Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

So you think the health care workers taking care of the guy at Bellevue, and the ones at Emory and NIH and in Nebraska should all be quarantined for 21 days?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

So you think the health care workers taking care of the guy at Bellevue, and the ones at Emory and NIH and in Nebraska should all be quarantined for 21 days?

No because the transmission rate in U.S. hospitals is multiple times less than the transmission rate in ebola wards in Africa -- they did limit the travel of dallas healthcare workers once both nurses got sick (including trying to get that one lab worker off the boat). Much easier to not breach protocol when you have one patient as opposed to 20.

[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.

Ebola has a lower death rate when it has been caught early in the U.S. but really the sample size is too small to make any judgments of this type. All we need is one healthcare worker to get it and not seek immediate treatment, and the people they spread it to may not even know they are at risk.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Ebola has a lower death rate when it has been caught early in the U.S. but really the sample size is too small to make any judgments of this type. All we need is one healthcare worker to get it and not seek immediate treatment, and the people they spread it to may not even know they are at risk.

Well, for starters, don't go near anyone who is sick and sweating profusely or bleeding from their orifices, and don't touch any dead bodies. Then you won't catch Ebola in the United States.

Seriously, I don't think you realize how very, very sick people are when they are infectious. They are in extreme pain. Infectious people are not partying at a football game and unwittingly exposing others.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Ebola has a lower death rate when it has been caught early in the U.S. but really the sample size is too small to make any judgments of this type. All we need is one healthcare worker to get it and not seek immediate treatment, and the people they spread it to may not even know they are at risk.

Well, for starters, don't go near anyone who is sick and sweating profusely or bleeding from their orifices, and don't touch any dead bodies. Then you won't catch Ebola in the United States.

Seriously, I don't think you realize how very, very sick people are when they are infectious. They are in extreme pain. Infectious people are not partying at a football game and unwittingly exposing others.

I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about. All it takes is one symptomatic person to go to work and leave a mess in the bathroom that others unwittingly come into contact with.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Ebola has a lower death rate when it has been caught early in the U.S. but really the sample size is too small to make any judgments of this type. All we need is one healthcare worker to get it and not seek immediate treatment, and the people they spread it to may not even know they are at risk.

Well, for starters, don't go near anyone who is sick and sweating profusely or bleeding from their orifices, and don't touch any dead bodies. Then you won't catch Ebola in the United States.

Seriously, I don't think you realize how very, very sick people are when they are infectious. They are in extreme pain. Infectious people are not partying at a football game and unwittingly exposing others.

I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about. All it takes is one symptomatic person to go to work and leave a mess in the bathroom that others unwittingly come into contact with.

Obviously not. The aSpanish nurse and the two American nurses traveled , possibly while symptomatic. Nobody has caught in from them.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Ebola has a lower death rate when it has been caught early in the U.S. but really the sample size is too small to make any judgments of this type. All we need is one healthcare worker to get it and not seek immediate treatment, and the people they spread it to may not even know they are at risk.

Well, for starters, don't go near anyone who is sick and sweating profusely or bleeding from their orifices, and don't touch any dead bodies. Then you won't catch Ebola in the United States.

Seriously, I don't think you realize how very, very sick people are when they are infectious. They are in extreme pain. Infectious people are not partying at a football game and unwittingly exposing others.

I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about. All it takes is one symptomatic person to go to work and leave a mess in the bathroom that others unwittingly come into contact with.

No, I do know what I am talking about. This is part of my job, actually. An Ebola-infected person isn't going to MAKE it to work. They are going to feel shitty and start running a fever, and then because this is the US, they will know if they had any exposure to West Africa or Ebola, like Spencer, and call 911 and get to the hospital. You are not going to unwittingly run into Ebola in your work bathroom or even in a hospital bathroom. It's just not going to happen.

[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

Sorry. I take it back. I should know that many people in my party are freakin' idiots.

[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.

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.

