quarantine nurse complains

[massmedia]

A lot of these professionals have bills to pay. Who is going to be compensating them for not working over 3 weeks?

The United States Government... double pay for zero work for 22 days.

 

[fskimospy]

Ahh... so there is no concrete evidence that quarantining ebola nurses puts the public at risk. Thanks for conceding that point.

To be abundantly clear there's absolutely no concession here. The evidence clearly points to it putting the public at risk, as in the absence of an involved study expert knowledge is used.

If anything you should be conceding that the evidence indicates a harm to the public.

Which "experts in the field"... the head of the CDC is an incompetent lying politicking fuckwit for which we have evidence. If you'd like i'll dig up an old post of mine that explains this.

It's not just the CDC, it's every medical organization that I am aware of.

The WHO completely ignored this current Ebola crisis for months because in a breeze of overconfidence (not wholly unlike the hot air that you keep spewing) they believed they understood completely how this outbreak would play out despite Doctors Without Borders begging for help and notifying them that the outbreak was getting out of hand.

Since apparently you think that Doctors Without Borders are the experts here you will be glad to hear that they agree with me that quarantines are a terrible idea as well.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/ebola-quarantine-can-undermine-efforts-curb-epidemic

So I'm assuming that you're going to concede the point now, correct?

 

[Texashiker]

Since apparently you think that Doctors Without Borders are the experts here you will be glad to hear that they agree with me that quarantines are a terrible idea as well.

Doctors without borders opposing a quarantine is self serving.

If doctors and nurses know they will be put into quarantine, fewer will volunteer.

 

[fskimospy]

Doctors without borders opposing a quarantine is self serving.

If doctors and nurses know they will be put into quarantine, fewer will volunteer.

No shit. Thanks for finally admitting I'm right. It only took you eight pages of flailing this time, which is shorter than average for you.

 

[Texashiker]

No shit. Thanks for finally admitting I'm right. It only took you eight pages of flailing this time, which is shorter than average for you.

This is nothing more than political correctness putting the public in danger.

Quarantining helps prevent the spread of disease. Everyone knows this.

 

[fskimospy]

This is nothing more than political correctness putting the public in danger.

You're right, quarantines are nothing more than political correctness putting the public in danger. Thanks for finally agreeing again.

 

[zinfamous]

lulz,

This is nothing more than political correctness putting the public in danger.

Quarantining helps prevent the spread of disease. Everyone knows this.

Lol. it's like you are maxing out on that meter today.

 

[Screech]

A plan, any plan. This is the problem I have with our reaction to crisis as a society. It doesn't matter if the course of action is correct or has a positive outcome. Just do something!

And I have to ask, how old are you? TF2 + Pizza? Im assuming in your 20s? A lot of these professionals have bills to pay. Who is going to be compensating them for not working over 3 weeks?

Obviously the tf2 and pizza was in jest. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that people are discussing this as if the only two outcomes are to take no proactive measures, or to lock anyone from africa up in a jail cell for a month. There are, to me at least, a lot of things that can be done in the middle.

The money issue is the primary aspect which is problematic, true. Nurses, doctors, etc aren't usually the sort of profession where someone could work from home. But is having the (whoever would otherwise be enforcing a more rigid quarantine) pay $1000/week for such individuals a huge cost? The question becomes, is the cost of that isolation worth the potential to prevent someone from becoming infectious at work or away from home. What is that worth?

To be clear: is there a large chance of someone becoming infectious actually spreading the disease? no. I think the case in texas makes that clear. On the flip side, is that risk something that should be ignored? If someone comes back, goes to work, and ends up spreading ebola to someone else, there will absolutely be a shitstorm of people calling for a ban of travel from west africa. The question is whether or not the money spent for some isolation up front is a worthwhile investment to prevent the risk of the above happening, later.

Another view: would you like to be in a room for a day, using the same bathroom, etc, as someone who has ebola and is feeling sick? Let's assume it is only one day -- the day someone went to work and then started showing symptoms. That is basically what we are discussing; is it worth spending money to prevent that?

