l. The Guardian reports that nurse Cafferkey is now in critical condition at the Royal Free Hospital in London. She has entered the critical Day 5-8 period of EBOV. She is receiving supportive care and convalescent serum and an unproven experimental drug (no ZMapp is available now). What she needs is specific convalescent serum from William Poole (whose serum saved Dr. Crozier) + the Aethlon Hemopurifier as part of her renal dialysis (or blood filtration if not on dialysis) + the ZMapp precursor called ZMab designated for the Sierra Leone physician with EBOV never used. See the entire article at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/03/british-ebola-nurse-condition-critical-hospital-pauline-cafferkey
2. In each future blog posting I will include pertinent information for HCW, the WHO, and the UN from a chapter of the World Bank World Development Report posted last evening. Tonight’s Chapter is the Overview:
Table 0.1 on page 6 shows the two kinds of thinking that we use daily in making decisions: automatic thinking and deliberative thinking. What we need to use in critical situations like the EBOV epidemic is deliberative thinking which considers a wide range of factors, requires effort, uses reasoning and reflection. Unfortunately, we are genetically ‘programmed’ in critical situations to use automatic thinking which considers a narrow range of factors, is effortless, and goes on intuition. So we have to override our natural automatic thinking in critical situations and use deliberative thinking.
Figure 0.6 on page 12 discusses ‘cueing’: how results on a test or task vary with a person’s perception of himself/herself. The most famous example of this phenomenon was when poorly performing students in Chicago schools were told they were being placed in a special class for high performers, they performed highly. We need to always build people up to get optimal results in a task.
Table 0.2 on page 13 list cost-effective behavior interventions: reminders have a mild positive effect; non-monetary gifts can double the positive effect; public notices can cut a harmful behavior by 50%; making a product convenient to use can raise its use by 800%; inspirational speeches have a mild positive effect; lump sum payments are better than partial payments over time for producing positive behavior.