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

whirlpool · 12-03-2014 05:27PM #1

I can't believe this has happened in this day and age! I really hope nobody was infected and that it's just a massive precaution.

http://news.sky.com/story/1224720/hiv-and-hepatitis-scare-over-insulin-injections

drunkmonkey · 12-03-2014 05:33PM

I'd nearly take it over the fluoride.

GAAman · 12-03-2014 05:35PM

Cha ching!

jester77 · 12-03-2014 05:38PM

GAAman wrote: »

Cha ching!

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

hfallada · 12-03-2014 05:43PM

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.

whirlpool · 12-03-2014 05:48PM

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.

frag420 · 12-03-2014 05:49PM

Are you positive OP??

12-03-2014 05:56PM

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.

Stavros Murphy · 13-03-2014 09:13AM

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.

Jesus Wept · 13-03-2014 09:27AM

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.

13-03-2014 11:13AM

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

Stavros Murphy · 13-03-2014 02:46PM

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.

GAAman · 13-03-2014 02:51PM

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...

Eight Ball · 13-03-2014 03:01PM

Sky news lol. And people laugh at RT.

MS.ing · 13-03-2014 03:05PM

pendemic perhaps?

Sir Arthur Daley · 13-03-2014 03:07PM

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

13-03-2014 03:09PM

how that some scary stuff

MS.ing · 13-03-2014 03:10PM

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

PucaMama · 13-03-2014 03:13PM

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

JohnnyChimpo · 13-03-2014 03:21PM

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

PucaMama · 13-03-2014 03:39PM

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.

dee_mc · 13-03-2014 03:45PM

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.

MS.ing · 13-03-2014 03:50PM

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

hatrickpatrick · 13-03-2014 03:56PM

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.

PucaMama · 13-03-2014 04:14PM

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??

MS.ing · 13-03-2014 04:18PM

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

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

Comments