Ebola arrives in America tomorrow on a fancy private jet

[movie zombie]

and then there is this: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-20341423

seems Brit scientists aren't sure that it can't be air transmitted between species.........

 

[eh613c]

I'm not sure if I trust the CDC to contain Ebola at this point at this point. Back in June CDC may have accidentally exposed their own lab personnel with Anthrax by transporting from a BSL4 rated lab to a BSL3. Then earlier this year, a sample of avian influenza was unintentionally cross contaminated with a highly pathogenic h5n1 strain of influenza shipped to a BSL3 rated lab (must be BSL4).

 

[packrat]

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one. (or the two)

I get wanting to help others, but if you're that selfless that you want to help others in such a dire situation, you, I would think, would also have an understanding that you do have a possibility of contracting what you're working with, despite your best efforts. And I would think you would understand the risks involved with then possibly infecting others. And not want to do that.

I may be *the* single most heartless person on the planet, and that's fine. Nobody made anybody take those chances--that's a personal decision they made. Knowing risks. And yes, I would close the door on you. B/c your needs do not outweigh the needs of the millions of people here. Sometimes you have to make shitty decisions. Sometimes they're necessary.

 

[amc80]

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one. (or the two) I get wanting to help others, but if you're that selfless that you want to help others in such a dire situation, you, I would think, would also have an understanding that you do have a possibility of contracting what you're working with, despite your best efforts. And I would think you would understand the risks involved with then possibly infecting others. And not want to do that. I may be *the* single most heartless person on the planet, and that's fine. Nobody made anybody take those chances--that's a personal decision they made. Knowing risks. And yes, I would close the door on you. B/c your needs do not outweigh the needs of the millions of people here. Sometimes you have to make shitty decisions. Sometimes they're necessary.

Then I'm also heartless.

 

[Calliecake]

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one. (or the two)

I get wanting to help others, but if you're that selfless that you want to help others in such a dire situation, you, I would think, would also have an understanding that you do have a possibility of contracting what you're working with, despite your best efforts. And I would think you would understand the risks involved with then possibly infecting others. And not want to do that.

I may be *the* single most heartless person on the planet, and that's fine. Nobody made anybody take those chances--that's a personal decision they made. Knowing risks. And yes, I would close the door on you. B/c your needs do not outweigh the needs of the millions of people here. Sometimes you have to make shitty decisions. Sometimes they're necessary.

As I was listening to the news this afternoon I felt terrible that I didn't think this was the correct decision. The risk seemed too great to bring them home. I commend the two individuals for there selfless work but I also wondered how they would feel if they were responsible for others contracting this awful disease. I find all of this so sad. You are not a heartless person Packrat.

 

[swingirl]

I wonder who is paying for the private jet, specialized equipment, etc. Their medical insurance? US government (taxpayers)?

 

[rainwood]

I don't think we are at risk bringing our 2 Americans back. It is being done under completely controlled circumstances and you can only contract Ebola through contact with bodily fluids like blood, saliva or vomit. Ebola is relatively difficult to catch unlike respiratory diseases like colds and flu.

I would worry more about travelers coming here before they realize they are infected and then spreading it unwittingly. There is a greater risk for a global epidemic from travelers carrying the virus coming here before they are diagnosed since Ebola has a longer incubation period than many infectious diseases (21 days). So they could potentially transmit it to others here that way. But what we are doing bringing the Americans back is very different and carries (almost) 0 percent risk IMO.

I agree with Missy. And I'm glad the CDC is trying to save the lives of two Americans who were selfless enough to want to help others.

 

[Gypsy]

I don't think we are at risk bringing our 2 Americans back. It is being done under completely controlled circumstances and you can only contract Ebola through contact with bodily fluids like blood, saliva or vomit. Ebola is relatively difficult to catch unlike respiratory diseases like colds and flu.

I would worry more about travelers coming here before they realize they are infected and then spreading it unwittingly. There is a greater risk for a global epidemic from travelers carrying the virus coming here before they are diagnosed since Ebola has a longer incubation period than many infectious diseases (21 days). So they could potentially transmit it to others here that way. But what we are doing bringing the Americans back is very different and carries (almost) 0 percent risk IMO.

I agree with Missy. And I'm glad the CDC is trying to save the lives of two Americans who were selfless enough to want to help others.

I agree too. Plus, who knows ... this might lead to a break-through and for me that's absolutely worth the relatively low risk.

