quarantine nurse complains

[nixium]

you do realize we are talking about ebola, right?

You do realize you're trying to talk sense to TexasHiker, right?

 

[zinfamous]

My stance has always been on the rights of [white, heterosexual males].

Fixed that for you, for accuracy.

 

[zinfamous]

Did you read the thread? Or even part of the thread?

Did you see the part about the doctor in new york feeling "sluggish" while he was out and about the town?

Are you going to tell with 100% certainty that the doctor was not infectious while he was on the subway and later bowling?

How much of a fever does someone need with ebola to be infectious? 99? 100? 101? 102? 103?

yeah, and I read the post of yours after that where even you retracted that comment for being absolutely false.

Are you actually trying to reuse that same broken argument, in the same fucking thread?

you're an idiot.

 

[Texashiker]

You do realize you're trying to talk sense to TexasHiker, right?

Did you see my post on the last page?

How much of a fever does someone need with ebola to be infectious?

Would a low grade fever be enough? Maybe that is why the doctor was feeling "sluggish" while he was on the subway and later bowling?

 

[Texashiker]

yeah, and I read the post of yours after that where even you retracted that comment for being absolutely false.

Are you actually trying to reuse that same broken argument, in the same fucking thread?

you're an idiot.

Answer the question.

How much of a fever before someone is infectious?

Low grade fever be enough? Or do you need a full 103?

 

[shira]

Three weeks? You DO know, don't you, that 21 days is an arbitrary cutoff, based on data from hundreds (perhaps thousands) of cases. But in fact approximatey 5% of people who develop symptoms do so MORE than 21 days from the time of infection, as can be seen in the following plots:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411100#Results=&t=articleResults

Key Time Periods

The mean incubation period was 11.4 days (Table 2 and Figure 3AFigure 3Time between Exposure and Disease Onset.), and did not vary by country (Figure 3B, 3C, and 3D). Approximately 95% of the case patients had symptom onset within 21 days after exposure (Figure 3A), which is the recommended period for follow-up of contacts. The estimated mean (±SD) serial interval was 15.3±9.3 days (Table 2 and Figure 3E), which is the same as the estimated mean generation time (see Supplementary Appendix 1). The mean time from the onset of symptoms to hospitalization, a measure of the period of infectiousness in the community, was 5.0±4.7 days (Table 2), and was no shorter for health care workers than for other case patients. The mean time to death after admission to the hospital was 4.2±6.4 days, and the mean time to discharge was 11.8±6.1 days. The mean length of stay in hospital was 6.4 days in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.

As as you can see from the plots, some people even develop symptoms 30 or more days after the date of infection. Now, the odds are very small that someone who goes more than 21 days - let alone 35 days - will develop Ebola Virus Disease. So the risk to the general public is pretty darn small. Add to that the fact that the viral load of those who don't have symptoms is also very small, making the toal risk even smaller.

But on this thread we have advocates for hard-edged quarantine. If we want to be absolutely sure, do we quarantine people for five weeks? And do quarantines extend even to those who have had only theoretical contact with a potentially- or actually-infected person (for example, fellow passengers on an airplane or bus)? And what about those who had 2nd-degree contact - friends of those who were on airplanes or buses? And what about 3rd-degree contacts? Do we quarantine thousands of people for five weeks because the general public must not be allowed to suffer even a one-in-ten-million risk of getting Ebola (even though people are allowed to drive cars, for which the risk of death is greater than 1/9400 every year)?

And are those so frightened of Ebola that they want to imprison everyone with even the tiniest chance of being a threat willing to put their money where their fear is: Say, subsidize the incarcerations of those thousands upon thousands of potentially-infected people out of their own frightened tax dollars?

But of course, those who live in fear NEVER want to pay the price of assuaging their own fears; it must always be others who pay.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Answer the question.

How much of a fever before someone is infectious?

Low grade fever be enough? Or do you need a full 103?

October 16/14

"Without explanation, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has lowered its threshold for suspecting that someone might be infected with Ebola from 101.5 degrees to 100.4."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ebola-fever-20141015-story.html

 

[nixium]

Did you see my post on the last page?

How much of a fever does someone need with ebola to be infectious?

Would a low grade fever be enough? Maybe that is why the doctor was feeling "sluggish" while he was on the subway and later bowling?

Why don't you ask the medical professionals this? To my knowledge there's no medical info out there stating he was infections if he was feeling sluggish.

Why do you think this "sluggishness" is infectious?

