UTA grad isolated at New Jersey hospital as part of Ebola quarantine

j-mac said:

That matters not to him...One person is meaningless in his mind. Get back to him when millions here are infected, then he can blame it on the republicans for not persisting...Or maybe he'll just say we deserve it.

Click to expand...

Liberals can't comprehend the general welfare part of The Constitution.

apdst said:

Liberals can't comprehend the general welfare part of The Constitution.

Click to expand...

I don't think the general welfare clause requires public officials to put healthcare workers under 21 day house arrest for no known purpose.

JasperL said:

But the workers aren't doing "nothing." They are self monitoring and presenting themselves for care when they get symptoms. That strategy has worked PERFECTLY so far.

Click to expand...

You mean like that doctor in NYC? That worked perfect, huh?

JasperL said:

I don't think the general welfare clause requires public officials to put healthcare workers under 21 day house arrest for no known purpose.

Click to expand...

Too bad Eric Duncan wasn't quarantined.

apdst said:

You mean like that doctor in NYC? That worked perfect, huh?

Click to expand...

So far it has. He monitored himself and when symptoms presented, checked himself in for treatment. No one else infected. How could a quarantine have worked better?

apdst said:

Too bad Eric Duncan wasn't quarantined.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't have helped. He only spread Ebola to nurses treating him in the hospital.

His family, living under the same roof, did not get sick.

JasperL said:

Wouldn't have helped. He only spread Ebola to nurses treating him in the hospital.

His family, living under the same roof, did not get sick.

Click to expand...

It's crystal clear that Duncan spread Ebola to the two healthcare workers in Dallas prior to testing positive and being placed in isolation.

He walked into the hospital on Thursday, September 25, was cared for by staff, during which time he had projectile vomiting, and they sent him away without testing him for Ebola, in what has been recognized as a major error in procedure.

Then he was taken by ambulance into that hospital on Sunday, September 28, and was again left open in the ER being attended by people not yet in Ebola protective gear .. and was then tested for Ebola .. and after the positive result was returned and the hospital, unprepared, scrambled to create an isolation ward, it was only then that protective gear was donned and Spencer was placed in isolation.

In the five cases where people were flown in with the disease and received already in isolation with caregivers wearing Ebola protective gear from the onset, hundreds of caregivers cared for these five patients, very high risk, and zero of them have Ebola.

More than 76 healthcare workers reportedly cared for Duncan once he was isolated, wearing the same standard Ebola protective gear, and none of them contracted Ebola so far.

Clearly the two healthcare workers in the Dallas hospital, as logic would dictate, contracted Ebola from Duncan on the two days he was at their hospital before he was isolated and before they were wearing protective gear.

Thus it is also logical to conclude that if Duncan had been quarantined from the get-go, then the moment he showed symptoms those treating him would then have donned Ebola protective gear, and thus the two nurses would not have been infected.

Pure, flawless, logic.

Quarantine of high-risk people is historically the best thing to do with respect to other innocent unsuspecting people, and it remains the right and effective thing to do today.

That his family didn't get sick means, as has been reported, they stayed away from him, and neither gave him direct care or used his towels, etc.

This is good information, in that, unless you're a caregiver, if you stay away from the person and stay away from materials they've touched, you're pretty safe.

JasperL said:

So far it has. He monitored himself and when symptoms presented, checked himself in for treatment. No one else infected. How could a quarantine have worked better?

Click to expand...

Logically, you simply do not know that "no one else was infected".

He was out in the public during the 24-hour period prior to experiencing definite symptoms, where some medical health professionals say he could be contagious.

It takes 2-42 days from infection to experience definite symptoms.

So it's too soon to state that Dr. Spencer didn't infect anyone else.

Quarantine of Dr. Spencer definitely would have prevented exposure of others to him during that 24-hour window prior to experiencing definite symptoms.

Thus now, because he was not quarantined, his fiancee is in understandably in isolation quarantine because he had contact with her, as are a number of others with whom he had direct contact being monitored.

Those who are just being monitored and not quarantined, if they have truly been infected, then when their 24-hour period prior to experiencing definite symptoms occurs, they may be out and about, where they could infect others.

Quarantine remains the right thing to do, for so many reasons.