Ebola has a lower death rate when it has been caught early in the U.S. but really the sample size is too small to make any judgments of this type. All we need is one healthcare worker to get it and not seek immediate treatment, and the people they spread it to may not even know they are at risk.

Well, for starters, don't go near anyone who is sick and sweating profusely or bleeding from their orifices, and don't touch any dead bodies. Then you won't catch Ebola in the United States.

Seriously, I don't think you realize how very, very sick people are when they are infectious. They are in extreme pain. Infectious people are not partying at a football game and unwittingly exposing others.

I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about. All it takes is one symptomatic person to go to work and leave a mess in the bathroom that others unwittingly come into contact with.

No, I do know what I am talking about. This is part of my job, actually. An Ebola-infected person isn't going to MAKE it to work. They are going to feel shitty and start running a fever, and then because this is the US, they will know if they had any exposure to West Africa or Ebola, like Spencer, and call 911 and get to the hospital. You are not going to unwittingly run into Ebola in your work bathroom or even in a hospital bathroom. It's just not going to happen.

Right, because people are never in denial and sick people never go to work. If you're the person making policy, we are in trouble.

[Anonymous]

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

She was risking her life caring for the dying in Africa. She came home to be treated like a criminal. I'd be pretty pissed if I were her.

If she were symptomatic, I would agree with you all. She isn't symptomatic, however, and until and unless she is, she poses 0% public health risk. The amount of ignorance and hysteria on this thread is astonishing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

She was risking her life caring for the dying in Africa. She came home to be treated like a criminal. I'd be pretty pissed if I were her.

If she were symptomatic, I would agree with you all. She isn't symptomatic, however, and until and unless she is, she poses 0% public health risk. The amount of ignorance and hysteria on this thread is astonishing.

+1

[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.

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.

Ebola has a lower death rate when it has been caught early in the U.S. but really the sample size is too small to make any judgments of this type. All we need is one healthcare worker to get it and not seek immediate treatment, and the people they spread it to may not even know they are at risk.

Well, for starters, don't go near anyone who is sick and sweating profusely or bleeding from their orifices, and don't touch any dead bodies. Then you won't catch Ebola in the United States.

Seriously, I don't think you realize how very, very sick people are when they are infectious. They are in extreme pain. Infectious people are not partying at a football game and unwittingly exposing others.

I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about. All it takes is one symptomatic person to go to work and leave a mess in the bathroom that others unwittingly come into contact with.

No, I do know what I am talking about. This is part of my job, actually. An Ebola-infected person isn't going to MAKE it to work. They are going to feel shitty and start running a fever, and then because this is the US, they will know if they had any exposure to West Africa or Ebola, like Spencer, and call 911 and get to the hospital. You are not going to unwittingly run into Ebola in your work bathroom or even in a hospital bathroom. It's just not going to happen.

Right, because people are never in denial and sick people never go to work. If you're the person making policy, we are in trouble.

Not PP, but your ignorance is showing. The point at which people are especially contagious is at the end of the infection. They aren't going to work at that point. They are MUCH too sick.

Prior to that, they aren't that dangerous. Duncan lived with his family and none of them got sick. People have flown with Ebola and no one on the plane caught it.

Patients infect healthcare workers. Healthcare workers don't infect other people.

[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.

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.

I wish YOU would get Ebola and then have healthcare workers refuse to treat you. You're being an ignorant, hysterical bitch who is imposing house arrest on a nurse who poses 0 danger to public health because you are pissing your pants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

She was risking her life caring for the dying in Africa. She came home to be treated like a criminal. I'd be pretty pissed if I were her.

If she were symptomatic, I would agree with you all. She isn't symptomatic, however, and until and unless she is, she poses 0% public health risk. The amount of ignorance and hysteria on this thread is astonishing.

+1

+2

[Anonymous]

I'd like to hear more from returning workers who are abiding by quarantines just because they thing it's the right thing to do.