Today the American Nurses Association and the Maine Medical Association criticized the state's requested 21-day quarantine for Hickox as unnecessary, unscientifically based and apt to create a climate of more fear
.
I, too would love to see a lot of this left in the hands of public health officials, if the public health officials aren't being led around by the nose by their own governor. I could cite numerous examples where they have been, but the result would be way too contentious and political, so I will only make the general point.
Is the Maine Medical Association more likely to take this in a political direction than the Governor's appointees? It isn't clear to me why they would be. Link - ( New Window )
Without trying to offend anybody, I would argue that nurses know as much about Ebola as judges. Which is not much. I'm distinguishing between care for Ebola patients versus knowledge of the virus and diseases here. They are essentially lay people in this, which is not to say that they are no exceptional people and exceptional at what they do.
As an aside, we have had an issues with some of the nurses in a major hospital here where they have succumbed to the anti-vaccine hysteria BS and refused to get flu shots. The rule is they then have to wear masks or be switched to non patient-interactive jobs until he season is over. Other nurses had to cover for them, resulting in increased and completely unnecessary costs.
that some other rule doesn't apply to her, what then? If quarantine is part of the new protocol, and she won't follow it what then? What happens if there is a more contagious disease and we need to quarantine people and they also fight it in court?
This whole debacle resulted because there was no policy from the federal level so states have had to act independently.
Limiting her movements to the degree requested by the state is not necessary because Hickox has no symptoms of Ebola and is not symptomatic, LaVerdiere wrote.
The idea that someone becomes contagious when certain symptoms are met, is vague. If we can't tell precisely when such a virus becomes contagious, why take the risk?
Until she is symptomatic and or has a sufficient fever Â
she is of zero risk to the public. You could climb into bed with her tonight even if she becomes symptomatic 3 days later and your chance of getting Ebola is 0%
Limiting her movements to the degree requested by the state is not necessary because Hickox has no symptoms of Ebola and is not symptomatic, LaVerdiere wrote.
The idea that someone becomes contagious when certain symptoms are met, is vague. If we can't tell precisely when such a virus becomes contagious, why take the risk?
The viral load in her body is not sufficient for transmission until she becomes symptomatic or has a sufficient fever. At either occurs you should assume that she is literally emanating Ebola. Until then she doesn't have enough virus to transmit
We lock people in prison for minor drug offenses for years Â
And this broad can't stfu and shove pizza into her face for a few weeks. She's alienated most of her neighborsand a sizable portion of the world, maybe a little quarantine isn't so bad. .
I'm sorry, these health workers are in no position to self-assess and we shouldn't trust them to. But it shouldn't be a trust issue.
If you're planning to go over there, plan the quarantine into the trip - cost of doing business, even for well meaning health workers. Prophylactic measures are appropriate during global health crises.
but precisely when is she contagious? The CDC has already changed the fever threshold on this issue.
My point is, you let her out of her home, she becomes symptomatic while in a grocery store. So she is now contagious in a public place. It seems idiotic to wait until she is contagious before restricting her...especially for a virus with such a limited life cycle.
but precisely when is she contagious? The CDC has already changed the fever threshold on this issue.
My point is, you let her out of her home, she becomes symptomatic while in a grocery store. So she is now contagious in a public place. It seems idiotic to wait until she is contagious before restricting her...especially for a virus with such a limited life cycle.
Yes that is a nightmare scenario, and certainly possible but unlikely given that she is monitoring her temperature. Usually you first develop a fever as the standard physiological response to the virus before you become nauseous and susceptible to diarrhea. I'm not a doctor but that is my understanding. It's safe to assume because she previously helped combat Ebola herself that she is responsible insofar that she'd never leave her house if she developed a fever.
Yes that is a nightmare scenario, and certainly possible but unlikely given that she is monitoring her temperature. Usually you first develop a fever as the standard physiological response to the virus before you become nauseous and susceptible to diarrhea. I'm not a doctor but that is my understanding. It's safe to assume because she previously helped combat Ebola herself that she is responsible insofar that she'd never leave her house if she developed a fever.
It would be safe to assume that a nurse who traveled to Africa helping Ebola patients, would be a little more accommodating with the US government telling her to stay home for a few weeks out of an abundance of caution for a virus we don't fully understand nor have a vaccine for. But this isn't the case.
Is it likely that anyone else will catch it from her? No. But FFS, don't shit where you eat lady. Why get people in town angry?
Yes that is a nightmare scenario, and certainly possible but unlikely given that she is monitoring her temperature. Usually you first develop a fever as the standard physiological response to the virus before you become nauseous and susceptible to diarrhea. I'm not a doctor but that is my understanding. It's safe to assume because she previously helped combat Ebola herself that she is responsible insofar that she'd never leave her house if she developed a fever.
It would be safe to assume that a nurse who traveled to Africa helping Ebola patients, would be a little more accommodating with the US government telling her to stay home for a few weeks out of an abundance of caution for a virus we don't fully understand nor have a vaccine for. But this isn't the case.
Is it likely that anyone else will catch it from her? No. But FFS, don't shit where you eat lady. Why get people in town angry?