 

[monarch64]

I think we'll all be alright. I'm really so glad the U.S. brought these people back to a. be treated and b. have testing done so we can learn more about this disease and hopefully eradicate it. Hello? Also...if these doctors were your loved ones...come ON. You'd just leave them in another country? Doubt it.

 

[momhappy]

I wonder who is paying for the private jet, specialized equipment, etc. Their medical insurance? US government (taxpayers)?

Yes, I asked this too a few posts back - who pays for this?

 

[Trekkie]

Thanks Kaleigh! I will be sure to let you all know if it does get here.

Momhappy - a bunker sounds like a great idea. We don't even have a basement, but thanks to the crime in SA our house is pretty well protected.

Who knows, maybe as some people have said, this will help the US study the disease and assist us all in finding a cure or vaccination.

 

[packrat]

I wonder who is paying for the private jet, specialized equipment, etc. Their medical insurance? US government (taxpayers)?

Yes, I asked this too a few posts back - who pays for this?

I was under the impression it was a "Good Samaritan" who came forth with a private plane etc? Maybe I dreamed that tho, I dunno.

And yeah, if it was JD there...well, yeah I'd want him back home...but this is why we will survive the zombie apocalypse. If JD turned, I would shoot him. I felt bad telling him that, but he looked at me and said "Jesus honey, I would WANT you to shoot me" We had the ebola discussion this morning. Would I want you to come home, yes, would I let you come home, no.

 

[TooPatient]

DH and I talked about this Friday. I started out thinking it was 80% dumb and 20% kind. The chance for human error allowing this thing to spread in the U.S. seems to be an unnecessary risk for a disease we're not likely to have any more luck with. If they wanted to treat him, why not send special isolation stuff and a trained team to care for him there? (as in, the same who were probably already on the flight) Skype or whatever is the only way he'll get to see his family anyway. It isn't like they are going to expose other people to this more than they have to.


DH had some different ideas though. I have to admit his logic was great...

With them here at one of our best medical centers -- in as isolated and controlled environment as you're going to get -- we can potentially study and make progress on a cure and/or vaccine. At some point, someone will travel and get this disease and bring it home (not knowing they have it). It would be FAR better to have treatments (or vaccines) available BEFORE that happens and it spreads out of our control.
He also pointed out that for every nasty virus we understand and have vaccines/treatments for, that is one fewer virus that can potentially be used against us in biological warfare. (remember the anthrax through the mail some years ago that could have been ugly except we had a treatment). The more likely it is there is a treatment for something, the less likely it is someone would try to begin with.


So now I am thinking it is something like 80-85% smart/kind and 15-20% risky/dumb

 

[movie zombie]

..........I'm not even waiting for it to get out of control - the moment there's a confirmed case here, I'm stocking up! My husband thinks I'm nuts but he's being supportive of my insanity so really, what more could one ask for? My only regret is that we don't have firearms, but I know where I can easily (albeit illegally) acquire those should the shit hit the fan.

People can laugh at my prepping as much as they like, but I'd rather be laughed at than unprepared!

Trekkie, don't wait until everyone else is trying to acquire those firearms....illegal means when SHTF prices will go up and there will be a lot of competition to buy. decide what you want and be specific so that you don't have to "settle for less" and get your ammo stockpile going as well.

bleach is on my shopping list this week! lots of bleach......

 

[momhappy]

I read an article this morning - the transportation, care, etc. of the two doctors is being paid for by the Samaritan's Purse, which is a Christian humanitarian organization that performs missionary work around the world to those in need (both doctors infected with Ebola worked for Samaritan's Purse). The article also talked about their medical care, which included a blood transfusion for the male doctor (the blood utilized in the transfusion was from an African boy who was actually treated by the male doctor and survived the Ebola virus). It also mentioned an experimental treatment that was going to be administered to the female doctor after she arrives in the US.
I can certainly agree that the research factor alone might be worth the risk of relocating the doctors the the US. It's an incredibly valuable thing to have the ability to treat the doctors in a controlled environment.

 

[msop04]

I wonder who is paying for the private jet, specialized equipment, etc. Their medical insurance? US government (taxpayers)?

Yes, I asked this too a few posts back - who pays for this?

I was under the impression it was a "Good Samaritan" who came forth with a private plane etc? Maybe I dreamed that tho, I dunno.

