(Reuters) - A nurse held in quarantine for Ebola monitoring in New Jersey plans to file a federal lawsuit challenging her confinement as a violation of her civil rights, her lawyer told Reuters on Sunday.
Norman Siegel, a well-known civil rights lawyer, said that Kaci Hickox's confinement after she returned from West Africa raised "serious constitutional and civil liberties issues," given that she remains asymptomatic and has not tested positive for Ebola."We're not going to dispute that the government has, under certain circumstances, the right to issue a quarantine," he said. "The policy is overly broad when applied to her. |
i mean in the US, everyone might have a case but come on lady... its for your own good and for everyone else...
story - (
New Window )
The child was vomiting and had a 103-degree fever when he was carried from his Bronx home by EMS workers wearing hazmat suits, neighbors said. He looked weak, said a neighbor.
He was really, really out of it.
The boy returned with his family from Guinea Saturday night and five members of the family were being quarantined inside their apartment, sources said.
http://nypost.com/2014/10/27/5-year-old-boy-being-tested-for-ebola-in-new-york-city/
And yes, we don't have an outbreak and don't want one.
I respect Dr.Fauci. I studied his book. He of all people should know some form of quarantine is indicated.
Leave it to the guys and gals with degrees in medicine and public health, counselor.
I think home quarantine is fine too, however, maybe the NY doc makes the case that it's not a perfect system? Maybe quarantine at home with outside supervision would work?
One thing I don't understand about the lawsuit is that the healthcare workers who go over to Africa are obviously somewhat altruistic. They know that they have to give up time and, sometimes income, etc. They want to health and they understand the disease and the problems associated with the disease. So, why wouldn't they just figure a "cooling off" period after leaving Africa is part of the package? Fears might be overblown and the risk small, but they've all seen first-hand the consequences if the disease comes to fruition. The resistance to post-work protocols seems a bit odd.
CNN article - ( New Window )
Michael BarbaroVerified account
@mikiebarb
NYT EXCLUSIVE: Christie says he's planning to release nurse later today if CDC an doctors sign off.
Link - ( New Window )
So it is essentially an extension of the contract.
This entire thing is a work in progress and there will be bumps in the road and suing because your feelings were hurt won't change that.
Quote:
She's not allowed to have her luggage and was given paper scrubs to wear. Hickox said she has no shower, no flushable toilet and the hospital gave her no television or any reading material. Mostly, she says, she stares at the walls.
CNN article - ( New Window )
i think this comes with the problem of risking throwing stuff out if she is sick...
this is all precaution and the public wants better action. What fucked this all up was the doctor in NYC. He wasnt careful and all we need is one fuck up to make this worse. I mean Duncan didnt get his family sick which is promising but these doctors should have some common sense and just for them and their families quarantine themselves.
they are getting paid anyways
Michael BarbaroVerified account
@mikiebarb
NYT EXCLUSIVE: Christie says he's planning to release nurse later today if CDC an doctors sign off. Link - ( New Window )
The problem in the Hickox case might have been less the quarantine itself than the arbitrary way the rules shifted while she was going through the protocol. The prevailing public sentiment seems to be that quarantining her was right, but that it was handled badly. I'm not sure there was any way to handle it well, and still impose quarantine on her. She followed the protocol as it existed, and was cleared. Her attorneys have a valid point that the compelling state interest for changing the rules and abridging her rights is pretty vague.
Was she ever asked to accept voluntary quarantine? If not, that might have been the smartest path; then it could be made mandatory for subsequent returnees. The hitch, of course, is that she might have refused.
I believe the point is to do everything possible to keep the virus from establishing a stronghold in this country. Until 1999, West Nile virus was rare, now it runs rampant every summer.
Quote:
She's not allowed to have her luggage and was given paper scrubs to wear. Hickox said she has no shower, no flushable toilet and the hospital gave her no television or any reading material. Mostly, she says, she stares at the walls.
CNN article - ( New Window )
I think going forward, quarantine will be different as stsea become prepared for it. Again, behind the eight ball being prepared.
Florida is announcing today that quarantine will be in house with examination twice daily by state health officials.
I shouldn't be that the states are required to come up with their own quarantine protocols.
Quote:
it never works out well. We have no massive outbreak in this country. Out of well over 300 million people all of 2 have contracted Ebola here, and they both worked with the patient that died when his viral load is at it's highest level and they have or are recovering. Chances are every person who posts on this thread knows more people than that themselves who have contracted the flu the past month, and that will kill up to 30,000 people this year.
I believe the point is to do everything possible to keep the virus from establishing a stronghold in this country. Until 1999, West Nile virus was rare, now it runs rampant every summer.
I think you have to admit that there is a slight difference between human to human transmitted diseases and mosquito borne diseases. You can't effectively quarantine mosquitoes or spray humanicides on people.
You don't have to. She went there on her own free volition as a hero to fight this disease that will probably never come anywhere near you partially due to the bravery of people like her and the Doctors that risk their lives to help others. What an idiotic thing to say.
I worry that the net result of the faux panic is that medical personnel will avoid going to areas where viruses are present because of the shit they have to deal with at home.
Take for instance the doctor in NC who has Ebola. The media made it a sideshow and pretty much called the guy's character into question for taking a subway or going bowling while asymptamatic. Then in the next breath, they will very quietly say that the virus can't be passed unless symptoms are present. So who did the guy harm?
It is pretty telling that the only US citizens here in the states who have contracted the virus are medical personnel. Telling because it illustrates just how hard it is to contract the virus. This isn't Africa with substandard treatment areas and substandard sanitation. Even the guy who died in TX didn't pass the virus to any family, only a worker.
Why has mass panic been caused by a virus that is this hard to pass? My thought is because we have 24 hour news stations with only about 1 hour a day of actual news to discuss.
These patients require a lot of care and it costs a lot of money to treat them. Plus it puts healthcare workers at risk. It is in all of our bests interests to make sure that anyone from that area is monitored for a period. Unfortunately self quarantine hasn't worked.
Almost everyone has the potential to be exposed to the flu. Not even a percentage of one percent of the people have a chance to be exposed to Ebola. - Yet what is the lead story on the news every night for the past month?
If you don't think it is hysteria, you are exactly the type of viewer the Media wants.
2. Court won't take the case, because they don't want the nurse in their building.
No matter how difficult it is for this virus to spread, once one of these people show signs of sickness it becomes a massive task tracking their prior movements, finding those they came in contact with, and then the businesses that these people walked into have the "Ebola stigma" tied to them and customers stop showing up.
It becomes a financial burden as well as a medical burden.
And please stop comparing it to the flu. The flu doesn't have a 70% kill rate.
As for this woman, suing is ridiculous. She wasn't imprisoned. She was monitored via quarantine process. Did she lose her job? Was she beaten or starved? Ridiculous...
