CDC Contradicts Itself on How Ebola Spreads Yet Again
The CDC has done it again. After telling us that Ebola is, and isn’t, spread through sneezes, they have changed the “droplets spread 3 feet” information to 6 feet, and then taken that down again.
Gateway Pundit says that on Friday, October 31, the CDC was saying that Ebola could spread through large droplets, which can spread up to 6 feet. This is the portion of a CDC poster I am seeing in screenshots at places like Gateway Pundit:
Now I know what you’re thinking: how do I know that this poster screenshot reproduced at Gateway Pundit was actually on the CDC web site? Well, I could not find the language in the cache or the current version of the poster, but I did a Google search for this phrase on the cdc.gov Web site: “Droplets generally travel shorter distances, less than about 6 feet from a source patient.” Voila!
So we know that the language in question appeared at the CDC Web site recently enough to be visible in a search for that language.
As you can see by looking at the bottom left corner of this screenshot, the URL which this language used to be in is: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/pdf/infections-spread-by-air-or-droplets.pdf. The “6 feet” language is now gone, and I saved the current version of the poster as of today in this file.
Now, let’s review some of CDC’s previous contradictions on possible ways Ebola can spread. I noted on October 29 (this past Wednesday) that the CDC had published a poster (which I saved here) saying Ebola could be spread through sneezes. Of course, then we were being told it was 3 feet and not up to 6 feet. Here are screenshots from that poster:
In the same post, I noted that the poster had been pulled down. It was later replaced by this poster which says:
There is no evidence indicating that Ebola virus is spread by coughing or sneezing. Ebola virus is transmitted through direct contact with the blood or body fluids of a person who is sick with Ebola; the virus is not transmitted through the air (like measles virus). However, droplets (e.g., splashes or sprays) of respiratory or other secretions from a person who is sick with Ebola could be infectious, and therefore certain precautions (called standard, contact, and droplet precautions) are recommended for use in healthcare settings to prevent the transmission of Ebola virus from patients sick with Ebola to healthcare personnel and other patients or family members.
Let me try to sum this up:
- CDC says: “There is no evidence indicating that Ebola virus is spread by coughing or sneezing.”
- CDC says: Ebola is spread through droplet spread, which includes sneezes. “Droplet spread diseases include Ebola, plague.” Also: “Droplet spread happens when germs traveling inside droplets that are coughed or sneezed from a sick person enter the eyes, nose or mouth of another person.”
- CDC says: “Droplets travel short distances, less than 3 feet.”
- CDC says: “Droplets generally travel shorter distances, less than about 6 feet from a source patient.”
So, to sum up: according to the CDC, there is no evidence that Ebola travels through sneezing, but you should know that it is a droplet spread disease, and droplet spread happens through sneezes. So, Ebola does, and also does not, spread through sneezes. Also, according to the CDC, droplets spread less than 3 feet, and also less than 6 feet.
You may now feel reassured.
Sammy appears to explain that these are all consistent in 3…2…1…
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/2/2014 @ 1:27 pmI’m not interest in quarantines.
Americans need to know the consequences of electing Democrats and “progressive” Science.
someguy (37038b) — 11/2/2014 @ 1:30 pmI bet they never took a vote on these new revisions. They just dictated them.
No vote = no consensus.
Social Science!!
papertiger (c2d6da) — 11/2/2014 @ 1:47 pmNow don’t we all feel so safe!
Bill M (906260) — 11/2/2014 @ 2:12 pmI sure hope Obama finds out who’s in charge of the executive branch and puts a stop to this.
Steve57 (c1c90e) — 11/2/2014 @ 2:26 pmnow for an actual insight into the disease:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/dont-know-ebola
narciso (ee1f88) — 11/2/2014 @ 2:35 pmLike the FBI, and the CIA
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/2/2014 @ 2:39 pmAnd the CDC… BB King
And Doris Day, Matt Damon
Dig it, dig it, dig it, dig it…
Perhaps the federal government bureaucracy has been this dysfunctional and inept for years and years?
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/2/2014 @ 2:41 pmIf you think that there is some magic distance at which you’re safe, your expectations are unrealistic.
