Suspected Ebola carriers in the U.S. ...
Displaying poll results.13735 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8470 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6416 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Should be sent.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Should be sent.... (Score:5, Funny)
Thats cruel and unusual punishment!
For the suspected Ebola carriers.
Re:Should be sent.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any punishment for patent trolls would be unusual.
Re:. . . and file-thieves (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Also, I expected to see terrorists in the list or whoever the Government is using now to justify their various activities.
Should Be Asked Nicely Until Symptomatic... (Score:2)
Re:Should Be Asked Nicely Until Symptomatic... (Score:5, Informative)
After symptoms start showing, the patient needs to isolated, not quarantined to some degree, isolated. The best chance they've got for survival is in a hospital bed with doctors and nurses doing things to counteract the effects. But, even in a hospital, they need to be in isolation. That means they're own room with nurses in full gown and limited contact with the rest of the hospital. Don't worry though, you wouldn't need to keep them locked up to do it. It doesn't take long for an ebola patient to go from just a fever to a volcano of bodily fluids. They won't even want to get out of their bed while this is going on, much less leave the hospital.
Before they start showing symptoms is really more of a public perception issue. If you think you've got ebola, stay away from large crowds so people don't freak out, but that's about it.
Re:Should Be Asked Nicely Until Symptomatic... (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess I don't know why the right thing isn't to isolate yourself from people for 21 days until you can be ruled clean. I don't want to be confined to my house and give my wife and/or kids a deadly disease. I want to be in isolation, with minimal contact with nurses and doctors if I'm not symptomatic. It's the right thing to do. By the time I become symptomatic it's too late, I've already potentially given it to someone else.
People who can't or don't want to be locked down for the incubation period should not be going places where they might be exposed. Leaving us with the much smaller set of people who were exposed involuntarily.
Re: (Score:3)
I want to be in isolation, with minimal contact with nurses and doctors if I'm not symptomatic.
And I want GAMES and INTERNET ACCESS! Lots and lots of Video Games with unfettered access to everything in the world. X-box, Nintendo, PC...give me something to keep me entertained for 3 damned weeks. If I can't do anything else but be in a single room for 21 straight days (~500 hours), entertain me mother fucker! Help me keep my mind sharp with some kind of contact with the outside!
Re: (Score:2)
SUSPECTED Ebola carriers should be asked nicely to stay away from large groups, subways, etc.
And they were and refused since they aren't suspected of having Ebola, only having worked with people who had it. There is zero evidence that they have it so it can't be suspected.
Those symptomatic of Ebola should be quarantined to some degree, perhaps monitored hourly by a CDC employee or hospital worker. I'm not sure that they should be locked up, though. That seems a bit extreme.
Negative, if you're symptomatic you should be quarantined. It's the proper medical response. If you have symptoms it can be transmitted and given it's deadly nature it's right to prevent people who actually HAVE IT from possibly transmitting it.
it may, possibly, potentially mutate and become more communicable.
Indeed quantum theory says basically anything is possible; we don't plan based on th
5000 Dead So Far (Score:2)
Something else... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
These people have seen what this disease can do, and they have heard what reporting when they first have a symptom can do. So why is everyone so afraid of these heroes?
They went over to Africa to help the people there and we want to ostracize them for 21 days when they get back? Doing anything other than asking them to keep an eye on their own symptoms is the most ridiculous, over-reaction possible.
Thus far in the U.S. 4 people have contracted the virus. Two brought it back without knowing they were infected and two got it because of some kind of improper procedure. This is not an airborne virus that risks all of humanity, with proper procedures it can easily be contained. (How many new cases are currently in Texas?)
And if we continue to over-react to these people when they return, less people are likely to go over there and actually do what is needed. If we contain and eliminate this in Africa it will not be an issue. So everyone needs to calm the hell down and thank these brave people.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
YOU ARE NOT CONTAGIOUS UNTIL YOU HAVE SYMPTOMS. And the first symptom is a fever, and that is what all of these people are self testing for. Everything else that is being done is being done out of precautions or over-reactions. So lets go through the things you just talked about.