Anyway, I do recognize that a fair bit of the population is pretty dumb (and I don't speak of jus the US) and is prone to irrational fear and hysteria and would thoughtlessly impinge of the rights of others (a prime example is you, Chris Christie, etc). In order to assuage this moronic but sizable section of the population, I would encourage home self quarantines with appropriate protections (salary, immunity from being fired from work, etc) it sucks that taxpayer money has to be spent on the worries of thoughtless troglodytes but that's the world we live in.

I certainly do not support throwing people into quasi prisons with no access to due process and no protections or compensation as you and your ilk seem to ask for. If you want Iran, just move to Iran. Don't ruin it for the rest of us.

I look forward to Chris Christie being sued over this.

 

[nixium]

Three weeks? You DO know, don't you, that 21 days is an arbitrary cutoff, based on data from hundreds (perhaps thousands) of cases. But in fact approximatey 5% of people who develop symptoms do so MORE than 21 days from the time of infection, as can be seen in the following plots:

Excellent posting, and these cries are especially egregious from some so called "small government" "individual liberty" conservatives. Their hypocrisy is staggering. Just to show an example of their thinking, psychos using guns have killed more people than ebola. Therefore, just to be on the safe side we should quarantine any people from access to guns whenever they're angry, depressed, or grief stricken. Can you imagine the uproar from the right if that happens?

 

[pcgeek11]

And I assume that if you are from the U.S., and had to travel internationally for work you'd be fine being put in a mandatory quarantine for three weeks since you'd be traveling from a known country which has had multiple ebola cases.

Out of an abundance of caution of course.

I would not travel to such a country. Period.

 

[shira]

What's really sad about these hyper-afraid types is that the very best way - by far - for America to protect itself from Ebola is to fight Ebola and defeat it in West Africa. Because if we get to a point where tens of thousands of new cases of Ebola are surfacing each week in West Africa, there's going to be no way to keep it from spreading to other countries. That's not to say that America will every get like West Africa is now, but it would certainly be the case that imported cases become more and more common, springing up with ever-increasing frequency in Europe and Asia and North America. And THEN what are the "quarantine everyone" crowd going to do as their next act? Stop all international travel?

No, we need to treat those willing to risk their lives to "beat it there so we don't have to fight it here" our very BEST care and treatment, not act like they're pariahs.

 

[nixium]

I would not travel to such a country. Period.

Just because you lack the skills to help the people there and/or cowardly about it doesn't mean you get to suspend the bill of rights to people who are brave and selfless enough to do so.

Go hide in your hole/bunker and come out in a few months. Stop adding to the fear/hysteria.

 

[pcgeek11]

Just because you lack the skills to help the people there and/or cowardly about it doesn't mean you get to suspend the bill of rights to people who are brave and selfless enough to do so.

Go hide in your hole/bunker and come out in a few months. Stop adding to the fear/hysteria.

No.

 

[IGBT]

liberal agenda first..public safety and health..not even on the radar. President Ebola has a pen and a phone and will use em to forward the liberal agenda.

 

[Jaskalas]

President Ebola has...

Did you forget Dallas?

If that does not cause an outbreak... what are you afraid of?

 

[Texashiker]

I certainly do not support throwing people into quasi prisons with no access to due process and no protections or compensation as you and your ilk seem to ask for. If you want Iran, just move to Iran. Don't ruin it for the rest of us.

I look forward to Chris Christie being sued over this.

The supreme court in 1905 ruled public health trumps civil rights.

Deal with it.

 

[Jaskalas]

The supreme court in 1905 ruled public health trumps civil rights.

Deal with it.

Oh.. oh.. I get it. Public health, like Obamacare?

Lets see... fat people consume too much... healthcare, aka public health. If we trump civil rights then we can dictate your food, your excisere. Your entire life style. Your decisions become our decisions, to ensure you require less healthcare, leaving more for other people. ($$$) Public health.

Careful what you do with that argument.

 

[Fern]

Aren't most people idiots?

Why do so many assume health care people are infallible?

So current policy is to allow hundreds, if not thousands, to return to the US and roam around freely with the expectation that they will be infallible, show great judgement and turn themselves right before becoming infectious? I can't see how anything could go wrong with that.

And, BTW, turn themselves into where? We now know that assurances that "virtually every hospital can handle Ebola" is utterly incorrect. Are they supposed to go to their local hospital so we can have another "Dallas"?

