It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Lyxdeslic
I have three thoughts, all of which have been already said in this thread.
1. She is really being mistreated. Quarantined or not, people deserve respect.
2. She knows something we do not, and she is being kept from the public for that reason. What if she knows this a big hoax? What if she could tell people? What if riots happen?
3. She is terrified that she will be placed with someone who really is infected. This is a fear concern that I have. If too many people get infected, there would be overload. And quarantined areas could become overloaded with people. These people would be just left to die, basically. What if someone got stuck in there and only had the flu? It would be a death sentence.
originally posted by: grandmakdw
My first thought was, she doesn't want to eat up her sick leave, then vacation pay, or afraid that she might lose her job. If she gets paid by the hour as a nurse, then she fears the loss of income. Which the state could easily take care of if she had just asked and told them her concerns.
A person in involuntary quarantine should be treated like a patient, given excellent accommodations, unlimited "room service", a Kindle reader with unlimited book downloads, a TV with all channels fully unlocked, a computer with skype to talk to friends and family. They are not prisoners they are in quarantine.
originally posted by: drwill
originally posted by: Lyxdeslic
I have three thoughts, all of which have been already said in this thread.
1. She is really being mistreated. Quarantined or not, people deserve respect.
2. She knows something we do not, and she is being kept from the public for that reason. What if she knows this a big hoax? What if she could tell people? What if riots happen?
3. She is terrified that she will be placed with someone who really is infected. This is a fear concern that I have. If too many people get infected, there would be overload. And quarantined areas could become overloaded with people. These people would be just left to die, basically. What if someone got stuck in there and only had the flu? It would be a death sentence.
All items on this list could be true, but all could be challenged.
1. It's been said that a story has two sides. We've only heard her version. When her temp was taken initially, it was supposedly elevated. She has disputed the validity, claiming her face was "flushed." She complained that she was given "only a granola bar" to eat. What had she been eating in W. Africa? Turkey burgers and uber healthy smoothies?
2. If that were true, her pals at the CDC would have left her in quarantine and "borrowed" her cellphone. It seems as if her official buddies were banging the drums for her release.
3. Health authorities keep repeating the "science" of contagion, specifically Ebola. They tell us how difficult it is to "catch." So, according to these many statements, unless the nurse licked a fellow patient, she would have no worries.
originally posted by: drwill
a reply to: boohoo
My guess is, Kaci will have no career bumps as a CDC fellow.
As for Kaci, doesn't the CDC not offer benefits for employees? No "sick pay" or vacation days?
originally posted by: drwill
a reply to: boohoo
Boohoo wrote: "We all know...."
Who are the 'we' in your sentence? People who contribute to this thread, people on this website, people in general?
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Exactly. The same people wanting this nurse's head on a platter are the ones screaming "No gun control!", "you shouldn't be monitoring me or putting cameras on me!", or "if you are willing to sacrifice your freedom for security, you deserve neither". You'd think they of all people would get it. You can't just lock someone up in a tent who hasn't even exhibited any symptoms of an illness.
On Friday morning, the state's restrictions for Hickox were scaled back to instead require direct active monitoring, coordination of travel with public officials and a requirement that the state be alerted as soon as Hickox develops symptoms (she currently is not experiencing any). The restrictions do not prevent her from leaving her house or being in contact with other people, which Hickox has openly opposed.
A judge initially granted an order on Thursday to limit Hickox's travel, ban her from public places and require a 3-foot buffer.
However, Friday's order altered that, apparently reaching a middle ground.