quarantine nurse complains

[massmedia]

Anyone who thinks that the proper response measures to ebola are informed by partisan politics is a buffoon.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Again you admit that there is no scientific basis that quarantining nurses does any public harm.

That's spooky. The criteria for the government to confine you is that there is no scientific basis that doing so does public harm. That's an astoundingly low bar. There's no scientific evidence that taking away most of your rights as an individual does any public harm. In fact your execution in the street if done for reasons the government deems proper cannot be scientifically proven to do public harm. It would be in the public interest I'm sure.

 

[fskimospy]

Again you admit that there is no scientific basis that quarantining nurses does any public harm. You reliance on opinion of "experts" is laughable. The opinions of scientists is not science. The opinions of bureaucrats who are proven to both lie and claim as fact that which simply can not be known... those opinions are a completely worthless.

I'm aware of no competent authority that would view the opinion of experienced experts on their area of expertise to be 'completely worthless'. Needless to say it's very telling how willing you are to throw out information from people who know what they are talking about because it contradicts what you want to believe.

what CAN be known is that the potential for a person in lockdown quarantine to spread ebola os orders of magnitude less than the chance for that same person to spread it when and if they become contagious.

And has been told to you repeatedly the scientific literature on quarantines does not show them to be effective in preventing the introduction of a pandemic illness into our country. Every policy has a cost, and in this case the cost of the quarantine is so much greater than the benefit that it makes things worse.

You're afraid and so you want to take irrational measures to protect yourself. It's a very human thing to feel but that doesn't make it any less irrational.

i never said that doctors without borders are experts regarding the question of quarantine. An expert in one aspect of medicine does not make someone an expert in whether or not that same person should be quarantined. This is an atrociously simple concept, how is it that you can be so ignorant and yet so prolific in your nonsense postings? Doctors without borders have a mind-numbingly-blatantly-obvious conflict of interest with regards to the question of quarantining medical personnel. This conflict of interest is so frigging easy to see that any simpleton would know that their OPINION with regards to this question cannot be taken seriously.

Haha of course. When they tell you what you want to hear they are experts to be trusted. When they tell you what you don't want to hear their opinion is to be ignored.

Hard to see a better example of confirmation bias than this one here.

 

[massmedia]

Lol. Do you even know what you're reading? Saying that individuals should choose to avoid an area is not a travel ban. In fact, the CDC opposes a travel ban for... You guessed it... All the same reasons I've already mentioned.

Nice self ownage. You're embarrassing yourself.

Still relying on the incompetent organization run by a disgraceful incompetent LYING bureaucrat to get incompetently shitty policy advice i see.
You are the one who is committing the act of "self ownage".

perhaps your propensity for such displays of self ownage stem from a profound ignorance in virology coupled with a total lack of first hand experience in working with viruses in a research setting???

 

[abj13]

i never said that doctors without borders are experts regarding the question of quarantine. An expert in one aspect of medicine does not make someone an expert in whether or not that same person should be quarantined. This is an atrociously simple concept, how is it that you can be so ignorant and yet so prolific in your nonsense postings? Doctors without borders have a mind-numbingly-blatantly-obvious conflict of interest with regards to the question of quarantining medical personnel. This conflict of interest is so frigging easy to see that any simpleton would know that their OPINION with regards to this question cannot be taken seriously.

Interesting. Well, here's the statement of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, which essentially represents every infectious disease physician, as most are members (unlike associations like the AMA). This statement has also been endorsed by the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society.

IDSA does not support mandatory involuntary quarantine of asymptomatic healthcare workers returning from Ebola-affected areas. This approach carries unintended negative consequences without significant additional benefits.