I’ve had times when I sneezed, and globs of phlegm/saliva ended up on the other side of the room (over 6′, but under 12′); 3′ is only true for a nice, neat sneeze. It does fit with the local
understanding of “personal space”, though. (In other words, I wonder if it was just a convenient number.)
But if you’re say 20′ away or more, it would take some powerful lungs to get droplets to you.
I’m not aware of any evidence that it’s droplet-spread in humans.
Ibidem (d600ff) — 11/2/2014 @ 2:46 pmBut anyone infected who could have gotten it via droplets probably can’t rule out direct contamination, and that works the other way too.
On the other hand, I seem to recall a story about someone in Africa who used rain gear and rubber gloves for protection: does anyone know about people who have been near Ebola patients without respiratory protection but did not get infected?
Ebola is spread by droplets in pigs, but pigs have very large nasal cavities and produce lots of phlegm.
Patterico: •CDC says: Ebola is spread through droplet spread, which includes sneezes
Wait a second. Did the CDC say DROPLETS are spread by SNEEZING?
The CDC said that droplets are spread by SPLASHING.
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/pdf/infections-spread-by-air-or-droplets.pdf
Sammy Finkelman (7bb55f) — 11/2/2014 @ 3:21 pmTruth is the first casualty of bureaucracy.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/2/2014 @ 3:23 pmIt’s amusing, and just a little frustrating to see the left at the Atlantic trying to refute another Atlantic piece a few days ago.
The misinterpretations and misrepresentations of data that Hatfill espouses can be found in many places online, and especially on TV. In light of this, we can’t be surprised so many Americans really don’t know what to think and who to believe on Ebola. Going point-by-point through an interview is boring, unnecessary, and would make Hatfill the core issue. He isn’t. Misrepresentations of the scientific literature on Ebola aren’t unique to him. But I picked some of the most common and dangerous misrepresentations he upheld and dug into the primary scientific literature.
The original piece is here and it too scary for the anointed ones
For one objection, Hatfill wants it known that, while it must be emphasized that airborne droplet and particle transmission between humans has not been evident in this outbreak, aerosol droplet transmission of Ebola virus has been shown in animal studies. “It is therefore irresponsible for government health officials to emphatically state that aerosol transmission does not occur,” he writes. He also believes the argument against a national quarantine is “inexcusable in light of the size of the current West African epidemic.”
Hatfill is very experienced in dealing with level 4 biohazards. The other fellow is a doctoral student with, undoubtedly, good grades and no experience,.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 11/2/2014 @ 3:34 pmThe droplets go 3 feet now but tomorrow (yesterday) will go 6 feet ’cause GLOBAL WARMING you DENIER!!!
Teflon Dad (a4939f) — 11/2/2014 @ 3:41 pmSome apt Heinlein quotes:
“Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men.”
“Government! Three fourths parasitic and the other fourth stupid fumbling.”
“When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.”
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/2/2014 @ 3:43 pm“in your mouth, nose, eyes or through
a break in your skin or through sexual contact. ”
Sammy, the first Ebola patient in Nigeria urinated on the medical staff who were bring to treat him.
So far, eight have been infected and six have died including the doctor who was in charge
In August, Adadevoh arrived at the isolation centre she had lobbied to improve. Eleven days after she died, Nigeria recorded its last Ebola case. “If anything comes of this, all we want is an improvement in healthcare, especially public healthcare, in Nigeria,” her son said.
The magnitude of the risk being created by defiant leftist health care people like Hicox is seen here
From this single individual, who died from the disease July 25, infectious disease experts generated a list of 898 contacts. Why so many? In addition to having become ill in a public place, the patient also infected an individual who then flew to and back from another Nigerian city, Port Harcourt, in late July while sick. That individual passed the infection to three other people, including a health care worker who died on August 22—but not before generating 526 more contacts. The index patient’s primary and secondary contacts had only added up to 351.
