Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

4,000 patients at a New York hospital told they may have been infected with HIV

Comments

  • #2
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,694 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    I'd nearly take it over the fluoride.


  • #3
    GAAman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,370 ✭✭✭GAAman


    Cha ching!


  • #4
    jester77
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,264 ✭✭✭✭jester77


    GAAman wrote: »
    Cha ching!

    Feck that, I'd rather have my health than a 7 or 8 figure bank account.


  • #5
    hfallada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭hfallada


    Typical sky news shock headline. The chances of the people contracting HIV are minimal. None of the nurses backwashed and it assumes one of the patients was HIV positive. But the chances of that happening is very slim.


  • #6
    whirlpool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,574 ✭✭✭whirlpool


    hfallada wrote: »
    Typical sky news shock headline. The chances of the people contracting HIV are minimal. None of the nurses backwashed and it assumes one of the patients was HIV positive. But the chances of that happening is very slim.


    Ignoring Sky News's horrendous approach to reporting, the hospital still put people at risk of being infected with contaminated blood. That's what's shocking to me.... and very scary.

    As purely a side-note, from what I gather yes the risk is minimal.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    frag420
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,161 ✭✭✭frag420


    Are you positive OP??


  • #8
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The hep is a greater infection risk than the HIV. Most people with HIV who are undergoing treatment are virtually non transmissible, assuming there is anyone with the infection to begin with. Hep is more common and more transmissible afaik.

    Awful that a modern hospital in the West is still making mistakes like this though.


  • #9
    Stavros Murphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,440 ✭✭✭Stavros Murphy


    hfallada wrote: »
    Typical sky news shock headline. The chances of the people contracting HIV are minimal. None of the nurses backwashed and it assumes one of the patients was HIV positive. But the chances of that happening is very slim.

    Durty. Cue the cute ones kicking in with "mental anguish" claims, even if given the all clear. Apparently the Ambulance Chaser parking area was jammers with BMWs for hours.


  • #10
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    Stavros Murphy wrote: »
    Durty. Cue the cute ones kicking in with "mental anguish" claims, even if given the all clear. Apparently the Ambulance Chaser parking area was jammers with BMWs for hours.

    Yea, all clear = no harm done.


  • #11
    Noa Green Trainer
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Noa Green Trainer


    Stavros Murphy wrote: »
    Durty. Cue the cute ones kicking in with "mental anguish" claims, even if given the all clear. Apparently the Ambulance Chaser parking area was jammers with BMWs for hours.

    I wouldn't blame them, being told you might have hiv IS mental anguish


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Stavros Murphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,440 ✭✭✭Stavros Murphy


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I wouldn't blame them, being told you might have hiv IS mental anguish

    Yeah, probably is, tbf. Wouldn't fancy it myself. Brings to mind the Hep C issue here, they didn't get a whole lot of satisfaction anyway. :(


  • #13
    GAAman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,370 ✭✭✭GAAman


    jester77 wrote: »
    Feck that, I'd rather have my health than a 7 or 8 figure bank account.

    I agree with you totally, it was more a comment on the american suing culture...


  • #14
    Eight Ball
    Closed Accounts Posts: 906 ✭✭✭Eight Ball


    Sky news lol. And people laugh at RT.


  • #15
    MS.ing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 680 ✭✭✭MS.ing


    pendemic perhaps?


  • #16
    Sir Arthur Daley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭Sir Arthur Daley


    Is 4,000 a big number considering the big population in New York?


  • #17
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    how that some scary stuff


  • #18
    MS.ing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 680 ✭✭✭MS.ing


    WikiHow wrote: »
    Is 4,000 a big number considering the big population in New York?

    yes, the population of new york is about 6030, so if you were planning a holiday there Id cancel it unless you want aids


  • #19
    PucaMama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭PucaMama


    MS.ing wrote: »
    yes, the population of new york is about 6030, so if you were planning a holiday there Id cancel it unless you want aids

    i think that's a bit low hasn't Dublin got a higher population


  • #20
    JohnnyChimpo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭JohnnyChimpo


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I'd nearly take it over the fluoride.

    Would ya now? Personally I don't see any connection between the two, but maybe my tinfoil hat needs adjusting


  • #21
    PucaMama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭PucaMama


    WikiHow wrote: »
    Is 4,000 a big number considering the big population in New York?

    its still 4000 people who should be treated better than that.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    dee_mc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,188 ✭✭✭dee_mc


    PucaMama wrote: »
    i think that's a bit low hasn't Dublin got a higher population

    The population of Manhattan alone is around 1.6 million, that's not including the other boroughs. Total NYC population was around 8 million last time I checked.


  • #23
    MS.ing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 680 ✭✭✭MS.ing


    PucaMama wrote: »
    i think that's a bit low hasn't Dublin got a higher population

    yes your observations are correct. 6030 people in new york is significantly lower than dublins 1million people, by quite a large factor too, about a 600,000 factor. in other words the population of dublin is 600,000 times the size of new york


  • #24
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Wasn't there a similar case in Ireland a couple of years ago, where surgical instruments were sterilized using normal protocols and later discovered to have been used on a patient infected with CJD, which would have necessitated a higher temperature of sterilization, and resulted in a bunch of people being told they'll have to watch out for early symptoms of CJD for the next couple of years?

    I'm in two minds about it - on one hand, that could be a genuine mistake, on the other hand, shouldn't all tools always be sterilized to the absolute maximum extent possible, just in case?
    This incident in the US seems more clear cut, re-using any instruments without sterilizing them at all in between uses is pretty shocking.


  • #25
    PucaMama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭PucaMama


    MS.ing wrote: »
    yes your observations are correct. 6030 people in new york is significantly lower than dublins 1million people, by quite a large factor too, about a 600,000 factor. in other words the population of dublin is 600,000 times the size of new york

    what are you on about??


  • #26
    MS.ing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 680 ✭✭✭MS.ing


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Wasn't there a similar case in Ireland a couple of years ago, where surgical instruments were sterilized using normal protocols and later discovered to have been used on a patient infected with CJD, which would have necessitated a higher temperature of sterilization, and resulted in a bunch of people being told they'll have to watch out for early symptoms of CJD for the next couple of years?

    I'm in two minds about it - on one hand, that could be a genuine mistake, on the other hand, shouldn't all tools always be sterilized to the absolute maximum extent possible, just in case?
    This incident in the US seems more clear cut, re-using any instruments without sterilizing them at all in between uses is pretty shocking.

    the price of not having enough staff in hospitals (no doubt a first world problem), the hours medical hospital staff put in its a wonder mistakes are not more common


Advertisement