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

a reply to: marg6043

It's all about choices and sacrifices and thinking those through to all their possible conclusions. It is no one's right to expose others to a threat, real or potential. Especially not when the mitigation of the risk is so relatively simple. And short term. No one is taking anyone's rights away forever.

They are not yet releasing the details of the treatments. Dialysis. Massive hydration. Some combinations of serums, drugs, and I think all have had transfusions...now apparently from at least Writebol and Brantly, who got his own from the boy who was cured.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Eloquently said.
Considering the number of impaired physicians, and the magical I'm-Immune-to-Everything thinking that grips many HCWs, I can see why States don't trust them.

Even the smartest HCW isn't immune to instant gratification.

Maybe we shouldn't let them go in the first place if they aren't willing to consent to a 21 day quarantine upon their return or they should sign up for military duty. Then, they HAVE to quarantine as a condition of their service.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Here's a link about that.

Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) -- A Connecticut father sued a school district for not allowing his daughter to return to the third grade after a trip to a family wedding in Nigeria because teachers and parents feared she might be infected with Ebola.

Source

Maybe the father shouldn't send his 3rd grade daughter to an Ebola infected country. Oh wait,.....then there wouldn't be an opportunity to file a law suit.

This is getting out of hand.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

You people at ats kill me at times... It seems like there is always a government conspiracy... there is always government taking rights from us... and yet you all see to want the military to confine people to their homes regardless of rights...

I.... Dont.... Get... it.


carry on.

a reply to: MrLimpet

Was this before or after Nigeria was officially declared Ebola free? That did happen recently. If it was after, then he has a point.

a reply to: ketsuko

Just found this.

Ikeoluwa traveled with her father, Stephen Opayemi, Oct. 2-13 to Lagos, Nigeria, for a family wedding. The Opayemi family says that health director Dr. Dennis McBride initially told them that Ikeoluwa should be screened, which they agreed to. The father, Stephen Opayemi, even took her to a doctor to get a clean bill of health. But then McBride said the little girl should stay home, due to Ebola panic—even though the family only visited Nigeria.

Source

He may very well have a point and it should be addressed. Doesn't justify filing a $250,000.00..IMO.

a reply to: ArmyOfNobunaga

You people?

Nice broad swipe.

Did you even bother to read anything or are you just coming in to smear your crap?

Don't bother answering. It's obvious what the answer to my question is.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
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.

What are you talking about. A couple governors took it upon themselves to impose a restriction not backed up by the official medical position, but instead fuelled by public hysteria. Obama recently welcomed doctors and nurses who just came back from Africa no different than the nurse. The only difference is that the nurse lived in a state where a politician decided to force them into something simply to appease a bunch of hysteria public influences.

That doesn't make sense.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Well geez. You should just kill all the people with Ebola, HIV, etc, since they are all potential murderers...

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

How many states?
Two? Four?

Oh. Well. Good for them. I guess.
I'm sure Christie will get a big boost from it.

originally posted by: Phage

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

How many states?
Two? Four?

Oh. Well. Good for them. I guess.
I'm sure Christie will get a big boost from it.

Here you go. A good start to help you keep up with current events: U.S. Monitoring / Quarantine status updates by State

I believe California now too, so around 10.

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
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.

What are you talking about. A couple governors took it upon themselves to impose a restriction not backed up by the official medical position, but instead fuelled by public hysteria. Obama recently welcomed doctors and nurses who just came back from Africa no different than the nurse. The only difference is that the nurse lived in a state where a politician decided to force them into something simply to appease a bunch of hysteria public influences.

That doesn't make sense.

Um what I'm talking about is EXACTLY what I said. How does what YOU said/injected relate to that?

And by the way, the nurse does NOT live in NJ either. She's from Maine, where the governor is going to court.

Same advice to you. Keep up.

Something to think about. Why is the majority of focus by the media on what the lawyers and politicians are saying and what the CDC in seeming contradiction to its own advice are saying while there is so very little to no coverage about what the public is saying and only some coverage of the states' legal statutes on this issue?

Yep. Add California.

Ayone arriving in California from an Ebola-affected area and who has had personal contact with a person infected with the deadly virus will be quarantined for 21 days, according to an order issued Wednesday by the state's public health director. [Source]

a reply to: grandmakdw
Well, I'm not saying I disagree with the quarantines.

Because honestly, I just cannot wrap my mind around these people bitching about it.

If I went to a country, to work directly with Ebola cases, I would most certainly quarantine myself. Would it suck? Heck yes.
But you know what? I love my family. I love my friends. WHY would I even want to take a chance at causing them a horrendous death, regardless of how slim the chance was?

That's is the problem I have with these people. Do they truly care about their loved ones? Because I'm not seeing it.

Here's the thing.

TThe U.S. federal government is not in charge of state statutes and policies that can vary based on risk and situation. A state with reported cases or potential cases or international airports should be able to invoke the enforcement of existing statutes and state health department practices. After a careful risk analysis. Please states can act FASTER.

I believe that the federal government is overstepping here. They are clearly more concerned about their humanitarian policy...or something than the safety of the people. And no blanket guidelines/statutes/whatever they come up with in their slow (by definition) and bumbling overpoliticized, overappeased way is going to be very effective, even if it's not too late.

I guess the lawsuit against Maine is coming from her and her growing arsenal of lawyers. Could this be overturned?


State Quarantine and Isolation Statutes

a reply to: grandmakdw

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 RN is no different than a bunch of other nurses and doctors that had just came back and were visiting the president. Fear and hysteria is not how something like this should be managed.

If you are going to do a mandatory quarantine, than at least, make it reasonable and cater to the needs of the people who have to undergo it. Including lost wages, and any necessities entertainment they need for the time being. Instead of getting all panicky and calling for prosecuting people who might have it, or might have it and spread it, do something positive to prevent it.

Current medical opinion is that people are not infectious unless they are showing signs, but, personally with everything Ive read, I believe that to be a little wonky, as there are some conflicting sources and opinions in the scientific community about the virus shedding asymptomatically.

So I can see a mandated quarantine for that reason. Not because people simply fear the disease. We can't make policies based on fear. And we shouldn't be treating people like they are walking around trying to kill others, simply because they were in close contact with ebola patients.

The doctor is on the other hand a different story because they lied to authorities. Still, I think this is indicative that there needs to be a program to aid in quarantine, not reason to look to prosecute.

a reply to: ~Lucidity
California's rules are quite different from those of New York and New Jersey. It is not a matter of "You were in Liberia, you are going into quarantine" like it is in those states.

Instead, county health agencies will assess the threat to public health posed by each individual and "tailor an appropriate level of quarantine as needed," state officials said in a press statement. The order was described as a "flexible, case-by-case approach."

www.latimes.com...