General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy can't these health care workers who've been exposed to Ebola just wait 21 days?
As I was watching this Maine health care worker moaning and complaining about being quarantined for a meager 21 days, I couldn't help but wonder. I mean really, they can't just chill for 21 days and read a book and watch some TV, talk on the phone etc?
Why are they so eager to potentially put others at risk? It's a small price to pay for the general well being and health of the public. What's the big deal?
It seems like the height of arrogance to just come back to the US after being exposed to EBOLA and expect to galavant around town immediately.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 29, 2014, 11:17 PM - Edit history (1)
i cant. and i can fiscally afford it. but, i have obligations and responsibilities that would not allow me to take 21 days by myself.
and
there is no scientific, medical, logical reason
B2G
(9,766 posts)pnwmom
(109,020 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)sued. hysteria. plain and simple. not a single person willing to do this to the workers in this country. as if, ebola is different there from here.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)notrightatall
(410 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)self monitoring has been 100% EFFECTIVE adn successful. a 100% rate of success. it does not get better than that.
this. is hysteria, and lack of education, awareness, knowledge.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Americans scare so DAMN easy these days.
woolldog
(8,791 posts)pun intended?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)selecting that word. My bad.
woolldog
(8,791 posts)I wasn't offended at all, thought it was funny
Ms. Toad
(34,119 posts)21 days has not yet expired for either nurse Vinson or Dr. Spencer. I think it is unlikely that they will have infected anyone, but it premature to declare that it has been 100% effective and 100% successful.
In addition, even if it is successful for the 3 individuals so far, that does not mean it will always be successful. It wasn't in Nigeria - absent enforcement which involved tracking down people who were not cooperative with self-monitoring and forcing compliance.
No peer reviewed studies speak in the absolutes you (and many others) have used on DU. They speak in terms of minimal risk - not NO risk.
I think some form of enforced monitoring for anyone known to have contact with someone with Ebola (even with protective gear), which includes daily reporting, spot verifying symptoms associated with the early stages of Ebola, and mandatory quarantine of anyone displaying ANY symptoms (including vague malaise, fatigue, grogginess - the early symptoms experienced by Vinson and Spencer approximately 3 days prior to spiking a fever) until (1) the symptoms vanish (2) the symptoms are positively connected with something else, or (3) the condition worsens to Ebola.
That is not hysteria, a lack of education, awareness, or knowlege - it is caution which is consistent with the way doctors and scientists view the risks (minimal but non-zero) and with protecting the public against a condition which has a greater than 50% fatality rate.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So, good enough. Good enough by a long shot.
Ms. Toad
(34,119 posts)I am concerned about the costs of even a single case (and with the costs associated with monitoring individuals that single individual has come in contact with while contagious), when those costs could be minimized or prevented with reasonable monitoring.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Do they get isolated after a shift and we bring in the next team or do we lock them up in hospital to treat patient until virus free or dead and then they start 21 days?
If not, pure hysteria
Or something worse
Ms. Toad
(34,119 posts)As to those working with someone with Ebola - the number should be limited to as few individuals as possible - and during the shifts when they are working with an Ebola patient they should not be assigned to work with any other patients, and there should be sterilizing facilities that they leave through at the end of each shift to make sure they do not carry the virus out of the hospital on their skin or clothing.
After their last contact with the patient with Ebola, they should begin the 21 day supervised monitoring period. At the first sign of any symptoms (including fatigue) they should self-quarantine - which should be externally enforced if they are not cooperative. If they fail to self-monitor (by not reporting daily temp & symptoms - or by not being able to be located by people doing spot checks. That is now Nigeria went from being a country with Ebola, to being declared Ebola free.
Rather than addressing the serious concerns and reasonable suggestions which balance public health risks against unreasonable restrictions - restrictions imposed in a country which has successfully transitioned from having Ebola to one which no longer does, you (and many others) are dismissing the reality that scientists and doctors do not make the absolute assertions you are making about there being zero risk during the periods when 2 of the 3 diagnosed health care workers first started experiencing symptoms later confirmed to be the beginning of Ebola.
There is a risk, and in addressing it we need to respect the reality that Ebola has a greater than 50% fatality rate, and is not like any other disease we have previously encountered.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,119 posts)Try reading again.
From the previous post:
In case the reasoning is not clear - a health care worker cannot safely (or at least safely and efficiently) move back and forth between someone with Ebola and other patients during the same shift because of the risk of errors in repeatedly going through the decontamination process. Protective gear must be removed, under the supervision of someone else, clothing should be changed and skin cleaned - just in case there was a breach, then the health care worker goes to another room, then back to the patient with Ebola, dons the protective gear, and so on. Expecting a health care worker to be able to go through that process repeatedly in a shift, without making a mistake, is not a realistic safety expectation.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)where is the logic in that?
Ms. Toad
(34,119 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)advocating isolation over monitoring? if you are not, then i am right there with you, all the way
Ms. Toad
(34,119 posts)(reported, with in person spot checks) and quarantine (enforced, if necessary) at the first sign of symptoms (including symptoms as vague as fatigue - which both Vinson and Spencer experienced three days before they spiked a fever).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,119 posts)Per the CDC:
High, some, and low risk categories
These people MUST have a medical examination to make sure they dont have Ebola. They will remain isolated in a hospital until doctors and public health officials are certain that Ebola is not a concern.
*Symptoms of Ebola: Fever, severe headache, fatigue, muscle pain, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, unexplained bruising or bleeding.
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/fs1027-monitoring-symptoms-controlling-movement.html
It was my assessment that both Vinson and Spencer should have self-quarantined when they experienced fatigue 3 days in advance of running a fever. As of 3 days ago, the CDC has adopted what I've been saying for a couple of weeks.
Amazing how many people have been accusing me of fear mongering, considering how much of what I have been saying has since become the official policy of the CDC.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we are talking about people who live an adult lifetime of fatigued. as most of all us adults here in the u.s.
when are you NOT fuckin fatigued. that would scare me more. if i was actually NOT fatigued.
you wnat to reduce it all the way to fatigued.
no.
low grade fever, 100.4 is good enough. how do i know. cause it has been 100% successful to this point.
and it is a solid number.
ya wnat the monitorer ask fatigue? cool. just more info to the whole. but you can easily get that info as reference to the point of low grade.
in the hospital you go. REASON
ALL crisis also needs reason.
Ms. Toad
(34,119 posts)Read the CDC excerpt in my last post.
The CDC has designated 4 categories, the lowest of which is "no risk."
Unless you are in the "no risk" category, any Ebola symptom, including but not limited to fatigue (read the list I cut and pasted from the CDC's new guidelines) requires isolation until it is proven NOT to be Ebola.
Read the guidelines you say you agree with.
(Not to mention that 13% of the people with Ebola would never have to be isolated by your standard of running a fever.)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)know and respect. i have put out my position and why. i think it is the answer. i think we trust in reason.
got it?
Ms. Toad
(34,119 posts)I have never said I trusted the CDC guidelines, or those of Dallas Presbyterian, etc., or any other medical institution. They have been wrong too many times. I have pretty good medical intuition, and am usually proven correct. Ebola, so far, is no exception. The CDC has lagged what I have said ought to be done, but it has eventually adopted it. Both as to protective gear and now the criteria for when you isolate and begin treating someone as if they have Ebola until proven differently. I'm glad they now agree with me - but it has been (and will continue to be) my position regardless of what the CDC advocates.
I get it that most people don't work that way. They don't have the personal experience I have of self-diagnosing several personal or family conditions, being told by the doctor I could not possibly be correct, and later on having the conditions confirmed by medical tests - or of refusing medical treatment because I trusted my own reasoning more than the physicians who were treating me (and, again, being proven right to have done so by objective medical testing). So I understand treating medical authority as gods - people do that far more than is healthy, but that is another conversation. But when someone who has been telling me that I don't have enough knowledge/experience/education/etc. to make the call - that the authorities know best - does a 180 and no longer trusts the authority they were using against me, merely because the authorities have adopted what I've been saying all along, it bugs me.