 

[alkemyst]

There is so much waste in government so it's hard to come up with good solutions.

A national epidemic insurance plan should be created to at least handle compensation for anyone quarantined at this point.

If we have a pandemic declared then I can't recommend anything other than one's own health coverage / short and long term disability / savings and/or beneficent employers willing to pick up the tab. My employer will pay me for up to 3 days on a jury, after that it falls on me.

No one has complained about the Jury system which can have an equal affect on the citizen.

IMHO one has a civil duty to submit to a VALID and LEGITIMATE quarantine for the good of the people....however; this can easily be used to harm us.

 

[fskimospy]

There is so much waste in government so it's hard to come up with good solutions.

A national epidemic insurance plan should be created to at least handle compensation for anyone quarantined at this point.

If we have a pandemic declared then I can't recommend anything other than one's own health coverage / short and long term disability / savings and/or beneficent employers willing to pick up the tab. My employer will pay me for up to 3 days on a jury, after that it falls on me.

No one has complained about the Jury system which can have an equal affect on the citizen.

IMHO one has a civil duty to submit to a VALID and LEGITIMATE quarantine for the good of the people....however; this can easily be used to harm us.

If there were a legitimate scientific basis behind this quarantine I would be for it 100%. Unfortunately, (or fortunately?) the best information we have points the exact opposite way.

 

[alkemyst]

If there were a legitimate scientific basis behind this quarantine I would be for it 100%. Unfortunately, (or fortunately?) the best information we have points the exact opposite way.

Not really, we don't really know what we are dealing with especially if this Ebola is a GMO.

A 21 day quarantine is the fire hose approach at this time for our safety.

They need to develop tests that can eliminate/shorten this need.

Until then people need to avoid said areas or suffer quarantine.

Many countries impose these (or longer) quarantines on people's pets and nearly 100% show up nothing of warrant.

 

[fskimospy]

Not really, we don't really know what we are dealing with especially if this Ebola is a GMO.

A 21 day quarantine is the fire hose approach at this time for our safety.

They need to develop tests that can eliminate/shorten this need.

Until then people need to avoid said areas or suffer quarantine.

Many countries impose these (or longer) quarantines on people's pets and nearly 100% show up nothing of warrant.

No. What you are arguing is explicitly contrary to the science we have on the issue and runs against the advice of every medical organization I'm aware of.

What you're proposing is unscientific and will actively harm efforts to stop the flow of Ebola infected individuals in the future. It would be irresponsible to follow your course of action.

 

[alkemyst]

What you're proposing is unscientific and will actively harm efforts to stop the flow of Ebola infected individuals in the future. It would be irresponsible to follow your course of action.

DAFUQ?

I agree it's a fire hose approach now, and as SCIENCE gets better the process should be smoother.

Do you realize that pandemics happen because early control was missed?

There is no way around a quarantine at times and in the beginning sometimes those are too liberal.

What's your solution? Assume anyone just has the common flu and let nature take it's course?

 

[fskimospy]

DAFUQ?

I agree it's a fire hose approach now, and as SCIENCE gets better the process should be smoother.

The best science we have explicitly says that quarantines are counterproductive. Therefore implementing a quarantine is anti-science.

Do you realize that pandemics happen because early control was missed?

There is no way around a quarantine at times and in the beginning sometimes those are too liberal.

All of that depends on the disease, the method of transmission, and the ease of transmission. Given this particular disease, a quarantine makes no sense.

What's your solution? Assume anyone just has the common flu and let nature take it's course?

My solution is to follow the recommendations of the overwhelming majority of qualified and experienced individuals in the field. They say that monitoring people without quarantines is the best solution.

If you have a problem with this your argument isn't with me, it's with all the best educated and most experienced people. If you aren't willing to accept what doctors and virologists have to say on the matter why bother having them at all?

 

[werepossum]

No. What you are arguing is explicitly contrary to the science we have on the issue and runs against the advice of every medical organization I'm aware of.

