Letter to CDC _Raw Shea

[CanaDawn]

Listening to ebola nursing forum. Ebola is transmitted through aerosols as well as direct contact to body fluids. I will not be getting anything from Africa for the foreseeable future.

curious...what aerosol will survive the trip from Africa? I'm not sure how that would be a risk? (Nevermind that Africa is quite a large continent, with many countries not part of this outbreak...)

I guess everyone's risk aversion varies, and as I said, I wouldn't want someone to do something they weren't comfortable with doing.

 

[CanaDawn]

I think you're reading something into my post that wasn't there. I didn't mean to imply that I had rubbed the shea butter on my hands as a safety test for ebola, or anything else. Just that I had done so when I received it about a month ago, to see what it felt like on my hands. I had never made any connection between shea from Ghana and the risk of ebola until I read this thread today. Just stating that I rubbed the shea on my skin over a month ago, not knowing that there might ever be a question of an ebola connection, and that I've had no ill effects, that's all.

Ah, could be I assumed since you brought it up in the thread about raw shea butter and its possible ebola risk, that you meant the 'no ill effects" to refer to ebola. (Not that it would be a risk, anyhow, and I'm still not clear from this post that you weren't thinking there might have been, especially as you then stated you wouldn't use it for soap. I'm probably still missing your point.)

 

[CanaDawn]

And that thumbs down was for my opinion of said bugs, not you being tougher....lol, I could use a lesson on bug toughness my hubby would say! So that wasn't meant for you, just for the horrible memories on the bug invasions :sick:
Also, yeah it's totally unnecessary and I agree 100% with you on that!

LOL no worries. I probably am, since a few wasps in the house wouldn't get me to spray. That many crickets would be annoying though! I don't really mind spiders enough to spray either - they're generally beneficial or at least harmless to humans.

Good thing we aren't room-mates!

 

[CanaDawn]

Right about where we start to talk about viruses "learning" you lose me. Studies show a lot of things, but I like to have a look at them to see if they show salient, relevant, reliable things - and so far I have no particular fear of ebola comin' to get me via an African product shipped into North America. Will you be avoiding things made in Dallas? I know that seems a bit random, but I feel like the risk assessment should include some numbers and a few more facts than we're discussing here so far. The studies I have seen show the risk to be very low for the possible contact we're discussing so far. Can someone point me to newer ones that show otherwise?

Some of the questions I would have before I boycotted Africa as a continent:

Is your African product irradiated at the border?
Is it dry? A fat or oil? Made in an affected area? Likely to harbour the virus, outside of "fear of" (as opposed to actual likelihood)?
Any more likely to harbour it than in previous years when there has been ebola?
Does aerosol transmission work if the virus is not kept moist/warm/aerated/what have you (ie, if the aerosol droplet is no more)? (Perhaps I don't understand the use of the term "transmission by aerosol" properly)

If there are more recent studies, I would be interested to see them. Obviously virologists are the ones that WILL keep learning, so it's great to have up-to-date sources to have a look at.

 

[CanaDawn]

Nancy Today is hands down one of the scariest soapmaking videos I've ever seen. She is wrong on so many levels and thinking of all the new soapers out there who see her videos and may follow her ways is frightening. She's been the topic of what not to do many times on several forums. She is entertaining though.

I'm _almost_ curious enough now to look her up, but I don't tolerate fools well, and it starts to sound like she's creeping into that category! My head is quoting the Berenstein Bears now "This is lesson number two. This is what you should NOT do" lol!!

 

[CanaDawn]

The latest on Ebola suggests that, under optimal conditions, the virus can live for up to six days, but it's sensitive to UV and drying. On dry surfaces, it only lives a few hours, or a couple minutes in sunlight.

To me, this seems to make a boycott unnecessary, other than for personal reasons, which are valid in their own right.

 

[shunt2011]

I'm _almost_ curious enough now to look her up, but I don't tolerate fools well, and it starts to sound like she's creeping into that category! My head is quoting the Berenstein Bears now "This is lesson number two. This is what you should NOT do" lol!!