MattBaggins
(7,905 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Iris
(15,676 posts)That's too much power for a government to weild over anindividual citizen, especially considering the science doesn't back it up.
Skink
(10,122 posts)Seems easy
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)do not allow 21 days out. for no reason. but fear, hysteria, lack of education.
that being said. totally mindboggling all those willing to throw away govt money to lock someone up out of fear, yet we cannot get healthcare for the truly sick, cause we are so fuckin stingy and greedy.
woolldog
(8,791 posts)so your argument about "having obligations and responsibilites that do not allow 21 days" off, fails, imo
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)woolldog
(8,791 posts)Same with the doctor in NYC.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Doesn't it make us at best... Fearful hypocrites to only lick up medical staff dealing with that Ebola and not medical staff dealing with our Ebola?
If everyone is so damn afraid of Ebola to the extreme of locking people up, I demand you also demand us medical staff be locked up too
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I've actually been away for a long while with a planned date of return. That was because of child care issues, medical RX that needed a doctor visit, drivers license renewal, bills, the end of a family commitment to stay at my house, planned remodeling at the house, a death in the family with a funeral to plan etc.
Just because someone has been away a while doesn't mean they don't have pressing issues upon their return that they can just put off arbitrarily.
woolldog
(8,791 posts)My condolences.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)There are other ways to monitor this safely. What we have here is a lack of education where it counts.
Story of Americans and our general inability to keep up with science
in this case, health science.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)go anywhere, unless we need groceries or other such errands. I putter around at home, and I'm OK with that.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,924 posts)How about because they have jobs and families? Three weeks is a long time to be confined somewhere, unable to work or do anything else, if you aren't sick.
How about because they have the right not to be imprisoned unless there's a good reason, and just having been exposed isn't a good reason. For the umpteenth time, Ebola isn't communicable until a person shows symptoms. If a person is not showing symptoms they can't pass it on to anyone else - and even then, they'd have to puke or shit on them.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)uppityperson
(115,681 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)the very moment they decide that they have symptoms?
The NY doc was all around town on the days he felt run down, but wasn't contagious at all until the moment he decided to call in a fever?
How neat and tidy it all is!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)get the facts, as opposed to uninformed snark
polichick
(37,152 posts)It really isn't that neat and tidy - no "snark" intended.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)but i bet they can clearly define the circumstance.
what a silly post.
ecstatic
(32,760 posts)Stardust
(3,894 posts)detect the virus unless the viral load is high? Seems to this layman's perspective that their instruments should be able to detect the presence of a few viruses, not only when the numbers reach into the millions.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Before at contagious stage.
MoonchildCA
(1,301 posts)I would have pulled all my hair out by now...
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)What fever did he have? I am curious to know what your understanding of that was. Thank you.
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/q-msf%E2%80%99s-ebola-response-and-protocols
The nature of the virus is such that it cannot be transmitted from one person to another until someone is displaying symptoms. Even after a patient begins showing symptoms, he or she is not very contagious. They become more infectious as the symptoms worsen, particularly after they develop gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea and vomiting, and then, later, if they start bleeding. Even then, infection can only result from direct contact with bodily fluids such as vomit, blood, and feces.
(clip)
How contagious was he when he was moving around the city?
Given when his symptoms began, and the extent of his fever when he first reported itafter which he was entirely isolated in his apartmenthe would have been an extremely low risk for contagion. This is not an MSF assessment. This is based on all available medical and scientific knowledge about Ebola and how it spreads. Numerous public health and government officials have said as much and have lauded Dr. Spencer for quickly reporting the onset of his fever and for his conduct once the symptoms began.
Why would he move around the city during the 21-day incubation period?
Like all returned staff members, our colleague was fully informed about and aware of the nature of the virus and when it is and is not transmissible. He knew to monitor himself rigorously, which he did, and he reported it immediately when he first felt feverish. Before then, when he was asymptomatic, he was at most a negligible threat to others, not unlike the innumerable medical professionals who treat patients with highly infectious diseasessome far more infectious than Ebolaat medical facilities throughout New York City and the United States.
Was Dr. Spencers case an example of the protocols working or not?
From our perspective as an emergency medical organization, yes, it was. This was an example of the protocols working wherein a health professional who immediately reported a change in his condition and has been fully and transparently cooperating with all agencies involved in his care, as recognized by the New York City Department of Health.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Then he wasn't contagious. And no, the sweat from his fingers would not have spread the disease.
So yes, it is indeed all neat and tidy.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)Blood, saliva, sweat, semen, urine - all cool!
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Did he bleed on you or anyone? Did he spit on you or anyone? Did he go on a screwing rampage and leave his sperm all over public surfaces or you? Did he piss uncontrollably on the subway? Did you sit on a urinal after him. You're really grasping at straws suggesting his sweat (who sweats in October?) is contagious.
If you and your bunch are that damn afraid. Lock yourself inside and do not come out!
cwydro
(51,308 posts)The panic here is truly amazing to me.
polichick
(37,152 posts)for public health protections.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,924 posts)So you don't lock up an asymptomatic person for 21 days to wait for them to maybe show symptoms which they probably never will because, you know, science. Ebola is not very contagious; you pretty much have to be puked or shat on by a very sick person who has it. If you have never been puked or shat on by a very sick person you are not going to get Ebola. Health care workers have been coming back from West Africa for months now, self-monitoring, and there is no epidemic. Ebola has killed fewer Americans than O.J. Simpson. All this pants-wetting, OMG it's EBOLA!!!11!! is just ridiculous.
Warpy
(111,405 posts)You can't see anyone, talk to anyone in person, go out and buy a loaf of bread when you run out, have any social interaction at all.
Prison is better.
There is no medical reason to have healthy people confined to their homes. NONE.
I'm sorry you are scared but that's your problem. People who show no signs of the illness are not contagious in any way.
Confinement for 21 days is cruel, stupid, and completely illegal.
If you think it's such a breeze, try it. Starting now.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)uppityperson
(115,681 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Emergency Authorities for Catastrophic Terrorism Situations
Barry Kellman, Biological terrorism: Legal Measures for Preventing Catastrope, 24 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 417-484, 425-446 (Spring 2001)(191 Footnotes Omitted)
Identification of an imminent threat of biological terrorism, through intelligence sources or other means, should prompt the most rigorous law enforcement efforts to uncover its source and prevent the harm before it materializes. Moreover, in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist event, an equivalent standard of rigor should apply to efforts to apprehend the culprits. In these biological terrorism situations, an important question arises as to whether "emergency authorities" might be necessary or advantageous for law enforcement personnel or for public health officials. Are there legal inhibitions, restrictions, or prohibitions are applicable in normal circumstances that should be abandoned, mitigated, or suspended in the circumstances of biological terrorism? If so, what can Congress do to expand those authorities, in view of the fact that Congress cannot legalize unconstitutional activity?
Law enforcement officials at all levels will have to conduct investigations and implement measures that exceed the standards applicable to calmer situations, measures including quarantines, cordoning off of areas, vehicle searches, compulsory medical measures, and even sweep searches through areas believed to contain terrorists. These responsibilities can be undertaken most effectively and judiciously if all levels and branches of government prepare in advance for the unique, low-probability, high-magnitude threats that terrorism poses to national security. Advance preparation is also necessary to ensure that civil liberties are not undermined in the name of reacting to terrorism. Under unprecedented conditions of mass casualties, panic may overwhelm constitutional protections. When officials are unprepared to address the threat of a biological terrorist event, the risks of an overwrought response are significant.
