Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone with the disease can't control when the symptoms hit. That's the issue for a lot of folk

Can't hold these people legally. That's a fact. They are selfish as hell though, and I hope they are seen that way by the public.

Lying is beyond the pale

No that's not a fact. Legally, you CAN hold these people. Whether you should is a medical and policy question.

What law can you hold them under?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And of all of those people who all of those reckless people came in contact with as they wandered around the city and wedding shops and the rest...how many have come down with Ebola? None. Not one. There is no risk in a non-symptomatic person going about their daily lives. You can't expect a nurse, trained in science, to agree to a non-scientific quarantine. It goes against all the training.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/10/27/5271345/nc-follows-federal-rules-on-ebola.html#.VFFYDxY0_Kc

"All Samaritan’s Purse staffers returning from West Africa are required to spend 21 days with “restricted public access,” which means they don’t use public transportation, avoid crowds and stay an arm’s length away from other people. They also are asked to take their temperatures four times a day."

Spencer and Hickox certainly were/are not planning to follow the guidelines of Dr Brantley's service organization. Riding the subway, bowling alley, Hickox planning to go into NYC. Perhaps returning aid workers should be placed with the military in Italy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone with the disease can't control when the symptoms hit. That's the issue for a lot of folk

Can't hold these people legally. That's a fact. They are selfish as hell though, and I hope they are seen that way by the public.

Lying is beyond the pale

No that's not a fact. Legally, you CAN hold these people. Whether you should is a medical and policy question.

What law can you hold them under?

Federally, the us Public Health Service act. States can hold them under general common law which allows states to regulate public health and safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone with the disease can't control when the symptoms hit. That's the issue for a lot of folk

Can't hold these people legally. That's a fact. They are selfish as hell though, and I hope they are seen that way by the public.

Lying is beyond the pale

No that's not a fact. Legally, you CAN hold these people. Whether you should is a medical and policy question.

Of course they can be held. It goes along with the unprecedented nature of this outbreak.

She's got some hubris. On "Today" she put out her threat to sue if she wasn't released by tomorrow (Thursday). It sounded like a terrorist's demand. Some bedisde manner she's got!!

She's having a temper tantrum and its most unbecoming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone with the disease can't control when the symptoms hit. That's the issue for a lot of folk

Can't hold these people legally. That's a fact. They are selfish as hell though, and I hope they are seen that way by the public.

Lying is beyond the pale

No that's not a fact. Legally, you CAN hold these people. Whether you should is a medical and policy question.

What law can you hold them under?

Federally, the us Public Health Service act. States can hold them under general common law which allows states to regulate public health and safety.

Only if they are actually sick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone with the disease can't control when the symptoms hit. That's the issue for a lot of folk

Can't hold these people legally. That's a fact. They are selfish as hell though, and I hope they are seen that way by the public.

Lying is beyond the pale

No that's not a fact. Legally, you CAN hold these people. Whether you should is a medical and policy question.

What law can you hold them under?

Federally, the us Public Health Service act. States can hold them under general common law which allows states to regulate public health and safety.

Only if they are actually sick

Read the statute before you say that. That's not the case. You can hold them based on exposure to disease. Not saying in this particular case you *should* -- that's a separate question. But legally, totally kosher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a minute and think about what happened with the others who were NOT quarantined (or were voluntarily quarantined but did not abide by the quarantine), yet traveled around before being diagnosed with Ebola. The nurse in Texas who traveled on an airplane, went wedding dress shopping, and other places.... then, the doctor in NY who went bowling, rode in a cab, and went other places.....
They may not have been contagious, and the risk to others may have been minimal or nonexistent. However, the ramifications of their non-quarantine cannot be ignored. The cost to the businesses, not only in disinfecting, but in lost merchandise and lost customers... the cost of doing the contact tracing.... the alarm caused to others, etc.
Perhaps all of this was not necessary, but are we willing to take the chance NOT to take these precautions?
I don’t believe that a simple 21-day quarantine is asking too much.

+1. I agree that the nurse is selfless and heroic, and I'd like to see her extend the same spirit of selflessness to the American public.

My feeling exactly. Where is her largesse to the American public? The CDC changed the equipment protocol after Pham and Vinson contracted the virus. So do we really have all the science on this topic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Has any media asked Hickox why she is so adamant? Her first complaints were that the tent was cold and she couldn't charge her phone. So the compromise is, she finishes quarantine at home in Maine. Residents of the town want her out-- they made a FB page about this. WHY is at-home not good enough? Why the me, me, me? Something is off about her.