The person on the cruise did not have Ebola, she didn't have a fever and she didn't have direct contact with the Dallas patient. She was a lab technician, who tested blood samples, that was the extent of her contact. Everything else was an over-reaction, by the her and everyone else.
The NY doctor called the CDC as soon as he had a fever of 100.3 and he is now being treated. The bowling alley cleaning was done because the bowling alley feared a negative reaction from the public, there was nothing that said he was contagious when he was there.
The reason for the Texas quarantine, was because 2 nurses got sick while he was there. So the initial thought was that there was hole in their procedures, none of the other nurses have tested positive since then.
Nothing would make them more trustworthy than being there and seeing what this virus can do. Everyone of these people has seen the worst effects of this virus, and they realize how dramatically their chance improve if they report the first symptom.
As I said before, 2 people have contracted the virus here in the U.S., none of them were innocent bystanders or family members of someone who was over there. If you are this scared of these people you should just walk around in a full bio suit all the time, it is the only way to be safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for illustrating this for us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Short answer? Yes. Since he wasn't contagious during his time a the bowling alley, I absolutely would. Whether people would use the items in question is a matter of public perception, not safety. Even if he was contagious at that time, after the sweat dries, your chances for contracting it go down dramatically. After an hour or two, the chance is nil. Wet sweat from somebody showing symptoms? Maybe, but then again, I wouldn't touch wet sweat from a healthy person either.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if I get to have a big drill on my arm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're not "contaminating everything". The disease isn't airborn. Unless they're licking, or shitting on everything they see, and the concentration of ebola is high enough, they're not contaminating a damn thing. Sending in a crew and burning everything because somebody suspected of having ebola was there is a gross over reaction. The Texas hospital had to quarantine 70+ staff members and shut down because they were dumb and didn't put a confirmed ebola patient who was spewing bodily fluids out of both end
Re: (Score:2)
How long until we get ebola rollers [wikipedia.org] who'll do just that?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't take stupid unnecessary risks.
Re: (Score:2)
your hyperbole isn't as effective as you think.
We have strict safety standards for vehicles. Made not wearing seatbelts illegal in a bunch of states. mandated airbags, mandated vehicular insurance... blah blah blah. We have imposed on the civil liberties of our citizens to maintain a civilized society. What are taxes other than theft? What's the draft other than slavery?
in an ideal world, yeah, free speech is awesome, freedom of religion is awesome yadda yadda yadda. but sometimes you have to live in th
Re: (Score:2)
Idiots who demand quarantines of people who may have been exposed to Ebola are clueless retards who can't judge the relative threats they face.
Aside from that, demanding quarantines that will discourage people from volunteering in the first place *increases* the size of the threat to the U.S. If we d
Re: (Score:2)
and you're not understanding that i'm already aware of the statistical danger. but in this case you're twisting statistics to obfuscate. the average individual in the US is more likely to die in a car accident than from ebola. that's because there's like 300 million cars not because cars are dangerous.
That ebola patient's likelihood of infecting me is very different than his likelihood of infecting his doctor. But we both are rolled into the global statistic. with disease the likelihood is influenced a
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I suspect the medical professionals are intentionally trying to spread ebola around the US in order to raise awareness and get the first world countries involved in mass producing a cure. And I applaud them for it.
I mean, they just came back from volunteering in a country that is absolutely ravaged by this and several other diseases. And then they see that the first world countries are doing almost nothing, as if they're wishing the Africans to just go off and die, the more the better! I'm sure this is absolutely heartbreaking for someone who just volunteered their time and effort and witnessed the carnage and personal struggles first hand. If only there was some way to make the rest of the world care...
There's that morbid observation of media coverage that this fits in with... the US media would give roughly equal coverage to:
2 million genocides in Africa
= 200,000 tsunami victims in India
= 10,000 civil war casualties in Eastern Europe
= 100 food poisonings in the UK
= 10 skiers fell from a gondola in Canada
= 1 snipered american
Sure, just to make this more political, I'll go ahead and agree with the POTUS policy that the best thing we can do to fight ebola in the US is to make it easy for our medical professionals to go fight the outbreak in Africa.
