Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we must ask the question...should we detain all healthcare worker? I say yes.

That is an excellent way to allow this epidemic to spread even further.

The way to control it is to control it in Africa. The way to control it in Africa is to send medical workers over to help. And the way to send medical workers is not to treat them like criminals.

The courts will not uphold these quarantines. The case law goes back many decades. the science just won't support it. This is all being driven by hysteria.

Your post makes no sense. Asking people to keep out of public and self-monitor for three weeks is hardly treating them like criminals. And certainly allowing potentiall infected people in from affected countries on visas is playing with fire

So again, who are you willing to risk?

Its not a risk. I would have a returning health care worker who had no symptoms over for dinner. No question.

When did we become a country of whiney scaredy cats?

And that would be your choice. Now justify for me why you ridicule others who have the freedom to make their own choices.

In addition, can you pinpoint for me, the exact time symptoms would start and when someone is contageous?

People are contagious when they have symptoms. We have DECADES of research on Ebola to support that. The first symptom to appear is fever. When a person has a fever of 100 F, they need to go to the hospital. They should be treated as contagious at that point, although their contagiousness is not high until later in the illness.

Yet they have not done so. There has been airplane travel and subway travel. So can you pinpoint the exact moment of contagion? If not, why should the rights of the nurse (in this case) trump the rights of the public?

Who has traveled on the subway or the airplane with a fever? Not Amber Hinson, she was carefully self monitoring and was under 100 F when she flew. As soon as she got a temp reading that was above that level she went to the hospital. Same thing with the doctor, he was carefully monitoring himself and followed protocol, calling for someone to take him to the hospital as soon as his temp rose. He was 100.3 when he arrived at the hospital.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we must ask the question...should we detain all healthcare worker? I say yes.

That is an excellent way to allow this epidemic to spread even further.

The way to control it is to control it in Africa. The way to control it in Africa is to send medical workers over to help. And the way to send medical workers is not to treat them like criminals.

The courts will not uphold these quarantines. The case law goes back many decades. the science just won't support it. This is all being driven by hysteria.

Your post makes no sense. Asking people to keep out of public and self-monitor for three weeks is hardly treating them like criminals. And certainly allowing potentiall infected people in from affected countries on visas is playing with fire

So again, who are you willing to risk?

Its not a risk. I would have a returning health care worker who had no symptoms over for dinner. No question.

When did we become a country of whiney scaredy cats?

And that would be your choice. Now justify for me why you ridicule others who have the freedom to make their own choices.

In addition, can you pinpoint for me, the exact time symptoms would start and when someone is contageous?

People are contagious when they have symptoms. We have DECADES of research on Ebola to support that. The first symptom to appear is fever. When a person has a fever of 100 F, they need to go to the hospital. They should be treated as contagious at that point, although their contagiousness is not high until later in the illness.

Yet they have not done so. There has been airplane travel and subway travel. So can you pinpoint the exact moment of contagion? If not, why should the rights of the nurse (in this case) trump the rights of the public?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we must ask the question...should we detain all healthcare worker? I say yes.

That is an excellent way to allow this epidemic to spread even further.

The way to control it is to control it in Africa. The way to control it in Africa is to send medical workers over to help. And the way to send medical workers is not to treat them like criminals.

The courts will not uphold these quarantines. The case law goes back many decades. the science just won't support it. This is all being driven by hysteria.

Your post makes no sense. Asking people to keep out of public and self-monitor for three weeks is hardly treating them like criminals. And certainly allowing potentiall infected people in from affected countries on visas is playing with fire

So again, who are you willing to risk?

Its not a risk. I would have a returning health care worker who had no symptoms over for dinner. No question.

When did we become a country of whiney scaredy cats?

And that would be your choice. Now justify for me why you ridicule others who have the freedom to make their own choices.

In addition, can you pinpoint for me, the exact time symptoms would start and when someone is contageous?

Fever seems to be the first symptom. But people are only marginally contagious at that point. Its as they get sicker and are spewing fluids that they become highly infectious. The sicker they are, the more infectious they are. In fact, the folks in the US who have had Ebola all got it from a patient who died (presumably that was true of the doctors returning from abroad). At the point when patients are highly contagious, they aren't walking around outside.

And this is why its misleading to compare it to other illnesses like smallpox. The level of contagiousness for Ebola is conditional on the level of illness. This is, for example, very different from HIV which people could transmit for years before becoming sick.

You are absolutely free to make your own choices. But you cannot impose your choice on others and restrict their freedom when the science just isn't there.

I continue to believe that one or several of you got some kind of charge from the fear of Ebola and as the facts continue to undermine that fear -- as patients in the US get well and as it turns out they transmitted it to no one outside of the hospital -- you can't let it go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we must ask the question...should we detain all healthcare worker? I say yes.

That is an excellent way to allow this epidemic to spread even further.

The way to control it is to control it in Africa. The way to control it in Africa is to send medical workers over to help. And the way to send medical workers is not to treat them like criminals.

The courts will not uphold these quarantines. The case law goes back many decades. the science just won't support it. This is all being driven by hysteria.

Your post makes no sense. Asking people to keep out of public and self-monitor for three weeks is hardly treating them like criminals. And certainly allowing potentiall infected people in from affected countries on visas is playing with fire

So again, who are you willing to risk?

Its not a risk. I would have a returning health care worker who had no symptoms over for dinner. No question.

When did we become a country of whiney scaredy cats?