Ontologuy said:

It's crystal clear that Duncan spread Ebola to the two healthcare workers in Dallas prior to testing positive and being placed in isolation.

He walked into the hospital on Thursday, September 25, was cared for by staff, during which time he had projectile vomiting, and they sent him away without testing him for Ebola, in what has been recognized as a major error in procedure.

Then he was taken by ambulance into that hospital on Sunday, September 28, and was again left open in the ER being attended by people not yet in Ebola protective gear .. and was then tested for Ebola .. and after the positive result was returned and the hospital, unprepared, scrambled to create an isolation ward, it was only then that protective gear was donned and Spencer was placed in isolation.

In the five cases where people were flown in with the disease and received already in isolation with caregivers wearing Ebola protective gear from the onset, hundreds of caregivers cared for these five patients, very high risk, and zero of them have Ebola.

More than 76 healthcare workers reportedly cared for Duncan once he was isolated, wearing the same standard Ebola protective gear, and none of them contracted Ebola so far.

Clearly the two healthcare workers in the Dallas hospital, as logic would dictate, contracted Ebola from Duncan on the two days he was at their hospital before he was isolated and before they were wearing protective gear.

Thus it is also logical to conclude that if Duncan had been quarantined from the get-go, then the moment he showed symptoms those treating him would then have donned Ebola protective gear, and thus the two nurses would not have been infected.

Pure, flawless, logic.

Quarantine of high-risk people is historically the best thing to do with respect to other innocent unsuspecting people, and it remains the right and effective thing to do today.

That his family didn't get sick means, as has been reported, they stayed away from him, and neither gave him direct care or used his towels, etc.

This is good information, in that, unless you're a caregiver, if you stay away from the person and stay away from materials they've touched, you're pretty safe.

Click to expand...

What you missed is that he told the hospital where he'd been and they ignored that and his symptoms. It's not a failure due to lack of quarantine - he did what he should have, which is checked himself into the hospital when symptoms presented. And even with the major error on the part of the hospital, no one other than healthcare workers got sick, so the risk to the general population is zero for all practical purposes.

Ontologuy said:

Logically, you simply do not know that "no one else was infected".

He was out in the public during the 24-hour period prior to experiencing definite symptoms, where some medical health professionals say he could be contagious.

It takes 2-42 days from infection to experience definite symptoms.

So it's too soon to state that Dr. Spencer didn't infect anyone else.

Quarantine of Dr. Spencer definitely would have prevented exposure of others to him during that 24-hour window prior to experiencing definite symptoms.

Thus now, because he was not quarantined, his fiancee is in understandably in isolation quarantine because he had contact with her, as are a number of others with whom he had direct contact being monitored.

Those who are just being monitored and not quarantined, if they have truly been infected, then when their 24-hour period prior to experiencing definite symptoms occurs, they may be out and about, where they could infect others.

Quarantine remains the right thing to do, for so many reasons.

Click to expand...

You're right, I don't know that, which is why I said in several other times I made the same point, "so far" or the equivalent. But you're still left with the fact that no one outside care givers has been infected. Even in Africa, with terrible systems in place to identify and isolate those sick, the rate of spread is low, only 1-2.

Maybe in 2 weeks I'll be proved wrong and the Dr. infected bystanders, but it's an extreme step to require anyone going to Ebola to spend an additional 21 days (or 42 days!) under at least house arrest helping no one, when the evidence so far shows the risk of them to the general population is zero. It's a huge deterrent to those inclined to help out in Africa where a lot of help is needed (and where outside assistance will be needed for a very long time to come), a huge waste of their talents while sitting in isolation, and a huge incentive to lie on their return, send them underground.

At the very least, we have to weight the expected benefit - which based on the evidence so far is zero - against the very real costs of the policies. Most favoring quarantine don't recognize ANY downside at all, when clearly that downside is significant.

I'll just say that the benefit may be entirely psychological, to prevent irrational panic, and that may be enough to justify the measures. But that's entirely different than believing they're necessary based on the science, because the science and evidence to date indicates such measures are overkill, with significant costs not offset with any measurable benefits beyond appeasing the fearful.

JasperL said:

What you missed is that he told the hospital where he'd been and they ignored that and his symptoms. It's not a failure due to lack of quarantine - he did what he should have, which is checked himself into the hospital when symptoms presented. And even with the major error on the part of the hospital, no one other than healthcare workers got sick, so the risk to the general population is zero for all practical purposes.

