Obama - no quarantine of ebola HC workers, page 1

+7 more
posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:46 PM

link

Well I thought I had read the title of the article incorrectly, but nope. It's pretty much what it says - White House Presses States to Reconsider Mandatory Ebola Quarantine Orders

Now why would he not want to quarantine people who have come into contact with this vile disease when it's been proven they can infect those they come into contact with? Is this guy for real? Can anyone give a valid reason why this shouldn't be done?

I was going to tack this on to the thread about the mandatory quarantine by NY/NJ, but thought this needs to not be buried in there and deserved to be seen and discussed on it's own. This is just crazy if they really feel it's not necessary. Or is it worse than that?

Phage

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:49 PM

link

a reply to: Bilk22

Can anyone give a valid reason why this shouldn't be done?

Yes. A couple.

1) Because without symptoms there is no contagiousness. It's pointless to quarantine people with no symptoms.

2) Because imposing a quarantine on health workers will discourage them from volunteering provide aid in west Africa.

edit on 10/26/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Kangaruex4Ewe

+15 more
posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:50 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... There isn't a need for people to start running through the streets like Chicken Little with the sky falling, but if we keep treating this disease as nothing more than something like chicken pox we might wind up a wee bit shocked and a whole lot dead before all of this is said and done.

The thing is, they might not be showing symptoms, but by the time they do they've been all over town, kissed babies in the park, went bowling, held a fundraiser, rode 10 different subways, etc. Then we are stuck looking for all of the people they've made contact with. Crossing our fingers the whole time.

Why an "over abundance of caution" for one thing and absolutely no caution on another? It makes no sense.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 10/26/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)

Bilk22

+12 more
posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:52 PM

link

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bilk22

Can anyone give a valid reason why this shouldn't be done?
Yes. A couple.

1) Because without symptoms there is no contagiousness. It's pointless to quarantine people with no symptoms.

2) Because imposing a quarantine on health workers will discourage them from volunteering provide aid in west Africa.

Precautions are pointless? Really? Discourage workers that know the severity of this disease? Really? They'd want to place their family and friends in jeopardy? Really? Maybe they need to find another line of work.

Bilk22

+3 more
posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:53 PM

link

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bilk22

Can anyone give a valid reason why this shouldn't be done?
Yes. A couple.

1) Because without symptoms there is no contagiousness. It's pointless to quarantine people with no symptoms.

2) Because imposing a quarantine on health workers will discourage them from volunteering provide aid in west Africa.

Oh I'm sure you know the symptoms can take up to three weeks to manifest themselves, right?

Bilk22

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:54 PM

link

I wonder what dem that running for election will back Obama on this one?

Sublimecraft

+25 more
posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:56 PM

link

a reply to: Bilk22

The solution is simple, have everyone who falls under the criteria of a risk visit Obama and his entire family and other politicians at the White House and hang out for 3 weeks or so, since he feels it's no biggie.

I reckon the POTUS needs to be tested - not for Ebola but for drug use, his thought process appears to be flawed.

~Lucidity

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:58 PM

link

a reply to: Sublimecraft
That is...most sublime

Bilk22

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:58 PM

link

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Bilk22

The solution is simple, have everyone who falls under the criteria of a risk visit Obama and his entire family and other politicians at the White House and hang out for 3 weeks or so, since he feels it's no biggie.

I reckon the POTUS needs to be tested - not for Ebola but for drug use, his thought process appears to be flawed.

I'll vote for that. He can greet each one on the tarmac.

Did you see how he hugged that girl that visited him in the Oval Office? Like she had cooties LOL

edit on 99958Sundayk22 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)

Phage

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:58 PM

link

a reply to: Bilk22

Oh I'm sure you know the symptoms can take up to three weeks to manifest themselves, right?

Longer than that in some cases. So what? Unless there are symptoms a person is not contagious.

edit on 10/26/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Bilk22

+10 more
posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:59 PM

link

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bilk22

Oh I'm sure you know the symptoms can take up to three weeks to manifest themselves, right?

Longer than that in some cases. So what? Unless there are symptoms a person is not contagious.

And when their symptoms surface while sitting on a crowded subway or on a five hour flight then what?

butcherguy

+10 more
posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:01 PM

link

a reply to: Phage

2) Because imposing a quarantine on health workers will discourage them from volunteering provide aid in west Africa.

They are volunteering to fight a deadly disease in Africa. It is worth risking infecting themselves over there ... but it isn't worth being held in quarantine for three weeks when they return?
How does that make any sense? They would rather risk infecting family and friends when they return???

edit on bu312014-10-26T18:05:56-05:0006America/ChicagoSun, 26 Oct 2014 18:05:56 -05006u14 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

butcherguy

+3 more
posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:02 PM

link

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bilk22

Oh I'm sure you know the symptoms can take up to three weeks to manifest themselves, right?

Longer than that in some cases. So what? Unless there are symptoms a person is not contagious.

And when their symptoms surface while sitting on a crowded subway or on a five hour flight then what?

Or while having sex with their partners.

Gully

+4 more
posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:05 PM

link

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bilk22

Oh I'm sure you know the symptoms can take up to three weeks to manifest themselves, right?

Longer than that in some cases. So what? Unless there are symptoms a person is not contagious.

And when their symptoms surface while sitting on a crowded subway or on a five hour flight then what?

Then a guy with a hazmat suit escorts them off the plane.

I don't get why they'd be discouraged from going to west africa because of a quarantine. Is a 21 day quarantine so much worse than actually going over to africa and lending a hand? It should just be considered part of the process and if they can't handle that then maybe they should volunteer for something else.

Bilk22

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:05 PM

link

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bilk22

Oh I'm sure you know the symptoms can take up to three weeks to manifest themselves, right?

Longer than that in some cases. So what? Unless there are symptoms a person is not contagious.

And when their symptoms surface while sitting on a crowded subway or on a five hour flight then what?

Or while having sex with their partners.

Yeah I'm sure we could think of plenty of instances - obviously that wasn't one of Phage's more intelligent posts.

Phage

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:08 PM

link

a reply to: butcherguy

It is worth risking infection. ... but it isn't worth being held in quarantine for three weeks when they return?

They understand that the risk of infection is low. They understand that a quarantine of non-symptomic people accomplishes nothing. Yes, three weeks more is an additional hardship.

They would rather risk infecting family and friends when they return???

No. They understand that unless there are symptoms they won't infect their family and friends. If that were not the case, why are they not saying "I just got back from Liberia. Quarantine me!"

Phage

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:08 PM

link

a reply to: butcherguy

You mean like with Thomas Duncan?

Bilk22

+9 more
posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:10 PM

link

Astronauts are quarantined for 10 days before every launch. Those that landed on the moon were quarantined. It's part of the job.

There's no defense against quarantining workers who come into direct contact with this contagion. None. Zero!

edit on 00710Sundayk22 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)

butcherguy

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:10 PM

link

a reply to: PhageHave you seen his fiancee?

Bilk22

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:12 PM

link

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: butcherguy

It is worth risking infection. ... but it isn't worth being held in quarantine for three weeks when they return?

They understand that the risk of infection is low. They understand that a quarantine of non-symptomic people accomplishes nothing. Yes, three weeks more is an additional hardship.

They would rather risk infecting family and friends when they return???
No. They understand that unless there are symptoms they won't infect their family and friends. If that were not the case, why are they not saying "I just got back from Liberia. Quarantine me!"

The risk of infection is low? How many HC workers have already contracted the disease? Maybe you have those numbers? We've already read about some here.