Ebola is now highly politicized now and people have agendas to act out in public. I am positive she is upset about the bureaucracy that got her unnecessarily quarantined in the first place
that some other rule doesn't apply to her, what then? If quarantine is part of the new protocol, and she won't follow it what then? What happens if there is a more contagious disease and we need to quarantine people and they also fight it in court?
This whole debacle resulted because there was no policy from the federal level so states have had to act independently.
We do have a federal policy. Its just that people don't like it because they put their trust in politicians and the media rather than scientists. That, in an of itself, is symptomatic of America. It might be the same in other nations, but I have no experience in that regard.
Just as an aside, there ARE more contagious diseases and they KILL many more people that Ebola. We do not require people that are sick with those diseases to quarantine, and as a matter of fact many employers require them to work and handle your food while symptomatic! Where is the outrage and calls for action there?
The inconsistency in regard to Ebola is fueled by self serving media outlets and politicians. The hysteria is out of control. It is all so symptomatic of American society. We, and probably people in other countries as well, are the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water.
1 person dead by the Ebola virus, 33,000 via the flu virus (I haven't vetted that number).
for one, there is a vaccine for the flu, there isn't one for Ebola. And if you do get the flu, the chances you will get as sick or die is much less than it is for Ebola.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
that some other rule doesn't apply to her, what then? If quarantine is part of the new protocol, and she won't follow it what then? What happens if there is a more contagious disease and we need to quarantine people and they also fight it in court?
This whole debacle resulted because there was no policy from the federal level so states have had to act independently.
We do have a federal policy. Its just that people don't like it because they put their trust in politicians and the media rather than scientists. That, in an of itself, is symptomatic of America. It might be the same in other nations, but I have no experience in that regard.
Just as an aside, there ARE more contagious diseases and they KILL many more people that Ebola. We do not require people that are sick with those diseases to quarantine, and as a matter of fact many employers require them to work and handle your food while symptomatic! Where is the outrage and calls for action there?
The inconsistency in regard to Ebola is fueled by self serving media outlets and politicians. The hysteria is out of control. It is all so symptomatic of American society. We, and probably people in other countries as well, are the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water.
1 person dead by the Ebola virus, 33,000 via the flu virus (I haven't vetted that number).
This is ridiculous.
You think maybe because we fully understand flu and have only the foggiest of ideas on Ebola that the health community and government might be a little extra careful. Better to be wrong on the side of safety then ignore it and have it bite you in the ass.
I don't see hysteria except by the news media.
RE: Judges are ruling this country. Something is wrong here. Â
You think maybe because we fully understand flu and have only the foggiest of ideas on Ebola that the health community and government might be a little extra careful. Better to be wrong on the side of safety then ignore it and have it bite you in the ass.
I don't see hysteria except by the news media.
"Better to be wrong on the side of safety."
But it isn't being wrong on the side of safety. The disease is simply not that contagious.
This nation has become embarrassingly, cartoonishly stupid.
But it isn't being wrong on the side of safety. The disease is simply not that contagious.
This nation has become embarrassingly, cartoonishly stupid.
The nation has become enbarrassingly cartoonish and stupid and it isn't just Ebola.
It really isn't that contagious. The problem is that people are asymptomatic and rapidly become symptomatic. At what point in between does the virus transmit...CDC doesn't know and neither do you or I.
You think maybe because we fully understand flu and have only the foggiest of ideas on Ebola that the health community and government might be a little extra careful. Better to be wrong on the side of safety then ignore it and have it bite you in the ass.
I don't see hysteria except by the news media.
"Better to be wrong on the side of safety."
But it isn't being wrong on the side of safety. The disease is simply not that contagious.
This nation has become embarrassingly, cartoonishly stupid.
You can blame a hysterical media & partisans for stoking fear.
for one, there is a vaccine for the flu, there isn't one for Ebola. And if you do get the flu, the chances you will get as sick or die is much less than it is for Ebola.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
I believe 9 people have contracted Ebola in America, 1 has died, and that one died because he was miss-diagnosed.
for one, there is a vaccine for the flu, there isn't one for Ebola. And if you do get the flu, the chances you will get as sick or die is much less than it is for Ebola.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
I believe 9 people have contracted Ebola in America, 1 has died, and that one died because he was miss-diagnosed.
for one, there is a vaccine for the flu, there isn't one for Ebola. And if you do get the flu, the chances you will get as sick or die is much less than it is for Ebola.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
I believe 9 people have contracted Ebola in America, 1 has died, and that one died because he was miss-diagnosed.
It's actually presumptuous to say he died because he was misdiagnosed. He died because he got Ebola. Whether or not he would have recovered if he was admitted upon originally going to the ER is debatable.
RE: RE: RE: Comparing Ebola to the flu is absurd Â
for one, there is a vaccine for the flu, there isn't one for Ebola. And if you do get the flu, the chances you will get as sick or die is much less than it is for Ebola.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
I believe 9 people have contracted Ebola in America, 1 has died, and that one died because he was miss-diagnosed.
9? Uh, more like 3.
I think 2. Two others had it here but they contracted it in Africa.
Still think people are too dismissive of the disease and the need for precautions and also don't consider that the main reason there are not more cases and more fatalities is *because* of the precautions. Snd, I seriously hate this nurse. I'm not completely sure that if she did come down with Ebola in the next 10 or so days, it would serve her right.
for one, there is a vaccine for the flu, there isn't one for Ebola. And if you do get the flu, the chances you will get as sick or die is much less than it is for Ebola.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
I believe 9 people have contracted Ebola in America, 1 has died, and that one died because he was miss-diagnosed.