1. Defining the Problem
The problem here is not about what measures can be taken in connection with a person suspected of being a terrorist. If there is reason to suspect an individual is a terrorist, then there is no serious legal problem with conducting an investigation. If a warrant can be obtained to conduct that investigation, it should be; if exigent circumstances prevent obtaining a warrant, the requirement is conditionally excused.(1) Depending on his citizenship, the suspected terrorist may have privacy rights, and no court will condone patently unnecessary or abusive law enforcement activity. But the issues pertaining to "emergency authorities" are not, strictly speaking, relevant to what can be done in regard to a suspected terrorist.
The issues pertaining to "emergency authorities" have to do with the privacy rights of everyone who is innocent but caught in the net of the investigation for the actual terrorist. The problem is that in investigating or in responding to terrorist activity, law enforcement officials may direct intrusive measures against a much broader group than the actual terrorist. It is the inability to distinguish the terrorist from all the other people in the area, or to distinguish the terrorist's locale from similar locales, that creates the potential for invasions of civil liberties. The following scenarios illustrate the point:
Intelligence strongly suggests the presence of biological weapons in a six-unit apartment building, and sensor equipment has detected emissions from that building. The difficulty is that there is no evidence as to the specific location of the biological weapons. To prevent the attack, the police will have to search each apartment. If persons in any of the five unrelated apartments deny access, the police will use force, thereby violating those persons' expectations of privacy. Yet until the police enter the apartments, they have no reason to know which apartment houses the terrorist.
Intelligence strongly suggests that a terrorist is of a certain ethnicity, but further identifying information is unavailable. To pursue the investigation, the police will have to stop everyone who matches that characteristic. Again, the problem is not with investigating the terrorist who is of that ethnicity; the problem is that the police will have to interrogate a large number of persons who have no connection with terrorist activity.
The problem that "emergency powers" must address, therefore, is not what can be done, but rather at whom may the authorities direct their attention. It is not a question of excessive measures but a question of application of appropriate measures to an overbroad group:
The question arises whether compulsion can be visited upon an individual simply by virtue of her inclusion in a class composed of some dangerous persons absent an individualized assessment of significant risk . . . . Perhaps the most revered principle under antidiscrimination law is the requirement to make individualized determinations of [a] person's qualifications or eligibility . . . . Given the unequivocal requirement for individualized assessments of risk, what recourse does the state have when, despite its best efforts, it is not able to reliably separate the perceived from the truly dangerous? This becomes a formidable dilemma when the state is capable of demonstrating that the class as a whole does pose a significant health threat and where the intervention proposed is both effective and non-draconian. . . . The requirement of individualized determinations is also inherent in the doctrine of overbreadth found in the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional jurisprudence.
2. Relevant Fourth Amendment Principles
The Fourth Amendment permits only "reasonable" searches.(2) The Supreme Court has held that the "determination of the standard of reasonableness applicable to a particular class of searches requires 'balanc [ing] the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion." '(3)
a. Applicable Doctrines
The "special needs" doctrine can justify a search, even in the absence of a warrant or probable cause.(4)
"[W]here a Fourth Amendment intrusion serves special government needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, it is necessary to balance the individual's privacy expectations against the Government's interests to determine whether it is impractical to require a warrant or some level of individualized suspicion in the particular context." 5) The Court considers three factors: (1) "the nature of the privacy interest upon which the search . . . at issue intrudes;" 6)
(2) "the character of the intrusion;" 7) and (3) "the nature and immediacy of the government's concern . . . and the efficacy of [the search] for meeting it." 8) Cases where courts use this alternative reasonableness formula often involve civil authorities and usually do not involve criminal penalties.(9)
A closely related concept is the "community caretaking" doctrine, based on the notion that police serve to ensure the safety and welfare of the citizenry at large. Certain emergencies require an immediate government response,(10) known as a community caretaking function.(11) When an officer is pursuing a community caretaking function not involving seizure of a person, no particularized and objective justification is required.(12) Traditional constitutional requirements--warrant, probable cause, etc.--do not apply to this form of police-citizen encounter. Government responses to such emergencies need not be judged by normal Fourth Amendment standards because they are not considered searches or seizures within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.(13)
Courts use a three-prong test to determine whether police actions are justified as caretaking functions: (1) "there must exist an objectively reasonable basis for a belief in an immediate need for police assistance for the protection of life or substantial property interests;" (2) the officer's actions "must be motivated by an intent to aid," rather than to solve a crime; and (3) "police action must fall within the scope of the emergency."
Accordingly, four principles guide the remainder of this discussion. First, the breadth of discretion afforded to law enforcement authorities should be proportional to the magnitude and proximity of the risk. The more precise the definition of authority for law enforcement officials, and the more that rules of engagement distinguish real security concerns from police caprice, the broader the constitutionally permissible law enforcement authority. Second, counter-terrorism measures must not target persons or groups on the basis of their race or ethnicity or without probable cause. Third, law enforcement measures should be no more intrusive nor entail greater use of force than necessary under specific conditions. Measures likely to raise profound Fourth Amendment concerns, such as intrusion into private dwellings without probable cause, must be justified by an emergency that is both of great magnitude (i.e., the potential level of harm is great) and of great urgency (i.e., the necessity for immediate action outweighs the privacy interest). Measures justified by the necessity of a biological terrorism event may not be used as a pretext to gain unwarranted access for searches nor to conduct other law enforcement activity. Finally, any legal action taken against any individual in connection with counter-terrorism must measure up to the requirements of the Fifth(14) and Sixth Amendments.(15)
b. Relevant Inquiries
Where public health and security are at stake, the legal issue is whether searches directly promote a government interest that outweighs the individual's interest in avoiding the intrusion. This issue comprises six subsidiary questions.
First, how weighty or important is the government's interest? Searches may profoundly contribute to a government interest, but that government interest may be relatively insignificant. The more significant the government interest, the greater the scope given to the authority to conduct searches.
Second, how proximate is the relationship between the search and the government interest? If the search is only tangentially related to the interest, or if there are alternative ways of pursuing the interest, then the need for the search is manifestly reduced.
Third, how are persons or sites selected for searches, and does this selection methodology afford due process? An element of this inquiry is whether the method of selection insinuates wrongdoing that might inappropriately diminish the individual's reputation. If the searches are entirely random and apply to virtually everyone within a given sector (e.g., random vehicle checkpoints), the search scheme may be more tolerable. On the other hand, if individuals are selected due to their racial or ethnic groupings, or if a few individuals are targeted for especially demeaning activity, that program of searches is more subject to challenge.(16)
Fourth, where is the search carried out? A search of a vehicle or of an individual in a public place is far more tolerable than searches of homes because of the high expectation of privacy an individual has when in his home.(17)
Fifth, how intrusive is the search--how much force is used, and what is the scope of the search? Protective sweep searches, conducted without a warrant but only superficially and only to determine whether a more intrusive search can be undertaken safely, are more tolerable than extensive searches backed by force.(18) At the opposite extreme, strip searches or body cavity searches are the least tolerable.
Finally, what use is made of evidence obtained in the search? Fewer legal concerns apply to searches to effectuate a government interest that is health- related and non-punitive. Also, a search from which only evidence is used which directly relates to the asserted prosecutorial purpose may be more tolerable than a search for a purpose that is a mere pretext for a wide-ranging prosecutorial investigation. Thus, Fourth Amendment problems are diminished if the law enforcement personnel overlook evidence of wrongdoing that is unrelated to the asserted purpose of the search.