What you're proposing is unscientific and will actively harm efforts to stop the flow of Ebola infected individuals in the future. It would be irresponsible to follow your course of action.

Perhaps you should contact Obama and let him know he is a silly, foolish man acting "explicitly contrary to the science we have on the issue" and "against the advice of every medical organization [you're] aware of. I'm sure he'd like to know that he's only making things worse. Do try to time your call between the drive and the green shot though; he's a busy man. Or if you have $10,000 and you're peckish, you could tell him yourself.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-o...ng-from-liberia-placed-in-isolation-in-italy/

U.S. soldiers returning from Liberia are being placed in isolation in Vicenza, Italy out of concern for the Ebola virus, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports.

The soldiers being monitored include Maj. Gen. Darryl Williams who was the commander of the U.S. Army in Africa but turned over duties to the 101st Airborne Division over the weekend, Martin reports. There are currently 11 soldiers in isolation.

They apparently were met by Carabinieri in full hazmat suits. If the policy remains in effect, everyone returning from Liberia - several hundred - will be placed in isolation for 21 days. Thirty are expected in today, Martin reports.

A Pentagon spokesman calls it "enhanced monitoring." The soldiers are confined to a building and unable to see their families, Martin reports. The decision made by the Army and applies only to soldiers returning from Liberia. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will decide whether to make isolation apply to members of all services returning from Liberia.

Martin reports that the soldiers in isolation are in a building that is used as a command headquarters. It has communications - secure communications - so that Gen. Williams and his staff can do work. It also has a gym.

The World Health Organization said more than 10,000 people have been infected with Ebola in the outbreak that came to light last March, and nearly half of them have died, mostly in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia.

Maj. Gen. Gary J. Volesky, commander of the 101st Airborne Division, assumed command in Liberia on Saturday of the growing contingent of U.S. forces in Liberia.

"You need our support demonstrated with action not words, and action is exactly what we are going to provide," Volesky said.

A 25-bed hospital in Monrovia, Liberia's capital, should be fully operational in the first week of November. American doctors and nurses will care for infected health care workers there. About 600 U.S. service members are now in Liberia - which was established almost 200 years ago for former slaves from America, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. The U.S. also set up Ebola testing labs.

 

[fskimospy]

I've already said that his policy on it was wrong.

Unlike some people I care about if the policy is right or wrong, not whose name is next to it. You should try it sometime.

 

[werepossum]

I've already said that his policy on it was wrong.

Unlike some people I care about if the policy is right or wrong, not whose name is next to it. You should try it sometime.

lol I did. I think this isolation Obama has implemented is smart.

Although frankly, I have zero problem with health care professionals self-isolating in lieu of quarantine. It's calling it self-isolation and then running all around treating it like a paid vacation that I object to. With non-health care providers, I want to see a ban on non-essential travel from the three Ebola centers - just as Nigeria and Senegal used to stop Ebola dead in its tracks. If and when Obama does that, I'll applaud him.

 

[fskimospy]

lol I did. I think this isolation Obama has implemented is smart.

Although frankly, I have zero problem with health care professionals self-isolating in lieu of quarantine. It's calling it self-isolation and then running all around treating it like a paid vacation that I object to. With non-health care providers, I want to see a ban on non-essential travel from the three Ebola centers - just as Nigeria and Senegal used to stop Ebola dead in its tracks. If and when Obama does that, I'll applaud him.

Nope, all bad ideas and selective acceptance of facts as to what contained Ebola in Nigeria.

You're free to accept whatever you want to. I'll just stay with science and the experts.

 

[Fern]

"Why are we listening to medical experts with experience on the issue!?! They could be idiots!!"

It appears that you are misunderstanding my point.

Here in the US the best info I could find indicates we probably have near 1,000 people who have returned from providing HC in West Africa. The assumption you and others opposing a quarantine seems to be that these 1,000 people will, 100% of the time, behave appropriately. That they won't 'push the limit' and will self report etc. Where is the "scientific evidence" for this?

