Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am noticing is the PP defending Hickox not willing to answer whether or not others have a right to be free from her. Reason being, that's not what Hickox and her defenders are truly after. what they want is to deliver a message and to call others names. Again the activism is most important to them. Typical

Quarantine yourselves. Your fears are irrational. You don't have the right to limit the civil liberties of healthcare professionals because of your irrational fears. If you are so freaking afraid, lock yourselves in your houses, see no one, and get your groceries delivered.

Your last sentence describes the day to day lives of many people in NYC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am noticing is the PP defending Hickox not willing to answer whether or not others have a right to be free from her. Reason being, that's not what Hickox and her defenders are truly after. what they want is to deliver a message and to call others names. Again the activism is most important to them. Typical

We do not lock people up in this country because we have some kind of mythical right to be free from them. There is no such right. Government does have the ability to quarantine people in very, very limited circumstances. This one does not meet the legal requirements. If you want to be free from her, avoid her, but our constitution and our laws do not create rights to be free from people we are afraid of. You keep bringing up this mythical right. It doesn't exist. What is a right is to be free from being locked up, unless a very limited set of circumstances exists.

There are at least dozens of people walking around our country, probably more, who have treated people with Ebola, here and in Africa, and they haven't been quarantined, self or otherwise. You are not free from them. You are not free from the guy with the flu who goes to work even though he is more of a danger to you. You are not free from the kids who go to school with your kids with colds.

Once upon a time, people wanted to put people with HIV in camps.

In their homes, for three weeks, with pay? Or for an undetermined time in a camp. Failed analogy.

[Anonymous]

Ha-ha, not being able to bowl is a major loss of liberty? You Americans crack me up LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am noticing is the PP defending Hickox not willing to answer whether or not others have a right to be free from her. Reason being, that's not what Hickox and her defenders are truly after. what they want is to deliver a message and to call others names. Again the activism is most important to them. Typical

We do not lock people up in this country because we have some kind of mythical right to be free from them. There is no such right. Government does have the ability to quarantine people in very, very limited circumstances. This one does not meet the legal requirements. If you want to be free from her, avoid her, but our constitution and our laws do not create rights to be free from people we are afraid of. You keep bringing up this mythical right. It doesn't exist. What is a right is to be free from being locked up, unless a very limited set of circumstances exists.

There are at least dozens of people walking around our country, probably more, who have treated people with Ebola, here and in Africa, and they haven't been quarantined, self or otherwise. You are not free from them. You are not free from the guy with the flu who goes to work even though he is more of a danger to you. You are not free from the kids who go to school with your kids with colds.

You reaaly do have no clue about the individual liberties afforded to each citizen. Pick up a Constitution and do some reading. I am not speaking of locking Hickox up. I am simply stating that she has the freedom to move about if not infectious and others have the freedom to avoid her. Unless you plan to force people to dine with her? If so, how will you do that. Gunpoint?

If someone comes into my place of business with the flu, I can absolutely choose to walk away from said person. I can choose to keep my child away from an infectious person. Again, under what method will you choose to keep me or anyone else from walking away?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am noticing is the PP defending Hickox not willing to answer whether or not others have a right to be free from her. Reason being, that's not what Hickox and her defenders are truly after. what they want is to deliver a message and to call others names. Again the activism is most important to them. Typical

Quarantine yourselves. Your fears are irrational. You don't have the right to limit the civil liberties of healthcare professionals because of your irrational fears. If you are so freaking afraid, lock yourselves in your houses, see no one, and get your groceries delivered.

Your last sentence describes the day to day lives of many people in NYC.

If the 'fearful' individual chooses to keep away from a potentially infectious person, that's fine. But what Hickox (and you) are doing, is stating that those who choose to stay away from potentially infectious people are (pick your insult or slur). Same tactic used regarding homosexuality. You feel those who choose not to embrace homosexuality the way you do as (choose you insult or slur). Not terribly tolerant at all.

The fact that some of you don't understand the concept of INDIVIDUAL liberty and choice, one of the basic founding principles of this country, is astounding at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And I have the right not to trust her to make that decision for me. Agreed?

I agree 100%. You have the right to quarantine yourself in your own home, or take an extended holiday in Australia, OT to buy a hazmat suit and wear it to the grocery store. You don't have the right to lock someone up because of your irrational fears.

Do I have the right to not allow her in my place of business until her 21 days has passed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only place I see coverage of the nurse's roommate is on far-right wing websites. These are the folks trying to blame Obama for Ebola and twisting every little fact. Its one of those Fox News memes that they whip up people within their bubble. This is about politics, not health.