I don't understand why she can't just suck it up and do the home quarantine in Maine for the good of everyone in this country, even if it is just to allay fears. There can't be many days left in her 21-day period. I am irritated with her for not just doing the damn home quarantine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone with the disease can't control when the symptoms hit. That's the issue for a lot of folk

Can't hold these people legally. That's a fact. They are selfish as hell though, and I hope they are seen that way by the public.

Lying is beyond the pale

No that's not a fact. Legally, you CAN hold these people. Whether you should is a medical and policy question.

What law can you hold them under?

Federally, the us Public Health Service act. States can hold them under general common law which allows states to regulate public health and safety.

Only if they are actually sick

Read the statute before you say that. That's not the case. You can hold them based on exposure to disease. Not saying in this particular case you *should* -- that's a separate question. But legally, totally kosher.

If she wore proper equipment, she was not exposed either - rather, one dan't prove she was. I think she should quarantine, but there's a reason why she is not being held. Now, were there travel restrictions in place, one can put it as part of the legal contract

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Has any media asked Hickox why she is so adamant? Her first complaints were that the tent was cold and she couldn't charge her phone. So the compromise is, she finishes quarantine at home in Maine. Residents of the town want her out-- they made a FB page about this. WHY is at-home not good enough? Why the me, me, me? Something is off about her.

I don't understand why she can't just suck it up and do the home quarantine in Maine for the good of everyone in this country, even if it is just to allay fears. There can't be many days left in her 21-day period. I am irritated with her for not just doing the damn home quarantine.

Because this is how activists behave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Has any media asked Hickox why she is so adamant? Her first complaints were that the tent was cold and she couldn't charge her phone. So the compromise is, she finishes quarantine at home in Maine. Residents of the town want her out-- they made a FB page about this. WHY is at-home not good enough? Why the me, me, me? Something is off about her.

I don't understand why she can't just suck it up and do the home quarantine in Maine for the good of everyone in this country, even if it is just to allay fears. There can't be many days left in her 21-day period. I am irritated with her for not just doing the damn home quarantine.

Because this is how activists behave

Hilarious that the cops are standing guard outside her home. Who the hell does she think she is?! Immature, self-centered and selfish. How is she any different from Nancy Sniderman who got a lot of flack for doing the same thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone with the disease can't control when the symptoms hit. That's the issue for a lot of folk

Can't hold these people legally. That's a fact. They are selfish as hell though, and I hope they are seen that way by the public.

Lying is beyond the pale

No that's not a fact. Legally, you CAN hold these people. Whether you should is a medical and policy question.

What law can you hold them under?

Federally, the us Public Health Service act. States can hold them under general common law which allows states to regulate public health and safety.

Only if they are actually sick

Read the statute before you say that. That's not the case. You can hold them based on exposure to disease. Not saying in this particular case you *should* -- that's a separate question. But legally, totally kosher.

If she wore proper equipment, she was not exposed either - rather, one dan't prove she was. I think she should quarantine, but there's a reason why she is not being held. Now, were there travel restrictions in place, one can put it as part of the legal contract

Again, what you're saying is not based in law. Also, we know people with proper equipment were exposed while treating patients in W.A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have a good understand of how exactly ebola is transmitted. I understand this from WHO:

"Ebola then spreads through human-to-human transmission via direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and with surfaces and materials (e.g. bedding, clothing) contaminated with these fluids. Health-care workers have frequently been infected while treating patients with suspected or confirmed EVD. This has occurred through close contact with patients when infection control precautions are not strictly practiced. Burial ceremonies in which mourners have direct contact with the body of the deceased person can also play a role in the transmission of Ebola. People remain infectious as long as their blood and body fluids, including semen and breast milk, contain the virus. Men who have recovered from the disease can still transmit the virus through their semen for up to 7 weeks after recovery from illness."

So, in some ways it's similar to HIV; but still, why the layered-full-body-not-an-ounce-of-skin-exposed suits? If your wrist is exposed but there's no cut on it, how could you still get ebola? Is there concern the patient can vomit on your exposed wrist and the virus can burrow into your pores? Should you not shake hands with someone who has active ebola, even if their hands are not covered in vomit?

