It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Nothing about dogs whatsoever....
Abstract
During the 2001–2002 outbreak in Gabon, we observed that several dogs were highly exposed to Ebola virus by eating infected dead animals. To examine whether these animals became infected with Ebola virus, we sampled 439 dogs and screened them by Ebola virus–specific immunoglobulin (Ig) G assay, antigen detection, and viral polymerase chain reaction amplification. Seven (8.9%) of 79 samples from the 2 main towns, 15 (15.2%) of 14 the 99 samples from Mekambo, and 40 (25.2%) of 159 samples from villages in the Ebola virus–epidemic area had detectable Ebola virus–IgG, compared to only 2 (2%) of 102 samples from France. Among dogs from villages with both infected animal carcasses and human cases, seroprevalence was 31.8%. A significant positive direct association existed between seroprevalence and the distances to the Ebola virus–epidemic area. This study suggests that dogs can be infected by Ebola virus and that the putative infection is asymptomatic.
originally posted by: [post=18496003]Aazadan[/post If Ebola becomes widespread either we treat it and contain it in the hospitals or we're going to have it on the streets. In the hospitals people are centralized and can be treated. When treatment is stopped due to a lack of resources everyone is at an even greater danger. Long term the best thing we can do (and I say we because I would be right there with you doing what I can if an outbreak happens) is to make sure the hospitals can handle the task.
If we have an Ebola outbreak the very last thing we need is people wandering the streets spreading the disease. I understand many of you have families to think about but what is better for your family? That you can help stop the epidemic even if it means not seeing them for a bit just to make sure it doesn't spread or that you give up, run to them, and cause the disease to become more widespread. To paraphrase Winston Churchill though in a slightly different context... we need to fight Ebola in the hospital, otherwise we'll be fighting it in our home.
...
originally posted by: lovebeck
originally posted by: tinker9917
a reply to: lovebeck
I don't blame you for thinking this way. I would not do it either, putting my whole family at risk.
But, this leaves the questions... who WILL do it? How many will just be left uncared for? Sent home to die, just like in Africa?
Idk? The military?? Bring them over on the boat from the Philippines? That really happens, btw...
The health care system treats nurses, who are the BACK BONE of every hospital from sea to shining sea, like dirt, for the most part. If your a surgeon or some super specialist, you're treated like gold. They'd get those suits and they spend NO time with the patients, lol! Argh, what. BS.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
During the 2001–2002 outbreak in Gabon, we observed that several dogs were highly exposed to Ebola virus by eating infected dead animals. To examine whether these animals became infected with Ebola virus, we sampled 439 dogs and screened them by Ebola virus–specific immunoglobulin (Ig) G assay, antigen detection, and viral polymerase chain reaction amplification. Seven (8.9%) of 79 samples from the 2 main towns, 15 (15.2%) of 14 the 99 samples from Mekambo, and 40 (25.2%) of 159 samples from villages in the Ebola virus–epidemic area had detectable Ebola virus–IgG, compared to only 2 (2%) of 102 samples from France. Among dogs from villages with both infected animal carcasses and human cases, seroprevalence was 31.8%. A significant positive direct association existed between seroprevalence and the distances to the Ebola virus–epidemic area. This study suggests that dogs can be infected by Ebola virus and that the putative infection is asymptomatic.
Two (2%) of the 102 blood samples from dogs living in France had detectable Ebola virus–reactive IgG (Table 2).
Seven of the 79 dogs sampled in Libreville and Port Gentil (8.9% prevalence rate), 15 of the 99 dogs sampled in Mekambo (15.2% prevalence rate), and 40 of the 159 dogs sampled in villages located within the Ebola virus–epidemic area (25.2% prevalence rate) had detectable IgG to Ebola virus antigens
The prevalence of Ebola virus-reactive IgG among dogs from the villages where humans cases occurred was 27.2%, compared to 22.4% among dogs from villages where no human cases were noted
Although dogs can be asymptomatically infected, they may excrete infectious viral particles in urine, feces, and saliva for a short period before virus clearance, as observed experimentally in other animals. Given the frequency of contact between humans and domestic dogs, canine Ebola infection must be considered as a potential risk factor for human infection and virus spread.
The virus appears to jump from its natural host to humans only in specific, but unknown, conditions. Seroprevalence rates in dogs might serves as an indicator of Ebola virus in regions in which no animal deaths or human cases have been observed.
I learned something new today thank you. I still don't think it's a serious concern - but you mileage and concerns may vary.
originally posted by: ZIPMATT
It's far too infectious to bring to hospitals . While that may be hard to swallow , on the plus side , people die very quickly of it . Sorry about that .
originally posted by: planetyeck
a reply to: lovebeck
My wife is a nurse in Dallas (not the same hospital as Mr. Ebola) but she isn't concerned. It all comes down to Universal Precautions which should be implemented whether you have an outbreak of Ebola or not. It's something that all healthcare workers are trained on. Treat every patient as if they were infected and take the proper steps to protect yourself from exposure (gloves, masks, gown...you get the idea). My wife has told horror stories of how nurses, techs etc. get lazy and will not think before they handle a patient (grab soiled linens with their bare hands, wear the same pair of gloves to a different patients room). It's the healthcare worker's responsibility to protect themselves and when done properly they are, in-turn, protecting the community as well.
originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: Aduro
Eww. Horrible thing to happen to you. Don't know what your protocols are but one might perhaps be to pull over and stop and even remove him from the ambulance until he understands that even though sick, he has to behave. If a patient knows before even getting in the ambulance exactly what you planned to do to him and solicit his cooperation, it might help to lower resistance and up the cooperation level. No judgement here, just trying to think constructively.
The thing that people fail to understand, (again I'm in Canada), is that once you enter the Emergency Services, their right to refuse treatment stops. Emergency Services call all the shots, which can be quite unnerving. At least that's how it is up here, so communication is vital.