Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She's riding a bicycle - not licking handrails on a metro. Let's be rational.
The quarantine is optional - so she's not defying anything.
It would be more effective if the quarantine restricted her from going to large public gathering places where tracking people would be difficult if not impossible - like a movie theater. But bicycling? Geez.

Of course she chose to ride her bike. She's the town pariah. She knows if she shows up in public, they'll go batshit. But what's the harm in an innocent bike ride? She even wore her helmet. Totally. Orchestrated.

Or maybe she just wanted to get out of the house and enjoy a beautiful fall day after spending the last couple of months in a hazmat suit in equatorial Africa, followed by a few days in tent in New Jersey.

Or maybe she was on the Today show two days ago, threatening to break her quarantine on Thursday. Heroes don't threaten the public, period. She gave up her hero status to focus on being an activist brat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well this has made some strange bedfellows of us all, because I'm part of the general public and have never voted R, I, Tea Party in my life, and I want a travel ban.

+1. Life long Democrat, loathe FOX et al, and think a travel ban or at least a quarantine is reasonable. The reasons presented against these measures is specious - there's no reason why healthcare workers can't be granted access to and from the US as long as they maintain some distance from the general public for 21 days. I certainly don't want to be tended to by a nurse or doctor who returned from Sierra Leone five days ago. Supposedly medical workers are "self monitoring" but given the hubris demonstrated by Hickox and others I'm not convinced that actually means anything.

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well this has made some strange bedfellows of us all, because I'm part of the general public and have never voted R, I, Tea Party in my life, and I want a travel ban.

+1. Life long Democrat, loathe FOX et al, and think a travel ban or at least a quarantine is reasonable. The reasons presented against these measures is specious - there's no reason why healthcare workers can't be granted access to and from the US as long as they maintain some distance from the general public for 21 days. I certainly don't want to be tended to by a nurse or doctor who returned from Sierra Leone five days ago. Supposedly medical workers are "self monitoring" but given the hubris demonstrated by Hickox and others I'm not convinced that actually means anything.

Whew! I thought I was the only one with all the cognitive dissonance. In my circles, nobody is saying peep about Ebola except my crazy relatives on FB, and I was starting to wonder WTH I was doing agreeing with them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She's riding a bicycle - not licking handrails on a metro. Let's be rational.
The quarantine is optional - so she's not defying anything.
It would be more effective if the quarantine restricted her from going to large public gathering places where tracking people would be difficult if not impossible - like a movie theater. But bicycling? Geez.

Of course she chose to ride her bike. She's the town pariah. She knows if she shows up in public, they'll go batshit. But what's the harm in an innocent bike ride? She even wore her helmet. Totally. Orchestrated.

Or maybe she just wanted to get out of the house and enjoy a beautiful fall day after spending the last couple of months in a hazmat suit in equatorial Africa, followed by a few days in tent in New Jersey.

Or maybe she was on the Today show two days ago, threatening to break her quarantine on Thursday. Heroes don't threaten the public, period. She gave up her hero status to focus on being an activist brat.

How was she "threatening the public" by riding her bicycle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well this has made some strange bedfellows of us all, because I'm part of the general public and have never voted R, I, Tea Party in my life, and I want a travel ban.

+1. Life long Democrat, loathe FOX et al, and think a travel ban or at least a quarantine is reasonable. The reasons presented against these measures is specious - there's no reason why healthcare workers can't be granted access to and from the US as long as they maintain some distance from the general public for 21 days. I certainly don't want to be tended to by a nurse or doctor who returned from Sierra Leone five days ago. Supposedly medical workers are "self monitoring" but given the hubris demonstrated by Hickox and others I'm not convinced that actually means anything.

+2

+3

[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.

Really? Do you actually "believe she will contract" Ebola? Based on what? The vast majority of health care workers who have treated people with this disease while using protective gear have not contracted it. So while there may be reason to believe that there's a small possibility that she'll contract the disease, it's not "highly rational" to believe that she WILL, only that she might.

As far as your "much more deadly than HIV statement, let's compare. I'm going to use 2012 statistics for HIV since the 2013 statistics aren't available yet, and since using statistics since the beginning of the epidemic wouldn't be a fair comparison since medication has changed.


HIV diagnoses worldwide in 2012 HIV related deaths in 2012 % Ebola diagnoses worldwide (this epidemic) Ebola deaths (this epidemic) %
2.3 million 1.6 million 70% 10,141 4922 49%

Ebola also has a lower death rate in the US, and a lower R factor which is a measure of how contagious the virus is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

HIV is not spread through vomit. HIV is not spread through contact with blood outside of the human body. Full body precautions are not taken with HIV because HIV is not spread in the same way that Ebola is spread. Please do not go on the internet and post that HIV is spread through vomit. In the 1980's people died because of misinformation like that. People continue to die from misinformation like that, so please stop spreading it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She's riding a bicycle - not licking handrails on a metro. Let's be rational.
The quarantine is optional - so she's not defying anything.
It would be more effective if the quarantine restricted her from going to large public gathering places where tracking people would be difficult if not impossible - like a movie theater. But bicycling? Geez.