3. Legal Treatment of Searches and Related Measures
a. Cordoning Areas, Preventing Ingress or Egress
Courts have long held that officials may cordon off an area, establish a quarantine, or erect checkpoints for persons and/or vehicles leaving an area.(19) Both the need to prevent escape of suspected criminals(20) (or carriers of contagion(21)) and the individual's diminished right of privacy (on foot or in a vehicle) support this conclusion. Thus, there is no need to establish "emergency powers" to enable officials to cordon off areas.
b. Compulsory Vaccinations and Other Medical Treatment
Courts are likely to uphold compulsory medical interventions based upon a reasonable assessment of future harm. The courts have held that compulsory vaccinations during periods of contagious outbreaks do not violate due process.(22) Local, state, and federal government, therefore, may legally vaccinate those deemed at risk. A more difficult legal question is presented by quarantines of contagious patients. There have been cases of communicable diseases where courts have required persons to be actually infectious to be subject to isolation or quarantine.(23) These cases, however, are distinguishable because the individual was completely deprived of liberty based on scarce evidence of a current or imminent danger to public health. In cases where the state could demonstrate a "rational nexus" between a relatively non-intrusive intervention and the likely reduction in future harm to the public, there has been little judicial inclination to interfere with reasonable medical judgments.
9. See, e.g., Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 658 (observing "special needs" student-athlete drug test results were not turned over to law enforcement authorities or used for disciplinary action); Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 663 (noting "special needs" search results were not permitted to be given over to the government for prosecution); Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 621 (1989) (noting "special needs" administrative drug test results not sought for criminal prosecution, but rather from adherence to safety regulations). See generally Jennifer Y. Buffaloe, Note, "Special Needs" and the Fourth Amendment: An Exception Poised to Swallow the Warrant Preference Rule, 32 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 529 (1997); Michael Polloway, Comment, Does the Fourth Amendment Prohibit Suspicionless Searches--or do Individual Rights Succumb to the Government's "So-Called" Special Needs?, 10 Seton Hall Const. L.J. 143 (1999). The Supreme Court's most recent pronouncement on the "special needs" doctrine also suggests that the Fourth Amendment standard for biological testing turns, in great part, on whether the information will be used for law enforcement purposes, in which case, the Fourth Amendment standard is rigorous. Ferguson v. Charleston, No. 99-936,-- U.S. --, 2001 WL 273220 (Mar. 21, 2001). By implication, where the information is not used for law enforcement purposes, the latitude offered to the government is broader.
10. See Camara v. Mun. Court of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 539 (1967) (noting warrantless inspections have been "traditionally upheld in emergency situations" . The Court cited North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (1908) (seizure of unwholesome food), Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (compulsory smallpox vaccination), and Kroplin v. Truax, 165 N.E. 498 (Ohio 1929) (summary destruction of tubercular cattle). See Camara, 387 U.S. at 539.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)With only one Ebola death in the USA, Due Process is applicable
Warpy
(111,405 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)You admit there is nothing to be afraid of? Then I can only assume that your agenda is to make others afraid.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)are going to have a problem.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)adigal
(7,581 posts)Inside a prison, have you? After that statement, I can't take anything you say seriously.
Warpy
(111,405 posts)and you get to TALK TO PEOPLE.
adigal
(7,581 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)woolldog
(8,791 posts)And this person in Maine can stay home with her family.
Food can be brought to them.
If doing that for only 21 days is so awful, you've had a charmed life, I would argue.
pnwmom
(109,020 posts)computers, etc.
It's hardly a hardship now compared to the days when quarantines were common.
Prison is better? You've got to be kidding.
The Stanford doctor, Dr. Bucks, has chosen to voluntarily quarantine, away from his wife and children, for the full 21 days. He doesn't want to take a chance of infecting his family or anyone else. So not every Ebola expert agrees with your position.
napi21
(45,806 posts)you'd feel differently! As I understand it, most of the volunteers who go to the stricken countries are in just that position, and they can't leave for 2-3 weeks of service and then ANOTHER 3 WEEKS hiding out somewhere.
I believe all the medical personnel who state "Yu cannot get Ebola until the person who has it is symptomatic, and even then, you must be exposed to their body fluids!" That being the case, I trust the health care workers to self monitor and to KNOW when they are feel sick or get a high temperature.
Bettie
(16,138 posts)This nurse knows the symptoms intimately and will know if she starts showing them.
I trust her to watch her own health and use that knowledge appropriately.
She shouldn't have to be locked away because others are fearful.
Ms. Toad
(34,119 posts)2 of the 3 cases of Ebola among medical personnel known to be exposed to Ebola. Both Spencer and Vinson ignored the early symptom of fatigue - a symptom significant and persistent enough that both of them ultimately reported it once they were confirmed to have Ebola.
That symptom should have caused them to self-quarantine themselves until it vanished or was proven not to be Ebola. But it didn't. It is likely that no one was exposed during the 3 days that each of them wandered around after experiencing that first symptom - because their viral load was likely minimal at that time. But the risk was not zero, as evidenced by the money we are now spending monitoring 160+ people for 21 days.
This new nurse shouldn't be locked away for 21 days, but she should stay away from close contact with large quantities of people, and self-monitoring should be enforced by spot checking, daily reporting of symptoms, and self (or forced) quarantine once ANY symptoms appear until the symptoms are proven not to be caused by Ebola.
I would have expected to be able to trust medical personnel, particularly those with first hand experience working with Ebola, but 66% failure is not a risk that is acceptable.
Bettie
(16,138 posts)But, hey, maybe we should simply all self-quarantine. If no one has contact with any other human for as long as Ebola exists, then we'll all be 100% healthy.
Yes, that was sarcasm.
The level of terror is way out of proportion to the actual risk.
napi21
(45,806 posts)Americans have turned into an entire nation of fraidy-cats!!! They're afraid of an attack by Muslims, afraid of black people, afraid of some disease, and on and on. What the hell would our forefathers think of the result of a Country they were trying to build? Geesh!
Bettie
(16,138 posts)At how otherwise rational people freak out at the thought of Ebola. It isn't like it is a new disease or as if doctors and nurses haven't cared for people with it before and come home without quarantine measures.
I don't usually come in contact with blood or feces of those I see at the grocery store, but then, maybe I'm unusual or something.
Our forefathers? They'd think we'd all gone crazy.
Crunchy Frog
(26,694 posts)No terror from me, but I believe that this is a prudent public health measure.
polichick
(37,152 posts)When they're the ones who are overreacting, to a difference of opinion.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)or say, not using a restaurant that three weeks ago had a perfectly healthy woman, that sat in a car, in a parking lot, well away form the restaurant, have a friend walk into restaurant, pick up and order, walk out, and hte restaurant is empty today because people are afraid?
and then say, we are the ones overreacting with education, science, common sense and logic on our side. you know. FACTS. that is overreacting.
yet, locking up a person that is perfectly healthy is reasonable.
ya.
won that argument.
polichick
(37,152 posts)during the incubation period is reasonable imo - no hysteria or panic involved.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)a medical team and supportive role works a shift, then off they go to 21 days isolation, PAID. and bring on the next shift. on and on.
or do we lock that team up in the hospital and supportive roles, they work there with the one patient until he is virus free or dead, then we send them off to 21 days isolation PAID?
how much of their individual rights do we just ignore out of ignorance and fear?
polichick
(37,152 posts)No doubt we'll have to consider situations as they arise. Different countries, different conditions. Different hospitals, different conditions. Obviously, health and state officials will make the call as they see fit - and citizens can go to the courts if they choose.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)but, hypocrisy at its best.
once i laid out the two options and how stupid either would be, a total back pedaling.
our medical staff gets it, and monitor. doctors coming in, isolate. that scary scary african ebola to our home grown.
ya
too funny
polichick
(37,152 posts)That "greedy fearmongering" CDC!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)We dont know a lot about this virus but we do know from the experiences learned in Texas that they had some equivocal tests within the first 72 hours of testing their health-care workers, Pinette said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/29/after-fight-with-chris-christie-nurse-kaci-hickox-defies-ebola-quarantine-in-maine/
ya. see. i have a problem with policy when the health official admits they do not know a lot about the virus. dont you?
change the fed guidelines from the people that ACTUALLY KNOW the disease, and make up your own rules and call it a day.
admit, you fuckin do not know a lot about the disease.
very reassuring.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)victims?
or is it just those traveling from africa that is a risk to you?
mythology
(9,527 posts)I'm frustrated that people either don't know the scientific evidence don't trust the it. A sum total of 2 people in this country have caught ebola here and both were health care workers. The people living in the same apartment as Duncan didn't catch ebola, the other care givers didn't catch ebola.