The fact that two individuals were able to generate so many contacts shows just how vigilant authorities must be in tracking every last potential exposure. But the vigilance paid off. No new cases have been diagnosed in more than a month, and October 1 marked the date at which all of Nigeria’s 898 contacts passed the 21-day incubation period during which Ebola symptoms can present themselves.
The index patient was a bureaucrat who defied the rules and became enraged when told he had Ebola. He deliberately urinated on the staff.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 11/2/2014 @ 3:46 pmtrying to treat him. Damn autocorrect.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 11/2/2014 @ 3:46 pmPatterico:
But the droplets don’t spread really because of a sneeze, and the fact it was emitted by a sneeze or a cough, instead of by vomiting, or being spit out, or just dripping, is basically irrelevant. There is nothing unique about a sneeze.
You only need to be concerned about sneezes if you are standing or sitting right there in front of the person very very sick with ebola at the precise moment the person sneezes.
The droplet will not travel far. It will quickly fall, although it may splash on you. There is also the concern about contamination, but you’d worry about that regardless of whether or not there was any sneeze or cough.
That seems pretty clear.
Sammy Finkelman (7bb55f) — 11/2/2014 @ 3:49 pmSammy, the first Ebola patient in Nigeria urinated on the health workers
It shows up in urine later than it shows up in blood they say (or would that be it is always present in lower concentrations?)
That could be one way of spreading it.
It might have been an accident, too. On the plane he was preventing people from touching him.
Perhaps it was revenge.
He probably really wanted to go to the United States. Not that conference that was his excuse to get out of Liberia. But he just got too sick too fast. Or he would have made it to a hospital in the United States. That might make sense.
Sammy Finkelman (7bb55f) — 11/2/2014 @ 3:58 pmot while not sick. three people got ebola, and one (a health care worker) died, but none of those 3 spread it to yet another person.
Patrick Sawyer was not identified as having ebola for some time, because he denied it was possible. He was probably lying, intent on getting out of that hospital, just like he had gotten out of the hospital in Monrovia, and then out of the country. Could he really have been heading for that ECOWAS conference?
Sammy Finkelman (7bb55f) — 11/2/2014 @ 4:09 pmGood post. Some of the comments leave a lot to be desired. It’s a sad day when reading Patterico comments makes me dumber.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/2/2014 @ 4:18 pm13. Teflon Dad (a4939f) — 11/2/2014 @ 3:41 pm
The droplets go 3 feet now but tomorrow (yesterday) will go 6 feet
They’re dealing in probabilities, of course.
The question is: What counts as a contact? When is the probability low enough that it’s not worth trying to follow up? When is it high enough so a person should be told to take their temperature and watch for signs of ebola?
They’ve always used both numbers.
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/hcp/guidance-air-medical-transport-patients.html
Sammy Finkelman (7bb55f) — 11/2/2014 @ 4:32 pmMaybe they should have just used that New York Times article by Denise Grady instead of writing and re-writing and re-writing.
It’s all there.
Sammy Finkelman (7bb55f) — 11/2/2014 @ 4:34 pmSince it’s from New York, it even comes pre-contaminated with infectious droplets.
Steve57 (c1c90e) — 11/2/2014 @ 4:59 pmFINKELBOMB!!!!!!
JD (285732) — 11/2/2014 @ 5:15 pmOne of the things about the internet: if you look for quotes to back your ideas, you will find them.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/2/2014 @ 5:16 pm25- Even contradictory ones from the same source/speaker.
askeptic (efcf22) — 11/2/2014 @ 5:28 pmIf Ebola can’t be spread by airborne contamination, why are health workers totally sealed off from patients? Projectile vomiting to the back of their heads?
Mike Giles (b8b724) — 11/2/2014 @ 5:55 pmi keep sharing this link because, IMHO, MIT is a whole lot more credible on the subject than those lying a55clowns at the Center for Disinformation Circulation.
OOAAOC, given how deadly Obola is, you’d have to be a fool to NOT take every precaution that had a shred of evidence supporting it, pending additional study and analysis.
after all, if you get this bug, you’re facing a mortality rate of 80% or so. that’s a big enough risk to get most people’s attention.
or it ought to be: unfortunately, we’ve raised several generations of idiots.
redc1c4 (4db2c8) — 11/2/2014 @ 6:12 pmAnd, red, you have a whole bunch of doctors and nurses who have no idea how they were infected.