Just like you supposedly can't compare Ebola to the flu, you really shouldn't compare medical treatment in a third-world country to that in the US.
You might as well start saying that malnutrition has a 50% mortality rate then.
The apparent limitations on what she doesn't have is ludicrous.
It is a deadly infection - one that should have precautions of the spread. It definitely should NOT be made out to be something that is likely to threaten the general public.
It is insanity to even try to determine what the mortality rates are anyway. Let's see - in Africa, you have tons of people dying from it in conditions not found here in the US - In the US, we've now had several people treated for the virus and the only one who has died was an African who didn't get proper medical treatment until it was too late.
Really small sample size, but the cure rate of american's contracting Ebola here in the US - 100%.
But yes, let's all get worried about this very dangerous virus. Let's make it the most prominent story over the past month.
A lot of resources are applied to these patients including plasma donors. God forbid the rate of infection climbs, you will also see the mortality rate climb. That's not to say that would happen, I'm just saying the quality of care is directly proportional to the number being cared for.
One can argue taking basic entertainment choices away and pretty much forcing her to live in a bubble is not only excessive, but unacceptable.
Quarantine her in isolation with a temperature monitor on her - not some sort of thing reserved for aliens or people with auto-immune diseases.
There is no rationale for her not to be allowed some modicum of personal effects and reading material.
GMAN4LIFE : 10:35 am : link : reply
when you dont quarantine yourself, you endanger everyone...
This is sort of my point. Who did he endanger? Everyone? He didn't endanger me.
You are right. Criminals get television and running water and get to talk to someone face to face. She was treated worse.
You sure as shit don't treat it like an internment camp.
Home quarantine, fine-tuned, is likely the best of all worlds, but comes with severe risks as well.
People who don't understand that the negative attention this situation has caused will have severe behavioral impacts are the ones that worry me.
She can sue on that. But she can't sue that the quarantine itself is unreasonable. Because it isn't.
One can argue taking basic entertainment choices away and pretty much forcing her to live in a bubble is not only excessive, but unacceptable.
Quarantine her in isolation with a temperature monitor on her - not some sort of thing reserved for aliens or people with auto-immune diseases.
And sorry, a 30% mortality rate when receiving advanced medical care is not trivial.
It's so difficult to choose the correct crisis to get hysterical over nowadays.
A quarantine is meant to check the spread of a disease, not the denial of creature comforts for the ease of the hazmat crew. Especially since she was doing something tremendously brave...
Part of the issue is to determine what constitutes a crisis. Is something that has a miniscule chance of affecting you or I a crisis worthy of causing a panic over?
I'm not minimizing Ebola - it should be treated like you would other infectious issues. I'm trying to avoid the hyperbole going on here like this is an imminent threat. Maybe we need CNN to talk more about how Ebola COULD go air-borne and then we'd all be fucked.
Sad to see BBI members give such rapid support for some loathsome pandering politicians. If anything, some here should be quarantined to hopefully contain the spread of stupidity.
Quote:
It's so difficult to choose the correct crisis to get hysterical over nowadays.
Part of the issue is to determine what constitutes a crisis. Is something that has a miniscule chance of affecting you or I a crisis worthy of causing a panic over?
I'm not minimizing Ebola - it should be treated like you would other infectious issues. I'm trying to avoid the hyperbole going on here like this is an imminent threat. Maybe we need CNN to talk more about how Ebola COULD go air-borne and then we'd all be fucked.
Imagine anti-biotic resistant black plague!
Because the plague is still readily available for a crisis, inhabiting the warrens of many underground animals in America!
Quote:
In comment 11941609 Giants11 said:
Quote:
it never works out well. We have no massive outbreak in this country. Out of well over 300 million people all of 2 have contracted Ebola here, and they both worked with the patient that died when his viral load is at it's highest level and they have or are recovering. Chances are every person who posts on this thread knows more people than that themselves who have contracted the flu the past month, and that will kill up to 30,000 people this year.
I believe the point is to do everything possible to keep the virus from establishing a stronghold in this country. Until 1999, West Nile virus was rare, now it runs rampant every summer.
I think you have to admit that there is a slight difference between human to human transmitted diseases and mosquito borne diseases. You can't effectively quarantine mosquitoes or spray humanicides on people.
Sure, right now its just human to human. What happens when a pet contracts it? The point is to do everything to keep this virus contained.
Let's panic now!!!
It will also probably cut into the funding for HIV and AIDS related treatments in Africa.
Quote:
Quote:
It's so difficult to choose the correct crisis to get hysterical over nowadays.
Part of the issue is to determine what constitutes a crisis. Is something that has a miniscule chance of affecting you or I a crisis worthy of causing a panic over?
I'm not minimizing Ebola - it should be treated like you would other infectious issues. I'm trying to avoid the hyperbole going on here like this is an imminent threat. Maybe we need CNN to talk more about how Ebola COULD go air-borne and then we'd all be fucked.
Imagine anti-biotic resistant black plague!
Because the plague is still readily available for a crisis, inhabiting the warrens of many underground animals in America!
Let's panic now!!!
You don't know what you are talking about. Come live in a city that is dealing with this real time and then educate all of us. This is not about hysteria. This is about taking proper precautions to contain an incredibly infectious virus from taking hold in this country.
You have been infected. By fear. Media mission accomplished.
rights shouldn't trump the rights of others.
That people are heroic isn't the case. Because the CDC and the governemt as usual didn't do anything until Dallas is the issue.
Allowing seriously Ill people into the country is a danger to all of us all. And that wonderful people want to go to Africa and help is great. But there is a financial cost as well and risks.
That this Dr in NY went out when he wasnt symptomatic begs the question. What happens if he became symptomatic while out. It is medically possible
That they were unprepared to quarantine a person in decent conditions is not the same as the need to be careful and make sound scientific rules for people either Coming in or returning From these places.
Ebola is not an incredibly infectious virus.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 11941795 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Quote:
It's so difficult to choose the correct crisis to get hysterical over nowadays.
Part of the issue is to determine what constitutes a crisis. Is something that has a miniscule chance of affecting you or I a crisis worthy of causing a panic over?
I'm not minimizing Ebola - it should be treated like you would other infectious issues. I'm trying to avoid the hyperbole going on here like this is an imminent threat. Maybe we need CNN to talk more about how Ebola COULD go air-borne and then we'd all be fucked.
Imagine anti-biotic resistant black plague!
Because the plague is still readily available for a crisis, inhabiting the warrens of many underground animals in America!
Well, there is antibiotic resistant plague and there is plague in the US. And quite honestly, I don't see the people here who are dismissive and demeaning of ebola or any other public health issue as being any smarter or more correct than those who are in over-the-top paranoia.
Yes, I know. But the general public doesn't know.
That's my point. They get infected with irrational fear of the probability of their own infection, and reduce the likelihood that more meaningful diseases take the limelight (and takes away scarce resources from these places).