As far as quarantine goes, everything I've read so far indicates that it's only getting transmitted to people who are cleaning up blood and vomit and guts. It would be a tremendous waste of money to SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING over this, and even a tremendous waste of money to quarantine everyone coming back from Africa for 3 weeks.
If you are still afraid of contracting ebola after all of this, you are certainly free to quarantine yourself from the rest of society. That certainly sounds like the most legal, reasonable, and responsible "small government" approach for anyone who might ask.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, people are dismissive of tragedies that happen to people they don't know in places they'll never visit. That isn't really one of humanity's more admirable traits, but it's there and undeniable.
I also agree that SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING would be a tremendous waste of money. Good thing I haven't heard anyone advocate it; it would be an irrational act. I don't believe I'll be quarantining myself from society either, since I am in point of fact not panicking and am well aware that my personal chances of contra
How suspected? (Score:2)
If they're showing possible symptoms AND recently traveled to a region with an ebola outbreak, yes, a quarantine seems reasonable. For "region" I would include both small countries like Liberia in their entirety, and subdivisions of larger countries (for example, Texas).
If they're not showing symptoms but came into close contact with ebola patients, a quarantine is also reasonable. As motivation for accurate self-reporting, let's give them free healthcare if they do develop a case. That way, the people flee
Re: (Score:2)
As motivation for accurate self-reporting, let's give them free healthcare if they do develop a case.
I thought that free healthcare would lead to some horrible socialist dystopia. Yet you seem to believe that providing care for those who are potentially suffering from a contagious and potentially deadly disease might somehow be beneficial to society in general by actually helping to stop/slow its spread. Hmmm
if asymptomatic... (Score:2)
That's a pretty big "if". Why is it associated with only one of the answers?
Sanity (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that those returning from a problem region should be handled appropriately for their level of risk.
Just helped to put up tents and buildings to house future ebola cases with no direct contact? How about we give them some symptom education, a hotline number, a thermometer, and send them on their merry way with a daily phone-call to verify everything is going fine.
You directly helped actively infected patients in the last 21 days? How about we require you to finish out that 21 days under home isolation with daily check-ups.
Another idea (Score:3)
Forced to wear a shirt with an embroidered "E".
There's a big unanswered question here (Score:2)
"Suspected" by whom, exactly?
If these are people that the CDC or other competent medical personnel believe are infected, then they should probably self-monitor and perhaps avoid mass gatherings or transit in case they start to feel ill while out and about.
If these are people that, say, the governor of some state thinks might be infected because they may have ridden on the same plane as an asymptomatic ebola carrier... they should go about their lives as normal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Because we all know how that turned out. Nobody got ebola.
This disease is incredibaly safe (Score:2)
Most people that get exposed, never get infected.
Most people that get infected, survive if given treatment immediately.
More importantly, it is obvious once you are infected - besides the high fever, you expel fluids that are supposed to stay inside your body.
This disease has infected about 1 person a week in the US. At this rate we could kill everyone in the US in just 6 thousand years.
There is zero re
Re: (Score:3)
Exponential growth: 1,2,4,8
One a week for multiple weeks is clearly LINEAR>
One a week for multiple weeks is not and never has been exponential growth.
I was smart enough to realize that 1 a week for multiple weeks mean that this is NOT exponential growth, but instead linear growth.
You are wrong to think that because certain other diseases spread exponentially, that this one is growing exponentially. Very wrong to ignore the actual facts and just think about what you are
I say we all panic (Score:5, Insightful)
OK let's see, the one non-medical person that entered the US with ebola and ran around for a few days with a temperature infected how many people again? Oh right, the two nurses that were up to their elbows in his bodily fluids. How many of his family that he lived with did he infect? Or right, zero. And how many of the people infected with ebola have died here in the US? Oh right, that one guy who ran around untreated for a few days. Yep sounds like something we should really worry about living in a country with a modern medical system.
Re: (Score:2)
way to kill the "we're all going to die" buzz
Re: (Score:2)
Y'know, six weeks ago I was in the "run for the hills, this is the end" school of thought.
Then I actually educated myself. And honestly, the whole scene in Texas, even given how incompetently handled it was, indicated to me that there was zero risk for a major ebola outbreak here.
