- The public has been misinformed regarding human-to-human transmission of Ebola. Assurances that Ebola can be transmitted only through direct contact with bodily fluids need to be seriously scrutinized in the wake of the West Africa outbreak.
. . .
. Dr. Michael V. Callahan, an infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital who has worked in Africa during Ebola outbreaks said that minimum CDC level precautions “led to the infection of my nurses and physician co-workers who came in contact with body fluids.” Currently the CDC advises healthcare workers to use goggles and simple face masks for respiratory and eye protection, and a fitted N-95 mask during aerosol-generating medical procedures.
. . .
It is not feasible for all medical workers in the United States to use "spacesuits" with a self-contained breathing apparatus air supply, as used in BL4 labs and at hospitals specially equipped for Ebola, but at a minimum, the American healthcare system should immediately upgrade respiratory / eye protection to full face mask respirators with P-100 filters for known or suspected cases of Ebola.
I've wondered this myself, considering the large number of healthcare workers who have been infected. It seems like whatever precautions they are currently using are insufficient for containing the virus.
I think the article is oversimplifying a bit. The author keeps asserting that CDC standards are met, and perhaps in the case of Dr. Brantly they were, but according to all the media reports most health workers in Liberia don't even have gloves, let alone masks and goggles. Costco and Sam's Club could get some great PR by sending in shitloads of nitrile or latex gloves, as well as surgical masks. These countries do their best with what they have, but it sounds like what they have is very close to nothing. I don't have a problem with skepticism, but I think this doctor/writer is presenting a minimal amount of evidence that points in one direction in contrast to a lot of evidence that points the other direction. That said, if ebola makes its way to the US or Europe (there was a report of a guy in Ireland, but I don't know what happened with that), I sure as shit hope they treat it as if it's a BL4 contaminant. Better safe than sorry.
That is a good point. I would hope someone is helping to provide things like gloves and masks, as it sounds like a near-death sentence to attempt treatment without those things. I find it hard to know what the conditions really are on the ground. I've only seen a handful of videos with interviews of doctors and I think most healthcare workers I've seen are using gloves and masks, although not full face respirators. I agree, the evidence backing up his claim is rather circumstantial. Simply citing the number of Ebola cases among healthcare workers is, in and of itself, inconclusive, and the studies, best I can tell, prove nothing, although I'm curious about the pig/monkey study. Is my understanding correct in that the virus has different effects in different species and in at least one boar species, the virus is aresolized more so than in the monkey species they tested? I think his point wasn't that there is an entirely new mode of transmission, but that current health care standards are perhaps not as strong as they should be. In the highly unlikely event of a widespread western outbreak, I could see it overwhelming our ability to treat it as a BL4 contaminant, as it sounds like we have a limited number of hospitals equipped with self-contained space suits. I would hope hospitals be able to use respirators, which would seem more effective to me than the N-95 masks they currently recommend. Maybe the CDC guidelines don't need to be upgraded from what they are currently, but regardless, I'm sure there will be plenty of research about this outbreak in future.