Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Simple question deserves simple answer....no skating or extrapolating or weaseling.

Would you prefer a 10% chance to lose your hand or a 0% chance....and would you feel comfortable knowing that the 10% chance is actually out of your control?

@TheMeanDM Actually, a better response would be the aftermath of Siegel v. Shinnick, 219 F.Supp. 789 (E.D. NY 1963), the plaintiff was confined for 14 days on her return from a “smallpox infected area” abroad, despite a lack of any evidence of direct exposure or symptoms. Eerily similar to this situation. To wit, the court upheld the action, noting:

[The] judgment required is that of a public health officer and not of a lawyer used to insist on positive evidence to support action; their task is to measure risk to the public and to seek for what can reassure and, not finding it, to proceed reasonably to make the public health secure. They deal in a terrible context and the consequences of mistaken indulgence can be irretrievably tragic. To supercede their judgment there must be a reliable showing of error.

I find it interesting that California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois are implementing quarantines to contain any potential exposures until after the virus’ incubation period.

Which is all well and good... But for feth's sake, give the quarantined lady some Cable TV or something I mean, I get it... We can't really know the extent of what REALLY went down, because we're coming into a situation where Politician says, "She's sick" and she's saying "No I'm not!!!" and we go back and forth until really we're getting this lady saying "I'm LOUDER THAN YOU SO I'M RIGHT!!!!"

I can understand the desire and emplacement of quarantine procedures, but there's still a right way and a wrong way to do it, and if you believe anything of what the nurse says, treating people like "prisoners" is the wrong way.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Federal Government does not have a Ebola Policy/Regulation/SOP. As already pointed out earlier in the thread (yesterday) the State are within their right to implement a plan of their own in dealing with international arrivals who might be infected and showing signs.

Besides I've to deal with this rodeo in a couple weeks when I come back from Thailand completing some business there. If WA follow the states that already implemented a plan then who am I to argue with them if they decide to throw me in a plastic bubble tent. In that 21 days I should have completed all the Robotech stuff I've brought and pretty much become a subject matter expert on the rules and converting battletech vehicles to robotech standards to throw in the game......

21 DAYS WITHOUT A CELL PHONE!!!! WOOT

So, Politicians who do not know what they are talking about are imprisoning Americans for "The Greater Good". Right, that has never gone wrong.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I should learn about past quarantine laws about diseases not related to Ebola and reference them to a disease that works and acts different than past diseases worthy of quarantine?

Let me not get right on that, as it has nothing to do with Ebola.

What I am referencing is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

You know, where we locked up Americans in order to protect other Americans because we thought they were trying to hurt us! (Notice: our reasoning for doing this was Bullgak, just like the Ebola sensationalist scare)

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I should learn about past quarantine laws about diseases not related to Ebola and reference them to a disease that works and acts different than past diseases worthy of quarantine?

Let me not get right on that, as it has nothing to do with Ebola.

What I am referencing is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

You know, where we locked up Americans in order to protect other Americans because we thought they were trying to hurt us! (Notice: our reasoning for doing this was Bullgak, just like the Ebola sensationalist scare)

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I should learn about past quarantine laws about diseases not related to Ebola and reference them to a disease that works and acts different than past diseases worthy of quarantine?

Let me not get right on that, as it has nothing to do with Ebola.

What I am referencing is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

You know, where we locked up Americans in order to protect other Americans because we thought they were trying to hurt us! (Notice: our reasoning for doing this was Bullgak, just like the Ebola sensationalist scare)

Bad analogy... bad.

And Ouze accuses me of the same thing about livestock quarantine procedures.

Again, quarantine procedures is NOTHING new to the US.

Hence why we have that Mathews v. Eldridge "balancing test" for these kind of deprivations of liberty, the gravity of the government’s interest and adequacy of pre-deprivation process are key factors. The long incubation period and deadly effects all counsel for allowing a deprivation of liberty without any showing of illness. Locking a patient up after they develop a fever simply does not substitute for doing so in advance.