Now I am more concerned about second-order effects. There aren't that many isolation units, air ambulances, and (apparently) doctors, nurses, and paramedics adequately trained in use of protective gear to treat more than a few do
Should be "humanely put down" (Score:3)
"Well, that wasn't very humane..."
Ebola is harder to catch than most people think. (Score:5, Informative)
"Health care professionals treating patients with this illness have learned that transmission arises from contact with bodily fluids of a person who is symptomatic — that is, has a fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and malaise. We have very strong reason to believe that transmission occurs when the viral load in bodily fluids is high, on the order of millions of virions per microliter. This recognition has led to the dictum that an asymptomatic person is not contagious; field experience in West Africa has shown that conclusion to be valid. Therefore, an asymptomatic health care worker returning from treating patients with Ebola, even if he or she were infected, would not be contagious. Furthermore, we now know that fever precedes the contagious stage, allowing workers who are unknowingly infected to identify themselves before they become a threat to their community. This understanding is based on more than clinical observation: the sensitive blood polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) test for Ebola is often negative on the day when fever or other symptoms begin and only becomes reliably positive 2 to 3 days after symptom onset."
Should be *paid* to stay home. (Score:2)
Given the cost of treating them if they do turn out to be sick, they should be paid to stay home. Arguably they should also get groceries delivered.
Three options that are *almost* right (Score:2)
"Should be locked in regular hospitals"
s/locked/treated/;s/$/ if symptomatic/
"Should be asked nicely to stay home for a bit"
s/Should/Could/;s/$/ by people willing to donate to them and or their employer to offset the loss of time/
"Should go about their lives, if asymptomatic"
This one seems closest to right, I'm just not sure why someone asymptomatic would be suspected of being a carrier. *I* would suspect someone of being a carrier if they had come into contact with the bodily fluids of a symptomatic patie
Remain political fodder in US midterm elections (Score:4, Funny)
It's really pretty terrible (but not unexpected) that the politicians don't care at all about the impact on the nurses/doctors who are helping with an epidemic in Africa and so their ability to help in those countries. These health care providers really are heros - risking their lives to save others. That the politicians are trying to score political points at the expense of these poeple is a new low.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
i'm not likely to die... you know as the average american sitting right here right now... but the likelihood goes up if you take away the 300+ miles between me and the suspected carriers. Local concerns are extremely valid. The problem being if you contract it it's a 50/50 which is pretty damn deadly. even 30/70 is pretty damn bad. The US has very little to worry about on a whole. but if you ask me if one of the suspected carriers lived in my town and wanted to take a walkabout how i'd feel about it?
Re:How about... (Score:5, Informative)
You don't quarantine nurses who worked with flu patients and the flu is FAR easier to catch.
You are giving into fear vs factual scientific evidence and while understandable as a knee jerk reaction it makes really really bad policy.
Are you willing to give up your salary for 3 weeks simply 'because' someone is fearful of you?
Re:How about... (Score:4, Insightful)
Covering someone's salary and ensuring their job security - even if that means paying both the quarantinee and a replacement worker for three weeks - is a lot cheaper than cleaning up afterwards if someone *does* turn out to be harboring infection without symptoms *yet*. Especially in densely populated areas where the likelihood of cross-contact is higher. The nurse in Maine can certainly go sit out on her deck, do some yard work, etc.; it's a different story for the doctor in New York City who may have left sweat on the subway handgrip or pole that someone else wound up holding mere minutes afterwards.
The soldiers coming back from Africa who will be quarantined will be paid for that time, which will count towards their enlistment, and will probably be doing PT and other activities during that time. Anyone being quarantined should be treated as being "drafted" for the time. It would be a lot tougher to make that case if the incubation were, say, two or three *months*; but three weeks is an extended business trip. If someone has an event to attend, they just have to plan travel accordingly.
Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Covering someone's salary and ensuring their job security - even if that means paying both the quarantinee and a replacement worker for three weeks - is a lot cheaper than cleaning up afterwards if someone *does* turn out to be harboring infection without symptoms *yet*
Indeed that would be a almost reasonable compromise I could support...except they aren't being paid during their quarantines. And taking vacation isn't being paid, it's still coming out of their own pocket.