We support the policies promoted by the US public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Furthermore:
Active monitoring by public health authorities of persons who have recently been to Ebola-affected countries for the 21-day Ebola virus incubation period with prompt identification, isolation, and medical evaluation of all persons who develop symptoms is an effective strategy to limit transmission.
Systems are in place to ensure prompt identification and isolation of all symptomatic persons at risk for EVD through both exit screening in Ebola-affected countries and comprehensive arrival screening of all persons traveling to the US from Ebola-affected countries.
Asymptomatic persons are not known to represent a risk for EVD transmission. Transmission of EVD requires contact with the bodily fluids or blood of an ill person. Community contacts of a newly symptomatic EVD case are very unlikely to be at risk for EVD transmission.
Because the transmission of EVD requires bodily fluid or blood contact, mandatory quarantine of asymptomatic healthcare workers who are expected to comply with active health monitoring by public health authorities provides no substantiated benefit and little, if any, theoretical benefit. Mandatory quarantine may also adversely impact the ability of US healthcare workers to participate in the care of suspected and confirmed Ebola patients.
Mandatory quarantine may have the negative, unintended consequence of limiting the medical response in West Africa to EVD supported by national policy and humanitarian aid agencies. This medical response is critical to provide ongoing support for outbreak control activities in West Africa where medical support is desperately needed. Further, mandatory involuntary quarantine requirements may decrease the willingness of US healthcare workers to participate in the evaluation and care of persons with suspected and confirmed EVD both abroad and in the US.
Quarantine authority remains an important option that exists at state and local levels and can be invoked as necessary by public health authorities for high-risk circumstances. Policies on quarantine can be revised as necessary in response to new information.

http://www.idsociety.org/2014_ebola_quarantine/#sthash.cgKtW39j.dpuf

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Anyone who thinks that the proper response measures to ebola are informed by partisan politics is a buffoon.

I don't like that the "czar" position is a political payback for his help on Joe Biden's' campaign. When the crisis doesn't happen he'll get a good deal of credit by party sycophants, and the anti-Perrybots, will no doubt support him for office if he should ever run because he was our salvation, the antidote for the ebil (sic) other party, who of course are engaging in partisan politics on ebola to a far greater degree. So you think the scientists are wrong. You think the politicians are wrong and as you have no basis left for any reasonable position it seems that you can't really say much regarding the problem in an informed way. Bubbling yourself for answers on the internet you like doesn't qualify.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Interesting. Well, here's the statement of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, which essentially represents every infectious disease physician, as most are members (unlike associations like the AMA). This statement has also been endorsed by the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society.

This should be interesting. Perhaps they aren't experts?

 

[massmedia]

So you think the scientists are wrong. You think the politicians are wrong and as you have no basis left for any reasonable position it seems that you can't really say much regarding the problem in an informed way. Bubbling yourself for answers on the internet you like doesn't qualify.

What scientists are you referring to. I have seen next to nothing from actual scientists (Virologists). Medical Doctors are NOT scientists contrary to popular belief as informed by popular television dramas. MD PhD's are an exception to this.

The bureaucrat heading up the CDC is a proven incompetent and a proven liar. There is zero reason to trust a single thing that an incompetent lying bureaucrat says regarding Ebola.

The remainder of your comment is slander.

 

[alkemyst]

For a real laugh, check out the CDC's web site on Ebola. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices


Obviously Eskimospy and his experts need to visit the CDC and penetrate their "wall of ignorance and pride". Don't they know that's the very worst thing we can do? Boy, the CDC's gonna have some 'splainin' to do!


I had not read that. Link?

If someone is claiming that this is a weaponized strain, that seems highly unlikely given that Nigeria and Senegal defeated it rather quickly.

I quoted EskimoSpy.

I don't think he understands the argument and is just going off hearsay and rumor or truly believes that if one is infected it's none of anyone else's business.

 

[alkemyst]

What scientists are you referring to. I have seen next to nothing from actual scientists (Virologists). Medical Doctors are NOT scientists contrary to popular belief as informed by popular television dramas. MD PhD's are an exception to this.

The bureaucrat heading up the CDC is a proven incompetent and a proven liar. There is zero reason to trust a single thing that an incompetent lying bureaucrat says regarding Ebola.

The remainder of your comment is slander.

