Lawyer for Fort Kent nurse says she "WON'T" abide by quarantine

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: Lilroanie

I'm a trained medical professional and I would without hesitation.

Would you bowl with your friends while you had ebola?
Sleep with your mate?
Would you fly state to state with it?
Would you get on a cruise liner with 5000 people on it when you were under a travel restriction because you had been in proximity to viral samples?
Just wondering.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Yeah well, i've never been struck by lightning despite lightning striking the ground up to 8 million times per day...but pure blind luck at most of us never being struck doesn't mean we all should go outside during a thunder storm waving long metal rods above our heads does it!

Quarantine procedures are a sensible option where serious risk of infection is clear...and as Ebola is serious, is seriously infectious and kills 6-7 out of every 10 infected, quarantine is not just a sensible option, it is insane not to...even if most of us do not get struck by lightning!

a reply to: kaylaluv

please your analogy is not even close to this. a gun can't kill unless there is a round in the chamber and it's owner/ user pulls the trigger.
ebola is a organism waiting to move from host to host and can and will move on to others without the the deliberate aid of it's host.

a reply to: MysterX

I agree it is common sense so why is it that it wasn't just taken for granted that it should happen before we even had the first case come into the states? Is this the first time that americans have gone overseas to help with an ebola outbreak? If not what was the proceedures in place then for their return?

And why would you want to quarentine someone who has been in the hot spot within their home with their family members who have not been exposed? Wouldn't you be responsible for exposing them to it if the person did become infectious?

a reply to: yorkshirelad

You bring up a valid point, there has not been an Ebola outbreak in the USA, or any level 4 biological hazard for that matter. Except for Duncan, who lied to get into the country and the 2 nurses who came down with this Disease. Course if we use the Duncan case as an example, the reality is that the USA is not ready for an outbreak of a level 4 contagion at all. There were mistakes made, and it seems as though all though put into voluntary quarantine, several broke said quarantine several times, thinking that they were alright.

There is an old saying that makes the best sense here: Doctors make the worst patients. These medical persons who are over there, they should be commended for their effort, and more should be done to help alleviate the suffering in those countries that are stricken. However, the reality is that when it comes to something that deadly, why are the very same protocols that say the CDC uses when working with such in a lab are not used in the rest of the country? The CDC protocols, and those in all labs that have access to and work with a level 4 contagion is far stricter than what is being shown outside in the rest of the country. Perhaps we should take a page out of their playbook and err on the side of caution and start thinking in a proactive stance, rather than a reactive one.

The measures to prevent the spread have to be harsh and without question, the first would be a mandatory quarantine in a proper facility for all of those who have been exposed to or have worked with this kind of disease. It means full decontamination for those who are working to aid those who have such and no more voluntary quarantine where one can decide it is ok for them to break. And the facilities should be where they can be isolated and contained, working as if they do have the disease, until they are cleared by the medical facility with 3 checks and screenings.

a reply to: kaylaluv

You're analogy doesn't work.

If it did, guns would kill 6-7 out of every 10 people who die...they do not.

Guns and deaths from guns are not indiscriminately contagious either.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: kaylaluv

please analogy your is not even close to this. a gun can't kill unless there is a round in the chamber and it's owner/ user pulls the trigger.
ebola is a organism waiting to move from host to host and can and will move on to others without the the deliberate aid of it's host.

But we don't know when the owner is going to pull the trigger. There is no guarantee that he won't, so the common sense action would be to prevent it from happening in the first place.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: kaylaluv


If it did, guns would kill 6-7 out of every 10 people who die...they do not.

Guns and deaths from guns are not indiscriminately contagious either.

Yeah, but 100% of gun deaths are caused by guns.

People who indiscriminately shoot strangers in public places (like schools and movie theaters) are proof that you are wrong.

a reply to: kaylaluv
But the gun owner would need a motive to pull the trigger.
Ebola doesn't get offended, doesn't worry about burglars, doesn't have a consciousness.

originally posted by: drwill
a reply to: kaylaluv
But the gun owner would need a motive to pull the trigger.
Ebola doesn't get offended, doesn't worry about burglars, doesn't have a consciousness.