So the opinion of the government and the nurse from hell are wrong, or at least incomplete.
Patricia (5fc097) — 11/2/2014 @ 6:20 pmI am tired of all of this.
There is plenty of information that has been available for years to guide reasonable precautions.
There are some legitimate differences of opinion in some things inherent in the difficulty of assessing very small risks of very bad outcomes.
But for the most part people want to keep pointing at their own part of the elephant they are touching.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/2/2014 @ 6:47 pmFrom Narciso’s link:
“Between on-the-ground efforts and advances in science, we need a balanced approach”.
Again with the “balanced approach”.
felipe (40f0f0) — 11/2/2014 @ 7:23 pmThanks for the update. I plan on maintaining proper combat interval between myself and Kaci Hickox for the foreseeable future.
WarEagle82 (b18ccf) — 11/2/2014 @ 7:28 pmThe first thing that goes through a commenter’s head…
when he hears there’s low morale goin’ around is:
“What’d I do?
Is it all my fault?”
Well, he’s probably right.
Most of us have been together a long time. There are others that were here before that.
Do you all not like me anymore?
I mean, what am I supposed to do?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 11/2/2014 @ 8:09 pmI don’t know.
papertiger,
My guess is DRJ was talking about the Sammylanche, which I predicted from Comment One.
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/2/2014 @ 8:46 pmWonder why they recommended frequent washing of hands to help prevent contracting Ebola, Yoda does! Could it be because they believe that it can be spread like the flu, hmmmmmm?
Wash your hands. Thorough and frequent hand-washing is an effective way to prevent many common infections. Or use alcohol-based hand sanitizers if soap and water aren’t readily available.
Contain your coughs and sneezes. Cover your mouth and nose when you sneeze or cough. To avoid contaminating your hands, cough or sneeze into a tissue or into the inner crook of your elbow.
Avoid crowds. Flu spreads easily wherever people congregate — in child care centers, schools, office buildings, auditoriums and public transportation. By avoiding crowds during peak flu season, you reduce your chances of infection. And, if you’re sick, stay home so that you don’t infect others.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/flu/basics/prevention/con-20035101
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/qa.html
For what these bastids say and then unsay, one reply to them Yoda has, “Stop pissing on Yoda’s leg and then telling him it is rain!”
Yoda (d89de1) — 11/2/2014 @ 10:45 pmhey papertiger: if you ignore the walking dead, the threads here are still, for the most part, fairly sane.
just pay attention to WarEagle82, 11B40 and myself, maintain a 5 meter interval, and, unless you’re unlucky, you should be good.
😉
redc1c4 (269d8e) — 11/2/2014 @ 10:48 pmwash your hands enough, and the skin gets dry, then starts to crack & break, and you’re at MOAR risk, not less.
joy of joys.
redc1c4 (269d8e) — 11/2/2014 @ 10:49 pmWarEagle82 (b18ccf) — 11/2/2014 @ 7:28 pm
I think a minimum of 1000m should suffice.
askeptic (efcf22) — 11/2/2014 @ 11:07 pmSammy appears to explain that these are all consistent in 3…2…1
When he mentioned a few months ago that he has received election flyers from ultra-liberal organizations (which generally will send their stuff only to those who they believe share their ideology), that spoke volumes to me about apparent aspects of Sammy’s voter-registration history and perhaps material he has subscribed to in the past. That and his also previously claiming Obama isn’t intrinsically a leftist and that commentator Pat Buchanan loves blood and violence.
Mark (c160ec) — 11/2/2014 @ 11:28 pmWhat I like about Sammy is that he takes tons of rude s**t from all directions and
1) He never retorts with rudeness; and
2) He does not let it drive him away from the site.
The first quality, as you may have noticed, is one that I also possess to an unfailing degree. The second quality is one I have wished for in my most favorite of commenters here.
nk (dbc370) — 11/3/2014 @ 2:04 amSammy admitting error, and correcting it. Simon was claiming that never happens. Well, there it is.