Wow, bro...so pathologists and the like are not scientists?

/facepalm

 

[massmedia]

I'm aware of no competent authority that would view the opinion of experienced experts on their area of expertise to be 'completely worthless'.

who are these 'experts'?

• The head of the CDC - an lying incompetent bureaucrat
• The NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci. Another bureaucrat who reverts back to arguments about not wanting to hurt the economies of nations afflicted with Ebola when discussing international quarantine.
• The opinions of medical professionals who have a mind-numbingly-obvious conflict of interest... quarantines suck and they would be the ones to be quarantined and you want them to give an objective opinion?

And has been told to you repeatedly the scientific literature on quarantines does not show them to be effective in preventing the introduction of a pandemic illness into our country.

no I haven't. I asked for such references to the literature in this very thread but haven't gotten a response. Do you have such literature references? If i've missed them then.. my apologies

You're afraid and so you want to take irrational measures to protect yourself. It's a very human thing to feel but that doesn't make it any less irrational.

stop being an idiot. I am not afraid. If that is how you attempt to win arguments I'm gonna have to go with "embarrassing yourself" once again.

Haha of course. When they tell you what you want to hear they are experts to be trusted. When they tell you what you don't want to hear their opinion is to be ignored.

Hard to see a better example of confirmation bias than this one here.

Once again, a medical expert at treating ebola does not make an expert on the issue of quarantines. They are two different topics. Also there is bullet point 3 above.

 

[massmedia]

Wow, bro...so pathologists and the like are not scientists?

/facepalm

medical doctor /= scientist
pathologist /= scientist

there are medical doctors who are both
there are pathologists who are both

got that bro?

 

[massmedia]

This should be interesting. Perhaps they aren't experts?

please take a minute to consider the conflict of interest and get back to me

 

[MtnMan]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/26/health/new-jersey-quarantined-nurse/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

i don't care, you want to go expose yourself to deadly diseases, then spend a couple days in quarantine...biggggg deal!

So fear rules your thought process.

She tested negative
she was kept in a tent
she was kept in a tent with no heat
she was given a box to shit in

I hope she own there arses

But you are a scared little rabbit, and let no reason or fact prevent you from being a pathetic scared little rabbit.

 

[Exterous]

Some of the patients who received them got better and others still died.

Not saying I know all about Zmapp but the only ones I know of that received it and died died because there was not enough to administer all three recommended doses. Which goes along with my questioning the 'widely available' claim.

As for the others that recovered without it - I believe those were with the help of transfusions from those already recovered were they not? That is a very small pool to draw from

 

[fskimospy]

who are these 'experts'?

• The head of the CDC - an lying incompetent bureaucrat
• The NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci. Another bureaucrat who reverts back to arguments about not wanting to hurt the economies of nations afflicted with Ebola when discussing international quarantine.
• The opinions of medical professionals who have a mind-numbingly-obvious conflict of interest... quarantines suck and they would be the ones to be quarantined and you want them to give an objective opinion?

So your answer is to simply declare all experts unqualified or conflicted. That's quite convenient for you.

no I haven't. I asked for such references to the literature in this very thread but haven't gotten a response. Do you have such literature references? If i've missed them then.. my apologies

There have already been several posted in various threads. Use the search function.

stop being an idiot. I am not afraid. If that is how you attempt to win arguments I'm gonna have to go with "embarrassing yourself" once again.

Honestly that's the only reason I can think of for behavior this irrational. What other explanation would there be?

Once again, a medical expert at treating ebola does not make an expert on the issue of quarantines. They are two different topics. Also there is bullet point 3 above.

Like you're doing in all your other posts you've established some amazing circular reasoning. Anyone who isn't working with containing epidemics is unqualified. Anyone who is working with containing epidemics has a conflict of interest. You've made it so you never need to listen to anyone who knows what they are talking about.

Think about how insane that is.

 

[alkemyst]

medical doctor /= scientist
pathologist /= scientist

there are medical doctors who are both
there are pathologists who are both

got that bro?

lol, you are clueless.