Motives don't matter. Saving people's lives by removing the threat is the only thing that matters.

a reply to: dawnstar

You know what dawnstar...i've got no idea why not.

It's baffling to me, that normal, well accepted and expected practices like quarantining potentially infected people wasn't a prerequisite...baffling.

It's simply what is done, in regards to any serious infection outbreak or among those who administer to the infected of such an outbreak...or else we'd have no concept of segregating the infected and potentially infected from those uninfected...we wouldn't even have the word quarantine in out collective vocabulary!

I wonder what the WHO or CDC is going to say next...that the Ebola infection must be treated by bleeding the host and re-balancing the four humors perhaps?

Wouldn't surprise me, considering the almost medieval, backward way in which this entire ebola thing is being handled currently.

a reply to: kaylaluv

that still doesn't work, a round has to be in the chamber in order to kill the way it was designed to fucntion.
ebola is designed/ evolved ( your pick) to move on it's own.

ETA: on it's own is not the words i need to use, i should have said finds the opportunity to move from host to host with the aid of a host.

originally posted by: jtma508
She DOES NOT HAVE THE VIRUS.

You can't say that until the quarantine is over.
And yelling your position in caps doesn't change that fact.

Blind ignorance never dies.

Careful. Considering the above statement, you might want to retract that.

No one knows if she has it or not. Taking a blood test now and having it come up negative means nothing. If she has it, it won't show up until later. That's the whole point of a quarantine, to make sure it has time to incubate and show itself.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Medical Technologist, ASCP certification. Trained under Albey Reiner in microbiology, formerly with CDC and very knowledgeable in the hemorrhagic viruses including Ebola. Have worked extensively in level 3 isolation lab culturing and testing a wide range of pathogens. Trained and worked in patient contact isolation procedures in order to draw bloods. 4yrs clinical experience before changing field. Extensive course work including 4 semesters microbiology, 2 semesters pathology, 2 semesters epidemiology plus 1 year clinical training prior. RN's typically get one semesters of basic microbiology.

a reply to: kaylaluv
I bet to differ.
If someone is holding a loaded gun, motives matter. Even a disordered mind can find justification to pull a trigger.

a reply to: Jainine

Exactly.

That IS the entire point of quarantine.

It not a punishment, nor a penalty...it's just simple, medical sense designed to try and prevent rampaging viral infections from spreading among the nation.

Anyone, involved in health care, but especially virology, OUGHT to know exactly what a quarantine is for and expect to be placed within one until positively cleared of infection and plan accordingly....if they go out to help infected parts of the world for 6 months or so, simply add another month to their trip to account for the time they ought to willingly spend in quarantine for the protection of the countryfolk, if nothing else.

It's bizarre people are moaning about it, it really is.

a reply to: kaylaluv
But I agree that saving lives should be an important issue.
Cheers.

a reply to: Jainine

The virus is either in her (resulting in an immune reaction leading to a positive test) or not. They are not testing people as a rule unless they show symptoms opting instead to quarantine. I believe MSF is testing all returning HCWs. The test is time consuming, expensive and only available through a small number of labs (primarily CDC). If someone has Ebola they will test positive irrespective of the symptoms or lack thereof. The two recently released nurses test negative now yet had the virus. Are you suggesting that they could suddenly become infectious again? Why not? What would prevent that from happening in your 'expert' opinion? The 21 day quarantine period has nothing to do with the appearance of the virus. It is related to the window between contracting the virus and developing symptoms.

a reply to: kaylaluv
We can see a person with a gun and take action.

Look, we have strict quarantines in place for agricultural concerns like livestock and imported goods but we shouldn't take precautions regarding a level 4 pathogen among humans? It's nonsensical.

I'd love to give HCWs the courtesy and benefit of the doubt to self-quarantine but 2 out of the 3 who have been infected disregarded the recommendations. Add to that the fact that, overall during this outbreak, a greater percentage of HCWs have contracted the disease using the same protocols that have been used in other Ebola outbreaks and I tend to think we would be foolish to dismiss the possibility that something may have changed with the virus.

a reply to: MysterX

What are your conditions for 'positively clearing' said individuals? Will a negative blood test suffice? Or are there other more effective means? What if they test positive and then after a period of time are negative? Are they still a risk or not?