And you are correct, the extremes are not smart. But that is not the position a lot are taking. The position I continue to take is that overhyping the fear by this disease causes a lot more issues than the actual disease itself.
We've got people crowing for draconian methods to prevent a disease where even a minor understanding of things would state that the costs of reducing the number of American infected to 0 is nigh impossible. And where these methods stamp on a ton of personal liberties.
It's what a lot of political scientists say. So many people are so ideologically confused that their values go out the door the moment they feel a perceived threat. And that's the greater danger to us.
This paranoia and fear of the unknown has led to some pretty shameful moments in our history.
Quote:
This is about taking proper precautions to contain an incredibly infectious virus from taking hold in this country.
Ebola is not an incredibly infectious virus. Link - ( New Window )
Hmmm, interesting, that's why healthcare workers wear hazmat suits when caring for the infected. Nice formula, but then their is reality.
I'd rather people be panicked over the fallout of having several events like Ebola that are overblown lead to a true panic due to complacency or the Boy who Cries Wolf syndrome.
when the Media turns everything into a crisis, sooner or later, people come to the realization they are full of shit. That will have harsher ramifications than Ebola will.
Like I stated before, having a reasonable plan to combat Ebloa is fine. Having an unreasonable opinion on the contagiousness of the virus, or the threat to the general public isn't.
And to clean said hazmat suit, with potentially toxic chemicals?
You have been infected. By fear. Media mission accomplished.
There is a lot of fear out there. Much is unwarranted.
But the truth is that there are certain people out there, returning here that have the *potential* to be infectious for a specific period of time. Should they become infectious then there is a certain degree of risk placed on the people who come in contact with them. Even if it's small, it's not nonexistent and they should be aware of it and public health people should be aware of it. Even if the risk is low, they should act properly.
IMO, there is a certain element of irresponsibility and selfishness in some of these people who know that they have the potential to become infectious prior to the 21 days, soon to be closer to 40 days. So they should modify their behavior. Going to a bowling alley or other extraneous public places may not be harmful if you are a few hours before you spike a fever (assuming that you are not infectious a few hours before the fever and there isn't any data either way). However, the bowling alley's business took a hit (I'm guessing) as did Frontier airlines. Maybe it's only fear, but why feed it? And, IMO it's fucking stupid to know that you have the potential to become infectious, even though you haven't yet, and still get on a ship and enclose yourself in a confined space with a thousand other people for a week where it's tough to get to a hospital or even quality medical care.
That's the reason for the hazmat suits. Are you treating any Ebola patients? If not, your exposure is limited to some symptomatic guy vomiting on you in a public place. Since I've been vomited on by non-family members exactly 0 times in my life, I'm going to guess my exposure possibilities are slim to none.
And that Hazmat -> highly infectious, or some other shitty logical reasoning.
There is a reasonable balance to be struck where these people have some creature comforts, which makes it likelier that they will voluntarily comply with these measures, instead of going into hiding or into denial.
Link - ( New Window )
The flip side is who feeds it. How do I know the bowling alley or the airline he flew on? Because the Media decided to air that information. Do they really need to spread panic like that, either?
there has to be a balance on how to handle the health care workers, so I'm fine with reasonable quarantines. But I'm definitely not a fan of going into every detail which only serves the purpose of scaring anyone who potentially could have come into contact with the guy.
Only after we send you.
First of all, holding this woman hostage IN A TENT BEHIND THE HOSPITAL is outrageous. I can go along with a quarantine (even though I think the risk is vastly overstated), but to not allow her to stay at home? Or actually IN a hospital?
Plus, the governor (again) put his foot in his mouth when he stated that she was "obviously ill" when she was showing no symptoms. She should sue.
That's the reason for the hazmat suits. Are you treating any Ebola patients? If not, your exposure is limited to some symptomatic guy vomiting on you in a public place. Since I've been vomited on by non-family members exactly 0 times in my life, I'm going to guess my exposure possibilities are slim to none.
Listen, my position on this is not about getting infected. It's about taking the proper precautions to keep this from becoming established in the U.S. Proper precautions with proper protocols can help protect against this. Nothing more, nothing less. Right now there is no consistency in the prevention and everything is reactive.
And yes, unfortunately they have to say where the exposed people have been because those people must be made aware that they may have been exposed so they can take precautions.
Again, it's hyper vigilance, but that is how to prevent the spread.
And that Hazmat -> highly infectious, or some other shitty logical reasoning.
Wow, just wow.
Quote:
why Hazmat suits may be a preferable way to deal with this...
And that Hazmat -> highly infectious, or some other shitty logical reasoning.
Wow, just wow.
Oh come on. You're the one who doesn't understand the significant benefits of a hazmat suit beyond "highly infectious".
Vigilance is appropriate. Hyper-vigilance, not so much because it allocates resources away from other, more threatening situations.
Those of you who completely agreed with the initial treatment of this woman should be screaming bloody murder at the revisions they just made to their policy. Where are the cries of anguish? I can't hear them. So which is it, was the first policy wrong, or is the current policy wrong?
By the way, Doctors Without Borders didn't sue, one woman who works for DWB sued. I guess if you can't tell the difference they can do without your contribution.
The boys, in sixth and eighth grade, were attacked Friday afternoon at I.S. 318 in Tremont, according to the African Advocacy Council.
The boys, who have been in the U.S. for about a month, were taken to the hospital after the attack.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
However, the bowling alley's business took a hit (I'm guessing) as did Frontier airlines. Maybe it's only fear, but why feed it?
The flip side is who feeds it. How do I know the bowling alley or the airline he flew on? Because the Media decided to air that information. Do they really need to spread panic like that, either?
there has to be a balance on how to handle the health care workers, so I'm fine with reasonable quarantines. But I'm definitely not a fan of going into every detail which only serves the purpose of scaring anyone who potentially could have come into contact with the guy.
My point is that you are right, there is little chance of an outbreak, there's a lot of fear that's unwarranted and over-hyped, but nearly all the precepts for that, as well as the flat, absolutest statements about ease or difficulty in becoming infected are based more on behavior than biology. If people do this or that, then...
Gov't doesn't need to quarantine or place travel restrictions or whatever, but people have to be responsible. You pretty much know if you are an at risk person, so modify your behavior accordingly. there should be more individual responsibility, even if there is some inconvenience associated with it.
i mean the media is loving this.
but as for my comment on the doctor messing it all up for everyone. Yes he did. He worked on patients and should have at least quarantined himself. But he didnt, he went about his business and then got sick. He was confirmed to have ebola. While he may have not have passed the sickness to anyone yet, he does pose a risk regardless to the public. And i know its hard to get but its contagious none the less.