Your debate comes up time and time again. Many doctors have undergraduate / graduate degrees in a science. Many still do their own research esp. people like pathologists. (BTW "ist" is a scientific suffix).

Would a GP be a scientist in practice? Probably not.

The media has you hooked (or maybe you are a shill to promote it) that doctors really don't know too much about disease. We just see them for our diseases because our mechanics are simply too busy.

 

[Texashiker]

And has been told to you repeatedly the scientific literature on quarantines does not show them to be effective in preventing the introduction of a pandemic illness into our country.

Really?

How many people have contracted ebola in Australia? None. Because australia is under quarantine.

Are you honestly that stupid to think quarantine does not stop the spread of disease? This is basic jr. high health class stuff.

If quarantine is not effective, why do school nurses send kids home? To keep the kids away from the others.

Guess what, people do not get sick if they do not come into contact with the pathogen.

 

[massmedia]

lol, you are clueless.

Your debate comes up time and time again. Many doctors have undergraduate / graduate degrees in a science. Many still do their own research esp. people like pathologists. (BTW "ist" is a scientific suffix).

Would a GP be a scientist in practice? Probably not.

The media has you hooked (or maybe you are a shill to promote it) that doctors really don't know too much about disease. We just see them for our diseases because our mechanics are simply too busy.

I'm afraid you really do not understand what a scientist is.

• An undergraduate degree in "a science" (whatever that is supposed to mean) does not make one a scientist.
• A graduate degree in "a science" does not make one a scientist.

Your 1st 2 points are completely irrelevant and quite what I'd expect to see from someone who is completely unaware of what science is or how science is done.


A tiny subfraction of pathologists do their own research and would rightly be described as scientists. That does not make pathologists in general scientists, and to suggest otherwise shows a banal ignorance of what science is and of how science is done.


You are almost correct in once case:

"Would a GP be a scientist in practice? Probably not.

replace "probably not" with "absolutely not" and it looks like you might actually understand something correctly.


the last bit you've written is just silly.
doctors not being scientists is their primary failing when it comes to emergent problems that haven't been seen before. the threat of Ebola in the western world is new. Doctors are memory bots. They excel at memorization and identification of problems in individuals and at applying diagnostic methodology that they have been taught in order to figure out what's wrong with a patient. When it comes to basic science they are usually completely rubbish. Memory bot (doctor) vs. original thought (scientist).

 

[massmedia]

So your answer is to simply declare all experts unqualified or conflicted. That's quite convenient for you.

It is actually quite inconvenient for you that your source of "authoritative information" on this is either:

• an individual who is proven to be either a liar &/or incompetent (head of CDC) and whose organization had displayed profound incompetence in handling Ebola within the United States.
• an individual who is falling back on economic hardship reasoning when arguing against a global quarantine of african nations (head of NIAID)
• suffering from a severe conflict of interest (medical professionals who naturally do not want to be placed under quarantine) and whose arguments typically reference the above 2 bullet pointed individuals/organizations as part of their reasoning

 

[massmedia]

She tested negative
she was kept in a tent
she was kept in a tent with no heat
she was given a box to shit in

The conditions of her quarantine were completely inexcusable.
There are countless better ways that her quarantine should have been handled. One possibility would have been to lock her in her home alone with guards posted at the doors and then provide her with groceries and takeout at govt expense, plus other amenities at govt expense to make her quarantine period more palatable. These things would be neither difficult nor costly to implement and they would serve to eliminate a significant variable (potential source of contagion).

 

[fskimospy]

It is actually quite inconvenient for you that your source of "authoritative information" on this is either:

• an individual who is proven to be either a liar &/or incompetent (head of CDC) and whose organization had displayed profound incompetence in handling Ebola within the United States.
• an individual who is falling back on economic hardship reasoning when arguing against a global quarantine of african nations (head of NIAID)
• suffering from a severe conflict of interest (medical professionals who naturally do not want to be placed under quarantine) and whose arguments typically reference the above 2 bullet pointed individuals/organizations as part of their reasoning

Like I said, you conveniently have found a way to not have to listen to anyone who tells you something you don't want to hear.