And yeah, if it was JD there...well, yeah I'd want him back home...but this is why we will survive the zombie apocalypse. If JD turned, I would shoot him. I felt bad telling him that, but he looked at me and said "Jesus honey, I would WANT you to shoot me" We had the ebola discussion this morning. Would I want you to come home, yes, would I let you come home, no.

DH and I had the "zombie apocalypse" discussion as well (too much Walking Dead makes you consider these things )... We also agreed to shoot if one of us turned.

Here's the thing... Of course we want our loved ones to come home, and I would imagine that others would also want that outcome for other people. But it's important to think logically when the decision could have a dyer impact on our society. Benefit vs. Risk. Should there be a horrible outbreak traced back to them, the public would be absolutely outraged that those two were allowed back into the country. What if a loved one contracted this from said outbreak? I doubt you'd be too jazzed that the people were allowed to come back before completely recovering.

What's the harm in just keeping them in isolation for a while (out of the country) until they are fully recovered?? Is it really that big of a deal to ask that they not be infectious upon return to the States? It wouldn't be that long, and we could still study the virus. It just doesn't seem responsible to me for them to be allowed to come back as is...

 

[Trekkie]

..........I'm not even waiting for it to get out of control - the moment there's a confirmed case here, I'm stocking up! My husband thinks I'm nuts but he's being supportive of my insanity so really, what more could one ask for? My only regret is that we don't have firearms, but I know where I can easily (albeit illegally) acquire those should the shit hit the fan.

People can laugh at my prepping as much as they like, but I'd rather be laughed at than unprepared!

Trekkie, don't wait until everyone else is trying to acquire those firearms....illegal means when SHTF prices will go up and there will be a lot of competition to buy. decide what you want and be specific so that you don't have to "settle for less" and get your ammo stockpile going as well.

bleach is on my shopping list this week! lots of bleach......

I think I have time. DH was saying earlier that we'll know there's a case here the moment out president denies it.

It's nearly impossible for white people to legally acquire firearms in SA so it would have to be illegal. I'm not quite prepared to take the risk of having illegally acquired firearms in the house just yet.

I don't want to give away too much on a public forum, but I will say that I have made provision for what I want without disclosing the reason for wanting said firearms and am able to collect with very little notice.

I'm actually more worried about teaching my 20 year old brother and 40 year old husband to shoot. My husband went hunting once about 20 years ago, but my brother has even less experience than that. I haven't touched a gun in nearly 10 years but I was a very good shot back then. Surely it's like riding a bike?

 

[movie zombie]

..........I'm not even waiting for it to get out of control - the moment there's a confirmed case here, I'm stocking up! My husband thinks I'm nuts but he's being supportive of my insanity so really, what more could one ask for? My only regret is that we don't have firearms, but I know where I can easily (albeit illegally) acquire those should the shit hit the fan.

People can laugh at my prepping as much as they like, but I'd rather be laughed at than unprepared!

Trekkie, don't wait until everyone else is trying to acquire those firearms....illegal means when SHTF prices will go up and there will be a lot of competition to buy. decide what you want and be specific so that you don't have to "settle for less" and get your ammo stockpile going as well.

bleach is on my shopping list this week! lots of bleach......

I think I have time. DH was saying earlier that we'll know there's a case here the moment out president denies it.

It's nearly impossible for white people to legally acquire firearms in SA so it would have to be illegal. I'm not quite prepared to take the risk of having illegally acquired firearms in the house just yet.

I don't want to give away too much on a public forum, but I will say that I have made provision for what I want without disclosing the reason for wanting said firearms and am able to collect with very little notice.

I'm actually more worried about teaching my 20 year old brother and 40 year old husband to shoot. My husband went hunting once about 20 years ago, but my brother has even less experience than that. I haven't touched a gun in nearly 10 years but I was a very good shot back then. Surely it's like riding a bike?

should have known you'd thought it out already!
do they have ranges where you can rent guns for practice?
your brother might be a worry if he isn't committed to self-defense and has not experienced "recoil".
I assume your husband will be as motivated as your are when the time comes.
are all guns hard to come by? how about pellet and/or air rifles? would be a practice tool.
completely understand the concern re risk of illegal guns in the home until absolutely necessary........
and hopefully it will never come to that!

 

[rosetta]

I don't think we are at risk bringing our 2 Americans back. It is being done under completely controlled circumstances and you can only contract Ebola through contact with bodily fluids like blood, saliva or vomit. Ebola is relatively difficult to catch unlike respiratory diseases like colds and flu.