Ebola is incredibly hard to catch. You have to be exposed to bodily fluids of somebody who is during the transmitting period. More people will die from the flu this winter in this country than will die from ebola in this decade in this country. The flu is almost infinitely easier to catch and can be transmitted before symptoms present.
kcr
(15,320 posts)Calling for quarantining of individuals who show no symptoms because people are afraid? There is no other word for it but hysteria.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Surely the 21 days of earnings don't trump society's right to stay clear of the virus.
napi21
(45,806 posts)I'm really ashamed of my fellow countrymen. for running scared over EVERY possible threat, whether it be some disease or some Muslim boogie-man sneaking up on them and attacking.
treestar
(82,383 posts)What if it were? I would think that should trump the financial loss to the individuals, which society could take care of anyway.
And this is a bit scary, at least. It kills quite quickly. We don't want it to spread. It seems a bit reckless some of the OTT attacks on anyone who thinks it might be good to be careful. Terrorism is an entirely different thing.
polichick
(37,152 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)When did you ever give up three weeks of your time to help those less fortunate?
Response to jberryhill (Reply #16)
polichick This message was self-deleted by its author.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There is no risk to others. It is not arrogance, it is civil liberty.
demmiblue
(36,909 posts)I thought the Republicans were the anti-science party.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)Why are people so eager to believe health care workers are capable of monitoring others but not themselves?
To answer your question, because they are not a threat. They have been successfully self monitoring for 5 MONTHS without a single person being infected by them once they became contagious.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)These are highly educated, highly experienced (with Ebola) people ... sent to FIGHT epidemics ... yet they return home and arm chair experts decide they are not capable of monitoring their own health and assessing risk to themselves and others.
notrightatall
(410 posts)what's the big deal about doing what a cop asks......what's the big deal about getting an id, what's the big deal about registering your guns......what's the big deal about housing a soldier in your guest room???????????????? Who the fuck cares. Just comply ' cause I'm a scared little person.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)How about you quit your job for 21 days past your vacation time and see how it works for you.
These are people with jobs who save their time to do volunteer work which benefits us all.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)wants or expects these people back at work within their three weeks, I guarantee that. Liability and all.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)RGinNJ
(1,021 posts)covered head to foot with their protective gear. I am pretty sure he'd she been exposed she would had checked into the hospital in Africa.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)remember a breach in protocol or mistakes with PPE, but still became infected. Direct care to a person dying of ebola, even with the proper gear on, means you are at risk of contracting the disease.
LisaL
(44,974 posts)Still has Ebola.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)as being about "civil liberties"; it isn't. Quarantine for highly lethal infectious diseases has been a standard procedure for quite some time; it is not unreasonable, and public health officials have always had the authority to impose quarantine. The fact that someone isn't testing postive for antibodies NOW doesn't mean they won't, and "self-quarantine" clearly can't be relied upon (as seen in the case of the doctor in NYC, but also the NBC reporter who was supposed to be "self-quarantining" and was spotted out and about). It looks like a grotesque sense of entitlement, honestly.
adigal
(7,581 posts)I wrote a diary about this, staying she should just shut up and so what's right for 21 days, and I got called mentally ill, paranoid and hysterical. The lack of concern for others from Democrats turns my stomach.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)I find it really shocking that some are even saying it's okay if a few people get sick because of no quarantine, because staying at home for 21 days is HARD. Generally, as you said, Democrats and those on the left pride themselves caring for the greater good. Apparently not in this case. Because staying at home is HARD. And mean.
adigal
(7,581 posts)These Dems are really shocking me.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's only now since the M$M drove a huge fear freakout that people are even paying any attention.
Where was the coverage three months ago of the deadly threat from returning health care workers who have volunteered in Africa?
LisaL
(44,974 posts)Dr. Spencer just came back with Ebola.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Many other HCW have already been and come home. Without ANYONE freaking out about them.
Until now when its politically expedient.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And quarantine is sensible in that it isolates people who may be at risk of having the virus for the incubation period; that's the whole point of quarantine.
ecstatic
(32,760 posts)5 months is a long time when a disease is spreading exponentially. The disease wasn't as big of a risk to the US five months ago as it is now. According to WHO, by December there will be 10,000 cases a week; by January there will be 1.4 million cases. The entire world needs to be paying attention at this point.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)infectious, but those who aren't? Why beyond pandering to public fears.
That doctor in NYC was not under any "self quarantine" but self monitoring which was watching himself for symptoms, and he called when that happened, got help asap.
That NBC person was under self quarantine for some odd reason and did break it.
I find it DEEPLY troubling that people are willing to allow the detention of people who are not a threat and without due process. That is very troubling.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)quarantine is the isolation and monitoring of people who are asymptomatic who may have the virus. The whole point of quarantine is to wait to see if they develop the illness, not to wait until they're already symptomatic.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,924 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)The rights of the individual who may present a danger to public health do not trump the public interest in curtailing the potential spread of a highly lethal infectious disease. Weighed in the balance, the imposition of quarantine is not unreasonable or excessive in this case...especially when one considers that the blood tests that exist can't tell if someone has the virus until they have antibodies, which they generally don't until they're symptomatic. Again, the point of quarantine is not to isolate people who are sick, but to isolate people who may become sick.
ecstatic
(32,760 posts)I'd love to see a poll.
If anyone is for forced vaccinations but against 21-day quarantines, I'd love to know the reason why.
adigal
(7,581 posts)She's obviously not thinking clearly.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)Grab anyone you think may at some point be a threat and lock them up! No need for a court order or any silly things like that.
She's thinking very clearly.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,924 posts)that has no basis in science.
I live in a city that has the largest Liberian population in the United States. People are coming here from Liberia every day, and they are being monitored. They are not being involuntarily quarantined. Nobody is panicking.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I started getting calls from people out of state. I did not even consider being fearful, not one moment.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)SteveG
(3,109 posts)will the banks forgive your missed mortgage payments, you electric bill. These people donate a month or so of their time without pay, adding another month can make the first month impossible.
they just got back from volunteering for months without a paycheck. I suspect a lot of these volunteers are already doing well financially, otherwise they wouldnt be able to jet off to Africa for months to volunteer.
Also someone upthread pointed out that state governments can take extraordianry measures to make sure those quarantined aren't harmed financially. It will be a small number of people.
SteveG
(3,109 posts)NJ has made no provision to make up lost wages for people they put into quarantine. I doubt Florida will either. And I strongly suspect you are wrong about how well off these volunteers are. Doctors? maybe, but the nurses? technicians? etc? I doubt it strongly.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I sit corrected. You really meant all that.
Wow.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)She got interrogated at the airport like a criminal at the airport, hauled off to Bellevue in a vehicle with sirens blaring, shoved into a tent with no shower and no flushing toilet and told that this would be her situation from the next three weeks.. If she hadn't flatly refused to surrender her cell phone, she would still be there. Then, she was "allowed" to return home to Maine, where she is now being threatened with house arrest. All this not because the science supports it, but because grandstanding politicians are pandering to a scared public. Forgive her if she is a little feisty. You know the old saying: No good deed goes unpunished.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Get some duct-tape, and some plastic wrap, and redecorate.