Medical protocols suggest twice daily monitoring of their temperatures and responding based on those results. The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.
The military is entirely separate from medical health professionals. The gov't is already paying the soldiers so it's treatment already built into the budget.
Re:How about... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the problem. As long as quarantine is an "unfunded mandate" there WILL be violations. It may be acceptable if it is agreed to prior to going into a hot spot, but if your exposure is unrelated (for example, symptomatic person was on your domestic flight), it is necessary to recognize that few can afford to just skip work for one to three weeks and even fewer can afford to effectively quit their job without having a better job lined up.
Since due process of law cannot actually happen in the required time frame, I don't see how such an unfunded mandate can be Constitutional. OTOH, offer someone 3 extra weeks of paid vacation (staycation really), make sure they keep their job after, and take care of all of their errands for them and voluntary compliance is likely.
In the case of medical personnel exposed in the course of their duties, obviously the employer should foot the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of medical personnel exposed in the course of their duties, obviously the employer should foot the bill.
Thing is, these are volunteers going over there on their own time. Forcing their employers here to foot the bill wouldn't be right either.
The group benefiting the most from this paid time is the American public as a whole...so it should be the US gov't providing for their expenses and otherwise lost income during said period - with the assumption that this is only for people who are being quarantined for precautionary reasons.
People who actually contract Ebola would be covered under their own medical
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, these are volunteers going over there on their own time. Forcing their employers here to foot the bill wouldn't be right either.
That was not in the course of their duties then (unless they went to Africa as a result of a request from their employer), so no liability for their employers. The nurses who contracted it HERE did so in the course of their duties as nurses in the hospital caring for an Ebola patient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I fully agree that the hospital shouldn't be in control of the situation. They should get no choice. They WILL pay the employee's full salary for the quarantine period (which is as long as the CDC says it is) they WILL NOT penalize the employee in any way. Or they WILL have it taken out of their hide.
Re:How about... (Score:4, Insightful)
Medical protocols suggest twice daily monitoring of their temperatures and responding based on those results. The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.
This is what we should be doing. These doctors and nurses coming back are probably the world's leading experts on Ebola diagnosis and treatment at this point. Let them diagnose themselves and decide when they are actually a risk. Not that I think we can trust anybody to be completely objective; we should probably mandate that they submit their twice-daily temperatures and reports of incidental symptoms to an independent health organization. Just to make sure they actually do it and they aren't biased because it's themselves. But mandatory quarantines just for having been in west Africa? Ridiculous.
Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Go read the science of why establishing a travel ban is a bad idea. If we ban travel to those areas it simply spreads FASTER and WIDER because it isn't treated and stopped at the source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'd have to not touch their bodily fluids for awhile then, huh?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
' if they aren't symptomatic they aren't contagious,' Period. I am not contagious. Neither is the nurse in Maine. or anyone except the Dr. in New York. In 10 days no one in the U.S. will be contagious. The quarantine in NJ is a publicity stunt run for political gain only. Here is why I say that;
1. All of this alarmist BS can be shown to be from the simple political motive of saying the current Administration is in need of replacement. The adds I see now from 'Not the Incumbent' candidates say that all of the worlds ills are directly caused by the printf('failed policy about %s caused by %s', current_fear, my_opponent) . They imply that due to these failures 'your children will die!'. This is easily testable. Look back at the previous Ebola, SARs and Swine Flu scares. Many had the most intense media coverage just before an election.
2. Swine Flu news disappeared in late November 2009. The Flu season is in Winter in the US. Oddly, almost no mention was made of all the cases that happened that 2010 season. The pandemic was real but the overblown threat was not needed after the 2009 elections. I was one of the people that amazingly caught and didn't die from Swine Flu (dunt dun da...).
I forecast that we will not hear any more stories of how Ebola will kill us all (especially on Fox News) after next Tuesday. The quarantine will also be lifted shortly thereafter. I am not saying that Ebola is not dangerous. I am saying the overblown response in not safety minded or scientific at all, just political. I could be wrong. It could be that pandemics only occur in election years.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How about not being afraid of an imaginary threat.