I would worry more about travelers coming here before they realize they are infected and then spreading it unwittingly. There is a greater risk for a global epidemic from travelers carrying the virus coming here before they are diagnosed since Ebola has a longer incubation period than many infectious diseases (21 days). So they could potentially transmit it to others here that way. But what we are doing bringing the Americans back is very different and carries (almost) 0 percent risk IMO.

I agree with Missy. And I'm glad the CDC is trying to save the lives of two Americans who were selfless enough to want to help others.

THIS. if you think Ebola is more likely to get to your (and my) shores via highly contained air flight, you couldn't be more mistaken. It is VERY unlikely there will be an outbreak from this flight. It is MUCH more likely to come in via commercial flight, unannounced, uncontrolled and undetected until we find the cluster. This is how contagions skip shores. You cannot fully eliminate this risk without closing your borders.

 

[Lady_Disdain]

This isn't about humaneness, kindness or charity. These two are being brought back mainly for research, despite anything else being said. It would be much harder to take a foreigner to the US for research without a lot more controversy and international legalities coming in play.

And this research should be done. Ebola is spreading and it needs to be understood. Unfortunately, the main reason the research is being done is not to protect the population but for biological weapons. I hate to sound so cynic, but...

 

[lioness]

See the story - and the breaking news alert. http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/04/health/experimental-ebola-serum/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[lioness]

More info. This is a far more likely way for the disease to spread in the US than a highly controlled medivac: http://7online.com/health/mount-sinai-patient-tested-for-ebola-virus/239663/

 

[lyra]

That is promising news, about the experimental drug.

I voted "yes", they should be brought to the US. I'm all for further research in the best facilities able to handle the virus. I'm glad they attempted a last ditch medical intervention before they were flown home, and that it appears to have some success, and that the CDC can further study the 2 patients to see long term effects.

I'm of the mind it's better to get a handle on this virus under controlled circumstances like this now, before there is a worldwide type of event. It's better than avoiding the issue completely and being unprepared in the future IMO.

 

[azstonie]

MRSA. That is why I say no bringing patients with Ebola here.

Every hospital has it. Many, many patients go to a hospital for medical care and leave with it. Incurable. Won't say more in case some of our PSers have it, they have enough to deal with.

Lots of doctors have it. Nurses and PAs too.

Why?

BECAUSE THEY WON'T EVEN FOLLOW STERILE/CLEAN PROTOCOLS FOR THEIR *OWN* SAKES much less their patients.

Johns Hopkins Hospital severely reduced the transmission of MRSA to their patients? How did that happen? No one can seem to stop it/stem it.

When a patient there gets MRSA from their hospital stay/procedure, they come back to the hospital and every single person involved in their episode of care, from the president to the janitorial staff, is required to apologize personally to the patient.

It worked immediately.

 

[JewelFreak]

I agree with Missy. It's right to bring them home -- this is their country. How can we say no? Especially when we're letting in hundreds of thousands of non-citizens right now, untested for a long list of diseases, including drug-resistant TB.

They are being treated in very controlled conditions & there is nowhere else they can get the quality of treatment they'll get here -- certainly not if we forced them to stay in Africa. Of course, we could always say, "Hey, don't want you here. See if a hospital in Switzerland or Sweden will take you." That would work well. The research angle is also important -- meds will not be developed in Africa; they haven't the researchers or the equipment.

The much bigger danger is people coming in with it & not knowing they have it. While it's not transmissable during the incubation period, before symptoms appear, Ebola can easily be mistaken for other things, such as flu. These 2 doctors are in isolation & the chances disease could spread from them are very very small. Besides, they are American. Of course they should come home.

--- Laurie

 

[lioness]

I agree with Missy. It's right to bring them home -- this is their country. How can we say no? Especially when we're letting in hundreds of thousands of non-citizens right now, untested for a long list of diseases, including drug-resistant TB.

They are being treated in very controlled conditions & there is nowhere else they can get the quality of treatment they'll get here -- certainly not if we forced them to stay in Africa. Of course, we could always say, "Hey, don't want you here. See if a hospital in Switzerland or Sweden will take you." That would work well. The research angle is also important -- meds will not be developed in Africa; they haven't the researchers or the equipment.