Congratulations, you've been able to convince yourself to ignore all contrary information.

 

[werepossum]

I'm going to take this to mean that you have been unable to find a single competent authority that backs up your claim from before. It's always funny to watch you start the flailing and the hand waving when you knkw you've been busted.

As so many medical experts have said, your recommended course of action is foolish and unscientific. I'm sure it makes you feel good, but that's all it does. Your dismissal of people who actually know what they are talking about shows some pretty breathtaking arrogance though.

Why don't you just own your position? Admit it has no basis in science but say you want to do it anyway. I know you looked for backup and couldn't find any. Even a person as arrogant and fundamentally dishonest as you are shouldn't keep digging here.

I can't own my position - I have to share it with Obama. (Albeit I'd like to ban non-essential travel and/or quarantine everyone traveling from the bloody three, and he's only quarantining the soldiers he sent there.)

Lol. Do you even know what you're reading? Saying that individuals should choose to avoid an area is not a travel ban. In fact, the CDC opposes a travel ban for... You guessed it... All the same reasons I've already mentioned.

Nice self ownage. You're embarrassing yourself.

The CDC admits non-essential travel is a bad idea; they oppose a travel ban because it's not politically correct.

And yet it appears that's exactly what happened:

http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/ebola-doctor-lied-about-his-nyc-travels-police/

So here's a doctor, highly trained, who went to Africa to fight the disease. He knows how important it is to trace all contacts with symptomatic people. And the first thing he does when he comes down with symptoms is lie to the authorities about how many people he came in contact with; only telling the truth when confronted with evidence that he was lying.

Exactly. They are treating this as a vacation, not as self-isolation.

 

[werepossum]

None of that happened while symptomatic.

Which we know because we're told this by the same person who lied his ass off about his activities.

Hey, it's just like climate models, 100% accurate except everywhere it can be identified.

He self-monitored. He self-reported. The health officials verified his where-abouts regardless of what he said because they know people can lie to prevent embarrasment or just be plain wrong or to ill to respond.

There are at least three controls to locating potential secondary cases:

1. Self-Reporting Contacts
2. Investigating specific contacts by health officials
3. Blanket investigations where the public is asked to self-identify contact with the patient.

All three have to fail before it's possible to have an unmonitored ebola case.
Looks like the system worked to me.

lol

I don't like that the "czar" position is a political payback for his help on Joe Biden's' campaign. When the crisis doesn't happen he'll get a good deal of credit by party sycophants, and the anti-Perrybots, will no doubt support him for office if he should ever run because he was our salvation, the antidote for the ebil (sic) other party, who of course are engaging in partisan politics on ebola to a far greater degree. So you think the scientists are wrong. You think the politicians are wrong and as you have no basis left for any reasonable position it seems that you can't really say much regarding the problem in an informed way. Bubbling yourself for answers on the internet you like doesn't qualify.

I don't think it's a reward so much as managing the message. A political hack probably can't be part of the solution, but he can damn well try to make sure any failure is safely shunted away from Obama and the Dems.

 

[fskimospy]

I can't own my position - I have to share it with Obama. (Albeit I'd like to ban non-essential travel and/or quarantine everyone traveling from the bloody three, and he's only quarantining the soldiers he sent there.)

Your position is your own, you don't have to share it with anyone. I don't care if Obama shares your position or not, your position remains irrational and unscientific.

The CDC admits non-essential travel is a bad idea; they oppose a travel ban because it's not politically correct.

Gee, convenient.

When they say something you think supports what you say they are doing so for medical reasons. When they say something you don't agree with, even though it's in line with the opinion of the entire medical community, it's for political purposes.

Nice information bubble you've found for yourself there, lol. Just like massmedia you've found a way to block out all contrary information. Congrats!