Obama didn't cause ebola. He did make the choice to allow it on our shores. That's simply fact

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I see coverage of the nurse's roommate is on far-right wing websites. These are the folks trying to blame Obama for Ebola and twisting every little fact. Its one of those Fox News memes that they whip up people within their bubble. This is about politics, not health.

Obama didn't cause ebola. He did make the choice to allow it on our shores. That's simply fact

Well, no he didn't. It arrived, apparently, from an individual who was visiting the U.S. from Liberia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am noticing is the PP defending Hickox not willing to answer whether or not others have a right to be free from her. Reason being, that's not what Hickox and her defenders are truly after. what they want is to deliver a message and to call others names. Again the activism is most important to them. Typical

We do not lock people up in this country because we have some kind of mythical right to be free from them. There is no such right. Government does have the ability to quarantine people in very, very limited circumstances. This one does not meet the legal requirements. If you want to be free from her, avoid her, but our constitution and our laws do not create rights to be free from people we are afraid of. You keep bringing up this mythical right. It doesn't exist. What is a right is to be free from being locked up, unless a very limited set of circumstances exists.

There are at least dozens of people walking around our country, probably more, who have treated people with Ebola, here and in Africa, and they haven't been quarantined, self or otherwise. You are not free from them. You are not free from the guy with the flu who goes to work even though he is more of a danger to you. You are not free from the kids who go to school with your kids with colds.

You reaaly do have no clue about the individual liberties afforded to each citizen. Pick up a Constitution and do some reading. I am not speaking of locking Hickox up. I am simply stating that she has the freedom to move about if not infectious and others have the freedom to avoid her. Unless you plan to force people to dine with her? If so, how will you do that. Gunpoint?

If someone comes into my place of business with the flu, I can absolutely choose to walk away from said person. I can choose to keep my child away from an infectious person. Again, under what method will you choose to keep me or anyone else from walking away?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am noticing is the PP defending Hickox not willing to answer whether or not others have a right to be free from her. Reason being, that's not what Hickox and her defenders are truly after. what they want is to deliver a message and to call others names. Again the activism is most important to them. Typical

We do not lock people up in this country because we have some kind of mythical right to be free from them. There is no such right. Government does have the ability to quarantine people in very, very limited circumstances. This one does not meet the legal requirements. If you want to be free from her, avoid her, but our constitution and our laws do not create rights to be free from people we are afraid of. You keep bringing up this mythical right. It doesn't exist. What is a right is to be free from being locked up, unless a very limited set of circumstances exists.

There are at least dozens of people walking around our country, probably more, who have treated people with Ebola, here and in Africa, and they haven't been quarantined, self or otherwise. You are not free from them. You are not free from the guy with the flu who goes to work even though he is more of a danger to you. You are not free from the kids who go to school with your kids with colds.

You reaaly do have no clue about the individual liberties afforded to each citizen. Pick up a Constitution and do some reading. I am not speaking of locking Hickox up. I am simply stating that she has the freedom to move about if not infectious and others have the freedom to avoid her. Unless you plan to force people to dine with her? If so, how will you do that. Gunpoint?

If someone comes into my place of business with the flu, I can absolutely choose to walk away from said person. I can choose to keep my child away from an infectious person. Again, under what method will you choose to keep me or anyone else from walking away?

That's the law, sweetie. Sorry you don't like it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I see coverage of the nurse's roommate is on far-right wing websites. These are the folks trying to blame Obama for Ebola and twisting every little fact. Its one of those Fox News memes that they whip up people within their bubble. This is about politics, not health.

Obama didn't cause ebola. He did make the choice to allow it on our shores. That's simply fact

Well, no he didn't. It arrived, apparently, from an individual who was visiting the U.S. from Liberia.

Because he was allowed to fly here from a country with an epidemic. He didn't create hos own visa. Pen and a phone....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am noticing is the PP defending Hickox not willing to answer whether or not others have a right to be free from her. Reason being, that's not what Hickox and her defenders are truly after. what they want is to deliver a message and to call others names. Again the activism is most important to them. Typical

We do not lock people up in this country because we have some kind of mythical right to be free from them. There is no such right. Government does have the ability to quarantine people in very, very limited circumstances. This one does not meet the legal requirements. If you want to be free from her, avoid her, but our constitution and our laws do not create rights to be free from people we are afraid of. You keep bringing up this mythical right. It doesn't exist. What is a right is to be free from being locked up, unless a very limited set of circumstances exists.

