band aid in sandwich

[wyett717]

Perhaps my wording was too ambitious, but the point is still the same. According to the CDC as well, transmission in this manner is extremely unlikely. Read on:

Scientists and medical authorities agree that HIV does not survive well in the environment, making the possibility of environmental transmission remote. HIV is found in varying concentrations or amounts in blood, semen, vaginal fluid, breast milk, saliva, and tears. (See page 3, Saliva, Tears, and Sweat.) To obtain data on the survival of HIV, laboratory studies have required the use of artificially high concentrations of laboratory-grown virus. Although these unnatural concentrations of HIV can be kept alive for days or even weeks under precisely controlled and limited laboratory conditions, CDC studies have shown that drying of even these high concentrations of HIV reduces the amount of infectious virus by 90 to 99 percent within several hours. Since the HIV concentrations used in laboratory studies are much higher than those actually found in blood or other specimens, drying of HIV-infected human blood or other body fluids reduces the theoretical risk of environmental transmission to that which has been observed--essentially zero. Incorrect interpretation of conclusions drawn from laboratory studies have unnecessarily alarmed some people.

Results from laboratory studies should not be used to assess specific personal risk of infection because (1) the amount of virus studied is not found in human specimens or elsewhere in nature, and (2) no one has been identified as infected with HIV due to contact with an environmental surface. Additionally, HIV is unable to reproduce outside its living host (unlike many bacteria or fungi, which may do so under suitable conditions), except under laboratory conditions, therefore, it does not spread or maintain infectiousness outside its host.

[url=http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm]HIV and Its Transmission | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS[/url]

[justalayman]

yep, I saw that part, including the part you bolded that states: drying of HIV-infected...

You see, in a used bandaid that was on a persons finger when lost into the sandwich, that moist sandwich, drying would be slowed, or even prevented.

As I said; if there were no concern, there would need be no precautions against contact with bodily fluids once they have left the host body. The CDC refuses to go as far as that so apparently they believe there is some risk.

Let me ask you this wyett; setting the gross factor aside; would you chew on a wet bandaid that you knew contained blood from an HIV positive person? Would you be willing to take the risk?

I somehow doubt anybody, even those that read all the available literature of how non-infectious it may be, would offer to do it. As with all diseases; we are still learning about them and how the are transmitted and all sorts of other pertinent information. Until such time we know, positively, that infection cannot occur from certain activities, we should practice prophylaxis. Chewing on a bloodied bandaid would not be acting with proper regard with the information we currently have available to us.

[wyett717]

Let me ask you this wyett; setting the gross factor aside; would you chew on a wet bandaid that you knew contained blood from an HIV positive person? Would you be willing to take the risk?

You are missing the point. I am not arguing with you and your pettiness. I am not minimizing the situation. And, I am not avowing that contraction of an infectious disease is impossible. I am simply saying that the risk is extremely small - as verified here -

Additionally, HIV is unable to reproduce outside its living host (unlike many bacteria or fungi, which may do so under suitable conditions), except under laboratory conditions, therefore, it does not spread or maintain infectiousness outside its host.

Regardless, the issue isn't about the severity of the risk, it's about the OP trying to form a lawsuit based on something that has no substantiated damages AT THIS POINT. Unfortunately, being grossed out doesn't count for much.

[Gail in Georgia]

If there's such a concern about infectious diseases from the person wearing the bandaid, it would not be an unreasonable to request that the Blimpie worker get tested for such diseases. Although, as previously posted, HIV transmission would not be a concern in this instance.

Even if this person was HIV positive, any virus on the bandaid would be long dead (luckily HIV is an incredibly delicate virus iving seconds outside the body) and chewing on a bandaid would not transmit the virus (the OP would also need an open, bleeding wound in his/her mouth as a portal into the body for the risk of transmission to be an issue). Even unprotected oral sex with an HIV positive person carries an estimated per act risk of .5 to 1 per 10,000 exposures.

At the very least, there would be a concern that the worker was preparing sandwiches without minimal hand protection (i.e., disposable gloves) which would have avoided passage of a bandaid that became lose when handling food.