Salute.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 11/3/2014 @ 3:57 amNicely done, papertiger. I was irritable over the “blood type versus cholera” silliness. You are correct.
Simon Jester (966f75) — 11/3/2014 @ 5:01 amBut it’s not true anymore. They changed the poster.
tek (2063de) — 11/3/2014 @ 5:06 amThe CDC voted for ebola being contagious before the voted against it
being contagious.
I mean, that’s how science works now isn’t it?
By popular vote?
We don’t want to panic anyone with the facts.
jakee308 (d409c2) — 11/3/2014 @ 5:54 amHow science works is by not being afraid to admit your conclusions from your previous observations or experiments may have been wrong and that new evidence and observations suggest otherwise. But you have to break it to folks gently or you might get sent to an insane asylum, where the guards will beat you to death, for suggesting doctors wash their hands before delivering babies*. Fault the CDC for not saying straight out “Three feet good, six feet better”, not for getting it wrong the first time.
*Yes, I know, Semelweiss’s obsession with “childbed fever” was not the only thing that got him locked up but it makes for a more dramatic story the way I said it.
nk (dbc370) — 11/3/2014 @ 6:15 amWe need a government agency what studies how to control contagious diseases
happyfeet (618bc5) — 11/3/2014 @ 6:28 amnk, I teach about Semmelweis each year. It’s a fascinating story. I’m pretty sure he was on Asperger’s spectrum.
Look to Lister for being a real mensch about that topic.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 11/3/2014 @ 7:01 ampapertiger, I’m sorry that you took my comment personally. As Patterico said, I was thinking about Sammy’s comments. I want to emphasize again that I know Sammy means well and that it’s not his fault, but I’m still frustrated.
Sammy, I wish you would take more time trying to understand other peoples’ comments. If the topic interests you, please read their links and think about their points of view. It’s great that you have important opinions that you want to share … but others here do, too. Your rapid-fire comments on every topic — what Patterico calls a Sammylanche — suggest you don’t really care what other people think. Instead, I think you use other comments as platforms for your own opinions, but part of being in an online community is understanding and caring about what other people think.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/3/2014 @ 7:28 am27. Mike Giles (b8b724) — 11/2/2014 @ 5:55 pm
If Ebola can’t be spread by airborne contamination, why are health workers totally sealed off from patients? Projectile vomiting to the back of their heads?
It depends on the meaning of the word airborne. Airborne, the way they use it, means where there are no other factors, and someone is some distance away and not even within sight, or maybe even aware of, the person sick with ebola.
When the health workers are near the patients, you’d have to worry anyway.
Projectile vomiting mostly creates droplets, which don’t stay airborne. There probably also should be some very small particles, but they also die. Ebola virus particles get killed rather easily outside the body and away from water.
Sammy Finkelman (7bb55f) — 11/3/2014 @ 7:34 amSammy:
According to the CDC:
Compare that to what the Public Health Agency of Canada says:
Maybe when the CDC says “several hours” it means “15 hours or more,” but that’s not what I think of when I hear several hours.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/3/2014 @ 7:52 amI think it matters whether there is light available, Sammy, a distinction I haven’t seen you make.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/3/2014 @ 7:54 amI hear many lefties & Obamamaniacs argue that “there’s no evidence of ____ transmitting Ebola in humans.”
But I simultaneously hear everyone on the scene treating this in Africa, and everyone who’s supposed to be an “expert” elsewhere, agree that we can’t trace the exact route of transmission for huge numbers of these cases.
The question isn’t whether airborne droplets have been shown, conclusively, to transmit Ebola in humans in real-world conditions. The question is whether that’s been positively ruled out.
Sure, if you’re a researcher trying to gather information about this disease and advance our knowledge, or if you’re the guy who was on the airplane with the Ebola patient and you’re wondering how much risk you’ve already been subjected to, it’s entirely relevant and useful to know that so far, some particular route or mode of transmission hasn’t been definitively confirmed in real-world conditions.