Click to expand...

Your phrase "what you missed..." is obviously false.

I clearly presented the hospital's major error in procedure.

The quarantine would have required that he call ahead when symptoms developed and that, from the onset, he would have not only been treated for Ebola, avoiding the delay that cost him his life, but no healthcare workers would have been infected, logic concludes.

Your statement "... which is checked himself into the hospital ..." is precisely what hospitals want to avoid now: walk-in Ebola patients "checking themselves in" to the ER to be treated by unsuspecting ER personnel prior to an Ebola diagnosis, contaminating them. Hospitals want anyone high-risk, like Duncan, suspected of having Ebola to call in first, to be then taken in by ambulance to a quarantine care unit of workers already in Ebola protective garb.

Your premise that no other healthcare workers got sick after they donned protective gear simply does not logically lead to your conclusion that the risk to the general population is zero for the hedged "all practical purposes". :roll:

The general population isn't wearing Ebola protective gear.

That two workers who cared for Duncan prior to wearing protective gear contracted Ebola from him highlights that the general public is indeed at risk if they have direct contact with an Ebola patient and provide care, since the general public does not wear hospital protective gear.

Poor enclaves in America are thus at greatest risk from this.

fmw said:

A medical professional should understand the purpose of a 21 day quarantine for people returning from infected countries. She'll survive.

Click to expand...

She'll survive, but I doubt that she will go back to Africa and help again after three weeks of being pent up.

Fenton said:

Yep, she's selfish. She should understand the need for the quarantine and keep her trap shut.

The self isolation of Health care workers doesn't work.

If she wants to complain about her treatment she should direct her comments to the Nurse in Dallas and the Dr in New York.

They're the examples that forced the Government's hand to force quarantine all of these idiots.

Click to expand...

Where do you get off calling those that care for the sick and the dying, idiots? That's going to send you south some day.

JasperL said:

You're right, I don't know that, which is why I said in several other times I made the same point, "so far" or the equivalent. But you're still left with the fact that no one outside care givers has been infected. Even in Africa, with terrible systems in place to identify and isolate those sick, the rate of spread is low, only 1-2.

Click to expand...

The rate of spread of Ebola has always been about that rate.

That's good news, as it's not yet airborne, it would appear, even if it can also apparently travel over three feet in droplets of moisture under the right conditions (see below).

But two parents caring for a sick child here in one of America's poor enclaves .. would be two more too many.

As is clear from reports, The four people in the apartment with Duncan steered clear of him and the things he touched at the onset of his symptoms. Still, they were lucky.

Anyone else he had contact with has been at risk, even if such contact was minimal in numbers, but only those closely caring for him, like the two nurses who contracted Ebola prior to knowing that's what he had, contracted it.

JasperL said:

Maybe in 2 weeks I'll be proved wrong and the Dr. infected bystanders, but it's an extreme step to require anyone going to Ebola to spend an additional 21 days (or 42 days!) under at least house arrest helping no one, when the evidence so far shows the risk of them to the general population is zero. It's a huge deterrent to those inclined to help out in Africa where a lot of help is needed (and where outside assistance will be needed for a very long time to come), a huge waste of their talents while sitting in isolation, and a huge incentive to lie on their return, send them underground.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying.

But, we must weigh both sides, not just the inconvenience of the quarantine to the high-risk people.

If it stops an epidemic in America, the quarantine is clearly worth it.

This is one of those situations where, if we enact these quarantines and nobody gets Ebola, then we have to believe we did the right thing.

We can't simulate this situation and test it out in some microcosm to see what would have happened if we hadn't enacted the quarantine.

Quarantines in America are all about preventing the spread of an epidemic to Americans and in America.

West Africa is viscerally far away, from an emotional aspect.

Those griping about quarantines would feel very different if an Ebola epidemic took root here.

Better extra-careful safe than deadly epidemic sorry.

JasperL said:

At the very least, we have to weight the expected benefit - which based on the evidence so far is zero - against the very real costs of the policies. Most favoring quarantine don't recognize ANY downside at all, when clearly that downside is significant.

Click to expand...