As Bill said only 2 people have gotten in IN the US, the rest were in Africa and were brought home with it.
But look at the infection and death rate in Africa. Ebola is a much more deadly disease than the flu. Plus even with the success we have had in treating people here with Ebola, it takes up SO many resources and costs so much, we could not handle more than a handful of cases.
So while it's harder to get than the flu, it's a more dangerous disease.
RE: RE: RE: Comparing Ebola to the flu is absurd Â
for one, there is a vaccine for the flu, there isn't one for Ebola. And if you do get the flu, the chances you will get as sick or die is much less than it is for Ebola.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
I believe 9 people have contracted Ebola in America, 1 has died, and that one died because he was miss-diagnosed.
As Bill said only 2 people have gotten in IN the US, the rest were in Africa and were brought home with it.
But look at the infection and death rate in Africa. Ebola is a much more deadly disease than the flu. Plus even with the success we have had in treating people here with Ebola, it takes up SO many resources and costs so much, we could not handle more than a handful of cases.
So while it's harder to get than the flu, it's a more dangerous disease.
Comparing the health systems/social structure of those African nations who have been hit by Ebola with the systems/resources in place here is ludicrous.
I think that the flu is a much, much greater concern here than Ebola. Not even in the same category. And as much as people suck and are the weak link for Ebola, that's logarithmically truer for flu. Knuckleheads who eschew the yearly vaccine are not only irresponsible to themselves but are harmful to others IMO.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Comparing Ebola to the flu is absurd Â
for one, there is a vaccine for the flu, there isn't one for Ebola. And if you do get the flu, the chances you will get as sick or die is much less than it is for Ebola.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
I believe 9 people have contracted Ebola in America, 1 has died, and that one died because he was miss-diagnosed.
9? Uh, more like 3.
I think 2. Two others had it here but they contracted it in Africa.
Still think people are too dismissive of the disease and the need for precautions and also don't consider that the main reason there are not more cases and more fatalities is *because* of the precautions. Snd, I seriously hate this nurse. I'm not completely sure that if she did come down with Ebola in the next 10 or so days, it would serve her right.
You hate this nurse, who BTW shows no symptoms of Ebola, from riding her bike, going for a walk, & going from a walk? Odd reason to hate someone. She's a hero for going over to Africa and trying to combat this horrible disease.
And the reason Ebola is so hard to catch is because it's a hard f*cking disease to catch. Again, unless you come into contact with an Ebola patients blood or bodily fluids, you're not getting it.
If there ever were to be an outbreak we don't have sufficient containment hospital facilities here. It's taking enormous amounts of resources and time just for preparedness even now all over the country. You could argue that we are less equipped or able to handle stuff that will come in much more frequency than Ebola because our attention is so focused on Ebola. And that's in public health, not panic-driven or media-responsive places.
Science should drive the policy...actually, I think science should inform the policy, as should other things like public health, public concerns, costs, etc. science...or this individual's perception of science....shouldn't drive whether or not a someone should conform to the policy. And anyway, science or policy is irrelevant to this situation. This is all about her 15 minutes and not much more.
knows more about ebola than the judge. Otherwise, she's a moron for working with ebola patients.
Judges are responsible for deciding if gov't decrees/laws are valid under the terms of the constitution. Politicians shouldn't be deciding health codes either, and the northeast's current trend to quarantine is nothing but political. our system of checks and balances has flaws, but not as many as systems without checks/balances. discussion of civil rights is not something to take lightly. yes you have to balance the public safety with rights of an individual, but the current state of ebola in the US doesn't rise to anything faintly resembling a threat to public safety.
It's a good thing the judge ruled as he did, otherwise this would have been one hell of a shit show.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Comparing Ebola to the flu is absurd Â
Comparing the health systems/social structure of those African nations who have been hit by Ebola with the systems/resources in place here is ludicrous.
Do you know the resources it takes to treat an Ebola patient here and the impact on our health system? And how much it costs? We should do everything we can to prevent more cases here, hence the quarantines and screening of people from those areas that come into the US.
On the other hand, no one has described a sceniario under which the size of the outbreak here gets unmanageable. To be clear, the only people who got Ebola while in the US were a couple of nurses who were working with a live case and were not properly outfitted.
No one who isn't a health care worker has contracted the disease in the US, and no one other than the original African patient has died.
What is your scenario for a full blown epidemic?
One of the things large groups of people do horribly is risk assessment. This situation is a prime example of that, including Buford.
it is more a matter of cost. There is no threat of a epidemic here in the US, our burial practices here for one preclude that. We don't have families responsible for the preparation of peoples dead for funeral as they do there for one. Ebola is largely transmittable from dead bodies curiously.
So at what cost to society is the quarantining of several as opposed to the even one of them eventually testing positive. WE have then to find out each and every contact every place visited and assess….that all costs lots, and business is lost in each place visited as well.
So yes it is a individual loss of freedom and some places restrict that freedom unnecessarily as here in Maine…..but that does not infer it is not a better thing to be precautionary rather than to err on the side of personal freedom in this thing. It is a thing of best management of potential costs..in this specific to the states, not a thing of epidemic.