With anxiety fears, i would be the first to ask for banning all flights but thats just dumb to do. But with the doctors who have been there in the front lines,i would just ask for common sense from them to do their own quarantine. But the doctor proved that isnt the case.
According to whom? From the NY Times:
This mandatory quarantine had everything to do with politics, and little to do with health policy. 2 governors who have a pipe dream of becoming president get together to hatch this scheme.
Nurse Allowed to Go Home - ( New Window )
People go through this denial phase for things like Alcoholism and other addictions.
A virus that's been hyped as THE killer of the year? That's why a lot of people are OK with reasonable quarantines. People are stupid, both when infected and when seeing people who are "infected".
But going overboard like this (either through the hype machine or interment camps) will reduce the probability of any rational person being responsible to near 0.
That is the point that FatMan is making, I believe. We've hyped this to high heaven so that personal responsibility in treating this is the outlier.
Yeah, it's part of human nature to deny having this.
But a huge part is the machine of hype that has ruined the chances for good actions by people.
For fuck's sake, I know a guy who got accused of being a carrier of Ebola. He's from Kenya. Hasn't been there in 6 months.
Vigilance is appropriate. Hyper-vigilance, not so much because it allocates resources away from other, more threatening situations.
I would still argue that it's not damn hard to catch. I need to do so more reading about the spread in Africa but I don't see projectile vomiting as being a cultural greeting over there and multiple people have become infected at group gatherings, beyond just caring for overtly sick people. Part of what will limit it to health workers over here is that people will be hospitalized more quickly and contact with others will be limited...you would hope. IOW it's hard to catch because you limit exposure, as opposed to the virus having to work very hard to infect you if you are around it.
Quote:
In comment 11941885 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
why Hazmat suits may be a preferable way to deal with this...
And that Hazmat -> highly infectious, or some other shitty logical reasoning.
Wow, just wow.
Oh come on. You're the one who doesn't understand the significant benefits of a hazmat suit beyond "highly infectious".
Kicker, my point on the hazmat suits was in response to semipro claiming this is not an infectious disease based on a formula. There is theory and then reality.
And then, since people touch their face hundreds of times per day, you have your major transmission vector, especially with piss poor sanitation and anti bacterial gel being too expensive.
And btw, the risk from the NY doctor was (not is) greater than zero, but the risks of spreading Ebola go up as symptoms increase, and he did turn himself in when he had a significant (albeit modest) fever.
Yeah, it's part of human nature to deny having this.
But a huge part is the machine of hype that has ruined the chances for good actions by people.
For fuck's sake, I know a guy who got accused of being a carrier of Ebola. He's from Kenya. Hasn't been there in 6 months.
Yeah, so people are ignorant about themselves catching it. But most people likely couldn't tell you what a virus is. But health care workers, who are told to self-monitor because there is some potential, no matter how small, of them being infected should still have enough sense to modify their behavior until the danger period is over.
NEWARK In a quick reversal of course, the nurse under quarantine at University Hospital in Newark after treating Ebola patients in Africa will be discharged, state officials announced this morning.
Kaci Hickox will be transported privately to Maine where officials there will decide on where she will be permitted to go next.
Officials said while Hickox was initially found with no symptoms, she later developed a fever. She has been symptom free for the past 24 hours, the department of health said.
Link - ( New Window )
And then, since people touch their face hundreds of times per day, you have your major transmission vector, especially with piss poor sanitation and anti bacterial gel being too expensive.
Your probably right. That plus more people than not have small cuts or abrasions on skin which provides access. Which means that it's not hard as hell to catch in a biology sense. It's hard to catch in a social sense, which is actually the practical way of thinking about it over here. BTW, anti-bacterial gels or soaps wouldn't protect (beyond ordinary sanitation/hygiene measures) for obvious reasons.
You can find footage and photos of loved ones holding ebola patients while they are sick. Even when the foreign medical personnel are present, people are still near the patients.
for the most part, my opinion isn't too far from yours on the matter of taking precautions. But a lot of people are missing the point that the hysteria is unnecessary (and probably created in a large part due to the Media). I also think people don't realize what a great divide there is in medical care given in Africa vs. the US. Heck, on this thread alone, you have people using mortality rates from Africa to symbolize US rates.
Maybe you can cite a reference, because I haven't seen that anywhere, only that she exhibited no symptoms. And it is not just the NY Times, it's the Newark Star Ledger and Bergen Record, as well.
The problem with your post is that the term "airborne" is misleading. Yes, technically, a fluid droplet can pass through the air onto another person and potentially infect them, but the term "airborne" has a very specific meaning when dealing with contagious diseases.
"Airborne" refers to particles that can hangin the air and infect people who encounter them. That IS NOT the case with Ebola.
Quote:
right now.
Yeah, it's part of human nature to deny having this.
But a huge part is the machine of hype that has ruined the chances for good actions by people.
For fuck's sake, I know a guy who got accused of being a carrier of Ebola. He's from Kenya. Hasn't been there in 6 months.
Yeah, so people are ignorant about themselves catching it. But most people likely couldn't tell you what a virus is. But health care workers, who are told to self-monitor because there is some potential, no matter how small, of them being infected should still have enough sense to modify their behavior until the danger period is over.
But that's part of the problem.
Year after year, we expect people to act rationally and on behalf of society as a whole. It's the atomistic notion that we can rely on the goodwill of others.
And year after year, on average, it fails. Up and down the income, education, and IQ spectrum.
It ignores basic human psychology and a whole host of other factors. While health care workers are more likely, on average, to self-monitor and change their behavior, you can't and shouldn't expect it wholesale.
Was it "humane"? Not even close and could have/should have been upgraded over time. But her whining from the beginning and threats were just as bad. Guess I'd be pissed too if I just got home from some shithole for extended period and somebody threw me in isolation with no creature comforts. I think suit has little merit. But I definitely could see the frustration level she had.
Mg I saw an early story about Brantly's serum potentially being used to treat Pham...did that actually happen? Have they given it to other patients?
The therapy that Brantly received, which will likely be an experimental therapy used going forward was not recovered patient's serum but manufactured antibodies (originally mouse made). Those would be the protective elements in serum, although patients wouldn't be getting sera per se. I haven't read anything about Brantly's sera even having anything beneficial in it, even though it was mentioned as something to try. I also haven't seen much in the way of using sera from recovered people in Africa where you would think it would be something that would already be in place.
And btw, the risk from the NY doctor was (not is) greater than zero, but the risks of spreading Ebola go up as symptoms increase, and he did turn himself in when he had a significant (albeit modest) fever.
This
Quote:
is from greetings between people, even between healthy and sick, that involves the use of hands.
And then, since people touch their face hundreds of times per day, you have your major transmission vector, especially with piss poor sanitation and anti bacterial gel being too expensive.