But that's the flaw in your analysis: the evidence is simply not zero.

The two nurses in Dallas who contracted Ebola from Duncan count in this equation.

If Dr. Spencer was roaming around freely in the populace and has contaminated someone when he was in the 24-hour period onset of symptoms during which time he is contagious, then he will have transmitted the disease to someone who, if they are poor and cannot afford hospital care, will be then cared for by his family at home once their incubation period is over and they're symptomatic .. and the epidemic begins.

Duncan's family members stayed away from him.

Spencer may not have stayed far enough away from someone during the onset of his symptoms (such as his fiancee who is, understandably, now in quarantine).

We can't allow that risk to start an epidemic.

That's flawless logic.

I really don't think anyone is ignoring the downside to those being quarantined you mentioned.

I believe they're simply accurately weighing both sides.

JasperL said:

I'll just say that the benefit may be entirely psychological, to prevent irrational panic, and that may be enough to justify the measures.

Click to expand...

Yes, being sensitive to the psyche of the great majority of Americans and their intelligent real concerns on the matter is huge. It can't be overemphasized.

For one thing, being thus sensitive will keep Wall Street from being spooked.

When the quarantines are implemented, people feel safer, and the stock market isn't therefore likely to plummet.

But just let one poor enclave epidemic take hold, and then people will stop going to work in the area, and people will stop going to work if they know a coworker lives in the infected area .. and the downward spiral will be catastrophic.

We simply can't allow any risk of such a situation to occur.

Quarantines go a long way to preventing that, not only for the very health and lives of our people, but for our economic survival as well.

JasperL said:

But that's entirely different than believing they're necessary based on the science, because the science and evidence to date indicates such measures are overkill, with significant costs not offset with any measurable benefits beyond appeasing the fearful.

Click to expand...

What science?

The science you quote, or the science I quote?

The science the CDC and Obama quote, or the science that WHO presents?

Clearly there are exceptions to whatever policy rule is being stated.

For example, WHO personnel are now saying that a 21-day quarantine covers only 95 percent of cases, that an additional 21 days of quarantine is necessary to catch them all.

Also, WHO personnel are now saying that some contaminations in West Africa can only be explained by the virus traveling beyond direct-contact distance in droplets of moisture in the air. That's how the cameraman contracted the disease, they say, as he simply wasn't that close in proximity to anyone infected.

Scientific tests have concluded that the virus can remain on objects for a few hours in the cold and in a form whereby they can be picked up and function as a contaminate.

Scientific tests have also concluded that if it's cold enough .. and winter is approaching .. the virus can remain on objects for more than a week.

Etc.

The American people read all of this .. presented from scientists .. and, also, they read all of this presented by political factions, whereby trust is compromised by agenda on both sides of the aisle.

d0gbreath said:

She'll survive, but I doubt that she will go back to Africa and help again after three weeks of being pent up.

Click to expand...

Probably true. I appreciate what she did in Africa but I don't appreciate her whining.

JasperL said:

Right, so she'd understand a quarantine of someone with no symptoms serves no useful purpose, especially a medical professional who is completely familiar with the risks and symptoms. And she'd understand the quarantine is a huge barrier for U.S. based volunteers and others to travel to Africa to help contain this disease.

Click to expand...

I'm sure she undertands all of those things.

Ontologuy said:

Your phrase "what you missed..." is obviously false.

I clearly presented the hospital's major error in procedure.

The quarantine would have required that he call ahead when symptoms developed and that, from the onset, he would have not only been treated for Ebola, avoiding the delay that cost him his life, but no healthcare workers would have been infected, logic concludes.

Your statement "... which is checked himself into the hospital ..." is precisely what hospitals want to avoid now: walk-in Ebola patients "checking themselves in" to the ER to be treated by unsuspecting ER personnel prior to an Ebola diagnosis, contaminating them. Hospitals want anyone high-risk, like Duncan, suspected of having Ebola to call in first, to be then taken in by ambulance to a quarantine care unit of workers already in Ebola protective garb.

Click to expand...

I didn't communicate my point very well, which is we don't need a quarantine to solve the problem of Duncan, or of the returning healthcare workers.

Second, as far as we now know, thousands of healthcare workers and others have returned to the U.S. with no quarantines in place and not a single member of the general public has gotten Ebola.

