Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone with the disease can't control when the symptoms hit. That's the issue for a lot of folk

Can't hold these people legally. That's a fact. They are selfish as hell though, and I hope they are seen that way by the public.

Lying is beyond the pale

No that's not a fact. Legally, you CAN hold these people. Whether you should is a medical and policy question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have been studying this:
The viral load from Ebola varies significantly at different stages of the disease. At first, it is relatively low. then towards the end, when the patient is emitting fluids it rises up into the billions --far far more than other diseases. So that is why health care workers are so much more at risk.

Therefore, would you shake hands (you have NO cuts on your hands) with someone who has ebola and at this point, isn't feeling too well-- fatigued and a temperature of 100? When do we need them off the street? When do docs need to get on the hazmat suits?

The healthcare workers that saw Duncan during his first ER visit did not get ebola. The EMS workers who transported Duncan to the hospital were not infected, but they weren't wearing hazmat suits. When the virus replication has gone way out of control and is pouring out of someone's body (blood, vomit, diarhhea), the people around them are at high risk.

Anonymous wrote:Someone with the disease can't control when the symptoms hit. That's the issue for a lot of folk

Can't hold these people legally. That's a fact. They are selfish as hell though, and I hope they are seen that way by the public.

Lying is beyond the pale

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have been studying this:
The viral load from Ebola varies significantly at different stages of the disease. At first, it is relatively low. then towards the end, when the patient is emitting fluids it rises up into the billions --far far more than other diseases. So that is why health care workers are so much more at risk.

Therefore, would you shake hands (you have NO cuts on your hands) with someone who has ebola and at this point, isn't feeling too well-- fatigued and a temperature of 100? When do we need them off the street? When do docs need to get on the hazmat suits?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, then there is the inconsistent messages being sent by this administration regarding WHO should be quarantined.

They don’t believe doctors and nurses coming from Ebola-ravaged areas should be quarantined, but our soldiers who are there for humanitarian reasons who supposedly do not come in contact with Ebola patients will be quarantined. And, their explanation for why this is the case - because soldiers do not have the choice to go. WTF does that mean? How does one’s choice or lack thereof to go to W. Africa impact this decision?

The problem I see is the total inconsistency in the messages and policies we are seeing here. People just don’t know what to believe.

Im interested in what this "21-day supervised isolation" is. Hagel calls it "controlled monitoring". Im not so sure it will be a full quarantine or he would have called it that.

It seems like “politi-speak” to me. Didn’t want to call it a quarantine because that would have been inconsistent with administration policy. So, they give “quarantine” a new name.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, then there is the inconsistent messages being sent by this administration regarding WHO should be quarantined.

They don’t believe doctors and nurses coming from Ebola-ravaged areas should be quarantined, but our soldiers who are there for humanitarian reasons who supposedly do not come in contact with Ebola patients will be quarantined. And, their explanation for why this is the case - because soldiers do not have the choice to go. WTF does that mean? How does one’s choice or lack thereof to go to W. Africa impact this decision?

The problem I see is the total inconsistency in the messages and policies we are seeing here. People just don’t know what to believe.

Im interested in what this "21-day supervised isolation" is. Hagel calls it "controlled monitoring". Im not so sure it will be a full quarantine or he would have called it that.

Anonymous wrote:And, then there is the inconsistent messages being sent by this administration regarding WHO should be quarantined.

They don’t believe doctors and nurses coming from Ebola-ravaged areas should be quarantined, but our soldiers who are there for humanitarian reasons who supposedly do not come in contact with Ebola patients will be quarantined. And, their explanation for why this is the case - because soldiers do not have the choice to go. WTF does that mean? How does one’s choice or lack thereof to go to W. Africa impact this decision?

The problem I see is the total inconsistency in the messages and policies we are seeing here. People just don’t know what to believe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a minute and think about what happened with the others who were NOT quarantined (or were voluntarily quarantined but did not abide by the quarantine), yet traveled around before being diagnosed with Ebola. The nurse in Texas who traveled on an airplane, went wedding dress shopping, and other places.... then, the doctor in NY who went bowling, rode in a cab, and went other places.....
They may not have been contagious, and the risk to others may have been minimal or nonexistent. However, the ramifications of their non-quarantine cannot be ignored. The cost to the businesses, not only in disinfecting, but in lost merchandise and lost customers... the cost of doing the contact tracing.... the alarm caused to others, etc.
Perhaps all of this was not necessary, but are we willing to take the chance NOT to take these precautions?
I don’t believe that a simple 21-day quarantine is asking too much.

Screw the cost to businesses. If you don't protect the rights of nurses, there won't be any willing to do the job.

The nurse who traveled to Indiana checked in with the CDC before she did so. They told her to travel, even with a 99.5 fever. She was responsible. All of the other healthcare providers have also been responsible for monitoring their symptoms and status. So far they have demonstrated responsibility across the entire health care field.

The panic, demands for quarantine, etc. are the result of your ignorance and fear. There is no scientific reason to do it. We shouldn't be depriving people of their rights just because you are having a panic attack and peeing your pants.

Once upon a time, in the 1980s, my school district put a kid with HIV in a trailer, with a lone teacher, because they were afraid of HIV. The kid had to eat alone. He couldn't play with other kids. It was cruel.

Your demands that asymptomatic healthcare professionals be placed in quarantine are equally stupid and cruel. If you insist on quarantining nurses, then no nurses will care for Ebola patients. They will walk off the job. If you have an actual outbreak here, you and your family are going to be screwed, because no one is going to be willing to take care of you.

Anonymous wrote:And, then there is the inconsistent messages being sent by this administration regarding WHO should be quarantined.

They don’t believe doctors and nurses coming from Ebola-ravaged areas should be quarantined, but our soldiers who are there for humanitarian reasons who supposedly do not come in contact with Ebola patients will be quarantined. And, their explanation for why this is the case - because soldiers do not have the choice to go. WTF does that mean? How does one’s choice or lack thereof to go to W. Africa impact this decision?

The problem I see is the total inconsistency in the messages and policies we are seeing here. People just don’t know what to believe.

Anonymous wrote:We have been studying this:
The viral load from Ebola varies significantly at different stages of the disease. At first, it is relatively low. then towards the end, when the patient is emitting fluids it rises up into the billions --far far more than other diseases. So that is why health care workers are so much more at risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the NYC doc lied. They found out his subway activities by looking at his subway card records. Great humanitarian, that one

He may have noticed the media meltdown everytime a black person barfs and decided to keep it to himself since the risk is basically nil.

So he lied. Whatever his motive, the takeaway from this is that we can't necessarily expect even MSF doctors to do the prudent thing-- which is quarantine. He knew he shouldn't have taken public transport. He knew there was a risk. "Basically nil" does not equal zero risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quarantine is not recommended. What he did was prudent.

BS. His actions caused panic and expense. He could have stayed home.

Has any media asked Hickox why she is so adamant? Her first complaints were that the tent was cold and she couldn't charge her phone. So the compromise is, she finishes quarantine at home in Maine. Residents of the town want her out-- they made a FB page about this. WHY is at-home not good enough? Why the me, me, me? Something is off about her.