She's a train wreck waiting to happen. It's good for a laugh but not a beginner.

 

[CanaDawn]

She's a train wreck waiting to happen. It's good for a laugh but not a beginner.

Funny! A third degree acquaintance is exactly this in another field - you just can't look away, but it's so darned annoying to watch...and you don't wish harm on another human, but you can't stop anticipating the crash. AND you know that trying to change the course of the outcome will do nothing but increase the radius of the impact!

 

[sassanellat]

Right about where we start to talk about viruses "learning" you lose me. Studies show a lot of things, but I like to have a look at them to see if they show salient, relevant, reliable things - and so far I have no particular fear of ebola comin' to get me via an African product shipped into North America. Will you be avoiding things made in Dallas? I know that seems a bit random, but I feel like the risk assessment should include some numbers and a few more facts than we're discussing here so far. The studies I have seen show the risk to be very low for the possible contact we're discussing so far. Can someone point me to newer ones that show otherwise?

Some of the questions I would have before I boycotted Africa as a continent:

Is your African product irradiated at the border?
Is it dry? A fat or oil? Made in an affected area? Likely to harbour the virus, outside of "fear of" (as opposed to actual likelihood)?
Any more likely to harbour it than in previous years when there has been ebola?
Does aerosol transmission work if the virus is not kept moist/warm/aerated/what have you (ie, if the aerosol droplet is no more)? (Perhaps I don't understand the use of the term "transmission by aerosol" properly)

If there are more recent studies, I would be interested to see them. Obviously virologists are the ones that WILL keep learning, so it's great to have up-to-date sources to have a look at.

Viruses aren't technically alive, so not they really don't 'learn' in the way that was implied. Ebola doesn't share the life strategy of the colds or the flu (as a rapid changer); instead much more like mumps or measles (whic hardly ever change at all, which is why out vaccines almost never have to change). It's not classified as having aerosol transmission for several excellent reasons, including very high infectious dose & strong sensitivities to drying and inactivation by UV/sunlight. If you get directly coughed upon (aka direct transmission of fluid), you can get it. If not, then it's extremely unlikely to get an infectious dose. The current reports from the CDC indicate that two problems have produced the two infections of healthcare workers in the US: improper procedure, and failure of protective gear (specifically the hospital bought cheap-assed holey gloves from China). There is always a disproportionate fear response to these things, so we have to keep calm. The lack of training is a big element, as displayed by the latest worker (bizarrely, and totally contrary to all training and recommendation) worked with an Ebola patient and the took a flight. That tends to strongly indicate the nurses either don't know, or failed to follow proper procedures. It also indicates that the latest infected person really doesn't have a lick of common sense and endangered an entire flight of people because of it.

 

[lionprincess00]

Viruses aren't technically alive, so not they really don't 'learn' in the way that was implied. Ebola doesn't share the life strategy of the colds or the flu (as a rapid changer); instead much more like mumps or measles (whic hardly ever change at all, which is why out vaccines almost never have to change). It's not classified as having aerosol transmission for several excellent reasons, including very high infectious dose & strong sensitivities to drying and inactivation by UV/sunlight. If you get directly coughed upon (aka direct transmission of fluid), you can get it. If not, then it's extremely unlikely to get an infectious dose. The current reports from the CDC indicate that two problems have produced the two infections of healthcare workers in the US: improper procedure, and failure of protective gear (specifically the hospital bought cheap-assed holey gloves from China). There is always a disproportionate fear response to these things, so we have to keep calm. The lack of training is a big element, as displayed by the latest worker (bizarrely, and totally contrary to all training and recommendation) worked with an Ebola patient and the took a flight. That tends to strongly indicate the nurses either don't know, or failed to follow proper procedures. It also indicates that the latest infected person really doesn't have a lick of common sense and endangered an entire flight of people because of it.

Technically the cdc APPROVED her flight after multiple calls to them based on her temp not being 100.4 or higher. So technically those awesome cdc workers, as was just reported, are the ones without a lick of common sense and endangered an entire flight because of it.
The CDC.
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/heal...las-hospital-worker-diagnosed-ebola/17290677/

Good luck OP with getting a straight an honest answer from them :crazy:

 

[CanaDawn]

Thanks sassanellat. That all lines up with what I knew and have learned.