Your premise that no other healthcare workers got sick after they donned protective gear simply does not logically lead to your conclusion that the risk to the general population is zero for the hedged "all practical purposes". :roll:

The general population isn't wearing Ebola protective gear.

Click to expand...

First of all, I care about the fact that healthcare workers here, with the exception of the nurses in Texas, haven't gotten sick, but whether they have or not is not relevant to the quarantine question - if they get sick, those healthcare workers will take care of them whether they come in from their homes or enforced medical isolation in some room at the hospital.

And if we're going to measure known risk to the public, then there has to be a numerator greater than zero, and so far there is no one in the general public to place in that numerator. The calculated risk is ZERO over however many people have traveled back from Africa after being in close contact with Ebola patients. And that result is consistent with the research which indicates that Ebola spreads only with contact with actual bodily fluids, and the risk of spread rises exponentially with the severity of the disease - zero until someone has a fever, very low in its early stages to very high with even minimal contact with a person about to die, or who has died, of the disease.

That two workers who cared for Duncan prior to wearing protective gear contracted Ebola from him highlights that the general public is indeed at risk if they have direct contact with an Ebola patient and provide care, since the general public does not wear hospital protective gear.

Poor enclaves in America are thus at greatest risk from this.

Click to expand...

Maybe you think I don't believe in monitoring those returning. Of course that's a good idea. I'm fine with some several people from CDC spending their workday calling returning workers etc. and getting temp readings, asking a few questions about how they feel, etc. That's WAY different than required 42 day (I assume) forced quarantines for everyone who comes in close contact with a patient in Africa. The options are not "quarantine or nothing."

Ontologuy said:

I really don't think anyone is ignoring the downside to those being quarantined you mentioned.

I believe they're simply accurately weighing both sides.

Click to expand...

That was a long post and I've said most of what I can say without repeating, so I'll just address that.

I don't see any evidence people ARE weighing the downside.

How many people will be affected by the quarantine? How many U.S. based people are in Africa now and how many travel each week or month to Africa to provide assistance?
What is the loss in days of those people actually helping in Africa, where the help is most needed, to keep it isolated in Africa?
What is the expected effect on those who will be discouraged from volunteering or otherwise traveling to Africa? How many days of assistance lost?
What effect will that have on containing the Ebola epidemic in Africa, the front line of this outbreak?

The people making the quarantine decision, and related travel bans, have this information and I'm sure HAVE weighed it. I've never seen even a nod to these questions on these forums, unless it's to dismiss them, as you did.

d0gbreath said:

Where do you get off calling those that care for the sick and the dying, idiots? That's going to send you south some day.

Click to expand...

Lol !!

JasperL said:

That was a long post and I've said most of what I can say without repeating, so I'll just address that.

I don't see any evidence people ARE weighing the downside.

How many people will be affected by the quarantine? How many U.S. based people are in Africa now and how many travel each week or month to Africa to provide assistance?
What is the loss in days of those people actually helping in Africa, where the help is most needed, to keep it isolated in Africa?
What is the expected effect on those who will be discouraged from volunteering or otherwise traveling to Africa? How many days of assistance lost?
What effect will that have on containing the Ebola epidemic in Africa, the front line of this outbreak?

The people making the quarantine decision, and related travel bans, have this information and I'm sure HAVE weighed it. I've never seen even a nod to these questions on these forums, unless it's to dismiss them, as you did.

Click to expand...

I "dismiss" them, as you say, only after I've weighed both sides.

Clearly, and without question, we cannot have an infected person developing symptoms, as DR. Spencer did, roaming freely in the populace.

That potential for starting an epidemic far outweighs the inconvenience to the returning healthcare worker.

The irrational fear that people won't volunteer to intimately care for patients in West Africa because of a quarantine is simply that: irrational.

They will simply add on to their good deed doing a quarantine when they return, which they will do happily, because they truly care about not only the physical well-being of their fellow countrymen, but their psychological well-being as well.

The front line of Ebola work in West Africa is being performed by West Africans, not aliens.

What they truly need from us would be money for adequate facilities and protective garb.

We're sending soldiers to enforce quarantines, and guess what -- those soldiers are returning when they're done to do a quarantine themselves before mixing with the population again. That's the right thing to do.