' if they aren't symptomatic they aren't contagious,' Period.
What a load of crap. Humans vary a lot. The progress of diseases varies from person to person. And especially people who may have a fatal disease will lie to themselves about their own symptoms.
If you come in contact with someone with Ebola, or a room they've recently occupied, you're at risk. Why the fuck would you put the lives of dozens or hundreds of people at risk for your convenience, you fucking monster. If you intentionally take an action that has a 1% chance of infecting 100 people with Ebola,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it really doesn't.
In epidemiological terms, Ebola isn't typically considered airborne, unlike Influenza, because it is not considered to be spread by microaerosols. Droplet propagation, by contrast, is considered to be "direct contact with bodily fluids". This is somewhat different from the vernacular meaning of "airborne", which usually includes droplet propagation. This has caused a lot of controver
A man with a Nobel prize in medicine disagrees. (Score:5, Interesting)
How about not being afraid of an imaginary threat.
' if they aren't symptomatic they aren't contagious,' Period. I am not contagious. Neither is the nurse in Maine. or anyone except the Dr. in New York. In 10 days no one in the U.S. will be contagious. The quarantine in NJ is a publicity stunt run for political gain only.
A man with a Nobel prize in medicine disagrees.
http://www.naturalnews.com/047... [naturalnews.com]
So does a PCR study published in The Lancet which, via PCR assay, established 11 out of 24 asymptomatic individuals following the 1996 outbreak in Gabon (also a 70% fatality strain).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov]
Not that you should perhaps trust someone who won a Nobel in Medicine for his immunology work, or that you should trust 10 of the top medical researchers working on the Ebola problem. Note that some of these are coauthors on papers with Leaf Bio researcher Larry Zeitlin PhD, President of Mapp Biopharmaceutical, otherwise known as the developers of MB-003 / ZMapp, the investigatory drug that cured the first several victims of Ebola who were flown into the U.S.. See also These articles in Cell:
http://www.cell.com/cell/refer... [cell.com]
Just because a lot of people would like to believe that you have to be bleeding out every orifice before you're contagious won't make it so.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
if it were the spanish flu we would :) 30 percent fatality rate warrants some pretty drastic steps.
also, if done properly, the incidental contact list would be pretty small, considering nobody would be having incidental contact domestically. just those international flights with people who are in that week or so asymptomatic time frame.
Re: (Score:2)
just those international flights with people who are in that week or so asymptomatic time frame.
except nobody on planes with asymptomatic ebola carriers is at risk...at all. It's not contagious until there are symptoms.
Re: (Score:2)
i meant getting through screenings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The basic point being, if they aren't contagious, there's no point in quarantining anyone. The point of quarantine is to prevent the spread, if there's no chance of spread, what's the point of the quarantine? Twice daily checks on their conditions to verify whether they've developed symptoms is the perfectly reasonable compromise to minimize any duration of transmitability and summarily punishing people for possible but not probable fut
Re: (Score:2)
It gets people's attention just like closing off a lot of toll booths at a busy time.
Of course it take a sociopath to order such actions for what they see as their personal gain.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the question was "suspected ebola carriers in the US..." so I answered "should be locked in regular hospitals" which seems rather obvious to me.
But of course someone who worked with Ebola patients and is showing no symptoms, is not a "suspected ebola carrier". I think they'll have enough common sense to stay away from others if they start feeling at all ill, so no other measures should be necessary. But once again, that was not the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't quarantine nurses who worked with flu patients and the flu is FAR easier to catch.
The flu doesn't kill 9 out of 10 people that catch it either, it only kills 3 out of 10000 and those people are already immuno-compromised
Re: (Score:2)
This is in the public interest and should be covered by the public, just like any basic medical coverage. It's far cheaper than not
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a while to become symptomatic you dolt, so yes, they are "potential carriers" for up to 21 days after they last were in contact with a patient.
We don't curtail individuals' freedom based on potential. You're a potential rapist and murderer, but we don't lock you up for that.
Given that even if they have contracted the virus, they won't be spreading it until the disease has taken hold and caused blood vessels to rupture so the virus from the white blood cells get into other body fluids, there's no reason to isolate them. It's not like they suddenly become contagious within minutes, and can infect others.
