If Ebola broke out near you, would you volunteer?

[Enkel]

There is a new outbreak in Uganda ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48372851.../#.UBTspaAsH1s )

I know most wouldn't be able to go to a foreign country to help with an outbreak. But if one happened in your near-by vicinity, would you volunteer to work with the ill if they asked for help?

ETA: I hate to say it, but I voted NO. I've never been a nurse Nightingale type.

[gracer]

Voted yes, but I think that should be "yes, if there were some reason my help would be required", because why would a hospital need me?

As I understand it, and I may be wrong, ebola is transmitted through bodily fluids. The reason it is so contagious in African countries is that many hospitals don't sterilise equipment, nurses come into contact with bodily fluids and the embalming rituals of the dead also create new infections. In a hospital around here none of that would be a problem. In fact, several people in western countries have been infected in lab accidents over the years, and that has always remained an isolated incident.

Ebola is scary, but with proper precautions should be ok to work around. I think...

[Alessan]

If it reached the point that the authorities were asking for volunteers from the general public, then yes. But things would have to be pretty fucked up to get that far.

[Rala]

I'm a student nurse. Yes, I'd volunteer. It's what I signed up for.

[Antigen]

If there was an outbreak here, I would not work in the field with the sick and dying, but I would be willing to work in the hospital lab, taking the appropriate precautions not to become infected by the specimens.

I figure if there's big enough local outbreak for the authorities to put out a call for help, then there's a decent chance I could get sick anyway.

[oreally]

No and hell no. I'd be in the car and speeding to the opposite end of the country. Y'all might want to look up Ebola sometime. Not that I don't feel terribly sorry for the people and props to those who would, but I'm not risking my life for them, sorry.

[even sven]

Yes, absolutely. In fact, it fits in with my real-life career goals.

[monstro]

I would not be the first one raising my hand, no.

But if the outbreak was so severe that it was causing societal breakdown and/or family members were affected, then yes, I would be there.

[lavenderviolet]

I'm a physician. Infectious disease is not my specialty, but if there was a scenario where I could help, I would. I'd be very paranoid about taking all precautions against exposure of course. If you were in a modern hospital with American equipment available, you would be able to safely work with Ebola victims.

[aruvqan]

Not sure what I could actually *do* being limited to crutches and wheelchair. Kind of hard to sanitize a wheelchair. Not to mention enough health issues of my own.

[Arrendajo]

I have been out of medicine for quite a while, so I'm not sure how useful I would be, but if I were needed, I'd go. I worked in hospitals for years and was around diseases that were as bad/communicable as ebola and had no fear. There are procedures for working with these kinds of diseases.

[Oakminster]

"Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer not a doctor". Really don't think I'd be much use in that scenario, unless some of the victims wanted to revise their wills.

[Rachellelogram]

I would almost assuredly be more a hindrance than a help when it came to hands-on care. My work (and life) experience lends itself more to processing new patients in the waiting room than working on their injuries. My mom is a (semi-retired) nurse, and I have several aunts who are nurses, but I didn't inherit the caring gene or the desire to work in the medical field. I have problems dealing with the blood, vomit, urine, and feces of strangers--even when they AREN'T contaminated with fucked-up viruses. While I have the utmost respect for people who can deal with the bodily fluids of others, I will never be one of them.

But honestly, ebola exposure is severely riskier than almost any other condition on the planet. I feel it's irresponsible to expose oneself to it without proper medical training. Do you really want to take the chance that their blood won't inadvertently squirt into your eyeball or mouth? That they won't inadvertently vomit into your eye or mouth? That you won't inadvertently rub your face with a gloved hand (because you don't have the years of practice of NOT rubbing your face with a gloved hand?). Not worth the risk for any non-medical personnel to get involved, IMO.

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

"Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer not a doctor". Really don't think I'd be much use in that scenario, unless some of the victims wanted to revise their wills.

Presumably if volunteers are being solicited, times are desperate and the powers that be aren't looking necessarily for trained medical staff. Just people who can maybe mop floors, change bedsheets, wheel dead people around on gurneys, zip up body bags, and make phone calls.

I'm not Little Miss Gung Ho, but I'm not understanding the "I can't do nuthin' outside of my occupation" mentality.

[Iggy]

I'm waiting for the knock on the door before committing. Field work is an entirely different proposition than hospital work.

[scootergirl]

Yes, I believe I would. There are ways of protecting oneself. I had planned on becoming a nurse about 7 years ago when my life took a turn in a completely different direction. I still think about it often. I had completed almost all of the pre-requesite classes to apply for the program.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

"Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer not a doctor". Really don't think I'd be much use in that scenario, unless some of the victims wanted to revise their wills.

Actually, I think if I was in a position where I stood [well, laid actually] a decent chance of dying in the next day or so I would be willing to reconsider my will. I could consider changing a couple bequests that I might not have made a few years back when I did my will update last.

[YogSosoth]

Ebola is terrifying. Sorry people, I'm running the other way

[chizzuk]

I read "The Hot Zone," by Richard Preston, which I know is not exactly JAMA or NEJM but seemed pretty factual and well-researched and there was some evidence that Ebola may occasionally travel through the air. It certainly did during the outbreak he described, though that was among monkeys. I would be too scared to volunteer. It is an awful, awful virus.

[monstro]

I'd be afraid too--I think you'd have to be a robot not to be. But they do make those fancy space suits. I'd get one of those things and hope for the best.

[JackieLikesVariety]

I also voted no because of reading The Hot Zone - terrified me!

[Sudden Kestrel]

I voted "no" simply because I'm pretty much housebound and can't see that changing even to help out in a health crisis.