But we can do more. We can provide greatly needed materials.

The epidemic would be stopped if every healthcare worker, whether professional or not, was properly attired.

Clearly that's the lesson learned here.

Ontologuy said:

That potential for starting an epidemic far outweighs the inconvenience to the returning healthcare worker.

Click to expand...

This was more than an inconvenience. It was, as she put it, a violation of her civil and basic human rights. She was taken from the Airport, tossed into a tent where she was detained against against her will, was not permitted direct access to a lawyer, and was not told what would happen to her or when she would be released. Not to mention the fact that the way the quarantine was run was a bad joke. If she hadn't insisted on keeping her cellphone she would probably still be there instead of laying the medical smack down on Christie until she was released.

JasperL said:

I didn't communicate my point very well, which is we don't need a quarantine to solve the problem of Duncan, or of the returning healthcare workers.

Click to expand...

Regardless of whether you communicated your point very well or not, the fact remains that we most certainly do need a quarantine to solve the problem of those like Duncan.

Quarantine keeps the rest of the populace physiologically and psychologically safe.

And, should he develop symptoms it isolates the viral load escaping to one easily cleaned area.

And, when he develops symptoms, the CDC comes and picks him up and takes him to the proper facility, and healthcare workers don't get contaminated as they would should he walk in to an ER.

JasperL said:

Second, as far as we now know, thousands of healthcare workers and others have returned to the U.S. with no quarantines in place and not a single member of the general public has gotten Ebola.

Click to expand...

Your phrase "... thousands of healthcare workers and others have returned to the U.S. ..." is simply a made up number.

You don't know how many people have returned.

Many have not returned, and the number of volunteers, you don't know that number either.

Quite a number have contracted Ebola there and too many have died. We do have stats for that.

The fact that these people have contracted Ebola there means that anyone returning here before a 42-day quarantine places the population at physiological and psychological risk.

Those healthcare workers returning before the job of stopping the epidemic is complete are likely those who believe they've been episodically contaminated and want the best care when they return.

Likely, that's been a very small handful, and of that very small handful, it turned out they didn't have the disease .. all but one, so far, that is: Dr. Spencer being the exception .. and we'll see about Nurse Hickox.

JasperL said:

First of all, I care about the fact that healthcare workers here, with the exception of the nurses in Texas, haven't gotten sick, but whether they have or not is not relevant to the quarantine question - if they get sick, those healthcare workers will take care of them whether they come in from their homes or enforced medical isolation in some room at the hospital.

Click to expand...

Meaningless.

What's important is that quarantine keeps healthcare workers safe from walk-in exposure, the kind of walk-in exposure that actually did cause the two healthcare workers in Dallas to become infected.

Quarantine prevents walk-ins, and it's the only procedure that does, as monitoring does not require the person to stay in one place and thus it simply does not protect the physiological and psychological health of the nation at large.

JasperL said:

And if we're going to measure known risk to the public, then there has to be a numerator greater than zero, and so far there is no one in the general public to place in that numerator. The calculated risk is ZERO over however many people have traveled back from Africa after being in close contact with Ebola patients. And that result is consistent with the research which indicates that Ebola spreads only with contact with actual bodily fluids, and the risk of spread rises exponentially with the severity of the disease - zero until someone has a fever, very low in its early stages to very high with even minimal contact with a person about to die, or who has died, of the disease.

Click to expand...

The cameraman who contracted Ebola in West Africa had no direct or close contact with those who were being cared for.

He could have only gotten the disease from someone with whom he came in closer contact with who was pre-symptomatic, who was in the last 24 hours prior to experiencing the onset of symptoms.

There is every evidence that body fluids containing virion can then spread via moisture droplets in the air.

Duncan, Spencer, and the two Texas nurses, that's only four, are the only people so far in America who are known to have roamed freely while incubating and during the last 24-hours prior to symptoms.

Duncan isolated himself in his apartment away from his other family members, and he took only one trip: to the hospital .. where he contaminated the two nurses.

The two Texas nurses, their 21-day quarantine of people they contacted is still ongoing.

For Spencer, his has just begun, and his fiancee, among others, is in understandable quarantine.

Let's give it more time .. and hope no one else comes down with Ebola from contact with these four.