RE: Judges are ruling this country. Something is wrong here. Â
Our elected official being over ruled by appointed judges.
This "concern" about Judges making decisions instead of the scientists shows a lack of understanding how the legal decision works. The judge doesn't make that kind of a decision in a vacuum. He says to the State: "Present your evidence justifying the need to hold this person against her will." The State then presents testimony of doctors and whatever other evidence they have to justify, scientifically, the public need to take away a person's civil rights.
The fact the Judge ruled against the State is simply a function of the fact that the State wasn't able to justify its position scientifically. And - if the State was truly concerned - they would have sought a stay of the Ruling from the Appellate Division while they appealed. But they didn't bother doing so - a pretty damning piece of evidence all by itself (i.e. the State's evidence was so non-existent that they didn't even bother trying to appeal).
Yup. With widespread evidence that top health officials in a state, appointed by the governor, can be politicized, a competent judge plus a vigorous appeals process, or even a shitty judge with a quality appeals process will get more frequent outcomes that comport with the science.
RE: RE: Judges are ruling this country. Something is wrong here. Â
Our elected official being over ruled by appointed judges.
This "concern" about Judges making decisions instead of the scientists shows a lack of understanding how the legal decision works. The judge doesn't make that kind of a decision in a vacuum. He says to the State: "Present your evidence justifying the need to hold this person against her will." The State then presents testimony of doctors and whatever other evidence they have to justify, scientifically, the public need to take away a person's civil rights.
The fact the Judge ruled against the State is simply a function of the fact that the State wasn't able to justify its position scientifically. And - if the State was truly concerned - they would have sought a stay of the Ruling from the Appellate Division while they appealed. But they didn't bother doing so - a pretty damning piece of evidence all by itself (i.e. the State's evidence was so non-existent that they didn't even bother trying to appeal).
The decision here was probably the correct one, however, as it stands the statement is utter bullshit (IMO). Judges, generally, older, focused their entire lives on one area, and more "right--brained" than left (if that actually were a thing) are less than lay on scientific matters and likely less knowledgeable than a teen who takes science classes contemporaneously. As such, cases are not decided about presentation of the science but, rather the persuasion of an advocate of a side arguing science. Like anything else in court. Science is peripheral and almost antithetical to what goes on in a courtroom. At it's core there is a truth which is independent of advocacy which is why it's so weird to me when courts try to define it, whether it's when life begins, or acceptance of a scientific test, or Ebola. H
They can rule on rhetoric but somewhere outside of it all, there actually is a truth.
Which is again being presented in real time against the backdrop of a public health crisis and so is evolving. And the judge then has to make a ruling based on whatever it is that governs his ruling, and the public has to then beseech the next court for relief.
FWIW the military is quarantining its personnel for 21 days. What is good for the goose should be good for someone who volunteered to go to an at risk environment. She shouldn't get to volunteer her neighbors to potentially come along for the epidemiological ride.
RE: RE: RE: Judges are ruling this country. Something is wrong here. Â
The decision here was probably the correct one, however, as it stands the statement is utter bullshit (IMO). Judges, generally, older, focused their entire lives on one area, and more "right--brained" than left (if that actually were a thing) are less than lay on scientific matters and likely less knowledgeable than a teen who takes science classes contemporaneously. As such, cases are not decided about presentation of the science but, rather the persuasion of an advocate of a side arguing science. Like anything else in court. Science is peripheral and almost antithetical to what goes on in a courtroom. At it's core there is a truth which is independent of advocacy which is why it's so weird to me when courts try to define it, whether it's when life begins, or acceptance of a scientific test, or Ebola. H
They can rule on rhetoric but somewhere outside of it all, there actually is a truth.
If you don't want the Courts involved, then you are left without due process and without an appellate process. You can chose that for you, but thank goodness you can't do anything about taking away my due process rights. The Courts are the single best part of our three tiered democratic system IMO. To think you would want a system (any system) in which one person (politician or scientist) gets to decide your fate WITHOUT any right to appeal to the Courts is ludicrous.
RE: But when they present their respective evidence Â
Which is again being presented in real time against the backdrop of a public health crisis and so is evolving. And the judge then has to make a ruling based on whatever it is that governs his ruling, and the public has to then beseech the next court for relief.
FWIW the military is quarantining its personnel for 21 days. What is good for the goose should be good for someone who volunteered to go to an at risk environment. She shouldn't get to volunteer her neighbors to potentially come along for the epidemiological ride.
You forget that the judicial system is built upon an appeals process. And in the case of a health emergency, if the State loses and doesn't bother appealing, that's pretty fucking clear evidence that they were playing politics all along. Because if they truly believed public health is at risk, their failure to appeal would be an unspeakable offense. But they haven't even bothered appealing. Pretty damning stuff and says all we need to know.
The courts do have to make a decisionmand they do have to guid a course of action. Just realize that it has little to do with science or scientific truths.
The courts do have to make a decisionmand they do have to guid a course of action. Just realize that it has little to do with science or scientific truths.
Well, that may or may not be true. I've been a trial attorney for 37 years and because of whore scientists willing to say anything for a buck, it falls upon a skilled attorney to peel back that onion and expose the fallacy.
