(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 )
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).