quarantine nurse complains

[fskimospy]

No, I didn't post a link, purposefully.

You claimed to have the scientific proof, you don't need my link, just the scientific proof you claim to already have to dispute it.

Fern

That's already been provided in this thread and others. Needless to say, we're not going to play the game where you say "I heard X now disprove it".

 

[massmedia]

OK, considered.

They have been publishing a journal since 1904, rather well respected, has published significant research on diseases since that done by reputable labs and scientists. Think of every infectious disease that existed in those days and all the changes which came about in the last 110 years. In all those days no one has ever made a credible claim that they've had a "conflict of interest" and lied about typhus, tuberculosis, diphtheria, polio, measles (a real killer) and on and on, and suddenly now they have a conflict of interest?


To say it stretches credulity is an understatement.

That's some pretty hard core twisting of the meaning and focus of the conflict of interest there... bravo!!! The conflict of interest is specific and relates to asking the very people who would be affected most directly by a quarantine (medical doctors/personnel) whether quarantines will be effective. Nobody wants to go into quarantine and yet you expect to extract an unbiased opinion about the efficacy of quarantine from the very people who will be the most likely to locked up in quarantine. It is no wonder that such a group provides completely nebulous un-substantiated justifications for their opinion... much of which stemming from the official recommendations of the incompetent and bumbling bureaucrats at CDC.

conflict of interest stands
not biting on your strawman conflation of the current conflict of interest with unrelated other diseases

 

[fskimospy]

That's some pretty hard core twisting of the meaning and focus of the conflict of interest there... bravo!!! The conflict of interest is specific and relates to asking the very people who would be affected most directly by a quarantine (medical doctors/personnel) whether quarantines will be effective. Nobody wants to go into quarantine and yet you expect to extract an unbiased opinion about the efficacy of quarantine from the very people who will be the most likely to locked up in quarantine. It is no wonder that such a group provides completely nebulous un-substantiated justifications for their opinion... much of which stemming from the official recommendations of the incompetent and bumbling bureaucrats at CDC.

conflict of interest stands
not biting on your strawman conflation of the current conflict of interest with unrelated other diseases

Can you give us the names of some people that you consider acceptable to render judgment on the efficacy of quarantines?

 

[Fern]

That's already been provided in this thread and others. Needless to say, we're not going to play the game where you say "I heard X now disprove it".

Excuse me, but you're the one who rolled in here with all this talk of "scientific facts". Accordingly it is incumbent upon you to provide links.

On a related note, I've asked multiple times for some quantification of the reduction in volunteers caused by a quarantine. As this appears to be the sole objection it would seem a necessary fact to weigh the benefits versus the costs. (And there are costs: contact tracing and the necessary follow up, monitoring being spread out all over the place instead of a central location etc. Bear in mind all the effort and expense caused by the nurse taking commercial flights.)

Fern

 

[Paratus]

Can you give us the names of some people that you consider acceptable to render judgment on the efficacy of quarantines?

Natural News link incoming.

 

[fskimospy]

Excuse me, but you're the one who rolled in here with all this talk of "scientific facts". Accordingly it is incumbent upon you to provide links.

Which I've already done in this thread and others. You know how to use the search function, so do it!

None of that changes the simple statement of 'that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'. I've got evidence for my side, you have none for yours.

Guess where that lands you, haha.

On a related note, I've asked multiple times for some quantification of the reduction in volunteers caused by a quarantine. As this appears to be the sole objection it would seem a necessary fact to weigh the benefits versus the costs. (And there are costs: contact tracing and the necessary follow up, monitoring being spread out all over the place instead of a central location etc. Bear in mind all the effort and expense caused by the nurse taking commercial flights.)

Fern

Ah, the classic dodge of demanding a scientific study that you know doesn't exist. Empirical studies on a topic are of course the best kind of evidence, but in their absence the knowledge of experts in the field is the next best thing. Experts in the field believe there will be a significant reduction in volunteer efforts as well as economic damage to the countries we are banning, etc.

Do you have any evidence from a qualified authority to dispute this? If you don't, your opinion doesn't seem to be worth considering.