But, getting back to the issue, if you want the courts involved, then what is your point?
the military is the arbiter of what is correct science? Challenge. Why would the Army know more about this than, say, the Maine Medical Association that has sided with the nurse?
As was noted on a talk show I saw, this isn't so unusual for a typical Army corps, incliuding one returning from a country with Ebola. They typically didn't go there voluntarily as the Doctors Without Borders people did, and when they return, they are just restricted to barracks along with a number of other soldiers in the same situation. No rights have be abridged, and no disincentives to volunteer in the future have been created.
It keeps coming back to the same three points. Ebola isn't easy to catch, it is impossible to catch until someone has significant symptoms, and no individual in this country has contracted the disease except a handful of nurses treating an active case who weren't properly protected in the first place.
We still don't have a single case of healthcare worker to private citizen transmission, or ill patient to private citizen transmission. Nada.
May be easily swayed to rule against the position of the government shouldn't forget about judicial deference. It's a practice of the court siding with the position of the other branches of government as a default position. If the case was even close, the judge would have ruled in favor of the state.
The courts do have to make a decisionmand they do have to guid a course of action. Just realize that it has little to do with science or scientific truths.
Well, that may or may not be true. I've been a trial attorney for 37 years and because of whore scientists willing to say anything for a buck, it falls upon a skilled attorney to peel back that onion and expose the fallacy.
But, getting back to the issue, if you want the courts involved, then what is your point?
Do you expect the public to feel comfortable when the only thing standing between quack science and a public health emergency is "skilled lawyering" and judicial deference, two things that are not universally available?
Do you expect the public to feel comfortable when the only thing standing between quack science and a public health emergency is "skilled lawyering" and judicial deference, two things that are not universally available?
What is the "no courts" alternative you would suggest?
but precisely when is she contagious? The CDC has already changed the fever threshold on this issue.
My point is, you let her out of her home, she becomes symptomatic while in a grocery store. So she is now contagious in a public place. It seems idiotic to wait until she is contagious before restricting her...especially for a virus with such a limited life cycle.
And if Ebola was airborne, this would be a problem. But it's not. Only one virus has ever sufficiently mutated from non-airborne to airborne, and that's the virus from Outbreak.
Even if she becomes symptomatic while at the grocery store, unless she vomits on you, you're not catching Ebola from her.
Quote:
Today the American Nurses Association and the Maine Medical Association criticized the state's requested 21-day quarantine for Hickox as unnecessary, unscientifically based and apt to create a climate of more fear
.
I, too would love to see a lot of this left in the hands of public health officials, if the public health officials aren't being led around by the nose by their own governor. I could cite numerous examples where they have been, but the result would be way too contentious and political, so I will only make the general point.
Is the Maine Medical Association more likely to take this in a political direction than the Governor's appointees? It isn't clear to me why they would be. Link - ( New Window )
Without trying to offend anybody, I would argue that nurses know as much about Ebola as judges. Which is not much. I'm distinguishing between care for Ebola patients versus knowledge of the virus and diseases here. They are essentially lay people in this, which is not to say that they are no exceptional people and exceptional at what they do.
As an aside, we have had an issues with some of the nurses in a major hospital here where they have succumbed to the anti-vaccine hysteria BS and refused to get flu shots. The rule is they then have to wear masks or be switched to non patient-interactive jobs until he season is over. Other nurses had to cover for them, resulting in increased and completely unnecessary costs.
This whole debacle resulted because there was no policy from the federal level so states have had to act independently.
The idea that someone becomes contagious when certain symptoms are met, is vague. If we can't tell precisely when such a virus becomes contagious, why take the risk?
Quote:
Limiting her movements to the degree requested by the state is not necessary because Hickox has no symptoms of Ebola and is not symptomatic, LaVerdiere wrote.
The idea that someone becomes contagious when certain symptoms are met, is vague. If we can't tell precisely when such a virus becomes contagious, why take the risk?
The viral load in her body is not sufficient for transmission until she becomes symptomatic or has a sufficient fever. At either occurs you should assume that she is literally emanating Ebola. Until then she doesn't have enough virus to transmit
I'm sorry, these health workers are in no position to self-assess and we shouldn't trust them to. But it shouldn't be a trust issue.
If you're planning to go over there, plan the quarantine into the trip - cost of doing business, even for well meaning health workers. Prophylactic measures are appropriate during global health crises.
My point is, you let her out of her home, she becomes symptomatic while in a grocery store. So she is now contagious in a public place. It seems idiotic to wait until she is contagious before restricting her...especially for a virus with such a limited life cycle.
My point is, you let her out of her home, she becomes symptomatic while in a grocery store. So she is now contagious in a public place. It seems idiotic to wait until she is contagious before restricting her...especially for a virus with such a limited life cycle.
Yes that is a nightmare scenario, and certainly possible but unlikely given that she is monitoring her temperature. Usually you first develop a fever as the standard physiological response to the virus before you become nauseous and susceptible to diarrhea. I'm not a doctor but that is my understanding. It's safe to assume because she previously helped combat Ebola herself that she is responsible insofar that she'd never leave her house if she developed a fever.