The much bigger danger is people coming in with it & not knowing they have it. While it's not transmissable during the incubation period, before symptoms appear, Ebola can easily be mistaken for other things, such as flu. These 2 doctors are in isolation & the chances disease could spread from them are very very small. Besides, they are American. Of course they should come home.

--- Laurie

+ 1

 

[JaneSmith]

It also helps to put Ebola in perspective. Since 1976, Ebola has infected fewer than 5,000 people and killed fewer than 3,000. That’s in Africa, where over 1 billion people live. By contrast, poor, “boring” measles still kills 122,000 people every year and killed over 2 million a year in 1980, before widespread vaccination campaigns. According to the WHO, in 2012, malaria caused an estimated 627,000 deaths, mostly among African children. Also according to the WHO, since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic (which dates back almost as far as the discovery of the Ebola virus), HIV has infected over 75 million and killed 36 million, with approximately 35 million currently living with the infection. None of this means that we shouldn’t take Ebola seriously or that much larger outbreaks couldn’t happen. Nor does noting this difference minimize the deaths of people infected with the disease. We should note from these observations and others, however, that Ebola is unlikely to reach such numbers because it is simply not infectious enough and Ebola outbreaks tend to “burn themselves out” because, unlike HIV or measles (which are also transmissible human-to-human), Ebola virus disease is so rapidly fatal.

In other words, Ebola is a horrible disease, but because it’s so horrible it’s unlikely to kill as many people as diseases we already know about. And it’s not nearly as dramatic as people think. Tara Smith interviewed representatives of Doctors Without Borders several years ago, and this is what one physician, Armand Sprecher, told her:

As for the disease, it is not as bloody and dramatic as in the movies or books. The patients mostly look sick and weak. If there is blood, it is not a lot, usually in the vomit or diarrhea, occasionally from the gums or nose. The transmission is rather ordinary, just contact with infected body fluids. It does not occur because of mere proximity or via an airborne route (as in Outbreak if I recall correctly). The outbreak control organizations in the movies have no problem implementing their solutions once these have been found. In reality, we know what needs to be done, the problem is getting it to happen. This is why community relations are such an issue, where they are not such a problem in the movies.

“Getting it done” is much easier in the US and other developed nations than it is in Africa.

One also notes that the CDC has stocks of the virus, which it studies, which means that Ebola virus is already on US soil (in various universities, an Army facility, and the CDC) and Canadian soil, along with patient blood samples from Africans infected with the various forms of Ebola. As a real infectious disease expert, Tara Smith, pointed out, not only is Ebola already in the US, but US health officials have already dealt with cases and small outbreaks of related hemorrhagic fevers, such as Lassa fever and Marburg.

It’s also noted that it isn’t the precautions that might fail, but the humans doing the precautions, as Schaffner noted that they were “busy” or “because familiarity breeds if not contempt then casualness.” This was learned in Toronto dealing with the SARS outbreak when hospital workers dealing with SARS patients became infected. Posting monitors outside the patients’ rooms to make sure personnel followed the precautions eliminated any further cases. Emory did the same thing when patients with suspected Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) were admitted, and, given the level of fear over Ebola virus, you can be quite sure that anal sphincters will be even tighter this time. Moreover, given that, as far as has been ascertained, Ebola does not spread through the air, as SARS and MERS do, the likelihood of nosocomial transmission to a health care worker is minimal, particularly given that any staff in contact with Ebola victims will almost certainly be carefully monitored for any signs of viral infection and rapidly quarantined if they exhibit them. Again, the likelihood of an outbreak in the US due to these patients is not zero, but it’s very close.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ebola-outbreaks-science-versus-fear-mongering-and-quackery/#more-32728

 

[ksinger]

It also helps to put Ebola in perspective. Since 1976, Ebola has infected fewer than 5,000 people and killed fewer than 3,000. That’s in Africa, where over 1 billion people live. By contrast, poor, “boring” measles still kills 122,000 people every year and killed over 2 million a year in 1980, before widespread vaccination campaigns. According to the WHO, in 2012, malaria caused an estimated 627,000 deaths, mostly among African children. Also according to the WHO, since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic (which dates back almost as far as the discovery of the Ebola virus), HIV has infected over 75 million and killed 36 million, with approximately 35 million currently living with the infection. None of this means that we shouldn’t take Ebola seriously or that much larger outbreaks couldn’t happen. Nor does noting this difference minimize the deaths of people infected with the disease. We should note from these observations and others, however, that Ebola is unlikely to reach such numbers because it is simply not infectious enough and Ebola outbreaks tend to “burn themselves out” because, unlike HIV or measles (which are also transmissible human-to-human), Ebola virus disease is so rapidly fatal.