"Let’s have some role play... so that you can see exactly what this means in the real world. You go to see your doctor and you sit patiently in the waiting room, thumbing a magazine while your 2-year-old plays with her toys. Like all 2 yo, she touches everything, and everything goes in her mouth, toys, pens, her own fingers. A week later your angel starts vomiting blood and within 3 days she dies.

What you don’t know is that 3 days before your visit to the doctor, someone thought they had the flu. It is October you see, and they sneezed while thumbing through that very same magazine you thumbed through. The same thumb you grabbed her pacifier out of your purse with, in the waiting room.”

This is much more complicated than... "You guys are over racting... let the pros handle this!".

 TheMeanDM wrote:
How does my question *not* relate?

If you say that you are comfortable with letting someone else control the fate of losing your hand (even at a mere 10%) as opposed to taking control of the odds and ensuring a 0% chance....then you may be a liar, a fool, or a troll....or someone that plays russian roulette for fun.

Human beings have a deep seated need for control...look at Maslow, for example. The basic needs are ones that we strive, as a species, to control to the best of our abilities.

Humans have, throughout existence, tried to lessen or eliminate the odds of bad things happening to them.

Why don't you drive drunk? Odds are increased you will have an accident.

Why don't you have unprotected sex with sleazy prostitutes? Odds are increqsed you will get a disease.
Why do radiologists wear lead aprons? Without them, odds of certain cancers increases.

The majority of humans try hard to decrease the odds of negatives happening so that they may live healthy and fulfilling lives.

Thats what is happening here...now...the State is saying "We want to reduce the % chance of anybody contracting ebola here as close to zero as we can. If that requires a 21 day quarantine, so be it."

This nurse is saying "I don't care. I don't think rhat I am infected. Therefore I will go whereever I wish and do what I want."

The problem is that she can't say with 100% certainty that she doesn't carry ebola.

And while the government can not say she does have it...in the interest of the greater good (puvlic safety) they wish to quarantine her for precautions.

So, because there is a chance she could have Ebola, even though she has shown no signs and is currently not infectious, we are allowed to lock her up until we are sure she is no a threat?

 Frazzled wrote:

So, because there is a chance she could have Ebola, even though she has shown no signs and is currently not infectious, we are allowed to lock her up until we are sure she is no a threat?

Law and stare decisis says hells yes we can.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

haha, first off, if you knew anything about Doctors Offices you would have brought your own toys for your kid to play with and kept her away from other sick people or thing sick people have touched. Or you know, do not bring your kid to a place where there are sick people. Come on, really. That is your argument? My kid goes to a doctors office and plays with a bunch of things, now she has Ebola! Considering almost all the people who are infected with it or possibly infected with it in this country have had recent contact with it and are medical experts, I am pretty sure they would have an idea of what is going on. But no really, you could get it going to the doctors office!

But in all seriousness, this makes sense. Absolute sense. This could totally happen right now in the US. A real possibility. Do not take your kids to the doctor people!

An inanimate object or substance that is capable of transmitting infectious organisms from one individual to another.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

So, because there is a chance she could have Ebola, even though she has shown no signs and is currently not infectious, we are allowed to lock her up until we are sure she is no a threat?

Law and stare decisis says hells yes we can.

Actually, it does not. That is why they are seeking a judges approval to do it in Maine. Which is why she is out doing whatever the crap she wants to do right now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

So, because there is a chance she could have Ebola, even though she has shown no signs and is currently not infectious, we are allowed to lock her up until we are sure she is no a threat?

Law and stare decisis says hells yes we can.

Actually, it does not. That is why they are seeking a judges approval to do it in Maine. Which is why she is out doing whatever the crap she wants to do right now.

Actually it does. In Maine the state has the burden of proof, hence why going in front of a judge.

Both the federales and the states have power to quarantine. There's no confirmation that Disney can as well.