Your probably right. That plus more people than not have small cuts or abrasions on skin which provides access. Which means that it's not hard as hell to catch in a biology sense. It's hard to catch in a social sense, which is actually the practical way of thinking about it over here. BTW, anti-bacterial gels or soaps wouldn't protect (beyond ordinary sanitation/hygiene measures) for obvious reasons.
I know anti-BACTERIAL soaps won't protect.
The point was about simple hygenic measures, where they don't have have the luxury of washing hands consistently with clean water.
We take those for granted here, whereas in Africa, we shouldn't. And the fact that even basic hygenic measures for the majority of 22 million people in these countries (with such minimal infection rates and tremendously crowded centers) hints that, even biologically, it is extremely hard to catch.
Quote:
In comment 11941948 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
right now.
Yeah, it's part of human nature to deny having this.
But a huge part is the machine of hype that has ruined the chances for good actions by people.
For fuck's sake, I know a guy who got accused of being a carrier of Ebola. He's from Kenya. Hasn't been there in 6 months.
Yeah, so people are ignorant about themselves catching it. But most people likely couldn't tell you what a virus is. But health care workers, who are told to self-monitor because there is some potential, no matter how small, of them being infected should still have enough sense to modify their behavior until the danger period is over.
But that's part of the problem.
Year after year, we expect people to act rationally and on behalf of society as a whole. It's the atomistic notion that we can rely on the goodwill of others.
And year after year, on average, it fails. Up and down the income, education, and IQ spectrum.
It ignores basic human psychology and a whole host of other factors. While health care workers are more likely, on average, to self-monitor and change their behavior, you can't and shouldn't expect it wholesale.
I don't. I've said many times that people are the limiting factor in this and that's why I don't buy flat statements form cdc or any one else. They almost all depend on people doing the right thing. And I do not expect health care workers to be any different from the rest of the public. In Africa, the mean time from becoming symptomatic (infectious) to hospitalization was 5 days for both healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Here, it's healthcare workers who flit about the country on airplanes, take cruises, go bowling...
Quote:
In comment 11941911 Bernie said:
Quote:
In comment 11941885 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
why Hazmat suits may be a preferable way to deal with this...
And that Hazmat -> highly infectious, or some other shitty logical reasoning.
Wow, just wow.
Oh come on. You're the one who doesn't understand the significant benefits of a hazmat suit beyond "highly infectious".
Kicker, my point on the hazmat suits was in response to semipro claiming this is not an infectious disease based on a formula. There is theory and then reality.
All you've told me is that you can't understand a distinction between infectious and "incredibly infectious".
And where, perchance, do you think those formulas come from?
Quote:
In comment 11941963 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 11941948 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
right now.
Yeah, it's part of human nature to deny having this.
But a huge part is the machine of hype that has ruined the chances for good actions by people.
For fuck's sake, I know a guy who got accused of being a carrier of Ebola. He's from Kenya. Hasn't been there in 6 months.
Yeah, so people are ignorant about themselves catching it. But most people likely couldn't tell you what a virus is. But health care workers, who are told to self-monitor because there is some potential, no matter how small, of them being infected should still have enough sense to modify their behavior until the danger period is over.
But that's part of the problem.
Year after year, we expect people to act rationally and on behalf of society as a whole. It's the atomistic notion that we can rely on the goodwill of others.
And year after year, on average, it fails. Up and down the income, education, and IQ spectrum.
It ignores basic human psychology and a whole host of other factors. While health care workers are more likely, on average, to self-monitor and change their behavior, you can't and shouldn't expect it wholesale.
I don't. I've said many times that people are the limiting factor in this and that's why I don't buy flat statements form cdc or any one else. They almost all depend on people doing the right thing. And I do not expect health care workers to be any different from the rest of the public. In Africa, the mean time from becoming symptomatic (infectious) to hospitalization was 5 days for both healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Here, it's healthcare workers who flit about the country on airplanes, take cruises, go bowling...
That's been my exact point, and why quarantine measures like this (and the media hysteria) play a disproportionately large role in creating further incentives to minimize self-monitoring.
You turn into a national scapegoat as well. Fun times.
More argument against quantine as a life-saving protocol.
Quote:
In comment 11941960 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
is from greetings between people, even between healthy and sick, that involves the use of hands.
And then, since people touch their face hundreds of times per day, you have your major transmission vector, especially with piss poor sanitation and anti bacterial gel being too expensive.
Your probably right. That plus more people than not have small cuts or abrasions on skin which provides access. Which means that it's not hard as hell to catch in a biology sense. It's hard to catch in a social sense, which is actually the practical way of thinking about it over here. BTW, anti-bacterial gels or soaps wouldn't protect (beyond ordinary sanitation/hygiene measures) for obvious reasons.
I know anti-BACTERIAL soaps won't protect.
The point was about simple hygenic measures, where they don't have have the luxury of washing hands consistently with clean water.
We take those for granted here, whereas in Africa, we shouldn't. And the fact that even basic hygenic measures for the majority of 22 million people in these countries (with such minimal infection rates and tremendously crowded centers) hints that, even biologically, it is extremely hard to catch.
As sort of an aside, I was reading a paper that mapped the genetic origin of this particular ebola outbreak. There were a ton of co-authors (56). Since it was a genetic research paper, my guess is that there was little interaction with patients and more handling of specimens. The work was done in multiple sites both here at Harvard and in Sierra Leone. But even the work done in Sierra Leone was done in a hospital with qualified people using precautions and likely as good hygiene practices as you would find here. The paper notes that 5 of the co-authors died from ebola.
Quote:
In comment 11941919 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
In comment 11941911 Bernie said:
Quote:
In comment 11941885 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
why Hazmat suits may be a preferable way to deal with this...
And that Hazmat -> highly infectious, or some other shitty logical reasoning.
Wow, just wow.
Oh come on. You're the one who doesn't understand the significant benefits of a hazmat suit beyond "highly infectious".
Kicker, my point on the hazmat suits was in response to semipro claiming this is not an infectious disease based on a formula. There is theory and then reality.
All you've told me is that you can't understand a distinction between infectious and "incredibly infectious".
And where, perchance, do you think those formulas come from?
OK Professor, do me the honor and educate me on the classroom difference between infectious and incredibly infectious. Out here in the real world, I go by what I see. Both the flu and Ebola are infectious, yet healthcare workers do not wear hazmat suits when treating someone with the flu. But that may be too simple.
Quote:
In comment 11941960 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
is from greetings between people, even between healthy and sick, that involves the use of hands.
And then, since people touch their face hundreds of times per day, you have your major transmission vector, especially with piss poor sanitation and anti bacterial gel being too expensive.
Your probably right. That plus more people than not have small cuts or abrasions on skin which provides access. Which means that it's not hard as hell to catch in a biology sense. It's hard to catch in a social sense, which is actually the practical way of thinking about it over here. BTW, anti-bacterial gels or soaps wouldn't protect (beyond ordinary sanitation/hygiene measures) for obvious reasons.