But that’s not the viewpoint one must have when designing public health precautions. If you’re designing public health precautions, you don’t let “encouraging gaps” in our proof become an excuse for exposing vast numbers of additional people to an unnecessary and easily preventable risk — even if the risk is very low and uncertain — because the consequences of a mistake are so very, very catastrophic and irreversible.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/3/2014 @ 8:12 amI think we need Hello Kitty finger prick test kits for the Ebola.
Plus I think Obama is seething at what he thought would create a lasting legacy for himself in Africa to compare with George Bush, Airlift Ebola 2014 of patients by the State Department of sick people from Africa to the U.S. got leaked before it was ready to go and giving the Ebola a higher priority than ISIS in terms of troops was not well received, and the CDC’s continued bungling domestically has made the whole thing a three ring circus.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/3/2014 @ 10:51 am51.
It was not the CDC – or the CDC alone – that said several hours.
The Public Health Agency of Canada that said that.
The end of the senetnce doesn’t support the beginning of it! That page needs editing. Maybe it first read one way and then the footnote was added, and that wa smeant to apply to the differences between Ebola and Lassa fever, evbola being less stable. Wikipedia isn’t that bad.
Amount of virus reduced to after 15.4 hours is not the same thing as “survive for several hours.” In fact more than one third is left even after that. That does not translate into “survive for several hours”
But they said in the dark Was that because they were striving to test it to see how much longer it could last under the right conditions?
We’d actually have to look at the studies.
Maybe you can take a look at:
Sagripanti, J-L., Rom, A.M., Holland, L.E. (2010) Persistence in darkness of virulent alphaviruses, Ebola virus, and Lass virus deposited on solid surfaces. Arch Virol. 155: 2035-9.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 11/3/2014 @ 11:03 amAs for lasting at 39 degrees, well, it’s obvious that to be studied there has to be a way to preserve it, and they found it.
Lasting for a very long time, dried, and in a special medium, at 39 degrees is not really good news but it may be it has to be handled carefully to not be killed when an attempt is made to use it or the temperature is raised.
51. DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/3/2014 @ 7:54 am
I haven’t heard that mentioned at all, but come to think of it, it is probably very true that it depends on temperature, humidity and light, and the various experiements haven’t controlled for all of that..
What I did hear about light is that ultraviolet light kills tuberculosis. There were many places in the United States built with ultraviolet light. But that was supposed to be very specific to tuberculosis bacteria.
–
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 11/3/2014 @ 11:05 amThis is the link to the abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20842393
How they correlated that to what should be expected in epidemics, or what it exactly said, I don’t know.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 11/3/2014 @ 11:16 amI don’t know is something you should say more often.
JD (c75a86) — 11/3/2014 @ 11:48 amHe should follow it up with “anything”!
hadoop (f7d5ba) — 11/3/2014 @ 12:04 pm35. Yoda (d89de1) — 11/2/2014 @ 10:45 pm
It’s the other way around. Because they believe the flu spreads like the common cold, which spreads like ebola – much more by direct contact than through the air.
Washing hands can’t do much about breathing in things.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 11/3/2014 @ 12:37 pmOh my aching head.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=UV+sterilization+of+microbes&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=kupXVKaPAouboQSQvYGoCg&ved=0CB4QgQMwAA
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 11/3/2014 @ 12:50 pmShow me on the doll where the Ebola touched you.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/3/2014 @ 12:58 pmThanks for the information about something as easy as leaving the light on substantially reducing the risk of infection.
Does this apply to less exotic bugs than ebola?
My Dad is under the hospice care, and I wonder if leaving the light on in his room would help?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 11/3/2014 @ 1:08 pmpapertiger – If you can be there with him that would probably help more, just my unscientific two cents.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/3/2014 @ 1:10 pmwhat daleyrocks said: if your Dad is on hospice care, spend as much time with him as you can, because there’s not going to be much of it, and, when that time is gone, there won’t be any more.
redc1c4 (269d8e) — 11/3/2014 @ 1:27 pmI just don’t want him to die about a cold. Think I’ll leave the light on.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 11/4/2014 @ 2:10 am