Maine health officials have instructed her to remain at the house for 21 days but acknowledge they don't have the authority yet to prevent her from leaving until a judge signs off on a court order.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

But this is all moot, since she is not infectious because she is not showing symptoms. (That is when you are infectious)

Christie's controversial Ebola quarantine now embraced by Nobel Prize-winning doctor

TRENTON — After days of blistering criticism from the ACLU, the CDC and even the United Nations secretary general over Gov. Chris Christie’s new, 21-day mandatory quarantine policy for all healthcare workers exposed to Ebola, the New Jersey governor has gotten a much-needed vote of support from a heavyweight name in the medical community: Nobel Prize-winning doctor and medical researcher, Dr. Bruce Beutler.

Dr. Beutler, an American medical doctor and researcher, won the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology in 2011 for his work researching the cellular subsystem of the body’s overall immune system — the part of it that defends the body from infection by other organisms, like Ebola.

He is currently the Director of the Center for the Genetics of Host Defense at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas — the first U.S. city to treat an Ebola patient and also the first to watch one die from the virus. In an exclusive interview with NJ Advance Media, Beutler reviewed Christie’s new policy of mandatory quarantine for all health care workers exposed to Ebola, and declared: “I favor it.”

Unfortunately, while the doctor’s support might provide much-needed credibility for Christie as he threatens to quarantine ever more healthcare workers returning from the Ebola fight in West Africa, it also comes with some chilling words.

“I favor it, because it’s not entirely clear that they can’t transmit the disease,” Beutler said, referring to asymptomatic healthcare workers like Kaci Hickox, a Doctors Without Borders nurse returning from treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone who was quarantined in New Jersey for 65 hours before being transported to her home state of Maine on Monday afternoon.

“It may not be absolutely true that those without symptoms can’t transmit the disease, because we don’t have the numbers to back that up,” said Beutler, “It could be people develop significant viremia [where viruses enter the bloodstream and gain access to the rest of the body], and become able to transmit the disease before they have a fever, even. People may have said that without symptoms you can’t transmit Ebola. I’m not sure about that being 100 percent true. There’s a lot of variation with viruses.”

In fact, in a study published online in late September by the New England Journal of Medicine and backed by the World Health Organization, 3,343 confirmed and 667 probable cases of Ebola were analyzed, and nearly 13 percent of the time, those infected with Ebola exhibited no fever at all.

Why, then, does he think the CDC would so emphasize Ebola is not communicable in patients without symptoms?

“There’s some imperative to prevent panic among the public,” says Dr. Beutler, “But to be honest, people have not examined that with transmissibility in mind. I don’t completely trust people who’d say that as dogma.”

As such, allowing home confinement for medical workers exposed to Ebola but currently without symptoms was, as Beutler put it, “a move away from goodness,’ as an engineer might say.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Monday changed direction and called for voluntary home quarantine for workers with the highest risk for Ebola infection. However, it also specified that most medical personnel returning from Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea would not need to be kept in isolation, as Hickox had been ever since she arrived at Newark International Airport on Friday up until her release and transfer to home quarantine in Maine early Monday afternoon.

“Even if someone is asymptomatic you cannot rely on people to report themselves if they get a fever,” said Dr. Beutler, adding, “You can’t just depend on the goodwill of people to confine the disease like that – even healthcare workers. They behave very irresponsibly.”

Christie has repeatedly pointed to the fact that NBC’s chief medical editor, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, after returning from Ebola besieged West Africa, was spotted violating her voluntary quarantine to get takeout from a Princeton eatery last week.

Despite her forced detainment by the New Jersey health department, Hickox insisted hat she was “feeling physically healthy” and except for a single, non-contact thermometer reading that registered her as having a 101 Fahrenheit fever, has had normal 98.6 F temperatures ever since her quarantine began.

