Official Ebola update thread

[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."

Initially he did

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The original NYPost article quotes a police source as saying that Spencer said he self-quarantined, but then "fessed up" when asked detailed questions. I bet you $1 million that Spencer said (truthfully) that he self-quarantined as soon as he felt symptoms, and the police officer misinterpreted this to mean he was claiming he self-quarantined even when he was asymptomatic. Do you know how dumb police officers are, often times? I had to report a lost wallet to an NYC cop once, and he was practically illiterate. It took him 30 minutes to fill out one form, and he visibly was having difficulty writing in the information. Police officers are not the brightest in terms of verbal skills. They may have other skills, but skills in understanding written & spoken information are not generally strong ones for them as a group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No I'm not. It has been done before. Of course no law is written that specifically, but they have been interpreted to include exposures to disease during the incubation period. For example, in meningitis and tuberculosis circumstances. Show me anything that contradicts that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No I'm not. It has been done before. Of course no law is written that specifically, but they have been interpreted to include exposures to disease during the incubation period. For example, in meningitis and tuberculosis circumstances. Show me anything that contradicts that.

PP, don't bother with the argument. Someobody demanding that there be a specific state law allowing quarantine under these specific circumstances is clearly not a lawyer, or if they are, are not a very good one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The original NYPost article quotes a police source as saying that Spencer said he self-quarantined, but then "fessed up" when asked detailed questions. I bet you $1 million that Spencer said (truthfully) that he self-quarantined as soon as he felt symptoms, and the police officer misinterpreted this to mean he was claiming he self-quarantined even when he was asymptomatic. Do you know how dumb police officers are, often times? I had to report a lost wallet to an NYC cop once, and he was practically illiterate. It took him 30 minutes to fill out one form, and he visibly was having difficulty writing in the information. Police officers are not the brightest in terms of verbal skills. They may have other skills, but skills in understanding written & spoken information are not generally strong ones for them as a group.

You are making assumptions based on one experience you had. FYI - most of the police officers I have had interaction with are quite capable and intelligent. You are painting police officers with a very broad brush. I won’t take you up on your $1 million bet as I seriously doubt you have the money to back it up.

[Anonymous]

On another note, I am worried for Dr Spencer. There have been no reports in the past few days about his condition, and I can only assume that he is very, very sick. I think I saw that they are giving him brindocivir. For some reason, I think that drug might have more side effects than they anticipate for ebola patients. Hope he pulls through.

[Anonymous]

Didnt Hickox test free of the Ebola virus? I thought I read that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The original NYPost article quotes a police source as saying that Spencer said he self-quarantined, but then "fessed up" when asked detailed questions. I bet you $1 million that Spencer said (truthfully) that he self-quarantined as soon as he felt symptoms, and the police officer misinterpreted this to mean he was claiming he self-quarantined even when he was asymptomatic. Do you know how dumb police officers are, often times? I had to report a lost wallet to an NYC cop once, and he was practically illiterate. It took him 30 minutes to fill out one form, and he visibly was having difficulty writing in the information. Police officers are not the brightest in terms of verbal skills. They may have other skills, but skills in understanding written & spoken information are not generally strong ones for them as a group.

You are making assumptions based on one experience you had. FYI - most of the police officers I have had interaction with are quite capable and intelligent. You are painting police officers with a very broad brush. I won’t take you up on your $1 million bet as I seriously doubt you have the money to back it up.

In bet between the truthfullness and intelligence of a NYC cop vs an ER doctor and city health officials ... I know who I will put my money down on every time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didnt Hickox test free of the Ebola virus? I thought I read that.

The test will be negative until the level of virus in the body rises enough to be detected. Most people become sick within the 21 days. Some have gone 40 days past exposure before the virus has replicated enough to be detected. So one negative test doesn't mean the person is not going to become sick in a few days.

This is why the public wants travel restrictions for all nonessential persons in the region and/or a pause on issuing new visas from the region. A person can fly in free of fever, then become sick weeks after.

But with Hickox being the wagging dog, we've shifted to arguing the history and legality of quarantine instead of continuing to ask why these visas are being granted and which city will be host to the next Duncan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Yeah, they threaten with demands that must be met, or else they will take some negative and often selfish punitive action. Your point is?

[Anonymous]

I think the nurse is being an ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the nurse is being an ass.

She's now riding her bike around town.

[Anonymous]

I love the media people running after her. This is her 15 minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the media people running after her. This is her 15 minutes.

And, this is exactly what she was looking for.

[Anonymous]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/liberia-official-good-progress-ebola-26565260?singlePage=true

Liberia is making some progress in containing the Ebola outbreak while Sierra Leone is "in a crisis situation which is going to get worse," the top anti-Ebola officials in the two countries said.

...

But there are some signs of hope. Although the outbreak is now hitting areas in and around Sierra Leone's capital, areas of the country's east have seen the disease wane.

...

In neighboring Liberia, the rate of Ebola infections appears to be declining, perhaps by as much by 25 percent week over week, the World Health Organization said Wednesday.

Tolbert Nyenswah, the assistant minister of health who leads the Liberian government's Ebola response, cautioned that does not mean that the international response can let up. There remains a risk that the gains could be reversed even as there has been a decrease in the number of patients seeking Ebola treatment, the number of bodies collected and the number of lab-confirmed cases.

"These indicators are showing that there's good progress being made in terms of the trend, but a very slow progress, and so we cannot celebrate right now," he said late Wednesday.

"We need to re-galvanize our efforts, accelerate the interventions, remain vigilant," added Nyenswah.