Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

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

Me too and a disgrace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

She is less contagious that a lot of people with HIV spreading it around. The judges need to read biology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thanks for the explanation. This story says she has tested virus free twice. She just returned to the U.S. on October 24.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ebola-nurse-kaci-hickox-bicycle-ride/story?id=26569596

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She is less contagious that a lot of people with HIV spreading it around. The judges need to read biology.

Totally different case. There is a highly rational reason to believe that she will contract a highly contagious (MUCH more contagious than HIV, and much more deadly) disease during the quarantine period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Me too and a disgrace.

She's going to regret this when she has trouble finding work and a significant other if she doesn't already have one. This whole thing will turn into one giant red flag waving in the wind over her head for the rest of her life.

[Anonymous]

Under Maine law: " If, based upon clear and convincing evidence, the court finds that a public health threat exists, the court shall issue the requested order for treatment or such other order as may direct the least restrictive measures necessary to effectively protect the public health."

In other words, Maine would be stupid to go to court because no judge is going to order a quarantine. And this is why Christie let her go - he's a good enough lawyer to know he'd lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She is less contagious that a lot of people with HIV spreading it around. The judges need to read biology.

Totally different case. There is a highly rational reason to believe that she will contract a highly contagious (MUCH more contagious than HIV, and much more deadly) disease during the quarantine period.

Not so, it is unlikely that she contracted it. Even if she develops ebola, right now she is not contagious.
HIV was 99% fatal before treatment. There were people running around intentionally infecting people and we did not quarantine. All they had to say was "whoops, I did not know I had it, gosh!"
Ebola is not as lethal, so far in the US, only 1 person has died from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Under Maine law: " If, based upon clear and convincing evidence, the court finds that a public health threat exists, the court shall issue the requested order for treatment or such other order as may direct the least restrictive measures necessary to effectively protect the public health."

In other words, Maine would be stupid to go to court because no judge is going to order a quarantine. And this is why Christie let her go - he's a good enough lawyer to know he'd lose.

Exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Under Maine law: " If, based upon clear and convincing evidence, the court finds that a public health threat exists, the court shall issue the requested order for treatment or such other order as may direct the least restrictive measures necessary to effectively protect the public health."

In other words, Maine would be stupid to go to court because no judge is going to order a quarantine. And this is why Christie let her go - he's a good enough lawyer to know he'd lose.

Nope, sorry. Any judge is going to defer heavily to the health dept on what constitutes "clear and convincing evidence" of a threat. There's nothing in this law that requires an actual, current infection. The significant probability of infection, combined with the severity of the disease, is enough to support quarantine. Especially in a case such as this where the nurse has made clear public statements that she intends to defy ANY public health measures whatsoever. In this particular case, her conduct warrants even more restrictive measures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under Maine law: " If, based upon clear and convincing evidence, the court finds that a public health threat exists, the court shall issue the requested order for treatment or such other order as may direct the least restrictive measures necessary to effectively protect the public health."

In other words, Maine would be stupid to go to court because no judge is going to order a quarantine. And this is why Christie let her go - he's a good enough lawyer to know he'd lose.

Exactly

Nah, he passed the hot potato to Maine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Under Maine law: " If, based upon clear and convincing evidence, the court finds that a public health threat exists, the court shall issue the requested order for treatment or such other order as may direct the least restrictive measures necessary to effectively protect the public health."

In other words, Maine would be stupid to go to court because no judge is going to order a quarantine. And this is why Christie let her go - he's a good enough lawyer to know he'd lose.

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/22/title22sec802.html

Extreme Public Health Emergency. Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 § 820

Authority. In the event of an actual or threatened epidemic or outbreak of a communicable or occupational disease, the department may declare that a health emergency exists and may adopt emergency rules for the protection of the

public's health relating to procedures for the isolation and placement of infected persons for purposes of care and treatment or infection persons which shall be subject to the supervision and regulations of the department.