MFM008
(19,826 posts)For Ebola blood tests? Do you think she wouldn't quarantine herself if she'd had a positive blood test?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Brigid
(17,621 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,694 posts)Negative blood tests mean nothing in this context. When you are incubating an infection, you will still not test positive until you become symptomatic, which can happen anytime up to 21 days after your last exposure.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)I know, I know, "SHE'S NOT CONTAGIOUS!". But, that doesn't mean that precautions shouldn't be put in place. It harms no one for her to be quarantined for 21 days.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I am a lot more afraid of the fear mongers than an asymptomatic nurse who has tested negative twice. Yes she still needs to monitor, it could be the virus hasn't reached a detectable level yet. But, in that case she won't be contagious either.
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)At least not one that should trump public health concerns. Public health officials have the right to quarantine anyone they have a reasonable suspicion on being exposed to Ebola. Nurse Hickox without a doubt has been exposed. Her right to move around does not trump public health concerns.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)after two negative tests. Now we are entering the unreasonable territory. Yes, she was exposed. We need to move beyond that and assertain if it is reasonable that she contracted the disease. At this point it is not a reasonable to believe she did. She still needs to self monitor. Some people might say that is being overly cautious, I am fine with that.
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)... that she isn't producing antibodies yet, not that she doesn't have the disease. So the concern is still warrented. As long as there is a reasonable suspicion, she should stay in quarantine.
onecaliberal
(32,949 posts)The virus is not airborne, Why would they need to quarantine themselves if they are without symptoms?
Not only that but could you go 21 days without pay? Is that how we repay the amazing doctors willing to go to Africa when help is so desperately needed there?
840high
(17,196 posts)napi21
(45,806 posts)They don't believe in it when you talk climate change, some don't believe in vaccinating their kids, and NOW you want them to believe DOCTORS? Yes it's a scarcastic remark, but unfortunately true too.
Expat in Korea
(119 posts)about that Maine nurse's response. The quarantine isn't based on science. It's based on political posturing and public ignorance. She said she's abiding by the CDC's guidelines, and that's good enough for me. Then again, I live in Korea...
Crunchy Frog
(26,694 posts)And no, I'm not talking about the tent with the porta potty, but hanging out at her home in Maine with her boyfriend? I don't see what all the fuss is about.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)And make team exclusive care taker of Ebola victim until virus free or dead and then 21 days quarantine, paid. Or after each shift quarantine 21 days paid, and bring in new team for next shift.
Your call
Which one. Just how much are we taking rights.
You so afraid of THEM over there? Be just as fearful if ours and have the guts to restrict all
Cause really
What's the big deal
Crunchy Frog
(26,694 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to lock up medical staff from africa, it is THAT dire to lock up u.s. staff.
that makes not an iota bit of logical sense.
yet, we want to create policy out of no sense at all.
no thank you. i will not be a part of the ignorance thru fear that ruled during the tsa, patriot act crap.
Crunchy Frog
(26,694 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)then when called on it, you have no answer but to shrug. ya.
i take that argument seriously.
it is about as i expect with this fearmongering garbage.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)to fight Ebola in Africa to protect you here in the US not submitting to 3 weeks of unecessary house arrest go volunteer in Africa yourselves?
Just because you aren't trained medical professionals doesn't mean you couldn't help with other necessary work, whether cleaning or handing out food.
What a bunch of freakin' cowards.
She is not contagious. Unless you are symptomatic, you are not contagious. They are monitoring their temperatures twice/day and monitoring all symptoms. They know what the fuck they're doing.
Suich
(10,642 posts)I was Juror #4!
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)...my first alert on DU 2!
Chuuku Davis
(565 posts)They want to get out and talk about what happened
Been there myself 40 years ago
Brigid
(17,621 posts)She's 33.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Yes, a teenager. I want this, y'all be damned. I have the right to have what I want, right now, and you can't stop me. I am special, and I know more than you do. Blah blah blah.
Here is an example of how a mature adult responds to this type of situation:
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-02/liberias-top-doctor-quarantines-herself-set-example-her-ebola-ridden-country
This medical professional understands the science, civil rights, and more importantly that she must weigh personal rights and convenience with public perception, modeling of good behavior, and the severity of this disease.
Ebola has finally come to America, and while the severity is no where near what it is in Africa, there is understandable public fear, misunderstanding, and poorly conceived protocols & responses by the medical professionals. Hickox had the opportunity to model exemplary behavior, educate the public on what is happening in Africa, and inspire others to volunteer, and instead she has chose to appear like a narcissistic brat seeking her 15 minutes of fame in the public eye.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)"The main thing is not to get excited. "
OK, so he usually said it in jest. But he was right. Giving in to panic, pandering to the "Fearbola!" crowd, and allowing grandstanding politicians to set policies is bad idea.That is what is happening here, and Kaci Hickox knows it. She knows a lot more about this diease than they do.If the CDC and other authorities decide it's necessary to change their protocols and recommendations for handling ebola in this country and she refuses to cooperate with that, then we'll talk. Until then, I'll stick with what my dad used to say.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Brigid
(17,621 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Delusional panic attacks accompanied by silly demands.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)and the invisible skyfather would not possibly let them get infected, to pass that infection on to others.
Oh, that Dr. Spencer thing? Well, he lied to the cops, and he got his divine retribution for it. But that couldn't happen to anyone else.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)based on yet another unnamed source, that Dr. Spencer lied, does not mean that Dr. Spencer lied.
It is at least as likely, if not more likely and highly probable, that the Daily Mail libeled Dr. Spencer in order to sell more papers.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Somehow, the public does not seem to be convinced so far.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)"The public" doesn't have any right to quarantine anybody other than themselves.
And in order to enforce a mandatory quarantine against Kaci, LePage and company have to prove that she is a risk to public health. Since she has tested negative twice and as long as she remains asymptomatic, they are going to have a hard time coming up with any evidence that she is a risk to anybody.
If Mainers are so afraid of catching Ebola from Kaci, they can stay home until November 10. After all, it's just a couple weeks. It's not like their using their vacation time to do anything worthwhile anyway.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)I expect you will know what I'm talking about on Wednesday morning next week.
We have the President, acting coldly professorial, versus the public, acting wildly emotional, even irrational (I'll gladly give you that) but he gets one vote, there are about a hundred million other voters whose fears will manifest themselves at the ballot box.
The timing of this Ebola thing is most unfortunate for our side. Too bad we've been unable to deal with the optics of it.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)uppityperson
(115,681 posts)It doesn't surprise me you believe a tabloid rumor but calling ebola "divine retribution" for something that rumor says happened after he became ill goes beyond what I expected of you.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)"invisible skyfather" signal to you that I was being extremely facetious? In fact, let it go on the record that I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in some entity that plays chess games with human beings.
I do believe that there are those who think that those who go to West Africa to fight Ebola are somehow exalted above the rest of us, and while not necessarily being the beneficiaries of divine favor, are at least beyond reproach when it comes to their personal conduct. I respectfully disagree.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)read the article posted somewhere on DU about Hickox's background. MSF doesn't just accept any applicants. When she was rejected the first time she applied, she went back to school and got more degrees and certifications.
They know the reality of Ebola far more than we do, and have good reason to monitor their symptoms carefully and report in as soon as anything turns up out of the normal.
They didn't volunteer for this work and risk their own lives, only to bring Ebola back here. I'm honestly not worried about any of the returning healthcare workers spreading Ebola. It's the Duncans that I have been concerned about all along.
I expect it will take a few unexpected cases here that don't spread, at least beyond the healthcare workers treating them, to allay people's fears.
In the meantime, we got our extra PPE training at my lab. I took mine today. As I feared, it's a bunch of slides. I found multiple mistakes, which I plan to send to my manager.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)that they have the best of intentions.
Your last paragraph is one of the reasons why faith in the authorities is particularly hard to find right now. I finally found a proper survey about how Americans feel about Ebola:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/october_2014/voters_strongly_support_quarantines_state_action_to_fight_ebola
Yeah, it's Rasmussen, reich wing site, etc. Still, it has more validity than the "if you visit our website, you can vote in our poll" type of survey. Both of those types of surveys reveal the depth of doubt about how the authorities are handling this thing. Call them irrational, emotional, or even nonsensical, but the people are going to take that into the polls with them on Tuesday. Yes, they might wise up by January, but at that point, it will be too late.