In other words, Ebola is a horrible disease, but because it’s so horrible it’s unlikely to kill as many people as diseases we already know about. And it’s not nearly as dramatic as people think. Tara Smith interviewed representatives of Doctors Without Borders several years ago, and this is what one physician, Armand Sprecher, told her:

As for the disease, it is not as bloody and dramatic as in the movies or books. The patients mostly look sick and weak. If there is blood, it is not a lot, usually in the vomit or diarrhea, occasionally from the gums or nose. The transmission is rather ordinary, just contact with infected body fluids. It does not occur because of mere proximity or via an airborne route (as in Outbreak if I recall correctly). The outbreak control organizations in the movies have no problem implementing their solutions once these have been found. In reality, we know what needs to be done, the problem is getting it to happen. This is why community relations are such an issue, where they are not such a problem in the movies.

“Getting it done” is much easier in the US and other developed nations than it is in Africa.

One also notes that the CDC has stocks of the virus, which it studies, which means that Ebola virus is already on US soil (in various universities, an Army facility, and the CDC) and Canadian soil, along with patient blood samples from Africans infected with the various forms of Ebola. As a real infectious disease expert, Tara Smith, pointed out, not only is Ebola already in the US, but US health officials have already dealt with cases and small outbreaks of related hemorrhagic fevers, such as Lassa fever and Marburg.

It’s also noted that it isn’t the precautions that might fail, but the humans doing the precautions, as Schaffner noted that they were “busy” or “because familiarity breeds if not contempt then casualness.” This was learned in Toronto dealing with the SARS outbreak when hospital workers dealing with SARS patients became infected. Posting monitors outside the patients’ rooms to make sure personnel followed the precautions eliminated any further cases. Emory did the same thing when patients with suspected Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) were admitted, and, given the level of fear over Ebola virus, you can be quite sure that anal sphincters will be even tighter this time. Moreover, given that, as far as has been ascertained, Ebola does not spread through the air, as SARS and MERS do, the likelihood of nosocomial transmission to a health care worker is minimal, particularly given that any staff in contact with Ebola victims will almost certainly be carefully monitored for any signs of viral infection and rapidly quarantined if they exhibit them. Again, the likelihood of an outbreak in the US due to these patients is not zero, but it’s very close.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ebola-outbreaks-science-versus-fear-mongering-and-quackery/#more-32728

Bravo JaneSmith! And I'm stealing your graphic above. Classic!

 

[JewelFreak]

Excellent article, Jane Smith! Facts, if anyone is willing to acknowledge them, always put fear into proportion. We "developed" Westerners should try it once in a while.

I'm stealing your whatcha-callit too -- it's priceless!

--- Laurie

 

[justginger]

MRSA. That is why I say no bringing patients with Ebola here.

Every hospital has it. Many, many patients go to a hospital for medical care and leave with it. Incurable. Won't say more in case some of our PSers have it, they have enough to deal with.

Lots of doctors have it. Nurses and PAs too.

Why?

BECAUSE THEY WON'T EVEN FOLLOW STERILE/CLEAN PROTOCOLS FOR THEIR *OWN* SAKES much less their patients.

Johns Hopkins Hospital severely reduced the transmission of MRSA to their patients? How did that happen? No one can seem to stop it/stem it.

When a patient there gets MRSA from their hospital stay/procedure, they come back to the hospital and every single person involved in their episode of care, from the president to the janitorial staff, is required to apologize personally to the patient.

It worked immediately.

Please do not make up medical information, it benefits no one and contributes to fear mongering. Please also do not sully the reputations of every medical professional, in regards to their 'laziness.' A great number of us have studied for years and are quite capable of, and dedicated to, PPE and proper hand hygiene. The fact of the matter is that MRSA, VRE, ESBLs, etc are easy to spread because they are evolutionarily advanced. They can form slime layers, inhabit respiratory plastics, and even thrive in buckets of hospital-grade disinfectants.

To be accurate, meth resistant Sa is resistant to semisynthetic penicillins and is still treatable with a variety of antibiotics, including rifamycins, trimeth, clinda, and the tetras. It is far from 'incurable.'