I know anti-BACTERIAL soaps won't protect.
The point was about simple hygenic measures, where they don't have have the luxury of washing hands consistently with clean water.
We take those for granted here, whereas in Africa, we shouldn't. And the fact that even basic hygenic measures for the majority of 22 million people in these countries (with such minimal infection rates and tremendously crowded centers) hints that, even biologically, it is extremely hard to catch.
They also have rituals/customs that are perfect for this disease to spread. They wash down the dead before burial. Those bodies are highly contagious right after death.
More argument against quantine as a life-saving protocol.
Bah, the virus is the virus. Lethality or infectivity doesn't change. The support and care and treatment methods make the outcome different.
More argument against quantine as a life-saving protocol.
Mostly because the patients we've had here (besides Duncan) are being treated much earlier than they are in Africa. From the moment they feel ill.
There is a heightened awareness of ebola in Africa, so care is often done even for people who don't actually have it, but feel sick.
I will point to one point here though about how effective treatment can make a difference - Nigeria has recently made the claim that they are 100% Ebola-free. How? An influx of foreign aid workers, as concentrating the treatment in actual hospitals instead of in field tents went a long way to eradicating it.
Quote:
In comment 11941954 Bernie said:
Quote:
In comment 11941919 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
In comment 11941911 Bernie said:
Quote:
In comment 11941885 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
why Hazmat suits may be a preferable way to deal with this...
And that Hazmat -> highly infectious, or some other shitty logical reasoning.
Wow, just wow.
Oh come on. You're the one who doesn't understand the significant benefits of a hazmat suit beyond "highly infectious".
Kicker, my point on the hazmat suits was in response to semipro claiming this is not an infectious disease based on a formula. There is theory and then reality.
All you've told me is that you can't understand a distinction between infectious and "incredibly infectious".
And where, perchance, do you think those formulas come from?
OK Professor, do me the honor and educate me on the classroom difference between infectious and incredibly infectious. Out here in the real world, I go by what I see. Both the flu and Ebola are infectious, yet healthcare workers do not wear hazmat suits when treating someone with the flu. But that may be too simple.
Yes, there is no distinction, in reality, of infectious vs. highly infectious. Infectious is infectious; sticking yourself with a sharp is equivalent to disposing of the hazardous waste material, since there are no such things as levels (you know, something called nuance).
And I'm sorry, if you can't differentiate between the costs and benefits of wearing a hazmat suit with different types of illnesses, no one can help you.
Perhaps the non-use of hazmat suits to deal with the flu is related to:
1. Healthcare professionals receiving the flu vaccine.
2. The fact that dealing with patients, in a hazmat suit, with the flu is burdensome for the activities required (hydration, mainly). And that there are costs and benefits of wearing said suit.
3. That flu is deadly for a subset of the population, who typically receive no treatment. And that the mortality rate from flu is low even if you get it.
4. The fact that, when dealing with patients with influenza, you are working with a variety of other patients with other ailments, where cross-contamination with flu can be avoided by mainly hygenic measures. And it takes time to switch in and out of the haz-mat suit?
Something that's highly infectious requires extreme centralized control, because it's likely that the incubation period is very short. And that's dangerous.
Less infectious means more decentralized measures can have the desired effect.
There is a heightened awareness of ebola in Africa, so care is often done even for people who don't actually have it, but feel sick.
I will point to one point here though about how effective treatment can make a difference - Nigeria has recently made the claim that they are 100% Ebola-free. How? An influx of foreign aid workers, as concentrating the treatment in actual hospitals instead of in field tents went a long way to eradicating it.
I don't think you give Nigeria enough credit. There government was very proactive and very communicative. They responded in a serious fashion and had tons of messaging about behaviors and hygiene. They did the brunt of the work of coordinating internal and foreign medical efforts. They did the work in what was probably the most critical element in stopping disease spread which was to vigorously track contacts, *isolate*, and monitor them. They had a vigorous screening procedure at airports (some airlines stopped flights from West Africa to Nigeria). Senegal which also cleared itself of ebola closed their borders and had a travel ban.
Nigeria did an excellent job in education, which only goes to show how once people are educated on the true risk of the virus, how strides were made.
Compare that to the US where even on this thread people don't have the same take on how Ebola is spread. That's where my disdain with the Media comes in. Instead of filling 24 hours with conjecture or future fears, concentrate on the facts of the virus. not "sexy" reporting, but a hell of a lot more responsible.
Something that's highly infectious requires extreme centralized control, because it's likely that the incubation period is very short. And that's dangerous.
Less infectious means more decentralized measures can have the desired effect.
So now you are saying Ebola is not highly infectious. You guys think this is no big deal and is nothing more than a media event. That's nice. We now have a DEADLY virus in this country that was never here before. If you can't see the implications of this, than whatever. I am done with this.
But if you want to use worldwide flu mortality rates, you have to compare it with worldwide Ebola mortality rates, which is more than double that of the flu.
But, according to the WHO, there are 3-5 million "serious" cases, and 200,000-500,000 deaths.
Assuming that all the serious cases result in death, that is a mortality rate on the order of 4%-16.7%.
Quote:
different types of infection rates (you know, a distinction between highly infectious and not highly infectious) is very important, because it calls into questions the differences in measures that need to be used.
Something that's highly infectious requires extreme centralized control, because it's likely that the incubation period is very short. And that's dangerous.
Less infectious means more decentralized measures can have the desired effect.
So now you are saying Ebola is not highly infectious. You guys think this is no big deal and is nothing more than a media event. That's nice. We now have a DEADLY virus in this country that was never here before. If you can't see the implications of this, than whatever. I am done with this.
Did you seriously get kicked in the head by a mule?
When have I said that this doesn't require quarantine? But the significant over-hyping of this has adverse consequences, relative to its infection rates.
Hepatitis, malaria, influenza, measles. All are highly infectious.
I've seen the implications of shitty policy and massive over-hyping of the hysteria. It has both short-term impacts and long-term impacts.
You want an estimate? About 10 million times more likely.
If you think that's worth widespread panic, then I don't know what to say.
Quote:
can range up to 30%. That's not exactly low. There's reasons why it's lower here but besides vaccination and prior exposure, they're similar to those mentioned for ebola.
But if you want to use worldwide flu mortality rates, you have to compare it with worldwide Ebola mortality rates, which is more than double that of the flu.
But, according to the WHO, there are 3-5 million "serious" cases, and 200,000-500,000 deaths.
Assuming that all the serious cases result in death, that is a mortality rate on the order of 4%-16.7%.
Yeah I jumbled my math. But it's still not "low". Less than ebola but not insignificant. People should take the flu more seriously IMO and I still feel you're an idiot if you don't get your flu shot.
You seem to think that the response to a disease should be based on its infection rate, and thus seem to think that people who are arguing it isn't highly contagious don't think it's an issue.