Glad to see that like me, you are indeed concerned about the West African tourists. It's not an extreme hardship to say that the window is closed until this Ebola thing is a bit more under control. It's also not unreasonable to say that quarantining oneself after arriving from West Africa doing Ebola work is a prudent thing to do, given the level of fear sprouting in the United States over this disease.
Sometimes, you just gotta do the right thing, even if it doesn't make scientific sense.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)It's not about doing what is needed to stop the spread of Ebola, but doing what is needed to stop the fear of Ebola. One is medical science, the other is psychology.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)The government does not have the right to infringe on one person's freedom to go about their life in order to assuage the irrational fear of another person.
They only can force a quarantine if that person represents a real risk. LePage will have to prove in court that Hickox represents a risk to the public health. Unless and until she exhibits a symptom of something, he's going to have a tough time proving that.
What I find frightening is how many DUers believe that two known bullies, one of whom is a tea-partier bully to boot, think they in any way, shape or form did the right thing by violating this woman's rights.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)My prediction is that the court will weigh the possible danger to the entire public, and the power of the executive against another couple weeks of staying at home for Nurse Hickox, and decide that the needs of the many, irrational though they may be, outweigh the need of the one.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)No. They do not.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)"The state has made it clear it's going to do something. But its hands are tied.
"The first thing the governor has to do, which he has not yet done, is get a court order which requires her to stay in quarantine," CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said. "There is no court order now. She's not violating anything by taking a bike ride or leaving her house."
There's no guarantee the governor will be able to get a court order, Toobin said, because science does not consider her in a communicable situation."
And from her boyfriend:
"Wilbur said they are not trying to cause trouble and want the community to feel at ease.
"We did not go into the grocery store. We are not trying to get anyone sick," he said. "We don't believe that we can get anyone sick. We're not trying to push any limits here. We're members of this community too, and we want to make everyone feel comfortable.""
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/health/us-ebola/
My guess is by the time they get a date for a hearing, her 21 days will be up. And one of LePage's quotes face-saving quotes yesterday implied that the police have had threats against her and the police are there to protect her.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)I guess the court figured a modified limited sort of isolation was enough.
In any case, the word "Ebola" was kept in the news all week because of this, and that's not good for Tuesday.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)monitor her temp, report to health officials, and go to hospital if she becomes symptomatic.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for Christie and LePage to come off like the fear-mongering bullies that they are...
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)The judge also decried the "misconceptions, misinformation, bad science and bad information" circulating about the lethal disease in the U.S.
(clip)
Maine health officials had gone to court on Thursday in an attempt to bar her from crowded public places and require her to stay at least 3 feet from others until the 21-day incubation period for Ebola was up on Nov. 10. She would have been free to jog or go bike riding. But the judge turned the state down.
(clip)
"The court is fully aware of the misconceptions, misinformation, bad science and bad information being spread from shore to shore in our country with respect to Ebola," he wrote. "The court is fully aware that people are acting out of fear and that this fear is not entirely rational."
Demit
(11,238 posts)Torturing people to get them to confess they were witches and minions of Satan.
That people could so casually submit to absolute, unchecked authority is chilling to me.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)The fear, however unscientifically supported (by the science we think we know so far) versus the religious superstitions of people hundreds of years ago, is simply not comparable.
Nice try, though.
Demit
(11,238 posts)Thus nourishing it.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)is not nourishing ignorance in its many forms. In order to deal with a problem, you have to acknowledge that it is a problem, rather than just saying that it doesn't exist because it simply isn't 'logical' to be there.
It took a long time to get the Western world out of the mess that religion got it into with the Inquisition, it took a long time since Stonewall to get to the point where a majority of states have marriage equality, and it's going to take more than a few weeks before the election to deal with Ebola fears.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)I can't believe that is what you are advocating for. Please clarify.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Deal with the biggest problem, which is the fear, no matter how rational or irrational it is. A couple weeks of extra time spent inside one's home is not a terrible price to pay for resolution of that fear.
I've had an ear cocked to what people are saying about this, without chiming in with my own opinion, and with her defiance, Nurse Hickox seems to be frittering away whatever "good guy" points (please excuse the possible sexism of that comment) she has gained by helping the needs of Ebola sufferers in West Africa.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Yes it is.
We need to confront this through education. People who stay blind, or misinformed to it will never get over their fear. Fear must be confronted with knowledge in order to overcome it.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)Educate people rather than pandering to their fears.
Nurse Hickox is standing up for her constitutionally given rights and anyone who says "oh, just give them up for a bit so others won't be scared" is incredibly wrong.
Several of us in my neighborhood did not like 1 neighbor target shooting so maybe we could've tried to get his guns removed, him locked up for a while because we were afraid he might someday shoot us. No. We visited to see what he was doing, made sure he was doing it safely and though the noise is obnoxious, he showed he is not a danger.
Educate people. Don't take away their rights to pander to the fearful. Shame on anyone who thinks that is in any way right.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)I was just giving my prediction, and was not concerned how it fell within your perfectly logical worldview.
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)is usually 60 days now if you tack on 21 more days to that VOLUNTEER time this can really cause them to lose their jobs, not to mention getting behind on bills.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)who were exposed to ebola patients back to work until the 21 days are over. And if they do, they are out of their freaking minds.
Come on! This time frame is well built into their plans when they decide to go and help.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)boston bean
(36,224 posts)I support and still do support non US citizen travel restrictions of those traveling from W. Africa with end destination here.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You also wanted a complete travel ban on West Africa.
Now you want to punish health care workers for no good reason.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)If I accidentally supported someone who wanted to ban americans from travel to and from from W. Africa, it was not my intention.
Also, you stated I supported a quarantine of the whole of the continent of AFRICA. That of course was foolishness on your part, right. I never did support that, did I? Which was the accusation I was responding to.
Secondly, quarantine is not a punishment. It is a tool used by public health officials.
Punishment would be your feeling. I don't.
We have differing opinions, why so much hostility?
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)have seen people and worked and guess what NO OUT BREAK!!!
boston bean
(36,224 posts)Months ago, less than 21 days??
Why do you think Craig Spencer wasn't back to work??? Because no one told him to stay home? Or that it wasn't good practiceto return to work after having exposure to ebola patients until the 21 day incubation period was over??
No, nurses and doctors don't go right back to work. They wait for 21 days.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)but food for thought: Emory's being doing it over and over.
Yes, I know the risks are different, but still...
MattBaggins
(7,905 posts)a nurse took her vacation time and went there to help. The rest of took up hours to help cover for her and did so gladly but if an extra 3 weeks were tacked on it would have made it impossible.
If I were asked to help out in an ebola area I would have to decline. Not because of the pay, the danger, my family or time. I would have to refuse because of the fear-mongering idiots back here.
BellaKos
(318 posts)There are now three incidents where health care workers did not comply strictly with the CDC protocols of self-monitoring which limit mass transportation and contact with crowds: Doctor Snyderman went out to a restaurant. Amber Vinson got on a plane. And Doctor Spensor went bowling and traveled on a subway.
From that we know that all health care workers cannot be trusted to comply with CDC recommendations.
Meanwhile, as a result of Amber Vinson's trip to Ohio, Frontier Airlines had to ground and sanitize planes. The company has no doubt lost Christmas business. And the bridal shop where Vinson spent three hours was closed down for a period of time. (Has it reopened yet?) We don't know if the merchandise in the shop had to be thrown out, but we do know that the hourly-wage, retail clerks who worked there lost income. We also know that 100 people now have to be monitored because of their exposure to Vinson. CDC simply doesn't have enough people to track countless numbers of possible contacts if this kind of thing were to continue.
