol.

Do you have any sources for this? It's a source of debate between myself and dh. Dh says things like "germs cause illness, not having a wet head or not wearing a jacket." I say that I know germs cause illness, but in my experience if you do things like go outside in the cold with wet hair or without a jacket, it seems to weaken your immune system and increase the likelihood you'll get sick (given that germs are always around). I'd love to have some backup for my anecdotal evidence! Aargh - I just ordered a pack of non-alcohol-based hand sanitizers, because they rated better at the Cosmetics Safety Database. I had assumed that in order to advertise themselves as sanitizers they had to meet some sort of standards that were equivalent to the alcohol-based sanitizers. I guess I'll be sending them back and stocking up on Purell. Sigh. I do avoid using hand sanitizers as much as possible, relying on hand washing with soap instead. I mostly keep a small bottle in my purse and in the car for when hand washing is not possible. But since my daughter brought home two illnesses in the first two weeks of school, I've been sending hand sanitizer for her to use before she eats lunch because there isn't time to wash hands there. I know it's not effective against the enterovirus, but you do what you can.

Given that pic, I would get two of the retractable baby gates (loved those!) that can be opened extra wide and install them in the door openings to the dining room and the living room (I assume the kitchen is in the unseen back corner). That would cordon off the entire entry way with the stairs.

The Spiderwick Chronicles

These articles are really starting to bug me. First of all, this one states "Ebola requires contact with bodily fluids like vomit, blood, saliva or urine to transfer from person to person. But influenza is easily airborne on droplets projected from coughs and sneezes that fly through schools, offices and households." What do those droplets consist of? Saliva and mucus. As the first sentence just noted, Ebola can also be transmitted through those fluids. It's not yet clear whether Ebola can be transmitted through such aerosol routes of transmission, but at least some experts are beginning to think that maybe it can: "There has been a lot of on-line and published controversy about whether Ebola virus can be transmitted via aerosols. Most scientific and medical personnel, along with public health organizations, have been unequivocal in their statements that Ebola can be transmitted only by direct contact with virus-laden fluids and that the only modes of transmission we should be concerned with are those termed "droplet" and "contact." These statements are based on two lines of reasoning. The first is that no one located at a distance from an infected individual has contracted the disease, or the converse, every person infected has had (or must have had) "direct" contact with the body fluids of an infected person. This reflects an incorrect and outmoded understanding of infectious aerosols, which has been institutionalized in policies, language, culture, and approaches to infection control. We will address this below. Briefly, however, the important points are that virus-laden bodily fluids may be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity to an infectious person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited throughout the respiratory tract." And they go on to conclude: Being at first skeptical that Ebola virus could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, we are now persuaded by a review of experimental and epidemiologic data that this might be an important feature of disease transmission, particularly in healthcare settings. Secondly, the other diseases listed include: Measles & Whooping Cough: Vaccines are available for these and the vast majority of our country's population is vaccinated against them which also helps to provide herd immunity for those who cannot get the vaccinations. Influenza: Also has a vaccine that while not 100% guaranteed effective can be extremely useful. And as far as my personal experience goes, people are taking Entereovirus D-68 seriously, and at-risk populations also take RSV and Pneumonia seriously. But none of those diseases require treatment in an isolation ward with health care workers suited up in Hazmat suits. My bed linens after a bout of the flu are not hazardous waste. None carry a 50% or higher death rate. More people die from them each year than die from Ebola because many more people suffer from them each year than suffer from Ebola - and the vast majority of those people go on to recover. If I must choose between Influenza or Ebola, I'll take Influenza any day - and I'll wager that so will anybody else. If the journalists or CDC are trying to use the concern about Ebola to get people to also think about what measures they might need to take to also protect against these other, more common diseases, then fine. But this ranking of what we should be more or less worried about comes across to me as belittling legitimate concern about Ebola. I have taken the steps that are within my control to protect myself and my family from the diseases on that list. But it is the CDC and the health care system that right now protect us from a larger Ebola outbreak, so I will continue to watch how they are handling the situation.

This is incorrect, according to every source that I've seen. If you could provide a source for this, I'd be very interested in reading it. ETA: This was my point a couple of posts ago - the CDC needs to be on top of this and clearly explain why they are doing what they are doing, especially when it appears to contradict their prior statements. I could speculate. For example, if symptoms most often present within 10 days (I'm not saying they do - I'm just supposing) and they're now 11 days out without symptoms, perhaps the CDC felt that's good enough and decided that if they're symptom free they can return to work. But that would be pure speculation on my part. And we don't want people speculating and misunderstanding how the virus works and misunderstanding what they should or should not be worried about. The information should be clear and consistent. Inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the reporting should be promptly corrected. Trust in the CDC will be built through seeing them behave in logical, consistent ways. If their actions are being misreported so that they appear to be illogical or inconsistent, they really need to be responding to that. I am generally willing to trust the experts, but they are not infallible, and so I am also closely watching how they respond to this crisis both in the US and in Africa. So are a lot of other people. This is an excellent opportunity to build public confidence in their expertise and policies. Right now, they are not capitalizing on that opportunity.