Re: (Score:3)
It's amazing how bad people are at gauging relative risk/benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
oh i'm perfectly aware. but there's not much we can do about that except take away licenses for parking violations?
minimize risk. This is a risk that is completely unnecessary to subject people to with probably a net positive economic impact from the reduction in panic.
now, appeasing the public isn't the main point, but it is a nice ancillary benefit.
more people are probably going to die of starvation due to the economic stagnation in west africa than from ebola. People are afraid to go the hairdresser in
Re: (Score:2)
That idea just drips awesome sauce.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, we did it in ww2. and it wasn't for 3 weeks.
God i feel old... When the japanese were thrown into interment camps, some of them went off to war even though their families were still locked up. because they were american. people are bitching and moaning about 3 weeks?
yeah i'm all for protecting civil liberties. And it's a shame that civil liberties are the first things to fall when emergencies occur... but really, 3 weeks?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also more likely to die at the hands of a cop than from a private citizen lawfully carrying a firearm. But that doesn't stop people from trying to heavily restrict firearms.
Oh, I'm all for taking the guns away from the rabid testosterone-crazed goons. When cops don't have guns, far fewer criminals will carry too, and the risk of being shot by either drops.
Actually, I'd like to take the life away from anyone who thinks that shooting another person is justifiable. Long before they have a chance to become killers or procreate. Mandatory psych testing in junior high, then decimation, retiring the 10% who show the most violent tendencies.
Re: (Score:2)
because they came in contact with people who were established carriers.
Re: How? (Score:4, Insightful)
The percentages are low but obviously anything can be suspected.
Re: (Score:2)
which is why i limited it to actual confirmed carriers. You know, ring defense style.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and i'm all for erring on the side of caution because... as they say... to err is to be human. Medical protocol is good if followed, sometimes it isn't. sometimes we all just have one bad day, and suddenly everybody is wondering why people weren't put in quarantine.
you guarantee nobody is going to get lynched when our our protocol proves insufficient, and i'd say yeah, follow the protocol.
The last case of smallpox was apparently a vaccinator who never got the vaccine himself, and who had 5 minutes of cont
Re: (Score:3)
It costs nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Really...constitutional rights are worth nothing to you?
There is no threat. None. Zero. Until someone shows symptoms they simply cannot transmit the disease through normal public human contact. Twice a day monitoring is the compromise between house arrest and letting contagions run rampant.
Re: (Score:2)
i'm more worried about the transition.
i've certainly been in the situation of waking up feeling fine, and feeling like shit in the evening when the hell did i get sick? you're telling me that i'm allowed to kill people because of a little uncertainty? i didn't know. thanks ever so.
codified on the state level in the government's power to quarantine people.
i don't think you have the right to cause a panic even if you say you're not endangering others.
Re: (Score:3)
So clearly we need to isolate Kevin Bacon immediately. If he gets Ebola, we're all screwed :-)
More seriously, the contact would have to be within the window of vulnerability in order to count. It doesn't matter if I had contact with the person last year. It doesn't matter if I had contact with them more than 21 days after their exposure as long as they weren't symptomatic at that time.
In order to be suspected, you would need to have had contact with someone suspected within the time frame for them to develo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
President Obama! A man in Texas is coughing! [photobucket.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... and I work not a few hundred yearas from where one of the nurses that was suspected of having it
The current thinking is that the virus can remain active on surfaces for 10's of days in ideal conditions. So as long as you're living a few hundred yearas from the events in question, you should be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
From ebola, yes, but a few hundred years ago there were plenty of other diseases and no shots yet. And who knows what will evolve in a few hundred years?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how all the US opponents of socialised medicine (instead of a insurance scheme with a side effect of health care) do not realise that there is a very successful example of socialised medicine in the USA in the form of VA.
Re: (Score:2)
And anti-vaccer meetings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
AFAIK, doctors and nurses are already required to take three weeks away from their jobs after caring for Ebola patients anyway. And for everyone else, this falls under short-term disability, so it would be illegal for an employer to fire someone for doing so. That's why companies have disability insurance.