What are the consequences if one of these is infected but makes a 'mistake' and fails to turn themselves in timely? (I have seen information claiming that infected medical personnel do not turn themselves in any faster than the general public.) Why are we so trusting of these people? Aren't these just normal people, with all the frailties and problems of other people, who happen to be trained in HC?

How much does contact tracing cost, transportation etc? Should we attempt to minimize/avoid these and other associated costs?

I have seen reports that about 1 in 7 people become infectious before developing a fever. Do you have "scientific evidence" disproving this?

Why do we bother paying people to study this or formulate a response?

Good question. I won't bother listing the mistakes, errors, flip flops and sudden changes in policy that tend to discredit the label "expert" as others have already done so.

In spite of many claims of "scientific evidence" opposing quarantine I haven't seen any put forth. If the "scientific evidence" is that Ebola is difficult to transmit, well I think most of us can agree to that, however people are becoming infected.

If you gave any considerations to the points I listed in my post you would realize that the benefits of a quarantine extend beyond protecting the general public. Some of the benefits would be for the quarantined person themselves, other HC workers and financial costs to the fed/state govt.

The other point raised by those opposing quarantine is that fewer workers will volunteer. I think this is valid. Whenever you add an additional requirement, quarantine in this case, you will necessarily reduce the population who can/will volunteer. But to what extent will there be a reduction? What's the "scientific evidence" on this?

Also, so far no one who opposes quarantine has attempted to reconcile the apparent logical contradiction in their plan:

- To restrict Ebola to W.A. and stamp it out there.
- Allow hundreds/thousands of potential infectees to wonder around other countries possibly spreading Ebola.

Can you reconcile this please?

It seems to me that if we truly wanted to restrict Ebola to W.A. we would quarantine our people over there before allowing them to return.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

It appears that you are misunderstanding my point.

Here in the US the best info I could find indicates we probably have near 1,000 people who have returned from providing HC in West Africa. The assumption you and others opposing a quarantine seems to be that these 1,000 people will, 100% of the time, behave appropriately. That they won't 'push the limit' and will self report etc. Where is the "scientific evidence" for this?

Nice try with the scientific evidence in quotes. It's not my fault that science doesn't agree with you.

People who are infected with Ebola become very ill quite rapidly and spreading Ebola to people who are not directly involved in care is very difficult. The evidence for this is..well.. every study on Ebola as well as our direct experience with it in America. Note how people lived in a house with a symptomatic patient for several days. Number of infections? Zero.

So basically it comes down to when you have a disease where symptoms are pretty obvious and debilitating, one that prevents people from easily being in public once they have them, and ones that require others to be licking puddles of shit or vomit you left on the ground to become infected, a quarantine doesn't help much.

What's odd is that you're so desperate to be right that you are genuinely trying to argue that the CDC, the WHO, every major medical organization, and the fucking New England Journal of Medicine all have a containment strategy that is foiled by a single person trying to tough it out.

Come on, you can't be that naive, foolish, or scared, can you be?

What are the consequences if one of these is infected but makes a 'mistake' and fails to turn themselves in timely? (I have seen information claiming that infected medical personnel do not turn themselves in any faster than the general public.) Why are we so trusting of these people? Aren't these just normal people, with all the frailties and problems of other people, who happen to be trained in HC?

The consequences are most likely near zero. There is a potential for secondary infection, but again, our experiences show this is small. I get the feeling you don't know why this has been transmitted so much in Africa.

How much does contact tracing cost, transportation etc? Should we attempt to minimize/avoid these and other associated costs?

If your argument is that we should violate people's civil rights and irrationally imprison lots of people to save money on transportation, you're on your own.

I have seen reports that about 1 in 7 people become infectious before developing a fever. Do you have "scientific evidence" disproving this?

Oh good, unsourced, unscientific claims that you want me to disprove. That's not how evidence works.

Good question. I won't bother listing the mistakes, errors, flip flops and sudden changes in policy that tend to discredit the label "expert" as others have already done so.