Penalties. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:6
Penalties. Any person, who neglects, violates or refuses to obey the rules or who willfully obstructs or hinders the execution of the rules, may be ordered by the department, in writing, to cease and desist. In the case of any person who refuses to obey a cease and desist order issued to enforce the rules adopted pursuant to section 802, the department may bring an action in District Court to obtain an injunction enforcing the cease and desist order or to request a civil fine not to exceed $500, or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She is less contagious that a lot of people with HIV spreading it around. The judges need to read biology.

Totally different case. There is a highly rational reason to believe that she will contract a highly contagious (MUCH more contagious than HIV, and much more deadly) disease during the quarantine period.

Not so, it is unlikely that she contracted it. Even if she develops ebola, right now she is not contagious.
HIV was 99% fatal before treatment. There were people running around intentionally infecting people and we did not quarantine. All they had to say was "whoops, I did not know I had it, gosh!"
Ebola is not as lethal, so far in the US, only 1 person has died from it.

It is unlikely that she contracted it, yes I can agree with that. But letting her do as she pleases sets bad precedent and eventually you will see another HCW return to the US carrying infection. The statistics are on her side as an individual HCW. The statistics will not be on our side if we don't in some way monitor people returning from hot zones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under Maine law: " If, based upon clear and convincing evidence, the court finds that a public health threat exists, the court shall issue the requested order for treatment or such other order as may direct the least restrictive measures necessary to effectively protect the public health."

In other words, Maine would be stupid to go to court because no judge is going to order a quarantine. And this is why Christie let her go - he's a good enough lawyer to know he'd lose.

Nope, sorry. Any judge is going to defer heavily to the health dept on what constitutes "clear and convincing evidence" of a threat. There's nothing in this law that requires an actual, current infection. The significant probability of infection, combined with the severity of the disease, is enough to support quarantine. Especially in a case such as this where the nurse has made clear public statements that she intends to defy ANY public health measures whatsoever. In this particular case, her conduct warrants even more restrictive measures.

The judge is NOT going to defer to the health department. Please don't speak about how the court system works, if you don't have any knowledge or experience. The health department has the burden of proof. Both sides are going to put up experts to testify on how this woman affects public health. It's not going to be based on how scared y'all are or preventing panic. It's going to be based on how much risk she poses for infecting others. It's also going to be based on whether a less intrusive method (ie. self-monitoring of temperature) can be used. Since that method has been used to good effect so far and since no HCW has caused an infection, the clear and convincing evidence is that quarantines of asymptomatic HCWs is really, really stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under Maine law: " If, based upon clear and convincing evidence, the court finds that a public health threat exists, the court shall issue the requested order for treatment or such other order as may direct the least restrictive measures necessary to effectively protect the public health."

In other words, Maine would be stupid to go to court because no judge is going to order a quarantine. And this is why Christie let her go - he's a good enough lawyer to know he'd lose.

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/22/title22sec802.html

Extreme Public Health Emergency. Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 § 820

Authority. In the event of an actual or threatened epidemic or outbreak of a communicable or occupational disease, the department may declare that a health emergency exists and may adopt emergency rules for the protection of the

public's health relating to procedures for the isolation and placement of infected persons for purposes of care and treatment or infection persons which shall be subject to the supervision and regulations of the department.

Penalties. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:6
Penalties. Any person, who neglects, violates or refuses to obey the rules or who willfully obstructs or hinders the execution of the rules, may be ordered by the department, in writing, to cease and desist. In the case of any person who refuses to obey a cease and desist order issued to enforce the rules adopted pursuant to section 802, the department may bring an action in District Court to obtain an injunction enforcing the cease and desist order or to request a civil fine not to exceed $500, or both.

When you have no cases in the state and <10 cases ever in the U.S., it's hardly an "Extreme Public Health Emergency".
Apparently, Maine is going to court to get an order that the nurse be given a blood test - even though she's already had 2 negative blood tests. The governor, in a close reelection race, appears to be trying to save face.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/talks-ebola-nurse-kaci-hickox-fail-governor-full/story?id=26569596

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is why conservatives and FOX News wants a travel ban, not the general public. The general public doesn't piss its pants quite as quickly as conservatives do.