In the meantime, we need to learn our lessons about keeping the American people physiologically and psychologically safe: implement quarantines of high-risk people.

Had that been done with Duncan, a number of people more would not now be at risk and enduring quarantines.

That the two nurses are among the "no one has yet died of the disease" is only because they had the ultimate in healthcare.

People in poor enclaves in America won't have access to the ultimate .. and, like Duncan, their mortality rate will be deadly high.

Better extra-careful quarantine safe than deadly poverty-area epidemic sorry.

JasperL said:

those returning. Of course that's a good idea. I'm fine with some several people from CDC spending their workday calling returning workers etc. and getting temp readings, asking a few questions about how they feel, etc. That's WAY different than required 42 day (I assume) forced quarantines for everyone who comes in close contact with a patient in Africa. The options are not "quarantine or nothing."

Click to expand...

The intelligent options are quarantine .. and that's all.

The psychological denial that one has Ebola and will thus not report accurate temperatures, or that they'll erroneously think they're not yet "that" symptomatic and will run that "last" errand or attend that important board meeting before they're "too sick to do anything else", arrogant doctors with zero bed-side manner thinking typically playing God thinking "it doesn't matter if I infect someone, we've got sufficient healthcare here in America to get them to recover" ..

.. No, monitoring requires way too much reliance on the very psyche that will deny they have such a dreaded disease, and in the case of doctors and nurses, denial that if others catch it from them it will be hell for those so suffering even if our super healthcare abilities make them well again.

Quarantining of high-risk people takes their own psyche out of the decision process of when they're beginning to show symptoms and whether they're then contagious, so that they don't make erroneous and potentially fatal to others decisions about whether they can then move about the populace first.

There's a really good reason why quarantine exists: it's irrational to trust the person themselves to do the right thing under the circumstances .. as that nurse Hickox has demonstrated .. and as that doctor Spencer has illustrated.

Napoleon said:

This was more than an inconvenience. It was, as she put it, a violation of her civil and basic human rights. She was taken from the Airport, tossed into a tent where she was detained against against her will, was not permitted direct access to a lawyer, and was not told what would happen to her or when she would be released. Not to mention the fact that the way the quarantine was run was a bad joke. If she hadn't insisted on keeping her cellphone she would probably still be there instead of laying the medical smack down on Christie until she was released.

Click to expand...

You simply do not present the facts.

Nurse Hickox exaggerated, as has been made evidently clear, for the purpose of not having to endure quarantine.

She was not "tossed" into a tent as you too exaggerate. The quarantine was not run like "a bad joke".

I do not understand why liberals continue to make this a political issue.

Of course she was detained against her will -- that's what a quarantine often is. She wanted to roam freely in the populace like Dr. Spencer, not at all caring who she might infect when 24 hours prior to experiencing definite symptoms she comes in contact with others.

When it comes to "how she puts it" that it was "a violation of her civil and basic human rights", you both exaggerate and, of course, falsely.

Quarantines exist to protect the public, and they are not a violation of anyone's rights.

She was not not permitted phone contact with anyone, including a lawyer, obviously.

Your statements about what happened are egregiously false.

I know that some conservatives are hyping the other side of this up, and that liberals are hyping the opposite side up as you are doing.

It doesn't serve anyone that you both do that .. and, it really really harms the great majority of Americans who, like in the "Global Warming" flap, don't know who to believe.

It's precisely that lack of trust by the great majority of Americans that increases the chances of panic.

Get the facts first .. and even then, show a modicum of restraint.

Fenton said:

She's a selfish individual and thankfully her complaining us falling on deaf ears for the most part.

I don't feel sorry for her one bit.

Click to expand...

She is a mother****ing hero. She risked her life to go over there and help people, and to do a hero's work. Calling her selfish is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

Your Star said:

She is a mother****ing hero. She risked her life to go over there and help people, and to do a hero's work. Calling her selfish is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

Click to expand...

No matter how great her humanitarian work was, that does not entitle her to special treatment that increases the very real risk of contaminating others.

We learned our lesson with Dr. Spencer.

Quarantining her was the right thing to do by all Americans, including herself if she thought about it for a minute.

Here's the whole truth: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/207941-clueless-arrogant-nurse-complains-her-justified-quarantine.html.