On a similar note, can you quantify the reduction of total Ebola cases in the US over the period of this outbreak that will be achieved by a quarantine? Be sure to account for the worsening of the outbreak in Africa due to your policies, the increase in likelihood that infected people in the US will not go to hospitals and the corresponding reduction of ability to trace contacts, etc.

Considering that you are asking for this sort of evidence even with the weight of expert opinion on my side, I feel that it is even more important for you to provide this evidence considering you have literally no expert opinion on your side and have decided to endorse an unscientific policy.

When can I expect this?

 

[Oldgamer]

So they are having a conference that just ended on this whole nurse situation. She has been tested twice and both results came up negative for the virus. They want her to stay in her home until Nov. 10th. She says she isn't staying in her house until the 10th because she is not symptomatic nor has she tested positive. Now the Governor is threatening her with more serious consequences and legal action if she comes out of her house. This is just getting really ridiculous. If she doesn't have it why force her to stay till the 10th of Nov??

 

[Victorian Gray]

You are wrong and the experts are wrong.

And I am going to tell you why.

Lets say this ebola stuff passes and nothing happens. A few people get sick and nobody dies.

Something like ebola happens again. No quarantine is put into place, nobody dies, everything goes better than expected.

The public and the health officials will let their guard down.

When something like the marburg virus comes along people will say there is nothing to worry about. There is no need for quarantine and there is no need for extra safety measures. It will be like ebola and never get a foothold.

Our complacency will be our downfall.

That is exactly what happened on the coast of Texas during Hurricane Ike. People became complacent that nothing was going to happen. They had weathered other hurricanes and nothing happened. But Ike was different from other hurricanes and people died.

It is in the best interest of the public that full safety measures be enforced at all times. Never let your guard down, because that is when the crap hits the fan.

Hurricane Sandy - people had been through storms before, no big deal, right?

Gee, who'd a thunk it. Life goes on and things happen. And humans continue to think that they've got it all under control. The hubris of humanity.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

conflict of interest stands
not biting on your strawman conflation of the current conflict of interest with unrelated other diseases

In your mind of course it stands, however in your zeal you completely dismiss the fact that physicians were liable to be quarantined if they were sick and infectious. But if they weren't? No. The entire history of infectious treatment in this country from the time of Lister until now has flippantly been discarded because you won't consider times which were far worse than anything now. No, this is consistent with the best medical and scientific knowledge gleaned over more than a century. That's not straw man, that's the facts as they have been and as you have not demonstrated one iota of evidence to show otherwise there's no reason to suspect some vague conspiracy. You have nothing but accusation based on no facts.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So they are having a conference that just ended on this whole nurse situation. She has been tested twice and both results came up negative for the virus. They want her to stay in her home until Nov. 10th. She says she isn't staying in her house until the 10th because she is not symptomatic nor has she tested positive. Now the Governor is threatening her with more serious consequences and legal action if she comes out of her house. This is just getting really ridiculous. If she doesn't have it why force her to stay till the 10th of Nov??

Brain and a spine. Good for her.

 

[Fern]

Which I've already done in this thread and others. You know how to use the search function, so do it!

I'm fairly certain I've seen all your posts and I don't recall you providing any such information. And I'm not reviewing this thread of +300 posts.

Ah, the classic dodge of demanding a scientific study that you know doesn't exist. Empirical studies on a topic are of course the best kind of evidence, but in their absence the knowledge of experts in the field is the next best thing. Experts in the field believe there will be a significant reduction in volunteer efforts as well as economic damage to the countries we are banning, etc.

As with most decisions this is a weighing of the costs versus the benefits. In spite of so many claims of scientific evidence you now admit you don't what the cost is (i.e., the impact on volunteers).

Fern

 

[massmedia]

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.

So what you are saying is that because a guy happens to be the bureaucrat heading CDC you will trust him despite incontrovertible evidence that he is either A) completely and utterly out of his depth and incompetent... B) a pathological liar... or C) both a and b.


