Comments by "Vary Olla" (@varyolla435) on "Typhoid Mary: The Bringer of Disease and Death" video.

Being a spud muncher had nothing to do with it. She was offered a solution = which she rejected. She spent her remaining days in a quarantine facility as a protection against her infecting others. So if being a bogtrotter was held against her = she would have simply been shipped to back to Ireland to let them deal with her......... 🤨
3
Wouldn't have made a difference...... She was constantly shedding the organism when she used the toilet such that she was infecting the environment as well. Back then they lacked modern facilities such as we now take for granted. It is the same with say Poliovirus. Even if you wash your hands = your bottom is still contaminated. So go into a swimming pool or handle your dirty.......... 💩
2
Ah....... = no. She spent her life in quarantine because = she refused to have the operation which would have allowed her to return to a normal life. If she allowed the doctors to remove her gallbladder - where the bacteria colonized her bile - she would have not required lifelong quarantine. So the moment the doctors informed her of her condition she ceased to be "a victim" here as her choices led to what followed.
2
🤭 Yes = "reality versus abstract" - the old problem........ Moral: people luv to blather on about "rights" - in the abstract. Yet as you alluded to "cause & effect" still exists here in the real world. Hence in matters of infectious disease the "rights" to the many > the rights of the few who happen to pose a risk to the rest. Societies taking action to limit the spread of diseases which crop up goes back a loooooong time. In the not so distant past as an example Lepers were still forced from their communities to live apart until antibiotics made Leprosy rare.
1
Actually no = she was not a victim. She was offered an out = surgery to remove her gallbladder - which she refused. Had she done that should would not have had to spend the rest of her life in quarantine. So she may not have had a choice as far as becoming infected and subsequently colonized. What followed however was entirely her choice.
1
Not entirely. Yes you should always wash your hands. In this case however Mary = was colonized - making her a spreader. So it was not enough to wash her hands as she contaminated her environment as well. Thus the lesson as you say is to take medical advice to rectify problems like this. She could have had a surgery to end her being a carrier = but she refused - and thus spent the rest of her life quarantined. 🤨
1
It stops her from being a carrier - but no it does not "cure" the disease itself. She was not actively sick. She was "colonized". The bacteria which causes Typhoid Fever can live in the bile in your intestines - which is stored in your gallbladder. Thus every time you go to the toilet - and not wash your hands as people back then frequently did not do = you shed the bacteria ------> to then spread it around when you touch things. So removing her gallbladder would have stopped her spreading the bacteria around so that she could have lived a normal life = but she refused. 🤔
1
Apparently you didn't look very hard as there is loads of information online about her. Yes she was a real person. What you need to understand about her is that she could have had an operation to remove her gallbladder which would have ended her quarantine = but she refused. Thus she for the rest of her life was "a carrier" who posed a risk to others. The bacteria which causes Typhoid lives in your intestines - your gallbladder specifically. So every time she used the toilet she spread it as people also did not wash their hands as they should back then either. This meant she contaminated surfaces she touched and food she prepared as she was a cook. 🤔
1
Washing her hands would have lessened the chances of her infecting others = but she still would have been colonized - and hence infectious. She refused to have the operation to remove her gallbladder - where the bacteria lived inside her. Had she done that she would have no longer been dangerous to others.
1
Exactly. People who understand little to nothing and who as a result base all upon poorly informed assumptions while ignoring evidence from those who do actually know. Dunning-Kruger rules all for some. If she would have simply had an operation she could have lived a normal life - but she refused.
1
The gallbladder is not needed as it really is little more than a storage sac. The bile it holds - which is what the bacteria colonized - is actually made by the liver and stored in the gallbladder. So had she simply had her gallbladder removed she could have lived a normal life - but she refused. The bacteria colonize the gallbladder so that when she ate it was shed into her colon as bile was released and then out into the environment when she used the toilet. Then - as now - many did not wash their hands afterwards = which is how she spread it around.
1
If she would have had her gallbladder removed = her problems would have been over. The bacteria colonizes the intestines - specifically the bile which is stored in the gallbladder. She refused to have the surgery and thus spent the remainder of her life in quarantine. 🤨
1
Upon becoming infected - hence "colonized" - she could have had surgery to remove her gallbladder. Then she would not have had to spend the rest of her life in quarantine as she did - but she refused. Once colonized she became a source of infection for others - washing her hands notwithstanding.
1
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" Ergo it does not matter if she was as you say a "good person" if as a result of her intransigence and refusal to accede to medical advice she posed a threat to others. That becomes illustrative of what you noted = "selfishness". In her case the reason is as always - "ignorance". People who convince themselves they are right in matters for which they often are woefully ignorant are often the cause of many societal problems you will find. If she would have simply had her gallbladder removed she would not have needed to spend the rest of her life in quarantine. Whatever people may personally believe or not they have no right to potentially pose a risk to others via their action - or inaction. This is how it has always been. Not that long ago before we had antibiotics Lepers were driven from their communities and forced to live apart owing to the risk they posed to others. In matters of infectious disease the threat to the group supersedes any purported "individual rights". 🤔
1
She was "a carrier" and thus she would have continued to infect others because she refused the treatment = removal of her gallbladder. The organism which causes Typhoid can reside in the gallbladder. Thus when the person eats and then defecates the organism is shed into the sewer system and gets onto their hands - where they spread it around. So she as you alluded to did not wash her hands back then as one should + she was continuously shedding the organism every time she went to the bathroom. Had she simply had her gallbladder removed she might have lived a normal life = but she refused - thus she was quarantined. 🤔
1
If she had simply had the operation to remove her gallbladder - where the bacteria colonizes in the body - she might have lived a normal life. She refused of course believing she was not responsible and hence spent her life in quarantine as she remained a public health threat. Remember what Mr. Spock famously quipped: "the needs of the many........."
1
Actually like you see today in the US vis a vis people denying scientific reality and evidence = she refused to believe. She could have had an operation to remove her gallbladder where the bacteria colonized her gut and hence not have had to live the rest of her life in quarantine - but she refused.
1