Here's why states don't trust voluntary Ebola quarantines

[Source]

The New York City doctor infected with Ebola reportedly lied to officials at first last week when he claimed he was isolated in his Manhattan apartment.

Dr. Craig Spencer only admitted having ridden city subways, bowling in Brooklyn and eating in restaurants after authorities found proof he'd done much more than just sit inside his home, the New York Post reported Wednesday, quoting law enforcement sources.

And yet, they made it sound like he copped to all it willingly and immediately.

"He told authorities he self-quarantined. Detectives then reviewed his credit card statement and MetroCard and found that he went over here, over there, up and down and all around," a source told the Post.

This is taken from NYPost

Spencer finally ’fessed up when a cop “got on the phone and had to relay questions to him through the Health Department,” a source said.

ETA: Same story...WSJ...dang I shoulda waited for this headline!

Doctors Without Scruples

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Humans, we all selfish in more than one way, I guess when it comes to the safety of others we most of the time, can not leave out life comforts for the security of others.

It should be illegal to walk around when under quarantine from and infectious and deadly disease like ebola.

At leas the Duncan family had it right

Oh, but apparently MI does.
Heck, I just heard this morning that we have 8 people "under observation" = running around, doing whatever they want.

You can not trust self-quarantine.

This is the perfect example:

A MD who saw the suffering of Ebola first hand

Came back to the US and thought he was invincible and acted accordingly.

If even a physician who saw Ebola first hand could not have enough self control to self-quarantine, we can not expect anyone to self-quarantine.

The recent RN is a great example, she is whining about her civil rights, well what if she like many other health providers who cared for Ebola patients, becomes infected?

She is simply refusing quarantine altogether.
If she gets it and then infects someone else, they or their families would have the best case in the world for a huge lawsuit against her which if she doesn't die, will haunt her life long.

The Doctor is in the same boat, opening himself up to attempted negligent homicide charges or a ridiculously huge lawsuit if someone should catch Ebola from him.

Both the MD and the RN are smart enough to know the medical/legal/and moral consequences of not self-quarantining, and yet they felt their right to get out in public, superseded others right to safety and life.

No one, not a single soul can be trusted to self-quarantine, it must be done through law enforcement, with vigilant enforcement guarding the people outside the containment area.

a reply to: marg6043

But, no, people will just sue the state when they get put on lock down.
You know, because you can't teach common sense. And apparently we are severely lacking it here in the US.


People are just so stupid sometimes.

a reply to: marg6043

I think fundamentally it's a scary thing, no matter how brave you were or appeared to be going over there to help.

I also think we should make it as painless as possible for those in quarantine, adequate and comfortable. Maybe the first case of quarantine happened too fast, without enough planning, but they took fast steps once the decision was made and they can improve from there.

I agree it should be and maybe even is illegal. And I guess this is going to be tested in courts very soon. That'll be interesting.

What bugs me most about this particular story is that they spun it at first to seem like he was totally up front and forthcoming with all the information. He probably never would have told them all the places he'd been if they hadn't done the detective work.

In addition, having to do this kind of detective work for every single volunteer, civilian, religious, military coming back would be a far greater strain, burden, and cost on the country as a whole than a voluntary quarantine would.

a reply to: marg6043

I think fundamentally it's a scary thing, no matter how brave you were or appeared to be going over there to help.

I also think we should make it as painless as possible for those in quarantine, adequate and comfortable. Maybe the first case of quarantine happened too fast, without enough planning, but they took fast steps once the decision was made and they can improve from there.

I agree it should be and maybe even is illegal. And I guess this is going to be tested in courts very soon. That'll be interesting.

What bugs me most about this particular story is that they spun it at first to seem like he was totally up front and forthcoming with all the information. He probably never would have told them all the places he'd been if they hadn't done the detective work.

In addition, having to do this kind of detective work for every single volunteer, civilian, religious, military coming back would be a far greater strain, burden, and cost on the country as a whole than a voluntary quarantine would.

a reply to: marg6043

It should be illegal to walk around when under quarantine from and infectious and deadly disease like ebola.

At leas the Duncan family had it right

Careful, lets not get into persecuting the victims anymore than we already do with stigma and other means. You are right though, the Duncan family went through an unbelievable ordeal, which they did not get the help they should have.

In the doctors case he seems very selfish and irresponsible, but persecuting sick means sick people will just not want to get diagnosed.

a reply to: boncho

Funny you should mention stigma and, hmm what was that other word that nurse and her lawyer and the fed kept using, pariah?

Funny they were the only ones who kept using those words. I believe if they hadn't done that, the majority opinion would have been respectful and brave. They wrote their own script and then they bitched about it. That just seems wrong.