It's because the symptoms of Ebola makes you produce a lot of bodily fluid, in a way that HIV doesn't. Ebola causes diarrhea, fever (with sweating), vomiting, and bleeding from eyes, ears, nose, mouth, vagina, rectum. (HIV doesn't do this.) If that blood gets in a scratch on your hands or neck or in your eyes or nose or mouth, you can catch it. If the patient coughs or shakes or moves a limb suddenly the bodily fluids can become aerosoled, along with the virus in them.

Ebola creates the symptoms which make it spread. HIV doesn't.

HIV that progresses to AIDS can absolutely cause vomiting and diarrhea and bleeding. Maybe not as consistently as Ebola, but it absolutely can. In addition, most people with HIV live years with the virus (fact: the average gay man who has HIV and is on ART has a longer life expectancy than the average American male overall) that they'll almost definitely get the stomach flu or a bloody nose at some point. But you can't catch HIV from someone's bloody nose or vomit. The ways you can catch HIV are very limited as it is not nearly as hardy as Ebola.

One of the things that has been really horrifying to me about the American reaction to Ebola is how it is bringing back all sorts of myths about HIV. Ebola and HIV are not contracted in the same way. Well, that's not 100% correct, you can absolutely contract Ebola through any of the routes that transmit HIV except maybe in utero exposure, but the opposite is not true. Most of the ways that Ebola is spread, do not spread HIV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have a good understand of how exactly ebola is transmitted. I understand this from WHO:

"Ebola then spreads through human-to-human transmission via direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and with surfaces and materials (e.g. bedding, clothing) contaminated with these fluids. Health-care workers have frequently been infected while treating patients with suspected or confirmed EVD. This has occurred through close contact with patients when infection control precautions are not strictly practiced. Burial ceremonies in which mourners have direct contact with the body of the deceased person can also play a role in the transmission of Ebola. People remain infectious as long as their blood and body fluids, including semen and breast milk, contain the virus. Men who have recovered from the disease can still transmit the virus through their semen for up to 7 weeks after recovery from illness."

So, in some ways it's similar to HIV; but still, why the layered-full-body-not-an-ounce-of-skin-exposed suits? If your wrist is exposed but there's no cut on it, how could you still get ebola? Is there concern the patient can vomit on your exposed wrist and the virus can burrow into your pores? Should you not shake hands with someone who has active ebola, even if their hands are not covered in vomit?

It's because the symptoms of Ebola makes you produce a lot of bodily fluid, in a way that HIV doesn't. Ebola causes diarrhea, fever (with sweating), vomiting, and bleeding from eyes, ears, nose, mouth, vagina, rectum. (HIV doesn't do this.) If that blood gets in a scratch on your hands or neck or in your eyes or nose or mouth, you can catch it. If the patient coughs or shakes or moves a limb suddenly the bodily fluids can become aerosoled, along with the virus in them.

Ebola creates the symptoms which make it spread. HIV doesn't.

HIV that progresses to AIDS can absolutely cause vomiting and diarrhea and bleeding. Maybe not as consistently as Ebola, but it absolutely can. In addition, most people with HIV live years with the virus (fact: the average gay man who has HIV and is on ART has a longer life expectancy than the average American male overall) that they'll almost definitely get the stomach flu or a bloody nose at some point. But you can't catch HIV from someone's bloody nose or vomit. The ways you can catch HIV are very limited as it is not nearly as hardy as Ebola.

One of the things that has been really horrifying to me about the American reaction to Ebola is how it is bringing back all sorts of myths about HIV. Ebola and HIV are not contracted in the same way. Well, that's not 100% correct, you can absolutely contract Ebola through any of the routes that transmit HIV except maybe in utero exposure, but the opposite is not true. Most of the ways that Ebola is spread, do not spread HIV.

It is remarkably uncommon for someone with HIV, even in the 1980s, to bleed the way Ebola patients bleed or vomit the way they do. That's why the full body precautions aren't common for HIV and they are required for Ebola. "Can" isn't the same as "pretty much every time."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone with the disease can't control when the symptoms hit. That's the issue for a lot of folk

Can't hold these people legally. That's a fact. They are selfish as hell though, and I hope they are seen that way by the public.

Lying is beyond the pale

No that's not a fact. Legally, you CAN hold these people. Whether you should is a medical and policy question.

Of course they can be held. It goes along with the unprecedented nature of this outbreak.

She's got some hubris. On "Today" she put out her threat to sue if she wasn't released by tomorrow (Thursday). It sounded like a terrorist's demand. Some bedisde manner she's got!!

She should sue. She has a right to have her complaint heard by a judge and jury. That's a right that every American has.

That's not terrorism. That's the rule of law.