It would be safe to assume that a nurse who traveled to Africa helping Ebola patients, would be a little more accommodating with the US government telling her to stay home for a few weeks out of an abundance of caution for a virus we don't fully understand nor have a vaccine for. But this isn't the case.
Is it likely that anyone else will catch it from her? No. But FFS, don't shit where you eat lady. Why get people in town angry?
Quote:
Yes that is a nightmare scenario, and certainly possible but unlikely given that she is monitoring her temperature. Usually you first develop a fever as the standard physiological response to the virus before you become nauseous and susceptible to diarrhea. I'm not a doctor but that is my understanding. It's safe to assume because she previously helped combat Ebola herself that she is responsible insofar that she'd never leave her house if she developed a fever.
It would be safe to assume that a nurse who traveled to Africa helping Ebola patients, would be a little more accommodating with the US government telling her to stay home for a few weeks out of an abundance of caution for a virus we don't fully understand nor have a vaccine for. But this isn't the case.
Is it likely that anyone else will catch it from her? No. But FFS, don't shit where you eat lady. Why get people in town angry?
Ebola is now highly politicized now and people have agendas to act out in public. I am positive she is upset about the bureaucracy that got her unnecessarily quarantined in the first place
This whole debacle resulted because there was no policy from the federal level so states have had to act independently.
We do have a federal policy. Its just that people don't like it because they put their trust in politicians and the media rather than scientists. That, in an of itself, is symptomatic of America. It might be the same in other nations, but I have no experience in that regard.
Just as an aside, there ARE more contagious diseases and they KILL many more people that Ebola. We do not require people that are sick with those diseases to quarantine, and as a matter of fact many employers require them to work and handle your food while symptomatic! Where is the outrage and calls for action there?
The inconsistency in regard to Ebola is fueled by self serving media outlets and politicians. The hysteria is out of control. It is all so symptomatic of American society. We, and probably people in other countries as well, are the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water.
1 person dead by the Ebola virus, 33,000 via the flu virus (I haven't vetted that number).
This is ridiculous.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
that some other rule doesn't apply to her, what then? If quarantine is part of the new protocol, and she won't follow it what then? What happens if there is a more contagious disease and we need to quarantine people and they also fight it in court?
This whole debacle resulted because there was no policy from the federal level so states have had to act independently.
We do have a federal policy. Its just that people don't like it because they put their trust in politicians and the media rather than scientists. That, in an of itself, is symptomatic of America. It might be the same in other nations, but I have no experience in that regard.
Just as an aside, there ARE more contagious diseases and they KILL many more people that Ebola. We do not require people that are sick with those diseases to quarantine, and as a matter of fact many employers require them to work and handle your food while symptomatic! Where is the outrage and calls for action there?
The inconsistency in regard to Ebola is fueled by self serving media outlets and politicians. The hysteria is out of control. It is all so symptomatic of American society. We, and probably people in other countries as well, are the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water.
1 person dead by the Ebola virus, 33,000 via the flu virus (I haven't vetted that number).
This is ridiculous.
You think maybe because we fully understand flu and have only the foggiest of ideas on Ebola that the health community and government might be a little extra careful. Better to be wrong on the side of safety then ignore it and have it bite you in the ass.
I don't see hysteria except by the news media.
It's called balance of power. The elected officials appoint the judges that can overrule them
Quote:
You think maybe because we fully understand flu and have only the foggiest of ideas on Ebola that the health community and government might be a little extra careful. Better to be wrong on the side of safety then ignore it and have it bite you in the ass.
I don't see hysteria except by the news media.
"Better to be wrong on the side of safety."
But it isn't being wrong on the side of safety. The disease is simply not that contagious.
This nation has become embarrassingly, cartoonishly stupid.
Quote:
In comment 11950485 Hammer said:
Quote:
"Better to be wrong on the side of safety."
But it isn't being wrong on the side of safety. The disease is simply not that contagious.
This nation has become embarrassingly, cartoonishly stupid.
The nation has become enbarrassingly cartoonish and stupid and it isn't just Ebola.
It really isn't that contagious. The problem is that people are asymptomatic and rapidly become symptomatic. At what point in between does the virus transmit...CDC doesn't know and neither do you or I.
Quote:
In comment 11950485 Hammer said:
Quote:
You think maybe because we fully understand flu and have only the foggiest of ideas on Ebola that the health community and government might be a little extra careful. Better to be wrong on the side of safety then ignore it and have it bite you in the ass.
I don't see hysteria except by the news media.
"Better to be wrong on the side of safety."
But it isn't being wrong on the side of safety. The disease is simply not that contagious.
This nation has become embarrassingly, cartoonishly stupid.
You can blame a hysterical media & partisans for stoking fear.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
I believe 9 people have contracted Ebola in America, 1 has died, and that one died because he was miss-diagnosed.
Quote:
for one, there is a vaccine for the flu, there isn't one for Ebola. And if you do get the flu, the chances you will get as sick or die is much less than it is for Ebola.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
I believe 9 people have contracted Ebola in America, 1 has died, and that one died because he was miss-diagnosed.
9? Uh, more like 3.
Quote:
for one, there is a vaccine for the flu, there isn't one for Ebola. And if you do get the flu, the chances you will get as sick or die is much less than it is for Ebola.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
I believe 9 people have contracted Ebola in America, 1 has died, and that one died because he was miss-diagnosed.