The only health care worker who has acted appropriately is Nina Pham. SHE should be praised for her handling of the situation instead of this idiotic nurse making the headlines for being a twat.

a reply to: ValentineWiggin

She did. As far as we know.

I think there is another doctor, maybe in CT? who quarantined himself. He had scruples too. I was just looking for the article, which I read this morning and now cannot find.

Him they're not making a big deal about. Things that make you go hmmmm louder.

It still floors me that people have such a horror of staying home for three weeks. You would think after living in the hellish conditions of third world West Africa surrounded by sick and dying people, a three-week time of meditation and reflection would be a good thing.

I think this is an attempt to make sure it is legally impossible to quarantine people.

a reply to: ketsuko

Man, I'd give a lot to be able to do that, and with pay in the case of most, but not all state statutes from what I've seen. And ever those that don't list it, it would probably be arranged.

State Quarantine and Isolation Statutes

Well, I am wrong, it's been uped to 10 people now.

And does this sound familiar?

Each had answered "no" to a variety of questions about whether they had contact with a sick person, visited an area with sick people, or had touched a dead body.

DFP Article

I get that Mandated quarantines are illegal, unjust, ect. I just wish people cared about others more than themselves. Heck, even family members, in some of these cases.

a reply to: chiefsmom

I think CT has a few (maybe 8?) too. Some Harvard kid is making a stink too.

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: marg6043

It should be illegal to walk around when under quarantine from and infectious and deadly disease like ebola.

At leas the Duncan family had it right

Careful, lets not get into persecuting the victims anymore than we already do with stigma and other means. You are right though, the Duncan family went through an unbelievable ordeal, which they did not get the help they should have.

In the doctors case he seems very selfish and irresponsible, but persecuting sick means sick people will just not want to get diagnosed.

Quarantine is NOT persecution. It is preventing people from DYING.

People with AIDS have been sent to jail for lying to partners or not disclosing they had AIDS to partners and then having unprotected sex with them. AIDS is no longer a death sentence as many are living 20+ years with it. Yet it is illegal to expose others to AIDS without their consent.

When a person is within the incubation period of Ebola they do not know if they have it or not. Their symptoms could show up on a subway, in a classroom, on a bus, in church, in a restaurant, they do not know, nor does anyone when and where they might suddenly be contagious. The symptoms according to what I have read sneak up with a general tired feeling and no fever, during this time they are epidemiologically probably shedding the virus in sweat, tears, mucus (sneezes, cough), urine (did they wash their hands thoroughly?).

Being in public KNOWING you have been exposed to Ebola -
if one accidentally infects one other person who dies,

that is negligent homicide.

They have become a murderer through negligence

and possibly

a mass murderer through negligence.

Quarantine of an individual exposed to a deadly disease is not persecution,

NOT quarantining is persecuting the innocent by allowing the spread of a disease that kills 70-90% of its victims.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
Well, I am wrong, it's been uped to 10 people now.

And does this sound familiar?

Each had answered "no" to a variety of questions about whether they had contact with a sick person, visited an area with sick people, or had touched a dead body.

DFP Article

I get that Mandated quarantines are illegal, unjust, ect. I just wish people cared about others more than themselves. Heck, even family members, in some of these cases.

Quarantine is NEITHER illegal nor unjust

quarantine is preventing possible mass negligent homicide

(ie mass murder through Ebola)

If Dr. Duncan has infected others, he can be legally found guilty of mass murder through negligence

a reply to: grandmakdw

Right. Quarantine to check if symptoms appear.

quar·an·tine
ˈkwôrənˌtēn/Submit
noun
1.
a state, period, or place of isolation in which people or animals that have arrived from elsewhere or been exposed to infectious or contagious disease are placed.

This is what quarantine is for.

They don't have to be showing symptoms. They have to be segregated from the general population until cleared.

If they show symptoms, test, and if positive, isolate and treat. Not rocket science.

An age old definition and medical/scientific practice. I don't know why people are trying to change the definition to suit their needs of getting volunteers to Africa.

a reply to: chiefsmom

Actually this when our own capitalistic and opportunistic system comes back to bite us in our rear ends.

See, politicians and profiteers hate the constitution and its rights, but hell people used it to cash on those freedoms financially.

a reply to: boncho

That is the funny thing about liberties, the constitution and the land of law sue opportunities, quarantine is the Safety way right now to ensure that people that has been to ebola ridden countries will be away from the regular population that is not showing signs of contagion.

See, just because people decided to go to ebola ridden countries on their own accord doesn't have the right to come back and expect life as usual for them, is already prof that ebola is contagious, is dangerous and is already in our country with one person dying of it and people will not do what is required to do after they spend time in Africa.

That is the main issue, we have not available vaccines and the only ones that can survive so far are the ones lucky enough to have the blood donor same blood type.