In spite of many claims of "scientific evidence" opposing quarantine I haven't seen any put forth. If the "scientific evidence" is that Ebola is difficult to transmit, well I think most of us can agree to that, however people are becoming infected.

I guess you haven't been reading very closely. It's been linked to before. I feel that I need to remind you that the number of members of the public that have been infected by Ebola patients in the US, despite riding on subways with them, on airplanes with them, and LIVING with them has been... zero.

Literally zero.

From the NEJM:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1413139

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.

Given this evidence, do you change your mind?

If you gave any considerations to the points I listed in my post you would realize that the benefits of a quarantine extend beyond protecting the general public. Some of the benefits would be for the quarantined person themselves, other HC workers and financial costs to the fed/state govt.

The other point raised by those opposing quarantine is that fewer workers will volunteer. I think this is valid. Whenever you add an additional requirement, quarantine in this case, you will necessarily reduce the population who can/will volunteer. But to what extent will there be a reduction? What's the "scientific evidence" on this?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1413139

The governors of a number of states, including New York and New Jersey, recently imposed 21-day quarantines on health care workers returning to the United States from regions of the world where they may have cared for patients with Ebola virus disease. We understand their motivation for this policy — to protect the citizens of their states from contracting this often-fatal illness. This approach, however, is not scientifically based, is unfair and unwise, and will impede essential efforts to stop these awful outbreaks of Ebola disease at their source, which is the only satisfactory goal. The governors' action is like driving a carpet tack with a sledgehammer: it gets the job done but overall is more destructive than beneficial.

So again, if you want to pursue a policy that is considered to be unwise and not scientifically based by the experts in this field you're going to need to offer some actual evidence for it instead of fear and gut feelings. So far exactly zero evidence has been forthcoming.

Also, so far no one who opposes quarantine has attempted to reconcile the apparent logical contradiction in their plan:

- To restrict Ebola to W.A. and stamp it out there.
- Allow hundreds/thousands of potential infectees to wonder around other countries possibly spreading Ebola.

Can you reconcile this please?

It seems to me that if we truly wanted to restrict Ebola to W.A. we would quarantine our people over there before allowing them to return.

Fern

Reconcile this? Quarantines are ultimately ineffective in a pandemic. The answer is to control it at the source. Quarantines inhibit our ability to control it at the source by stemming the vitally needed flow of health care workers to the region and damaging the economies of countries affected, further inhibiting their ability to handle it.

This is common sense.

There are few things in science or anywhere else that have the unanimous agreement of a community. Opposition to these quarantines is one of those lucky things.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I find this somewhat amusing. We have people wanting health care experts being in charge but really want politicians running it and others who advocate against government inserting itself calling for the government to protect them from the incompetent providers.

Yep definitely humorous.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Reconcile this? Quarantines are ultimately ineffective in a pandemic. The answer is to control it at the source. Quarantines inhibit our ability to control it at the source by stemming the vitally needed flow of health care workers to the region and damaging the economies of countries affected, further inhibiting their ability to handle it.

Demonstrate, scientifically, the rate of reduction of HC volunteers if quarantine is imposed.

(You may wish to know that some HC orgs, such as Samaritan's Purse, have been voluntarily imposing a 21 day quarantine on their own volunteers.)

Otherwise, your post is merely a verbose repetition of the same two points:

1. It's hard to get
2. It may reduce volunteers.

These points were already noted but you added nothing of scientific value. You've just killed a bunch of electrons repeating the same things over and over.

This seems to boil down to the convenience of HC volunteers (in hopes of not reducing their numbers, but you can't or won't quantify this) versus the threat of infecting others (which you minimize) and blowing a ton of money.

Hypothetically, how many infections/deaths are you willing to consider a fair trade for the convenience of HC volunteers?

How much additional money are you willing to spend to consider the 'convenience' a fair price?

Fern

 

[Fern]

I find this somewhat amusing. We have people wanting health care experts being in charge but really want politicians running it and others who advocate against government inserting itself calling for the government to protect them from the incompetent providers.