It's actually presumptuous to say he died because he was misdiagnosed. He died because he got Ebola. Whether or not he would have recovered if he was admitted upon originally going to the ER is debatable.
Quote:
In comment 11950493 buford said:
Quote:
for one, there is a vaccine for the flu, there isn't one for Ebola. And if you do get the flu, the chances you will get as sick or die is much less than it is for Ebola.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
I believe 9 people have contracted Ebola in America, 1 has died, and that one died because he was miss-diagnosed.
9? Uh, more like 3.
I think 2. Two others had it here but they contracted it in Africa.
Still think people are too dismissive of the disease and the need for precautions and also don't consider that the main reason there are not more cases and more fatalities is *because* of the precautions. Snd, I seriously hate this nurse. I'm not completely sure that if she did come down with Ebola in the next 10 or so days, it would serve her right.
Quote:
for one, there is a vaccine for the flu, there isn't one for Ebola. And if you do get the flu, the chances you will get as sick or die is much less than it is for Ebola.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
I believe 9 people have contracted Ebola in America, 1 has died, and that one died because he was miss-diagnosed.
As Bill said only 2 people have gotten in IN the US, the rest were in Africa and were brought home with it.
But look at the infection and death rate in Africa. Ebola is a much more deadly disease than the flu. Plus even with the success we have had in treating people here with Ebola, it takes up SO many resources and costs so much, we could not handle more than a handful of cases.
So while it's harder to get than the flu, it's a more dangerous disease.
Quote:
In comment 11950493 buford said:
Quote:
for one, there is a vaccine for the flu, there isn't one for Ebola. And if you do get the flu, the chances you will get as sick or die is much less than it is for Ebola.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
I believe 9 people have contracted Ebola in America, 1 has died, and that one died because he was miss-diagnosed.
As Bill said only 2 people have gotten in IN the US, the rest were in Africa and were brought home with it.
But look at the infection and death rate in Africa. Ebola is a much more deadly disease than the flu. Plus even with the success we have had in treating people here with Ebola, it takes up SO many resources and costs so much, we could not handle more than a handful of cases.
So while it's harder to get than the flu, it's a more dangerous disease.
Comparing the health systems/social structure of those African nations who have been hit by Ebola with the systems/resources in place here is ludicrous.
Quote:
In comment 11950527 Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 11950493 buford said:
Quote:
for one, there is a vaccine for the flu, there isn't one for Ebola. And if you do get the flu, the chances you will get as sick or die is much less than it is for Ebola.
And the 'federal policy' would have been put in place by legislators, not scientists and has been modified several times. So again, that is why several states have taken action on their own.
Link - ( New Window )
I believe 9 people have contracted Ebola in America, 1 has died, and that one died because he was miss-diagnosed.
9? Uh, more like 3.
I think 2. Two others had it here but they contracted it in Africa.
Still think people are too dismissive of the disease and the need for precautions and also don't consider that the main reason there are not more cases and more fatalities is *because* of the precautions. Snd, I seriously hate this nurse. I'm not completely sure that if she did come down with Ebola in the next 10 or so days, it would serve her right.
You hate this nurse, who BTW shows no symptoms of Ebola, from riding her bike, going for a walk, & going from a walk? Odd reason to hate someone. She's a hero for going over to Africa and trying to combat this horrible disease.
And the reason Ebola is so hard to catch is because it's a hard f*cking disease to catch. Again, unless you come into contact with an Ebola patients blood or bodily fluids, you're not getting it.
She's the epitome of "look at me".
Since DWB has been fighting ebola for years , they probably understand the risks associated with transmission of this disease .
This nurse is merely fighting the hysteria that has gripped the US in terms of ebola.
Trying to let Science instead of Politics decide what is proper procedure
Judges are responsible for deciding if gov't decrees/laws are valid under the terms of the constitution. Politicians shouldn't be deciding health codes either, and the northeast's current trend to quarantine is nothing but political. our system of checks and balances has flaws, but not as many as systems without checks/balances. discussion of civil rights is not something to take lightly. yes you have to balance the public safety with rights of an individual, but the current state of ebola in the US doesn't rise to anything faintly resembling a threat to public safety.
It's a good thing the judge ruled as he did, otherwise this would have been one hell of a shit show.
Comparing the health systems/social structure of those African nations who have been hit by Ebola with the systems/resources in place here is ludicrous.
Do you know the resources it takes to treat an Ebola patient here and the impact on our health system? And how much it costs? We should do everything we can to prevent more cases here, hence the quarantines and screening of people from those areas that come into the US.
No one who isn't a health care worker has contracted the disease in the US, and no one other than the original African patient has died.
What is your scenario for a full blown epidemic?
One of the things large groups of people do horribly is risk assessment. This situation is a prime example of that, including Buford.
So at what cost to society is the quarantining of several as opposed to the even one of them eventually testing positive. WE have then to find out each and every contact every place visited and assess….that all costs lots, and business is lost in each place visited as well.
So yes it is a individual loss of freedom and some places restrict that freedom unnecessarily as here in Maine…..but that does not infer it is not a better thing to be precautionary rather than to err on the side of personal freedom in this thing. It is a thing of best management of potential costs..in this specific to the states, not a thing of epidemic.