That's incorrect.
The centralized treatment of a disease depends on a variety of factors, namely broken down to:
1. Infection Rate
2. Mortality rate
3. Incubation period
2. requires some centralized control (such as quarantine) for Ebola, and 3. is both a blessing and a curse for Ebola (means you have time to identify patients, but it also requires cooperation for a lengthy period of time).
Quote:
In comment 11942136 Bill L said:
Quote:
can range up to 30%. That's not exactly low. There's reasons why it's lower here but besides vaccination and prior exposure, they're similar to those mentioned for ebola.
But if you want to use worldwide flu mortality rates, you have to compare it with worldwide Ebola mortality rates, which is more than double that of the flu.
But, according to the WHO, there are 3-5 million "serious" cases, and 200,000-500,000 deaths.
Assuming that all the serious cases result in death, that is a mortality rate on the order of 4%-16.7%.
Yeah I jumbled my math. But it's still not "low". Less than ebola but not insignificant. People should take the flu more seriously IMO and I still feel you're an idiot if you don't get your flu shot.
I was talking about the mortality rate from influenza being low in the U.S. (as that is where a majority of the flu vaccines take place; certainly not in the developing world). Since hazmat suits for daily workers in developing countries is a luxury, in many cases.
I've steadfastly maintained that cross-country comparisons, with regards to infection rates, mortality rates, health care systems, etc., are notoriously poor, for a number of reasons.
First, if you do some diligent research you will find that the 30,000 figure has absolutely zero solid statistics supporting it.
Second we are not quarantining 300 million people. I would guess that substantially less than that have flown here from west Africa in the past couple of weeks and at least one of them is dead of Ebola. Those are the numbers that apply to the quarantining. Playing with statistics can be very sloppy at times.
The real point of the matter is that some of you guys feel that something should be done but because the normal proper steps aren't drastic enough for your liking so you support this political pandering.
The normal procedures for handling Infectious diseases are more than robust enough to handling this in my opinion.
Especially given the difference in infrastructure and resources between America and Africa. Finally given the fact that there are well over 200 million people in the affected countries but only five thousand deaths thus far despite a poor infrastruction to fight and prevent contamination in some areas should tell you that the disease can be contained
It depends on how they classify the diagnosis of death, and how much of a contributory factor influenza was.
Large range of influenza deaths per year - ( New Window )
The real point of the matter is that some of you guys feel that something should be done but because the normal proper steps aren't drastic enough for your liking so you support this political pandering.
The normal procedures for handling Infectious diseases are more than robust enough to handling this in my opinion.
Especially given the difference in infrastructure and resources between America and Africa. Finally given the fact that there are well over 200 million people in the affected countries but only five thousand deaths thus far despite a poor infrastruction to fight and prevent contamination in some areas should tell you that the disease can be contained
Absolutely it can be controlled, and there's no rationale for panic. The caveat is that it can be controlled if appropriate measures are taken. There might not be universal agreement on what appropriate measures would be, however, keep in mind that hospital workers who have taken what was deemed appropriate infectious disease precautions have been infected. Avoiding panic does not rule out prudence.
It depends on how they classify the diagnosis of death, and how much of a contributory factor influenza was. Large range of influenza deaths per year - ( New Window )
Haha. I was just going to link this report. I think though, that the range you cited is for a 10-year period.
I'm linking the latest weekly report. Of note, we just started flu season and there's been one (pediatric) death this year so far. The number for last year was 109. IMO that makes this m ore serious than D68 which people are panicking about.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
is 3,000-49,000 per year, depending on how the calculations are done.
It depends on how they classify the diagnosis of death, and how much of a contributory factor influenza was. Large range of influenza deaths per year - ( New Window )
Haha. I was just going to link this report. I think though, that the range you cited is for a 10-year period.
I'm linking the latest weekly report. Of note, we just started flu season and there's been one (pediatric) death this year so far. The number for last year was 109. IMO that makes this m ore serious than D68 which people are panicking about. Link - ( New Window )
Bill,
I don't think it's for a 10 year rolling average. I think it's annual, because the CDC reports that, in 2011, there were about 53,000 deaths from the flu and pneumonia (National Vital Statistics Report).
It was 50,000 in 2010, and 53,000 in 2009.
Quote:
In comment 11942229 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
is 3,000-49,000 per year, depending on how the calculations are done.
It depends on how they classify the diagnosis of death, and how much of a contributory factor influenza was. Large range of influenza deaths per year - ( New Window )
Haha. I was just going to link this report. I think though, that the range you cited is for a 10-year period.
I'm linking the latest weekly report. Of note, we just started flu season and there's been one (pediatric) death this year so far. The number for last year was 109. IMO that makes this m ore serious than D68 which people are panicking about. Link - ( New Window )
Bill,
I don't think it's for a 10 year rolling average. I think it's annual, because the CDC reports that, in 2011, there were about 53,000 deaths from the flu and pneumonia (National Vital Statistics Report).
It was 50,000 in 2010, and 53,000 in 2009.
Yeah, it's clearer in the original paper. My math is really wonky today. I think I'm going home before I blow something up.
I had to read, re-read, and then re-re-read.
They never used the word "annual" in there once, and had, as a time frame, 1976-2007.
Until I figured out it couldn't be 10 deaths from flu each year and found other stuff was when I put it all together (on my 4th reading).
It would have served a better purpose for the OP to have stated this in the opening post.
It would have served a better purpose for the OP to have stated this in the opening post.
huh... i put the whole article in the first post... i never mentioned money or anything...
In the debate about to quarantine or not. The argument is doctors and nurses will be more reluctant to go over to help. Let me get this logic straight....so your such a great, human, loving. person that you will go. You will leave all that you know behind. You will risk your life daily. You will face an unseen killer who can creep in at anytime to help people you have never met, because you are so good. But-you won't go into guarantee when you come back to save your own country, friends, child? Yeah makes sense to me.
smh
Quote:
...that kicked this whole thread off was instituted to gain the nurse's release. I see no mention anywhere of suing for dollars. That was, of course, automatically assumed by some on this thread (myself included) until I read the linked article.
It would have served a better purpose for the OP to have stated this in the opening post.
huh... i put the whole article in the first post... i never mentioned money or anything...
GMan...The point I was (poorly) making was that as soon as people hear "lawsuit" they immediately associate it with dollars. Some of the posts near the top of the page reflect this. I contend that not stating that the suit was non-monetary set the thread up for the usual lawsuit rants. Fortunately, the thread was steered into the hysteria angle and was saved.
Nothing personal.
I've already talked to some doctors who said it definitely is going to be a factor if the crackdowns continue.