Avoiding the disproportionate fear and managing to keep calm and rational are SO critically important to handling any sort of crisis - doubly so when the misinformation and speculation are huge. Part of it comes from people partly understanding what is being said by specialists, but not understanding enough to avoid misinterpretation of what they are hearing...and with social media and the like, it spreads and gains unwarranted credibility SO darn quickly.

I hope that nurses can quickly get up to speed on level 4 virus protocols so their own fear is diminished as their proficiency is increased, and that administrators take a firm and sensible stance on compliance and accountability amongst their staff (although it is so difficult for the average public to know what is sensible erring on the side of caution and what is cause for alarm...and the media isn't very good at interpreting these kinds of situations without raising the level of hype and fear. All in all, it's a difficult situation, but mostly not due to the virus itself, in North America.)

Ebola doesn't mutate as quickly as the information about it does! :thumbdown:

 

[CanaDawn]

Technically the cdc APPROVED her flight after multiple calls to them based on her temp not being 100.4 or higher. So technically those awesome cdc workers, as was just reported, are the ones without a lick of common sense and endangered an entire flight because of it.
The CDC.
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/heal...las-hospital-worker-diagnosed-ebola/17290677/

Good luck OP with getting a straight an honest answer from them :crazy:

HOWEVER...from that same story, and in line with everything sassanellat has been saying "Frieden said. "The level of risk around her would be extremely low, but because of the extra margin of safety, we will be contacting [all those who were on the flight].""

 

[lionprincess00]

And knowledge like a sentient entity, no. Splitting hairs on a play of words, apologies for the wrong word.
Won't post articles that lead me to believe otherwise than what we are told face value on the tv because it is a gross deviation from the OP of shea butter from Africa, but I've got articles that lead me to think differently than what I've been told to think.
Finally....
Sass. I have heard, like many many Americans, that anything below 100.4 F isn't considered a fever by healthcare professionals, Oral temps.
We have been told by the cdc Ebola isn't communicable until fever is reached, as most illnesses. I've been told this numerous times by healthcare professionals. So being 99.5 and not considered a "fever", she wasn't communicable, right???

She did nothing wrong. Per these standards the cdc did nothing wrong. Per these standards no one will get ill. She didn't excrete bodily fluids all over people so no one will get ill.

Your saying she has no common sense, per these standards, is wrong common sense....Per the cdc and healthcare standards......

See why buying things out of this region may make some of us consumers think twice? Didn't you say you were a biologist? So why one thing from you knowing the "rules of biology", and a different thing from the cdc and healthcare professionals?

I'm not trying to attack you. I want to hilight the double speak and misinformation and mainly the CONFUSION being fed to us as a nation. I don't know if they know their left from right with this unknown not well studied disease, so I'll play it ridiculously safe and avoid all things coming directly from Africa (west), to the best of my abilities.

Cana, you bet your right eye I'll avoid purchases coming out of Dallas IF a handful or two are positive. And yeah, I'm counting the numbers each came in contact with, directly. We will see what comes about of this......

 

[lionprincess00]

Yes, it's low low low risk. Why call her irresponsible, which was my point? She wasn't. It's such a low risk the cdc approved her flight, and we are being too overly cautious right?! See where I'm coming from? Even the scientist here says the patient was irresponsible where you're stating the cdc and risk states it's safe as a kitten (well, cougar in a cage lol). So why get upset with the patient when she was being totally responsible as well as the cdc? Nothing wrong with exposed Ebola persons with a fever below 100.4 waking about in public. At all.

I would be less than pleased if I sat beside her on a return flight.... but no worries right? It wasn't contagious.

 

[CanaDawn]

I'm a biologist, and sassanellat is a microbiologist (please correct me if you identify otherwise, sassanellat). I don't hear doublespeak from us vs cdc, which is that the risk is very low with asymptomatic patients, that the virus is difficult to contract, the virus doesn't survive being dried, lives up to 4 days in optimal conditions, etc, etc.....what do you see us saying that cdc et al is not (or vise versa)?