There are at least dozens of people walking around our country, probably more, who have treated people with Ebola, here and in Africa, and they haven't been quarantined, self or otherwise. You are not free from them. You are not free from the guy with the flu who goes to work even though he is more of a danger to you. You are not free from the kids who go to school with your kids with colds.

It's a house arrest.
Dramatic, much? Home quarantine is not being "locked up," and voluntary home quarantine remains the CDC protocol for "high risk" exposure. Spencer's fiance and two friends are currently on home quarantine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am noticing is the PP defending Hickox not willing to answer whether or not others have a right to be free from her. Reason being, that's not what Hickox and her defenders are truly after. what they want is to deliver a message and to call others names. Again the activism is most important to them. Typical

Quarantine yourselves. Your fears are irrational. You don't have the right to limit the civil liberties of healthcare professionals because of your irrational fears. If you are so freaking afraid, lock yourselves in your houses, see no one, and get your groceries delivered.

Your last sentence describes the day to day lives of many people in NYC.

If the 'fearful' individual chooses to keep away from a potentially infectious person, that's fine. But what Hickox (and you) are doing, is stating that those who choose to stay away from potentially infectious people are (pick your insult or slur). Same tactic used regarding homosexuality. You feel those who choose not to embrace homosexuality the way you do as (choose you insult or slur). Not terribly tolerant at all.

The fact that some of you don't understand the concept of INDIVIDUAL liberty and choice, one of the basic founding principles of this country, is astounding at best.

I don't see any insults or slurs in the quoted posts. Saying it's an irrational fear is not an insult. It's irrational because there's no scientific evidence to back it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not at all concerned about Ebola transmission here in the US, except for sporadic cases that should quickly be contained. The fatality rate here for this infected has also been very low.

The situation in Sierra Leone on the other hand, is horrifying. And worse than has been thought.

http://news.yahoo.com/leone-ebola-outbreak-catastrophic-aid-group-msf-223833151.html

Barcelona (AFP) - Ebola has wiped out whole villages in Sierra Leone and may have caused many more deaths than the nearly 5,000 official global toll, a senior coordinator of the medical aid group MSF said Friday.

Rony Zachariah of Doctors Without Borders, known by its French initials MSF, said after visiting Sierra Leone that the Ebola figures were "under-reported", in an interview with AFP on the sidelines of a medical conference in Barcelona.

"The situation is catastrophic. There are several villages and communities that have been basically wiped out. In one of the villages I went to, there were 40 inhabitants and 39 died," he said.

(snip)

He stressed that "whole communities have disappeared but many of them are not in the statistics. The situation on the ground is actually much worse."

No one knows how many people in these small communities have been killed. They are not going to hospital care because there is no care, and they are not getting counted.

This is compelling. Is it in larger cities yet, or just in rural villages?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am noticing is the PP defending Hickox not willing to answer whether or not others have a right to be free from her. Reason being, that's not what Hickox and her defenders are truly after. what they want is to deliver a message and to call others names. Again the activism is most important to them. Typical

Quarantine yourselves. Your fears are irrational. You don't have the right to limit the civil liberties of healthcare professionals because of your irrational fears. If you are so freaking afraid, lock yourselves in your houses, see no one, and get your groceries delivered.

Your last sentence describes the day to day lives of many people in NYC.

If the 'fearful' individual chooses to keep away from a potentially infectious person, that's fine. But what Hickox (and you) are doing, is stating that those who choose to stay away from potentially infectious people are (pick your insult or slur). Same tactic used regarding homosexuality. You feel those who choose not to embrace homosexuality the way you do as (choose you insult or slur). Not terribly tolerant at all.

The fact that some of you don't understand the concept of INDIVIDUAL liberty and choice, one of the basic founding principles of this country, is astounding at best.

I don't see any insults or slurs in the quoted posts. Saying it's an irrational fear is not an insult. It's irrational because there's no scientific evidence to back it up.

Hickox is not sick now and therefore not contageous. Can you tell me, using science, that she won't get sick? Can you tell me, using science, that if she does get sick, that based on her behavior, she will self-report before she is contagious? Can you tell me, using science, when she is contagious, and how contagious? Keep in mind that 'when symptomatic' is not science. Science means the point where the viral load is great enough to pass the virus along. Can you assure me, using science, when that is?

Give me the scientific evidence, medically. When you can assure me that every person with ebola will always self-report before they are contagious, you will have made your point.