And that would be your choice. Now justify for me why you ridicule others who have the freedom to make their own choices.

In addition, can you pinpoint for me, the exact time symptoms would start and when someone is contageous?

People are contagious when they have symptoms. We have DECADES of research on Ebola to support that. The first symptom to appear is fever. When a person has a fever of 100 F, they need to go to the hospital. They should be treated as contagious at that point, although their contagiousness is not high until later in the illness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wtf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/cdc-ebola_n_6078072.html

First of all, Huff Post has posted quite a few articles claiming vaccines cause autism. So take anything you read there with a grain of salt.

Second, the point is that Ebola is NOT airborne. This whole think about droplets would mislead the public. NO ONE has contracted Ebola from a sneeze.

If Ebola is in saliva, what do you think a sneeze is made of?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wtf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/cdc-ebola_n_6078072.html

First of all, Huff Post has posted quite a few articles claiming vaccines cause autism. So take anything you read there with a grain of salt.

Second, the point is that Ebola is NOT airborne. This whole think about droplets would mislead the public. NO ONE has contracted Ebola from a sneeze.

They took it out because ebola is a wet disease and indeed, the virus is transmitted through these bodily fluids. Which is why the protocol is so stringent

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we must ask the question...should we detain all healthcare worker? I say yes.

That is an excellent way to allow this epidemic to spread even further.

The way to control it is to control it in Africa. The way to control it in Africa is to send medical workers over to help. And the way to send medical workers is not to treat them like criminals.

The courts will not uphold these quarantines. The case law goes back many decades. the science just won't support it. This is all being driven by hysteria.

Your post makes no sense. Asking people to keep out of public and self-monitor for three weeks is hardly treating them like criminals. And certainly allowing potentiall infected people in from affected countries on visas is playing with fire

So again, who are you willing to risk?

Its not a risk. I would have a returning health care worker who had no symptoms over for dinner. No question.

When did we become a country of whiney scaredy cats?

And that would be your choice. Now justify for me why you ridicule others who have the freedom to make their own choices.

In addition, can you pinpoint for me, the exact time symptoms would start and when someone is contageous?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wtf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/cdc-ebola_n_6078072.html

First of all, Huff Post has posted quite a few articles claiming vaccines cause autism. So take anything you read there with a grain of salt.

Second, the point is that Ebola is NOT airborne. This whole think about droplets would mislead the public. NO ONE has contracted Ebola from a sneeze.

NP. Not disputing the premise, but think it's quite ballsy to say NO ONE. No one we know of, maybe? In the spirit of fairness? For a change?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wtf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/cdc-ebola_n_6078072.html

First of all, Huff Post has posted quite a few articles claiming vaccines cause autism. So take anything you read there with a grain of salt.

Second, the point is that Ebola is NOT airborne. This whole think about droplets would mislead the public. NO ONE has contracted Ebola from a sneeze.

True, probably not as infectious as the flu so no sneeze or such.

But according to CDC, it seems that Ebola is at least as easy to spread as smallpox.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/overview/disease-facts.asp

And smallpox was a global scourge, according to the NIH, before we had a vaccine.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/smallpox/sp_threat.html

How is ebola any less scary? If we had a smallpox out break in the US, there would be panic in the streets. And we have a vaccine for that.

Oh wait, true, smallpox only has a 30% fatality rate, so it is different. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/overview/disease-facts.asp

Anonymous wrote:Wtf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/cdc-ebola_n_6078072.html

First of all, Huff Post has posted quite a few articles claiming vaccines cause autism. So take anything you read there with a grain of salt.

Second, the point is that Ebola is NOT airborne. This whole think about droplets would mislead the public. NO ONE has contracted Ebola from a sneeze.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we must ask the question...should we detain all healthcare worker? I say yes.

That is an excellent way to allow this epidemic to spread even further.

The way to control it is to control it in Africa. The way to control it in Africa is to send medical workers over to help. And the way to send medical workers is not to treat them like criminals.

The courts will not uphold these quarantines. The case law goes back many decades. the science just won't support it. This is all being driven by hysteria.

Your post makes no sense. Asking people to keep out of public and self-monitor for three weeks is hardly treating them like criminals. And certainly allowing potentiall infected people in from affected countries on visas is playing with fire

So again, who are you willing to risk?

Its not a risk. I would have a returning health care worker who had no symptoms over for dinner. No question.

When did we become a country of whiney scaredy cats?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wtf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/cdc-ebola_n_6078072.html

amazing

If their intent was to prevent panic... hell I just don't know what's going on anymore.

They realized what they posted was not true. And they would be liable.

Conservative media has been saying this for two weekes - and were snarked at.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we must ask the question...should we detain all healthcare worker? I say yes.

That is an excellent way to allow this epidemic to spread even further.

The way to control it is to control it in Africa. The way to control it in Africa is to send medical workers over to help. And the way to send medical workers is not to treat them like criminals.

The courts will not uphold these quarantines. The case law goes back many decades. the science just won't support it. This is all being driven by hysteria.

Your post makes no sense. Asking people to keep out of public and self-monitor for three weeks is hardly treating them like criminals. And certainly allowing potentiall infected people in from affected countries on visas is playing with fire

So again, who are you willing to risk?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wtf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/cdc-ebola_n_6078072.html

amazing

If their intent was to prevent panic... hell I just don't know what's going on anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wtf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/cdc-ebola_n_6078072.html

amazing

If their intent was to prevent panic... hell I just don't know what's going on anymore.