I have never suggested anyone do things they aren't comfortable with, but I honestly believe that avoiding purchases from Dallas would be an absurdly high level of fear-based (as opposed to fact-based) avoidance that would fly in the face of what is known about this virus (one that has been around for a long time, and has been well studied). My opinion on that is indeed based on the science and the biology of the virus - you are, however, free to believe it or not, and to decide what level of avoidance makes you comfortable. That choice will not change either the science nor the biology, but you have to do what you can live with.

Ebola is anything BUT unstudied or unknown. It has been around for a long time, and has been well-contained many times in previous outbreaks. Part of the reason it is such a struggle this time is the public's fear reaction and lack of compliance with requests from medical assistance (isolation - the family in Dallas had to be under guard so they didn't wander out because they were "bored" with being quarantined, and in W. Africa there is a belief in some places that the USA is engineering this outbreak (yay conspiracy theories, which are hugely dangerous in these situations because they spread misinformation and cause people to refuse to do the right things) - I have seen comments from Americans that bizarrely blame Obama personally for this - how nuts can you be?

However, I still say that if you personally feel safer with a high level of avoidance, regardless of actual risk, there is no harm in that choice.

 

[CanaDawn]

I would be less than pleased if I sat beside her on a return flight.... but no worries right? It wasn't contagious.

because the scientists here recognize the difference between a vanishingly low risk with an associated high level of safety margin, and a fear-based amplification of the risk.

Would I be pleased that she had violated protocol? No. Would I be afraid that I had contracted ebola? probably, for a while, despite my knowledge, because I'm human....but would that fear increase my actual risk? No. The risk would still be extremely low to the point of being about as near zero as any scientist would want to state (we don't like absolutes very much)

 

[CanaDawn]

"extra margin of safety" means there are measures in place that exceed the likely risk, so that containment is more assured. It does NOT mean everyone under observation is likely to have been exposed or to be at risk..it means they drew a large circle around a small point of small risk. I don't know how to explain this better, and I see why it causes fear when people don't understand the relative and absolute risks.

 

[CanaDawn]

It's gonna be a "fun" flu season in a few weeks.....:roll:

 

[lionprincess00]

I don't hear doublespeak from us vs cdc...
Sass stated
It also indicates that the latest infected person really doesn't have a lick of common sense and endangered an entire flight of people because of it.
And you say
because the scientists here recognize the difference between a vanishingly low risk with an associated high level of safety margin, and a fear-based amplification of the risk.

Vanishingly low (you cdc) vs a microbiologist you say (sass), who I assume is better versed in the effects of microbiology than a biologist

Ebola is anything BUT unstudied or unknown.
I didn't say this. I said not well studied.
The cdc changed their stance 2 months ago and recommended, 2 months ago, you are 3 feet away from a patient with Ebola. This is new. It isn't as well studied obviously as hiv for example in that, to the best of my knowledge, I haven't heard new recommendations for hiv in the news as recently as Ebola

Part of the reason it is such a struggle this time is the public's fear reaction.....
Who's fear reaction caused the struggle to contain this virus?

Blaming Obama, or blaming not restricting flights from west Africa which, I think, only he can do? I never said him, though, for the record.

Harm in my choice, nope! Your right....and I'm done.

Too old, too late lol.

 

[sassanellat]

Technically the cdc APPROVED her flight after multiple calls to them based on her temp not being 100.4 or higher. So technically those awesome cdc workers, as was just reported, are the ones without a lick of common sense and endangered an entire flight because of it.
The CDC.
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/heal...las-hospital-worker-diagnosed-ebola/17290677/

Good luck OP with getting a straight an honest answer from them :crazy:

And if that's the case, you're right - that person doesn't have a lick of sense, and there was no reason on Earth to either assign personal to that case that needed to travel, or they should have just simply stopped her from traveling for the 21 day window. Either way, it's crazy.

(The article seems to indicate that she traveled there without permission, but allowed the fight back to hurry the return.)