Doctor Spensor's bowling night resulted in the bowling alley being shut down, therefore impacting not only that business but hourly-wage employees there as well. And his trip on the subway concerned, if not frightened, the general public in New York.
So on balance, a forced quarantine is necessary because not all health care workers comply with the protocols of self-monitoring. And by not doing so, there is a negative impact on the general public, businesses, and their employees. Science has less to do with it than does the flow of commerce, the mental security of the general public, and -- let's face it -- human nature.
People are wringing their hands over the possible loss of income and inconvenience of health care workers, while I'm more concerned about the retail employee in the bridal shop not being able to pay her rent or buy Christmas presents because she has lost at least a week's worth of income -- if not 21 days of income. I'm also concerned about the owner of the bridal shop. Will anyone return to her shop ever again now that they *perceive* it to be contaminated?
I have very little sympathy for the nurse in Maine when I see that defiance of a quarantine has a rather large ripple effect on many people who have fewer resources than she.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)And, fwiw, Vinson did ask CDC about flying and they said it was ok. You seem to have missed that. And Dr Spencer was not under a quarantine, just self monitoring his temp and watching for other symptoms like he did. So before you snark on about health care workers not following CDC recommendations, you should probably try to find examples where they did not do so, not use examples where they did what the CDC said to do.
Just a suggestion.
BellaKos
(318 posts)My understanding is that the official CDC protocols have always been that after exposure, one should avoid mass transportation and crowds for 21 days. But yes, you're right. Vinson did receive permission to fly and I had forgotten about that. Even so, I am not clear as to whether she got permission from the lame and obviously sloppy Public Health Dept. in Texas or CDC directly. And even so, the reason she was given permission is that health care workers at that time were considered at *extremely* low risk, because it was assumed that they had the proper protection equipment and that they knew how to use it. Obviously, this was not the case in Texas.
Now, however, there is an element of the unknown in the potential transmission of the virus. And this is evident by the fact that the cameraman does not *know* how he got infected. It's also evident in that we now have five (perhaps more?) health care workers in the US who have contracted the disease -- which historically is an unusually high ratio.
My position is not only a question of exactly how the disease was transmitted among the above health care workers, but there is also a larger element of the unknown inherent in the American health care system. And that is that each state has its own standards and each hospital has its own standards of treatment, protocols, safety, and training, so there is no national standard. Nor is there national oversight.
But the major element of the unknown in this complex, highly variable, and fluid situation is human nature. Health care workers are exposed to patients who are extremely infectious -- that point in the course of the disease when the viral load is at its highest. The public cannot be certain that each worker who returns will be conscientious enough to avoid exposing not just their families and friends, but also the public at large. It is human nature for one to be in denial or to assume that fatigue, headache or other early symptoms of ebola are merely jet lag.
And given that the vast majority of Americans are scientifically illiterate, it is also human nature for people to be afraid of a disease that has a 50% to 70% death rate. This is not the flu. This is a disease that kills more often than not.
So on balance, quarantine is a reasonable solution. It assures the public that the chances of spreading the disease are at a minimum. It's unfortunate if that discourages others who would otherwise volunteer to work in Africa. It's unfortunate that these health care workers are inconvenienced. Too bad about that, but the disease is deadly. That's the reality. Those are the cards we have to play.
And another thing. Would you buy clothes from the bridal shop in Ohio now? I guarantee you that there will be many people in the community who will not, so as Amber Vinson is making her speech after being cleared of ebola, the owner of the bridal shop may be facing bankruptcy.
Would I buy clothes in the bridal shop? Probably because I do understand that Vinson was not infectious before she had a fever. On the other hand, the CDC has stated that the virus is alive and therefore contagious on surfaces for only 20 minutes, or maybe up to 90 minutes, but I have read studies that say that the virus is contagious up to 23 days! under certain conditions. That may be why the planes, the various apartments, the bridal shop, and the bowling alley have been sanitized by the health authorities. Can you think of another reason to go to all that trouble and expense? Again, another unknown.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)ramifications of Vinson and the bridal shop 3 hour 'visit'.
liberal N proud
(60,349 posts)All we need to do is set up a comfortable apartment or dorm where they stay for 21 days with full amenities. Make it feel like they are on vacation.
It just part of the tour!
Putting them in a tent like the did in New Jersey was just wrong, but if it was done with dignity and even provide some perks, it would be the best prevention.
brooklynite
(94,851 posts)Brigid
(17,621 posts)It was done because those astronauts might have brought back microbes and other pathogens about which we knew absolutely nothing. Not so with ebola. We have been dealing with that virus for years now, and know how it is transmitted and what precautions are necessary. Big difference.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)unblock
(52,416 posts)the height of arrogance is to insist that not only that healthy people be imprisoned in solitary confinement for three weeks while people afflicted with an irrational fear can galavant around town, ...
but to then also insist that those imprisoned shouldn't even complain about it!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Good grief, turn off the idiot box, it's destroying your thinking process.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)The lack of science is ignorance, which is what these quaratine mandates are.
As the CDC has stated -- and after all they've only been studying Ebola for decades -- Ebola may be highly contagious and deadly, but transmission is not easy.
If you take actions like in NY, NJ, and MN, making quarantines mandatory, the sole outcome will be the inevitable loss of those who will help stem the tide of this epidemic. This, when there is minimum danger for infection by everything science-based medicine tells us.
That's what the CDC and WHO and everybody on the ground in West Africa are saying. Anybody saying otherwise are lying.
dilby
(2,273 posts)Because right now people are using being in the same country as someone who had Ebola as being exposed. If she has had infected fluids on her skin I would define that as exposed. But if she took all precautions, wore her protective suit and everything else I do not consider her exposed.
We have scientists right now working in labs througout the world who are working with Ebola trying to find a vaccine, our current Politicians who are making a mockery of science would classify these Scientists as having been exposed and probably if the public was worried would demand they are held under a 21 day quarantine before they can join the rest of society. That to me is silly, it would be like saying a doctor who treats an AIDS patient has been exposed to HIV and should be quarantined for 6 months.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)Why can't they all wear purple underwear for three months?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)" It's a small price to pay for the general well being and health of the public...."
The price does indeed, seem much smaller when we ask others to pay it. No doubt, the only ones who believe it is a "big deal" are the ones being coerced into it.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)How does one go out and about, where the real risks of death and other disasters are so much higher than the risk from exposure to somebody who was working with ebola patients? How does such person drive a car? Fly on an airplane? Walk down a busy road? Ride a bicycle?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It wasn't safe anyway. Someone would have to deal with her waste. If she did have ebola, people would in danger of getting infected. This quarantine was all political and not at all science based, IMO.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)The flu is a much greater danger to you than ebola.
woolldog
(8,791 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)the hair on fire crowd. It isn't necessary if there are no symptoms.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)you people are ridiculous. you call someone who donates their time/money and possibly their lives to help an epidemic, arrogant. really, have you no shame?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Right?
merrily
(45,251 posts)it's eagerness to put others at risk for ebola.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)are taking care of patients in our US hospitals? They have been doing exactly the same job in both places. None of them except the two nurses in the hospital in Texas have gotten ebola. Nor have the 50 some health care workers who returned from Africa before we panicked. The way that we diagnose this disease is by taking a temperature and I an quite sure all health care workers know how to do this.
The two nurses exposed in Texas would not have gotten ebola IF their hospital had bothered to listen to the warnings and trained their staff properly and supplied them with the right equipment. The hospital administration was at fault.
This panic has got to stop. Caution yes but making health care workers into prisoners is a step too far.
Hamlette
(15,412 posts)I remember this when we first learned of AIDs, if Fox news had been around, they would have spread the rumors that you can catch it from door knobs. And we kids still went swimming when we knew that is how you got polio.
You can't catch ebola from someone passing you on a bike.