Of course she chose to ride her bike. She's the town pariah. She knows if she shows up in public, they'll go batshit. But what's the harm in an innocent bike ride? She even wore her helmet. Totally. Orchestrated.

Or maybe she just wanted to get out of the house and enjoy a beautiful fall day after spending the last couple of months in a hazmat suit in equatorial Africa, followed by a few days in tent in New Jersey.

Or maybe she was on the Today show two days ago, threatening to break her quarantine on Thursday. Heroes don't threaten the public, period. She gave up her hero status to focus on being an activist brat.

How was she "threatening the public" by riding her bicycle?

She's sending the message, perhaps purposefully, that public safety is not as important as her own agenda. She's trying to set precedent with an innocent and healthy action. If she were a selfless nurse, she would understand why the public is concerned and would agree to three weeks paid staycation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She's riding a bicycle - not licking handrails on a metro. Let's be rational.
The quarantine is optional - so she's not defying anything.
It would be more effective if the quarantine restricted her from going to large public gathering places where tracking people would be difficult if not impossible - like a movie theater. But bicycling? Geez.

Of course she chose to ride her bike. She's the town pariah. She knows if she shows up in public, they'll go batshit. But what's the harm in an innocent bike ride? She even wore her helmet. Totally. Orchestrated.

Or maybe she just wanted to get out of the house and enjoy a beautiful fall day after spending the last couple of months in a hazmat suit in equatorial Africa, followed by a few days in tent in New Jersey.

Or maybe she was on the Today show two days ago, threatening to break her quarantine on Thursday. Heroes don't threaten the public, period. She gave up her hero status to focus on being an activist brat.

It's terrible to say but I wish she'd get ebola just to prove her wrong. She's being an arrogant bitch and she really can't say for certain she doesn't have it until the incubation period is over, regardless of her testing negative for it at this juncture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well this has made some strange bedfellows of us all, because I'm part of the general public and have never voted R, I, Tea Party in my life, and I want a travel ban.

+1. Life long Democrat, loathe FOX et al, and think a travel ban or at least a quarantine is reasonable. The reasons presented against these measures is specious - there's no reason why healthcare workers can't be granted access to and from the US as long as they maintain some distance from the general public for 21 days. I certainly don't want to be tended to by a nurse or doctor who returned from Sierra Leone five days ago. Supposedly medical workers are "self monitoring" but given the hubris demonstrated by Hickox and others I'm not convinced that actually means anything.

Another pro travel ban democrat here. I've heard polls ranging from upper 50's - 70% of Americans in favor of a travel ban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well this has made some strange bedfellows of us all, because I'm part of the general public and have never voted R, I, Tea Party in my life, and I want a travel ban.

+1. Life long Democrat, loathe FOX et al, and think a travel ban or at least a quarantine is reasonable. The reasons presented against these measures is specious - there's no reason why healthcare workers can't be granted access to and from the US as long as they maintain some distance from the general public for 21 days. I certainly don't want to be tended to by a nurse or doctor who returned from Sierra Leone five days ago. Supposedly medical workers are "self monitoring" but given the hubris demonstrated by Hickox and others I'm not convinced that actually means anything.

+2

+3

Bump. Have been feeling the same way. DH said last night that in the absence of a MoveOn campaign, we just don't know when we should start being concerned nor even what our own opinion is when we disagree with the party line.

[Anonymous]

I cannot stand this woman. Her flaunting and showboating it totally obnoxious. My 3 yo is more rational and mature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's insane not to have a travel ban. Why on earth is the returning military being quarantined and others not? It is incoherent and weird. Do our leaders even understand their own illogic?

Because the military have to follow orders. Very simple. And the quarantine isn't being imposed by Congress or the President. It's an internal DoD policy. Just like they require everyone to be vaccinated.

So the Obama run DOD sees it as a threat but Obama doesn't ? Yeah that's comforting .

[Anonymous]

Trophy generation brat angry she came home to a quarantine instead of a trophy.

[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.

Really? Do you actually "believe she will contract" Ebola? Based on what? The vast majority of health care workers who have treated people with this disease while using protective gear have not contracted it. So while there may be reason to believe that there's a small possibility that she'll contract the disease, it's not "highly rational" to believe that she WILL, only that she might.

As far as your "much more deadly than HIV statement, let's compare. I'm going to use 2012 statistics for HIV since the 2013 statistics aren't available yet, and since using statistics since the beginning of the epidemic wouldn't be a fair comparison since medication has changed.


HIV diagnoses worldwide in 2012 HIV related deaths in 2012 % Ebola diagnoses worldwide (this epidemic) Ebola deaths (this epidemic) %
2.3 million 1.6 million 70% 10,141 4922 49%

Ebola also has a lower death rate in the US, and a lower R factor which is a measure of how contagious the virus is.

Sorry, I mis-typed. You're right, I don't think it's rational to think she will contract Ebola for sure. What IS rational is to believe she is at higher risk for contracting Ebola. I don't know what the exact stats are, but it seems like the percentage of health care workers getting Ebola is significant. Significant enough to make a quarantine withstand legal challenge.

And it's much different from HIV for the people who contract it. Easier to get, and more fatal, more rapidly. HIV now is not even fatal. A person with HIV does not pose any risk to the general public at all.