Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

If someone gets exposed and infected by a healthcare worker, can he or she sue? Who will cover the bill? If that side is taken care of, I'm all for the rule of law.

Let's also sue the non-vaxxers, we have the right after all

[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.

So then it CAN be transmitted through the air; therefore, you do NOT want to be on a crowded train with someone who might have ebola but is one day away from being diagnosed because they really think they have the flu, or, like the doctor in NYC who first lied to officials about traveling around the city, aren't feeling too hot but still want to see their friends because it's been a while.

It's not the same. Flu is an air-borne virus. Ebola is a droplet borne virus. It doesn't just get into the air. It gets into fluid, which can become airborne. Being on a train with someone who has a fever isn't a huge deal. There are several recorded cases of people flying with Ebola and a fever over 100 and they didn't infect people on the plane. You don't want to be on a train/plane with someone who is vomiting, has diarrhea, has a cough, or is bleeding from their nose, mouth, eyes, etc.

[Anonymous]

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!!

Yeah, because that's what terrorists do - threaten to sue. LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If someone gets exposed and infected by a healthcare worker, can he or she sue? Who will cover the bill? If that side is taken care of, I'm all for the rule of law.

Let's also sue the non-vaxxers, we have the right after all

You probably could sue for negligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If someone gets exposed and infected by a healthcare worker, can he or she sue? Who will cover the bill? If that side is taken care of, I'm all for the rule of law.

Let's also sue the non-vaxxers, we have the right after all

If you aren't for the rule of law and peaceful resolution of disputes between citizens and the government, what are you for? A boot on your neck every time the government decides that YOU are a potential problem that should be put down?

[Anonymous]

I'll be horribly afraid if the nurse is breathing regular air and not locked behind a lead door. She should only breathe through a respirator in her own home with the doors and windows covered with huge lead plates. Anything else is incredibly selfish on her part. I have the right to feel safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Agreed. In a way, it's a good thing. She will be seen as a pariah in her own state, and will show people the true face of activism of this kind - that it's not about people, it's about the cause. Usually there is nothing concrete and immediate with activism. In this case, the majority of individuals see the activism as selfish, because of health implications and direct cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are incorrect in the way you are interpreting this. Show me the specific law that says we can quarantine someone who trated an infectious patient, if that person doesn't have the disease

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Agreed. In a way, it's a good thing. She will be seen as a pariah in her own state, and will show people the true face of activism of this kind - that it's not about people, it's about the cause. Usually there is nothing concrete and immediate with activism. In this case, the majority of individuals see the activism as selfish, because of health implications and direct cost.

The only cause here is civil liberty.

You know, like the civil liberties that our Founding Fathers fought for and then enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

If you are going to put someone under house arrest, then the government's action should have a rational basis. Putting people under house arrest because they have been around people with Ebola, even if they aren't symptomatic themselves, is catering to irrational fear. No one in the US has been infected by a health care worker. The protocols that the agencies have been using to this date have done a more than adequate job of protecting public health. You are advocating serious infringements on individual liberty -- the right to travel, the right to freedom of assembly -- because you are irrationally afraid of something that hasn't happened.

Patients are infecting healthcare workers. Healthcare workers aren't infecting people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone gets exposed and infected by a healthcare worker, can he or she sue? Who will cover the bill? If that side is taken care of, I'm all for the rule of law.

Let's also sue the non-vaxxers, we have the right after all

You probably could sue for negligence.

People have sued for negligence and battery when the issue was HIV exposure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone gets exposed and infected by a healthcare worker, can he or she sue? Who will cover the bill? If that side is taken care of, I'm all for the rule of law.

Let's also sue the non-vaxxers, we have the right after all

If you aren't for the rule of law and peaceful resolution of disputes between citizens and the government, what are you for? A boot on your neck every time the government decides that YOU are a potential problem that should be put down?

What am I for? "...And justice for all." Not just the ones you like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Agreed. In a way, it's a good thing. She will be seen as a pariah in her own state, and will show people the true face of activism of this kind - that it's not about people, it's about the cause. Usually there is nothing concrete and immediate with activism. In this case, the majority of individuals see the activism as selfish, because of health implications and direct cost.

The only cause here is civil liberty.

You know, like the civil liberties that our Founding Fathers fought for and then enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

If you are going to put someone under house arrest, then the government's action should have a rational basis. Putting people under house arrest because they have been around people with Ebola, even if they aren't symptomatic themselves, is catering to irrational fear. No one in the US has been infected by a health care worker. The protocols that the agencies have been using to this date have done a more than adequate job of protecting public health. You are advocating serious infringements on individual liberty -- the right to travel, the right to freedom of assembly -- because you are irrationally afraid of something that hasn't happened.

Patients are infecting healthcare workers. Healthcare workers aren't infecting people.

I agree they have no legal grounds to hold her. It's her activist behavior that's making her a pariah. Combine that with the NYC doc lying, and people see the behavior as selfish and uncaring. There are the legal issues, and the moral ones. What is she going to do next - sue people who are mean to her? Who reject her? Will she demand a support group?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree they have no legal grounds to hold her. It's her activist behavior that's making her a pariah. Combine that with the NYC doc lying, and people see the behavior as selfish and uncaring. There are the legal issues, and the moral ones. What is she going to do next - sue people who are mean to her? Who reject her? Will she demand a support group?

The Doctor in New York didn't lie:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102132467

"New York City's health department said a doctor being treated for Ebola "cooperated fully" with officials, dismissing a report that he initially lied about his movements."

[Anonymous]

All of you arguing about civil liberties - I don't think there's a single judge in this nation that would not uphold Maine's right to impose a 21 day home quarantine on a returning Ebola health care worker. Not a chance. I don't see this as even a close issue. We just don't have civil liberties fundamentalists on the bench anymore; and even if we do, this is a case where the due process concerns clearly weigh in favor of the state. If someone has another interpretation based on review of actual quarantine caselaw, I'd like to see it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree they have no legal grounds to hold her. It's her activist behavior that's making her a pariah. Combine that with the NYC doc lying, and people see the behavior as selfish and uncaring. There are the legal issues, and the moral ones. What is she going to do next - sue people who are mean to her? Who reject her? Will she demand a support group?

The Doctor in New York didn't lie:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102132467

"New York City's health department said a doctor being treated for Ebola "cooperated fully" with officials, dismissing a report that he initially lied about his movements."

If you read the whole article, there is this:

Asked about the report, Health Department spokeswoman Veronica Lewin said: "Dr. Spencer cooperated fully with the Health Department to establish a timeline of his movements in the days following his return to New York from Guinea, providing his MetroCard, credit cards and cellphone."

"He followed protocol by contacting his employer immediately upon developing fever and remained in his apartment until being transported to the hospital, which is why the chance anyone else contracted Ebola is extremely small. Dr. Spencer is a hero who deserves our thanks and thoughts for a speedy recovery," Lewin said in an email statement to CNBC.

When CNBC asked again if Spencer had at first lied to authorities or otherwise mislead them about his movements in the city, Lewin replied: "Please refer to the statement I just sent. As this states, Dr. Spencer cooperated fully with the Health Department."

Sounds like a “dodge” to me. Sure, he is cooperating as we would expect him to. But, it seems that he could have been less than truthful about his movement BEFORE contacting his employer. The health dept. spokesperson dodged the question.