Yep definitely humorous.

To those of us actually listening to HC professionals we hear some of them admit how little is known of Ebola.

As to politicians versus HC experts, many of us realize that some of these so-called experts are acting much more like politicians. It also has not escaped attention that our Ebola czar is nothing but a politician.

I think you should be much more understanding of any confusion about whether people choose a medical expert or a politician because as of now our govt has politicized the heck out out of this and seems to think the challenge is putting out the correct 'talking points' and not the response to the disease itself.

Fern

 

[Paratus]

It appears that you are misunderstanding my point.

Here in the US the best info I could find indicates we probably have near 1,000 people who have returned from providing HC in West Africa. The assumption you and others opposing a quarantine seems to be that these 1,000 people will, 100% of the time, behave appropriately. That they won't 'push the limit' and will self report etc. Where is the "scientific evidence" for this?

What are the consequences if one of these is infected but makes a 'mistake' and fails to turn themselves in timely? (I have seen information claiming that infected medical personnel do not turn themselves in any faster than the general public.) Why are we so trusting of these people? Aren't these just normal people, with all the frailties and problems of other people, who happen to be trained in HC?

How much does contact tracing cost, transportation etc? Should we attempt to minimize/avoid these and other associated costs?

I have seen reports that about 1 in 7 people become infectious before developing a fever. Do you have "scientific evidence" disproving this?



Good question. I won't bother listing the mistakes, errors, flip flops and sudden changes in policy that tend to discredit the label "expert" as others have already done so.

In spite of many claims of "scientific evidence" opposing quarantine I haven't seen any put forth. If the "scientific evidence" is that Ebola is difficult to transmit, well I think most of us can agree to that, however people are becoming infected.

If you gave any considerations to the points I listed in my post you would realize that the benefits of a quarantine extend beyond protecting the general public. Some of the benefits would be for the quarantined person themselves, other HC workers and financial costs to the fed/state govt.

The other point raised by those opposing quarantine is that fewer workers will volunteer. I think this is valid. Whenever you add an additional requirement, quarantine in this case, you will necessarily reduce the population who can/will volunteer. But to what extent will there be a reduction? What's the "scientific evidence" on this?

Also, so far no one who opposes quarantine has attempted to reconcile the apparent logical contradiction in their plan:

- To restrict Ebola to W.A. and stamp it out there.
- Allow hundreds/thousands of potential infectees to wonder around other countries possibly spreading Ebola.

Can you reconcile this please?

It seems to me that if we truly wanted to restrict Ebola to W.A. we would quarantine our people over there before allowing them to return.

Fern

Fern,

There have been outbreaks since 1975. How many times have aid workers brought back ebola and given it to someone else?

Dallas fucked up, no doubt, in training and preparing their staff. Notice that so far New York has not. Every health care provider is on the watch for this now. I was asked 4 times today whether my daughter had been out of the country when I took her to her pediatrician for an upset stomach.

People who can pass this disease on to others know they have it and are so ill they can't pass it to the public before becoming incapacitated.

Also assuming these health workers who are exposed to ebola aren't going to self monitor and self report is assinine. Early detection and treatment seems to almost guarantee a positive outcome. Self-preservation says they'll do the right thing.

 

[CitizenKain]

To those of us actually listening to HC professionals we hear some of them admit how little is known of Ebola.

As to politicians versus HC experts, many of us realize that some of these so-called experts are acting much more like politicians. It also has not escaped attention that our Ebola czar is nothing but a politician.

I think you should be much more understanding of any confusion about whether people choose a medical expert or a politician because as of now our govt has politicized the heck out out of this and seems to think the challenge is putting out the correct 'talking points' and not the response to the disease itself.

Fern

Yea, I'm sure you listened to a real health care professional to form that opinion.

The only people politicizing this has been the rightwing. Hey, maybe if the rightwing hadn't been holding up the Surgeon General for years they could be in charge, but that would require thinking by a party can't do that, since intelligence will alienate the base.

You must be a fan of Chuck C Johnson.