This "concern" about Judges making decisions instead of the scientists shows a lack of understanding how the legal decision works. The judge doesn't make that kind of a decision in a vacuum. He says to the State: "Present your evidence justifying the need to hold this person against her will." The State then presents testimony of doctors and whatever other evidence they have to justify, scientifically, the public need to take away a person's civil rights.
The fact the Judge ruled against the State is simply a function of the fact that the State wasn't able to justify its position scientifically. And - if the State was truly concerned - they would have sought a stay of the Ruling from the Appellate Division while they appealed. But they didn't bother doing so - a pretty damning piece of evidence all by itself (i.e. the State's evidence was so non-existent that they didn't even bother trying to appeal).
Quote:
Our elected official being over ruled by appointed judges.
This "concern" about Judges making decisions instead of the scientists shows a lack of understanding how the legal decision works. The judge doesn't make that kind of a decision in a vacuum. He says to the State: "Present your evidence justifying the need to hold this person against her will." The State then presents testimony of doctors and whatever other evidence they have to justify, scientifically, the public need to take away a person's civil rights.
The fact the Judge ruled against the State is simply a function of the fact that the State wasn't able to justify its position scientifically. And - if the State was truly concerned - they would have sought a stay of the Ruling from the Appellate Division while they appealed. But they didn't bother doing so - a pretty damning piece of evidence all by itself (i.e. the State's evidence was so non-existent that they didn't even bother trying to appeal).
The decision here was probably the correct one, however, as it stands the statement is utter bullshit (IMO). Judges, generally, older, focused their entire lives on one area, and more "right--brained" than left (if that actually were a thing) are less than lay on scientific matters and likely less knowledgeable than a teen who takes science classes contemporaneously. As such, cases are not decided about presentation of the science but, rather the persuasion of an advocate of a side arguing science. Like anything else in court. Science is peripheral and almost antithetical to what goes on in a courtroom. At it's core there is a truth which is independent of advocacy which is why it's so weird to me when courts try to define it, whether it's when life begins, or acceptance of a scientific test, or Ebola. H
They can rule on rhetoric but somewhere outside of it all, there actually is a truth.
FWIW the military is quarantining its personnel for 21 days. What is good for the goose should be good for someone who volunteered to go to an at risk environment. She shouldn't get to volunteer her neighbors to potentially come along for the epidemiological ride.
They can rule on rhetoric but somewhere outside of it all, there actually is a truth.
If you don't want the Courts involved, then you are left without due process and without an appellate process. You can chose that for you, but thank goodness you can't do anything about taking away my due process rights. The Courts are the single best part of our three tiered democratic system IMO. To think you would want a system (any system) in which one person (politician or scientist) gets to decide your fate WITHOUT any right to appeal to the Courts is ludicrous.
FWIW the military is quarantining its personnel for 21 days. What is good for the goose should be good for someone who volunteered to go to an at risk environment. She shouldn't get to volunteer her neighbors to potentially come along for the epidemiological ride.
You forget that the judicial system is built upon an appeals process. And in the case of a health emergency, if the State loses and doesn't bother appealing, that's pretty fucking clear evidence that they were playing politics all along. Because if they truly believed public health is at risk, their failure to appeal would be an unspeakable offense. But they haven't even bothered appealing. Pretty damning stuff and says all we need to know.
Well, that may or may not be true. I've been a trial attorney for 37 years and because of whore scientists willing to say anything for a buck, it falls upon a skilled attorney to peel back that onion and expose the fallacy.
But, getting back to the issue, if you want the courts involved, then what is your point?
As was noted on a talk show I saw, this isn't so unusual for a typical Army corps, incliuding one returning from a country with Ebola. They typically didn't go there voluntarily as the Doctors Without Borders people did, and when they return, they are just restricted to barracks along with a number of other soldiers in the same situation. No rights have be abridged, and no disincentives to volunteer in the future have been created.
It keeps coming back to the same three points. Ebola isn't easy to catch, it is impossible to catch until someone has significant symptoms, and no individual in this country has contracted the disease except a handful of nurses treating an active case who weren't properly protected in the first place.
We still don't have a single case of healthcare worker to private citizen transmission, or ill patient to private citizen transmission. Nada.
Quote:
The courts do have to make a decisionmand they do have to guid a course of action. Just realize that it has little to do with science or scientific truths.
Well, that may or may not be true. I've been a trial attorney for 37 years and because of whore scientists willing to say anything for a buck, it falls upon a skilled attorney to peel back that onion and expose the fallacy.
But, getting back to the issue, if you want the courts involved, then what is your point?
Do you expect the public to feel comfortable when the only thing standing between quack science and a public health emergency is "skilled lawyering" and judicial deference, two things that are not universally available?
What is the "no courts" alternative you would suggest?
My point is, you let her out of her home, she becomes symptomatic while in a grocery store. So she is now contagious in a public place. It seems idiotic to wait until she is contagious before restricting her...especially for a virus with such a limited life cycle.
And if Ebola was airborne, this would be a problem. But it's not. Only one virus has ever sufficiently mutated from non-airborne to airborne, and that's the virus from Outbreak.
Even if she becomes symptomatic while at the grocery store, unless she vomits on you, you're not catching Ebola from her.