Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

Slightly changing the topic, did Spencer get sicker than the 2 nurses, or does it just seem that way? He seems to be finally improving but it seemed very serious for awhile...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Slightly changing the topic, did Spencer get sicker than the 2 nurses, or does it just seem that way? He seems to be finally improving but it seemed very serious for awhile...

There was more of a blackout about his care, it seems. He may have been exposed more seriously. I also have a theory that the experimental drug he got, brincidofovir, may do more harm than good because one of its side effects seems to be major GI upset. The nurses didn't get it.

[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

You know, if he, personally, locked the borders tonight, you tea bagger nut jobs would be squawking that he fancied himself emperor of the US.

Still waiting for the Ebola hordes here. And still feeling terrible for all the people actually in danger of getting it in Africa.

[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?

I think we've been saying throughout that you have every right to avoid this woman. Stay home. I'm guessing no one will miss you. As for the constitution, all it says on the subject has to do with depriving people of liberty (which includes forbidding you from leaving their homes) without just cause and due process.

So we are in agreement, it seems. Non-symptomatic people who have cared for Ebola patients have the same freedom everyone else has to go about as they please (and as they have been doing) and you have the right to avoid them. As if anyone said you MUST eat with them.

[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

You know, if he, personally, locked the borders tonight, you tea bagger nut jobs would be squawking that he fancied himself emperor of the US.

Still waiting for the Ebola hordes here. And still feeling terrible for all the people actually in danger of getting it in Africa.

When you make statements like this, it proves progressivism is not based on logic, it's based on feelings

[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?

I think we've been saying throughout that you have every right to avoid this woman. Stay home. I'm guessing no one will miss you. As for the constitution, all it says on the subject has to do with depriving people of liberty (which includes forbidding you from leaving their homes) without just cause and due process.

So we are in agreement, it seems. Non-symptomatic people who have cared for Ebola patients have the same freedom everyone else has to go about as they please (and as they have been doing) and you have the right to avoid them. As if anyone said you MUST eat with them.

What are the chances Hickox would not make a stink if the local restaurant refused her entry? Pretty high. And that's the problem people have with her. She doesn't seem to understand that others have rights as well

[Anonymous]

Has she tried to go to a restaurant? I thought she was laying pretty low after the bike ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She will not start hemorrhaging at the grocery store before she gets a fever. You're concern that she will be out and about when her viral load is high enough to infect those around her is unreasonable. Casual contact is not how ebola is spread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slightly changing the topic, did Spencer get sicker than the 2 nurses, or does it just seem that way? He seems to be finally improving but it seemed very serious for awhile...

There was more of a blackout about his care, it seems. He may have been exposed more seriously. I also have a theory that the experimental drug he got, brincidofovir, may do more harm than good because one of its side effects seems to be major GI upset. The nurses didn't get it.

Every patient has a right to privacy. He may have not wanted to share that information. I can't believe that so much information has been shared about Duncan and other patients.

[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

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.

I haven't responded to this hypothetical because it's counter-factual. Hickox has SPECIFICALLY stated that she is not seeking public accommodations. You are having a hissy fit about a hypothetical.

[Anonymous]

Returning health care workers and people treating patients with Ebola in the US have been going to restaurants for months and no one has contracted the disease. I would have no problem with it, though Hickox is not doing that.

This whole thing will seem ridiculous one day, because it already does.

[Anonymous]

Can we stay on topic please?!??!

Any news on Spencer? And when is Ms. Hickox's 21 days over?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we stay on topic please?!??!

Any news on Spencer? And when is Ms. Hickox's 21 days over?

Just checking in here... are we still freaked out about Ebola? Isn't this old news by now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issues is that we absolutely do not have definitive evidence or science on transmission. There have been no controlled studies on humans (because it would be incredibly unethical). There have been only a few animal studies and they have not been replicated to ensure reliability and validity. Kaci Hickox is right that we don't have evidence to state that she is infectious right now. However, what she fails to comprehend is that we also don't have definitive evidence to state that she is NOT infectious.

On another note, her room-mate from her time in Africa has just been diagnosed with Ebola. That person also has no idea how he/she got infected while caring for patients.

That's quite 'another note'. Thank you for posting this. SHickox just got bitch-slapped by karma

One of the most childish, nastiest posts I've read on DCUM in a long time and that says a lot. Offensive on so many levels.

Oh, and once you call people "dumb ass" you've lost the argument.

+1

Being glad that a nurse got Ebola, because you don't like her ROOMMATE, is crazy. Just nucking futz.

Glad and karma proving Hickox's reassurance might not be so reassuring is not the same thing

She knows she is at risk. She is treating Ebola patients. What she ALSO knows is that YOU and the general public are not at risk until and less she becomes symptomatic.

What if this is like when "women don't get AIDS but HIV"? It took them a long time to figure that one out because they weren't seeing full blown AIDS cases in women for some time.

This is the largest Ebola outbreak ever and we can't accurately predict how the virus will react and if there will be any changes to it at all. We can speculate all we want and scientists can make their best educated guesses but no one knows for sure. Is it really too much to ask that people in high risk categories isolate themselves from the general public? A bike ride or other outdoor activity isn't really an issue but she should limit her interactions with others during the incubation period and not make a fuss about it. Especially since her former roommate has ebola and doesn't know how she got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we stay on topic please?!??!

Any news on Spencer? And when is Ms. Hickox's 21 days over?

His condition has been upgraded to Stable in the last couple of days. Her end date is 11/12.