While I think this woman is a self-centered idiot (an idiot because she could have flown into one of the other airports where there was no state quarantine if she has that big of a problem with it) this incident just highlights that we still have no real policy to deal with Ebola.

Should workers be quarantined, whether upon returning or even before departing (the latter being a better idea and in accordance with the stated goal of keeping Ebola isolated over there so we can focus on it and stamp it out)? Maybe. There are several benefits to a quarantine:

1. We can ensure that the general public won't be infected by a returnee.
2. The above will eliminate the panic we've seen in the Dallas case and the NY physician.
3. Quarantine locations can be located near the 5 (IIRC) hospitals that are qualified to handle Ebola cases.
4. The above eliminates the unnecessary risk to domestic HC workers avoiding a repeat of the Dallas incidence.
5. We have close to 6,000 hospitals in the US. It's likely inefficient and unnecessarily expensive to equip and train the other 5,995 hospitals for Ebola. If returnees were quarantined near one of the 5 existing facilities we needn't worry about this.
6. Reports indicate that transporting patients to the Mayo clinic etc is extremely expensive. This costs would also be saved.

But if people are going to be quarantined they need to know it before volunteering. (Is it really too much to ask of people who are going to volunteer? I don't think so.)

And they need to be in decent accommodations, not tents.

And they should probably be compensated by the US govt. It's likely cheaper in the long run.

So far, according to experts, we have badly misjudged the impact of Ebola. We need to get a comprehensive plan in place, both for best-case and worse-case scenarios.

Or, we can just let relatively high risk people roam around freely and hope for the best (the latter seems our current plan).

Fern

 

[alkemyst]

They should terminate her and allow her to go find another profession after her quarantine is up.

Her 'basic human rights' come after her being a care giver and what's right for society if she is around someone infectious.

 

[norseamd]

The above post by Fern is perfect.

 

[Fern]

If she tested negative, looks like the only reason to keep her in quarantine is for Chris Cristie to get on TV and score some political points. Good for her for speaking up and making those political points not free.

-snip-
I certainly do not support throwing people into quasi prisons with no access to due process and no protections or compensation as you and your ilk seem to ask for. If you want Iran, just move to Iran. Don't ruin it for the rest of us.

I look forward to Chris Christie being sued over this.

Why do the Democratic governors who also imposed a 21 day quarantine get a pass?

Is it that you guys didn't know NY and Illinois also enacted a 21 day quarantine? (Yes, I realize Cuomo has already flip flopped.)

Fern

 

[alkemyst]

Answer the question.

How much of a fever before someone is infectious?

Low grade fever be enough? Or do you need a full 103?

You have proven over and over you don't know what you are debating.

Many hospitals do require staff to have certain vaccines, the 'flu shot' is one of them.

Some give an option to wear a mask at all times on hospital property which means to eat or drink they need to leave the facility first.

 

[Texashiker]

Oh.. oh.. I get it. Public health, like Obamacare?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

You have proven over and over you don't know what you are debating.

Many hospitals do require staff to have certain vaccines, the 'flu shot' is one of them.

Some give an option to wear a mask at all times on hospital property which means to eat or drink they need to leave the facility first.

What does any of that have to do with my question?

Anyway, you justify people doing stuff against their will? Injecting a substance into their body is a grandiose violation of human rights.

So you should have no problem with mandatory quarantine.

 

[alkemyst]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts




What does any of that have to do with my question?

Anyway, you justify people doing stuff against their will?

So you should have no problem with mandatory quarantine.

It's because you simply do not understand what you are trying to argue.

There should be a mandatory quarantine at this time if one is exposed to the Ebola virus until we can figure out a better way.

I don't agree that quarantine should be hostile and one should have at least some entertainment/contact via device with the outside world.

 

[Texashiker]

It's because you simply do not understand what you are trying to argue.

I understand perfectly what my stance is. It seems like you are the one who is confused.

Allow me to spell it out for you.

You provaccine nutters who justify firing employees and mandatory vaccines are being forced to pause and think about civil rights when your "pro-public health" stance is taken a step further.

You nutters are right, public health trumps civil rights, there is even a supreme court decision on the topic. Lets see how far that logic gets us in this politically correct atmosphere.

Someone comes back from a hot zone, quarantine them for at least 21 days. Fire them, put them in jail,,, whatever it takes to protect the public. You think doctors and nurses will want to go through that kind of treatment? Of course not. Before long nurses and doctors will stop going to Africa.