“These are no arguments at all,” said Beutler. “Anyone could say that about any disease. It doesn’t matter that she was afebrile – she should be quarantined for 21 days.”

Hickox has complained that “her basic human rights were violated” and has since retained a civil rights attorney, but Beutner says he is puzzled by the argument.

“These people act like they are returning as conquering heroes — and they should be treated as conquering heroes, but part of being a conquering hero means making sure no one gets infected by you. Just look at the the foolish quarantine where astronauts came back from the moon [where there were no germs] and in this case, we know there is an infection.”

From a global perspective, it’s unlikely that the virus will take hold as an epidemic in the U.S., but in Africa, Beutler says it already “has gone ballistic – way, way beyond the past epidemics. One could project that maybe millions could be infected. It may be that it won’t spread like wildfire in the United States but even if one or two more people die, it will be too many.”

So, does Gov. Chris Christie have it right?

“I’d be a little bit more strict than he is being,” said Beutner, “I realize this would be inconvenient, but I don’t think it would prevent treating the disease.”

Christie has not been willing to publicly explain how home quarantine would work in cases like, for example, where a healthcare worker also had children at home.

“You’re in your home,” Christie deadpanned to the question when asked it was asked of him in Groton, Connecticut Monday night, “and you’re quarantined.”

“I know at times that you all would like to make things a heck of a lot more complicated than they are,” said Christie, “In home quarantine means: In-home. Quarantine. If they are asymptomatic, they can be quarantined in their home.”

Beutler disagrees with this, saying “the ideal scenario is where a patient is isolated from all family members,” preferably in an specialized hospital ward, not in a home.

The thought of an afebrile parent passing Ebola on to a child – as ostensibly can happen 13 percent of the time, “would disturb me. The point of quarantine of is to make sure they [Ebola viruses] are not carried elsewhere. It’s a little bit frustrating. Some of the things that are being done are not completely motivated by safety. For some reason, there’s an imperative to maintain open borders no matter what – to err on the side of total individual freedom rather than on the side of public health,” he said, adding, “If you really want to isolate a disease, then you have to isolate the people who carry it.”

 d-usa wrote:
Well, back to "there is no reason to argue with people who will let fear and panic supersede science and knowledge" mode in this thread then.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, back to "there is no reason to argue with people who will let fear and panic supersede science and knowledge" mode in this thread then.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

So, because there is a chance she could have Ebola, even though she has shown no signs and is currently not infectious, we are allowed to lock her up until we are sure she is no a threat?

Law and stare decisis says hells yes we can.

Actually, it does not. That is why they are seeking a judges approval to do it in Maine. Which is why she is out doing whatever the crap she wants to do right now.

Actually it does. In Maine the state has the burden of proof, hence why going in front of a judge.

Both the federales and the states have power to quarantine. There's no confirmation that Disney can as well.

Is that why they do not have the Authority to do it and are awaiting a special signature from a Judge?

Maine health officials have instructed her to remain at the house for 21 days but acknowledge they don't have the authority yet to prevent her from leaving until a judge signs off on a court order.

From the Article.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, back to "there is no reason to argue with people who will let fear and panic supersede science and knowledge" mode in this thread then.

But, it can be argued that The Science™ isn't settled.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, back to "there is no reason to argue with people who will let fear and panic supersede science and knowledge" mode in this thread then.

But, it can be argued that The Science™ isn't settled.

If you want to be in the same group as the anti-vaxxers regarding science, then please go ahead.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, back to "there is no reason to argue with people who will let fear and panic supersede science and knowledge" mode in this thread then.

But, it can be argued that The Science™ isn't settled.

If you want to be in the same group as the anti-vaxxers regarding science, then please go ahead.

-Quarantining someone exposed to a deadly disease is CRAZY! Now suspend that kid for flying an American flag on his bike!

-Yet you tell me about how much you care about these dr/nurse's "civil liberties", yet... you championed the idea that the government can force religions organizations to pay for contraceptives and abortions.