, , , ,

So, Ebola.

Something that struck me about the response to Ebola has been the different policies in protective gear for the field workers in East Africa.  The two major aid organizations (Medecins San s Frontiers and World Health Organization) have much different approaches to their standard protective equipment.  Which is better


Ebola Caregivers

Who credit: https://share.america.gov/ebola-health-workers-face-psychological-effects/

MSF credit http://m.theepochtimes.com/n3/887760-demandig-situation-for-ebola-health-workers-in-west-africa/

Both suits look pretty comprehensive, but the MSF suit is much more enclosed than the WHO suit.  The goggles fit over the hood, and there is absolutely no contact with the outside.

The problem  is that the temperature is 88 degrees Fahrenheit as of this writing.  Not good weather to be covered head to tow e in plastic.

The MSF suit allows work for less than half the time as the WHO suit, because it causes more sweat.  The other problem  with the MSF suit is that its removal, or “doffing” is more complex, and often done in much greater stress than the WHO suit.  One of the greatest opportunities for Ebola infection for aid workers is during this doffing process.  Best to be in a clear headed mood for it, every time, and no0t dying of thirst.

About 240 health care workers have contracted Ebola while caring for Ebola patients in West Africa.  They have died with a higher frequency than the public at large in those areas.  57% as compared with 47%.  I cannot find more specific data than that.

I wonder how much of the infection rate in health workers has been due to working long hours in uncomfortable suits.  I wonder of this would be improved were the suits more comfortable, like the WHO suits.

Sometimes, its better to have enough rather than everything.  Sometime, everything is too much.