If that weren't the case, I'd be willing to do whatever I could. I'm of an age where I wouldn't be risking as much as most of the population and I have no dependents, so it would make more sense for me to help than for younger people with families and potential to do so.

[Flyer]

Perhaps somewhat off-topic but not entirely--it's been a while since I've read John Barry's The Great Influenza, but he mentions a hospital in Philadelphia where a medical student was placed in charge of an entire floor because so many doctors and nurses were sick.

I suspect that things would have to get about that bad before the authorities called for volunteers from the general population. And if the cause is Ebola, then society is circling the drain and there's probably no point in volunteering. You would probably do more good in the long run by trying to isolate yourself and stay well.

[Angel of the Lord]

I would not, because a panicking girl with no medical training who spends the entire time huddled in a corner terrified would be more of a hindrance than a help.

I'm not saying this because I have no medical training--I could probably figure out how to give a shot, mop a forehead, hold a hand, etc. But I know myself; those sorts of viruses scare me more than just about anything else.

Sorry. I'm not good enough.

[Enkel]

Yes, I agree that if they resorted to volunteers within the US, the situation would be pretty major.

I'm amazed at the people who would volunteer. Big kudos to you brave souls!

I started a first responder course, did well on the book stuff, did well on the transport stuff (it was for Ski Patrol), but then they showed video of an actually injured person... even watching the video, every fiber in my body screamed "find someone else who cares." It wasn't a mild reaction, it was a startlingly strong realization that I cannot deal with injured people. I'd have better luck trying to force myself to jump from a tall building. (Oddly, I'd be the first to jump in on an injured animal.)

Now, add that to a virus that starts out ugly and then has been glamorized in the movies for just how ugly it can get... I'm squarely in the totally useless camp.

On the other hand... if you want me to go out in a driving snow storm or near tornado conditions to clear roads (and you paid my fuel), I'd be the first in line.

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by Flyer

I suspect that things would have to get about that bad before the authorities called for volunteers from the general population. And if the cause is Ebola, then society is circling the drain and there's probably no point in volunteering. You would probably do more good in the long run by trying to isolate yourself and stay well.

Okay, this made me think of another question. Say your region was isolated/quarantined and the general population of the area was dropping due to the virus. At what point would it make more sense for the authorities to say:

"DO NOT seek treatment and DO NOT leave your house. We'll just wait this out and collect the survivors afterwards?"

Our society says that medical aid should be provided always. But, by telling the people to stay home for a set period of time, the virus itself will loose steam. (Assuming that a local alternate reservoir hasn't been established in some way.) They could air drop supplies to individual houses using helicopters, so the quarantine could be enforced for an extended period of time.

Would people accept such a thing and comply? Would they accept troops paroling the roads to enforce such a thing (remember, a neighbor showing up at your door could infect your household). Short of 'shoot to kill', how could troops enforce a quarantine w/out becoming exposed themselves?

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by chizzuk

I read "The Hot Zone," by Richard Preston, which I know is not exactly JAMA or NEJM but seemed pretty factual and well-researched and there was some evidence that Ebola may occasionally travel through the air. It certainly did during the outbreak he described, though that was among monkeys. I would be too scared to volunteer. It is an awful, awful virus.

Yes. The Ebola Reston strain can be spread through airborne transmission. Fortunately that strain does not appear to infect humans.

The Zaire, Sudan, ivory Coast and Uganda strains seem to only be spread through bodily fluids. These do infect humans with varying mortality rates, occasionally in excess of 90% fatal.

Field work in the current outbreak will undoubtedly be carried out to ascertain if the current outbreak is identical to a prior strain.,

[MyMack_1]

I might be inclined to volunteer if things got truly bad. This would only be a viable option if I did not live with my mother as she has MS and with her weakened immune system, its too much of a risk. I'd rather protect her than a thousand people. Cold but true.

[Rachellelogram]

Originally Posted by Enkel

Okay, this made me think of another question. Say your region was isolated/quarantined and the general population of the area was dropping due to the virus. At what point would it make more sense for the authorities to say:

"DO NOT seek treatment and DO NOT leave your house. We'll just wait this out and collect the survivors afterwards?"

Our society says that medical aid should be provided always. But, by telling the people to stay home for a set period of time, the virus itself will loose steam. (Assuming that a local alternate reservoir hasn't been established in some way.) They could air drop supplies to individual houses using helicopters, so the quarantine could be enforced for an extended period of time.

Would people accept such a thing and comply? Would they accept troops paroling the roads to enforce such a thing (remember, a neighbor showing up at your door could infect your household). Short of 'shoot to kill', how could troops enforce a quarantine w/out becoming exposed themselves?

Apparently this was an issue with one individual as recently as 2007, for an individual named Andrew Speaker. There were Senate hearings after the CDC slapped him with the first quarantine order in almost 50 years, for a rare highly drug-resistant strain of tuberculosis.

[Iggy]

Some Ebola strains have a rather long incubation time, around 25 days. An effective quarantine would be a month or possibly longer.

In 2009, a lab worker in Hamburg suffered an Ebola needle stick injury and was quarantined, about a week IIRC. This lab worker was the first person given an experimental vaccine which was developed in a Canadian lab. She was working with a high mortality strain, probably EB Zaire.


The reality is that most regular hospitals are not prepared to deal with a disease of this type. And certainly not in a large number of patients. As the Reston strain experience taught us, filoviruses can go airborne. Some day an airborne strain may proliferate that is infectious to humans.

There are relatively few BL4 labs that are set up to work with such hazards. Positive pressure rooms and suits. Incinerators and other treatments on the exhaust gas. Multiple barrier isolation. We just do not have such in a typical hospital. Some hospitals may have a few isolation rooms for bone marrow transplant patients and the like. That is about as close to prepared as we can get for now.