So what you are saying is that because a guy happens to be the bureaucrat heading NIAID you will trust him despite incontrovertible evidence that he manufactures arbitrary arguments in order to avoid directly answering the question of why we should not completely quarantine the affected african nations.... and when those arbitrary arguments are brushed aside this head of NIAID falls back on an ECONOMIC HARDSHIP justification for no quarantine. The head of NIAID has zero f'ing business balancing economics in any decision about quarantine. His job is disease and he's talking completely out of his ass about economics. Un-fucking-believable.

then you have a third set of opinions offered by folks who are NOT experts in controlling the spread of infectious disease among populations. These physicians (memory bots) also suffer from a severe conflict of interest and surprise surprise they're saying don't quarantine us because the CDC says so and quarantining us will be harmful for the population.

incompetent/lying/conflicted experts provide such valuable advice... all evidence free.
truly amazing that you don't see this when it is staring at you right in the face

 

[Victorian Gray]

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.

"When CNBC asked the city health department if Spencer had lied initially, at The Post reported, deputy press secretary Veronica Lewin in an email statement replied: "Dr. Spencer cooperated fully with the Health Department to establish a timeline of his movements in the days following his return to New York from Guinea, providing his MetroCard, credit cards and cell phone."

"He followed protocol by contacting his employer immediately upon developing fever and remained in his apartment until being transported to the hospital, which is why the chance anyone else contracted Ebola is extremely small. Dr. Spencer is a hero who deserves our thanks and thoughts for a speedy recovery," Lewin said.


When CNBC asked again if Spencer had at first lied to authorities or otherwise mislead them about his movements in the city, Lewin replied, "Please refer to the statement I just sent. As this states, Dr. Spencer cooperated fully with the Health Department."


http://www.cnbc.com/id/102132467

At this point I will believe the official statement from the health dept. over an unnamed source in a tabloid newspaper story of 4 paragraphs with no detail.

 

[abj13]

So they are having a conference that just ended on this whole nurse situation. She has been tested twice and both results came up negative for the virus. They want her to stay in her home until Nov. 10th. She says she isn't staying in her house until the 10th because she is not symptomatic nor has she tested positive. Now the Governor is threatening her with more serious consequences and legal action if she comes out of her house. This is just getting really ridiculous. If she doesn't have it why force her to stay till the 10th of Nov??

Not that I necessarily agree with this argument, but I'll mention it. The tests for Ebola can be falsely negative. In particular, the PCR test (which is probably the most sensitive) can be negative if performed in the first few days after symptoms start in a patient who does have Ebola. If those patients are retested a few days later, they are then positive. It is related to the viral load that is detectable in the blood.

So the State could argue that her tests are falsely negative, and she still could develop symptoms and then be positive for Ebola.

Not that I agree with it, but I know its an argument that can be made if you understand what is involved with testing for Ebola. There isn't a great test to fully and completely rule it out, minus a 21 day symptom observation. The test would reduce the likelihood she does have it, but it is not completely sensitive to rule it out.

 

[Victorian Gray]

This isn't a case of forgetting to mention something. This is a case of outright lying.

"When CNBC asked the city health department if Spencer had lied initially, at The Post reported, deputy press secretary Veronica Lewin in an email statement replied: "Dr. Spencer cooperated fully with the Health Department to establish a timeline of his movements in the days following his return to New York from Guinea, providing his MetroCard, credit cards and cell phone."

"He followed protocol by contacting his employer immediately upon developing fever and remained in his apartment until being transported to the hospital, which is why the chance anyone else contracted Ebola is extremely small. Dr. Spencer is a hero who deserves our thanks and thoughts for a speedy recovery," Lewin said.

When CNBC asked again if Spencer had at first lied to authorities or otherwise mislead them about his movements in the city, Lewin replied, "Please refer to the statement I just sent. As this states, Dr. Spencer cooperated fully with the Health Department."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102132467

At this point I will believe the official statement from the health dept. over an unnamed source in a tabloid newspaper story of 4 paragraphs with no detail.

 

[abj13]

then you have a third set of opinions offered by folks who are NOT experts in controlling the spread of infectious disease among populations.