Finally, I'd like to point out that all the blood tests the OP took are totally useless if done immediately after the event. Both HIV and Hepatitis screening involve checking for antibodies the immune system begins to release after transmission has taken place. The recommended time period for testing is 3 months after the initial event to insure that, if infected, enough antibodies are present to be picked up by current testing methods.

This is why a better route would be to have the sandwich maker tested, not the OP.

Gail

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by wyett717

You are missing the point. I am not arguing with you and your pettiness. I am not minimizing the situation. And, I am not avowing that contraction of an infectious disease is impossible. I am simply saying that the risk is extremely small - as verified here - Regardless, the issue isn't about the severity of the risk, it's about the OP trying to form a lawsuit based on something that has no substantiated damages AT THIS POINT. Unfortunately, being grossed out doesn't count for much.

again, you bring out a point but you miss the point you brought out.

Additionally, HIV is unable to reproduce outside its living host (unlike many bacteria or fungi, which may do so under suitable conditions), except under laboratory conditions, therefore, it does not spread or maintain infectiousness outside its host.

they are speaking to the point of the virus cannot replicate outside of the host so it becomes less of a threat as time goes on and they do die. It will not grow but those virus that are there will live for some period of time.

I do not see this as petty. HIV and AIDS is, obviously, anything but petty and any risk, when caused by another without the knowldege and acceptance by those that could be infected is a risk they should not ever be exposed to.

Glad to see you believe a death is petty. I don't.

and to the "being grossed out doesn't count for much" is BS. Somtimes that is worth a fortune even with no actual physical injuries. Sometimes it merely depends on how good of a salesman, I mean lawyer, the plaintiff has.

[wyett717]

It will not grow but those virus that are there will live for some period of time.

Wrong.

Even if this person was HIV positive, any virus on the bandaid would be long dead (luckily HIV is an incredibly delicate virus iving seconds outside the body) and chewing on a bandaid would not transmit the virus (the OP would also need an open, bleeding wound in his/her mouth as a portal into the body for the risk of transmission to be an issue).

Correct.

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by Gail in Georgia

If there's such a concern about infectious diseases from the person wearing the bandaid, it would not be an unreasonable to request that the Blimpie worker get tested for such diseases.

One could ask, but there's no obligation for the worker to do so.

Originally Posted by justalayman

and to the "being grossed out doesn't count for much" is BS. Somtimes that is worth a fortune even with no actual physical injuries. Sometimes it merely depends on how good of a salesman, I mean lawyer, the plaintiff has.

Actually, because they are so easy to "fake", most jurisdictions require proof of psychological injuries via competent mental heath treatment. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule, none of which apply here.

OP could arguably win back the costs of any reasonable medical tests he undergoes related to the incident, but even that is not a lock. If he should develop some dread disease, after he gets out of the hospital, he needs to speak to a lawyer, as proving Blimpie guy admitted guilt XX months after the fact will be difficult.

[AHA]

Originally Posted by carmovers

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NE

Yesterday I attended an Auto Auction, where I rent space as a vendor, I transport cars. Anyway they were having a big "Super Bowl" party and had sandwiches catered in from "Blimpies" . I grabbed a sandwich, added some condiments to it, and took the first bite, where after chewing on it for a while, noticed something that would not chew up, took it out of my mouth and noticed it was a used band aid. I vommited, cried and then found the Manager of the Auction, who called the sandwich shop and informed them of what happened. The person who she spoke to was the owner and admitted making the sandwiches and also losing the band aid..... he admitted it !!!!! I went and had blood test done right away. I have the sandwich and band aid in the freezer.

Do I have a case, and if so based on what and how much $$$$ would I be entitled to. I feel almost like I have been raped or something. Does the fact that he admitted the band aid is his, help me or hurt me in this legal matter. Are they any cases similiar to this where people have been awarded a judgement. I have been in contact with a local Attornery, who said we have a case and has contacted the owner of the sandwich shop. Just looking for some more advice and opinions. Thanks , feeling bad in Nebraska. What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

You have NO idea what being raped is like, so stop embarrassing yourself!