In the debate about to quarantine or not. The argument is doctors and nurses will be more reluctant to go over to help. Let me get this logic straight....so your such a great, human, loving. person that you will go. You will leave all that you know behind. You will risk your life daily. You will face an unseen killer who can creep in at anytime to help people you have never met, because you are so good. But-you won't go into guarantee when you come back to save your own country, friends, child? Yeah makes sense to me.
smh
Yes. Believe it or not, people respond to the treatment they receive when undertaking actions.
If you're treated as a prisoner when you return with a draconian quarantine, it disincentivizes the people to go through the hassle of helping others.
When you increase the expected costs of an action, you decrease the likelihood with which people will undertake the action.
It's the same reason people don't help during natural disasters when federal agencies impose more stringent guidelines on what you can do to help. It doesn't make the people any less benevolent, but changes their cost calculus.
I've already talked to some doctors who said it definitely is going to be a factor if the crackdowns continue.
yea that may be so but this is a big deal. I mean people have died with this disease and the spread can be worse if we dont make drastic decisions. The fact to ask someone to self quarantine just for 21 days to make sure they dont have any of the symptoms isnt a tall order. Again, the doctor in NYC could have disproved this but unfortunately, he didnt.
I respect Dr.Fauci. I studied his book. He of all people should know some form of quarantine is indicated.
You miss her point completely. She is more important than anyone else and asking her to give up time from her very important life is too much of an imposition. Who cares if anyone else contracts Ebola and dies an agonizing death, she's got shopping to do. Community-minded folks like yourself just don't get it. She counts and nobody else does.
It's a just and necessary hardship that we're asking you to endure for the sake of our peace of mind. Never mind civil rights and crap like that. They're not important right now because this violation is something that doesn't directly effect me
This
Which most of the people have been saying.
Loonies will be loonies.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/29/health/us-ebola/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 - ( New Window )
Self-reporting several times a day.
I'd prefer the 21 day home quarantine, but the other measures are not without basis (Doctors Without Borders recommends the less restrictive reporting procedures).
Other than that, there have been 7 US cases reported, and exactly zero deaths. The reasons why are clear--link.
If the infection rate stays low (as is very likely) and the death rate from those infected also stays low (as is also likely), perhaps the grownups in government will take over the discussion. So far they are losing: Hagel is send troops to West Africa to help, and then is quarantining them when they get back. A two star general was recently quarantined, despite a lack of symptoms.
Link - ( New Window )
He self-monitored, and the only question is whether the teeny-tiny symptoms he had the night before he turned himself in put anyone at risk. Risks go up as symptoms go up, and you still only get ebola if a contact with body fluids took place. There is no evidence that one did.
And, there is no evidence in the science that home self-monitoring as a form of quarantine is insufficient. I suspect that her lack of willingness to comply with that is because she was pissed. I disagree with her, but understand what drove her.
I heard that in Bellvue they had to transport a whole bunch of patients to another hospital because of the one Ebola patient he had. Even if it's not that contagious, the amount of precaution that has to be taken makes each case a huge problem.
And, there is no evidence in the science that home self-monitoring as a form of quarantine is insufficient. I suspect that her lack of willingness to comply with that is because she was pissed. I disagree with her, but understand what drove her.
She's now vowing not to observe a home quarantine.
He self-monitored, and the only question is whether the teeny-tiny symptoms he had the night before he turned himself in put anyone at risk. Risks go up as symptoms go up, and you still only get ebola if a contact with body fluids took place. There is no evidence that one did.
IMO, that's a tough argument. There's no evidence that he put anyone at risk because (apparently) he didn't. (Of course, we don't know how his contacts will turn out either yet). However, he always had the potential and he knew that. There's still a lot of question as to degree of symptoms and infectivity. Is it none until you are symptomatic or is it now no infectivity until you are beyond the teeny tiny stage? There simply aren't well-defined, well-controlled studies. I did see something today where they were touting a new pcr test for ebola that is detecting virus in the blood well before a person becomes symptomatic. Again, no correlation with being contagious but if there is detectable virus in the blood then it does present at least the possibility of transmission. IMO, if you know you're potentially infected, you should be a responsible person.
What is the window? If you're criterion is fever, presumably you can be below the (arbitrary) temperature threshold one second and above it the next. Do you become infectious right at that point? Ten minutes later? An hour? A day? Where is the data.
It wasn't clear in your post whether you were referring to her new quarantine. Stop being so touchy.
Health care professionals, in particular, should be OK with home quarantine and self-monitoring. The NY doctor, in this case, should have been subject to more specific protocols for home quarantine, I think, but the risks don't appear significant.
Ebola is still difficult to transmit--not-without body fluid exchange--and at this point no one is dying. Imo, we need a national protocol of home quarantine with monitoring for anyone who might have been in contact with Ebola patients in Africa. No more, no less.
Quote:
if the science suggested that he put anyone at risk. There is no evidence that he did.
He self-monitored, and the only question is whether the teeny-tiny symptoms he had the night before he turned himself in put anyone at risk. Risks go up as symptoms go up, and you still only get ebola if a contact with body fluids took place. There is no evidence that one did.
IMO, that's a tough argument. There's no evidence that he put anyone at risk because (apparently) he didn't. (Of course, we don't know how his contacts will turn out either yet). However, he always had the potential and he knew that. There's still a lot of question as to degree of symptoms and infectivity. Is it none until you are symptomatic or is it now no infectivity until you are beyond the teeny tiny stage? There simply aren't well-defined, well-controlled studies. I did see something today where they were touting a new pcr test for ebola that is detecting virus in the blood well before a person becomes symptomatic. Again, no correlation with being contagious but if there is detectable virus in the blood then it does present at least the possibility of transmission. IMO, if you know you're potentially infected, you should be a responsible person.
+1
That was last week so as they change it seems every day it could have.
My understanding was in NY(I don't know NJ) the person was allowed self quarantine at home if they had one to go to with limited exposure allowed. No parties any of that but close family 2 or 3 was OK. Conn it seems that is what they are coin though that is not in the new much. If you did not have a nearby home to go to was when it got sticky. NY said medical facilityI don't know NJ.
The self quarantine at home was accompanied by a check by PD by a visit or by email or phone.
There is not a perfect response to this. But if say they have to move 10 patients and check on a 100 people for a exposure if this stuff is not done, and someone gets a fever...not to mention the losses potentially to small businesses, a lawsuit any small amount lost would likely be overwhelmed by the costs of not quarantining at all.
To my opinion.
No reason for hysteria but it still is a real thing.
Almost sounds like a wacky guy who wanted a free place to stay for a few weeks.
article - ( New Window )
REminds me of 9/11 how many nut jobs went over or tried to get over thee to find OBLI remember several.
Crisis seems to bring them out of the woodwork.
"U.S. troops returning from Ebola-stricken nations will be isolated for 21 days, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced Wednesday, a day after the White House raised concerns about states imposing strict quarantines of health care workers returning from West Africa."