The Infectious Disease Society of America, Pediatric Infectious Disease Society, and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, all don't know how to control infectious diseases? I take it you don't have a clue of the scientists who formulate infection control policies or interventions for highly communicable diseases. For shame.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm fairly certain I've seen all your posts and I don't recall you providing any such information. And I'm not reviewing this thread of +300 posts.

That's why god made the search function. At least that's what he told me.

As with most decisions this is a weighing of the costs versus the benefits. In spite of so many claims of scientific evidence you now admit you don't what the cost is (i.e., the impact on volunteers).

Fern

You just implicitly admitted you have no idea what the benefit is. What's funny is that you've now admitted that you want to implement a policy where you don't know what it will do, and you want to do so in the face of all expert opinion on the issue that says it will be harmful.

Stop and think about how irrational that is. Why on earth would we do anything so foolish?

 

[Victorian Gray]

How do you contain a pathogen with a 3 week incubation period, sometimes longer, and no travel restrictions?

It was not like Duncan was honest when he lied about his ebola exposure.

Back to this lie again, eh? Seems to be the trend on this isse, when in doubt spread another lie or simply repeat an old discredited one.

Truly pathetic.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As with most decisions this is a weighing of the costs versus the benefits. In spite of so many claims of scientific evidence you now admit you don't what the cost is (i.e., the impact on volunteers).

There's possible, indeed probable harm being done. That's would be a real cost. The benefit? There isn't any. Well it makes people feel better, but that's not science is it? Can you tell me on what scientific basis the governors of NY and NJ made their decision? Decisions of health made by pandering and ignorance.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Infectious Disease Society of America, Pediatric Infectious Disease Society, and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, all don't know how to control infectious diseases? I take it you don't have a clue of the scientists who formulate infection control policies or interventions for highly communicable diseases. For shame.

Oh he's not saying they don't know. He invoked "conflict of interest", meaning that they are putting the public at risk by lying so they won't have to sit in quarantine. That's a remarkable accusation based on an absence of evidence.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So they are having a conference that just ended on this whole nurse situation. She has been tested twice and both results came up negative for the virus. They want her to stay in her home until Nov. 10th. She says she isn't staying in her house until the 10th because she is not symptomatic nor has she tested positive. Now the Governor is threatening her with more serious consequences and legal action if she comes out of her house. This is just getting really ridiculous. If she doesn't have it why force her to stay till the 10th of Nov??

Because politicians believe that they have to be "seen doing something" or they might lose an election at some point. It's politically driven.

 

[massmedia]

physicians were liable to be quarantined if they were sick and infectious. But if they weren't?

NOBODY can predict if a non symptomatic nurse/doctor/or otherwise is going to come down with ebola and NOBODY knows when their period of symptoms and infectiousness will begin. Will their first indication be on the subway, at the gym doing bench presses, relaxing in a sauna after a workout, while serving up brewskies at a local pub...?

When will symptoms appear for each person who comes down with ebola in the US and how are you or anybody going to guarantee that those people will never shed virus in public?? I really want to know where you keep this pretty amazing crystal ball that does the impossible and predicts what CAN NEVER BE KNOWN.

one thing will work here with absolute certainty... lock the exposed up in quarantine. Complete physical isolation. That is a KNOWN and it WILL work at preventing those whom are quarantined from spreading it at the sweaty pub on friday night.

what you are offering are completely baseless platitudes and a bunch of hand waiving and it is shameful.

 

[Fern]

There's possible, indeed probable harm being done. That's would be a real cost. The benefit? There isn't any.
-snip-

I've already listed financial benefits several times, e.g., contact tracing.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I've already listed financial benefits several times, e.g., contact tracing.

Fern

I was thinking in terms of lives and suffering and you money. Different values I suppose.

 

[Fern]

I was thinking in terms of lives and suffering and you money. Different values I suppose.

I'm thinking in terms of both.

Put aside the the fear, stress and suffering of anybody who might be infected by a returnee, how do you think those who sat near the nurse on the plane felt after they were contacted by the CDC?

I've lost track of how many were contacted by the CDC in contact tracing, but it's quite a lot.

Fern