Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is not true. the medical advice is that quarantine is required. The only question with regard to Kaci Hickox was the level of quarantine that was supported by medical evidence. All the legal decision in her case decided was that the state should not try to trump the science. Hickox then agreed to the quarantine that fit her level of risk: stay home, limit contact with others, consult heath authorities before travel. She was in quarantine.
I have a different understanding. But let me go look. I do not believe there is actually any quarantine involved. But maybe I missed part of it. Lets see.
Later..
Hickox as far as I can determine agreed to no level of quarantine. She agreed to monitor her temperature and coordinate travel with the authorities. But she accepted no restrictions on her movements.
There has never been a case that has overturned that original case law - that case law still stands regarding quarantine with no symptoms. Because of that, even though it was set in the early 1900's, it's still as viable today as it was in those early years - yes, a judge would greatly consider that past case law when making his/her decision.
See above.
A new precedent, and, trumping? There is no new precedent, or trumping, since Kaci hasn't won a suit against Maine (she hasn't even filed yet as far as I know). Simply talking about it, or even just filing for it does not set a new precedent or trump anything - she must win a suit (against that case law, etc.) to set a new precedent and to trump - geez.
Exactly what case is it you are citing? From which appeals court?
]
They found "(t)he general authority to the health officer to absolutely quarantine in cases of the designated diseases wherever he deemed necessary was not intended to and does not confer upon him unlimited power and right to control persons and property" but that "conditions must exist which render, within reason and fair apprehension, his action essential for the preservation of the health of the public.
Read it carefully. It says they can't do it if they do not have a medical case. They did not in the case of Ms. Hickox.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
22,810 posts, read 12,003,898 times
Reputation: 10139
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
From the summary presented..
They found "(t)he general authority to the health officer to absolutely quarantine in cases of the designated diseases wherever he deemed necessary was not intended to and does not confer upon him unlimited power and right to control persons and property" but that "conditions must exist which render, within reason and fair apprehension, his action essential for the preservation of the health of the public.
Read it carefully. It says they can't do it if they do not have a medical case. They did not in the case of Ms. Hickox.
Yes, read it carefully - and fully, not just picking out what suits you.
"The appellate court reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to determine upon the facts if the health officers had lawfully exercised their discretion in quarantining Ms. Crayton"
Yes, read it carefully - and fully, not just picking out what suits you.
"The appellate court reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to determine upon the facts if the health officers had lawfully exercised their discretion in quarantining Ms. Crayton"
However they did not decide the issue.
And they said...
"conditions must exist which render, within reason and fair apprehension, his action essential for the preservation of the health of the public."
I have a different understanding. But let me go look. I do not believe there is actually any quarantine involved. But maybe I missed part of it. Lets see.
Later..
Hickox as far as I can determine agreed to no level of quarantine. She agreed to monitor her temperature and coordinate travel with the authorities. But she accepted no restrictions on her movements.
That is not quarantine.
Yes, monitoring is a form of quarantine. Personal surveillance is the second level of quarantine:
Her bicycle ride in the country hardly counts as unrestricted movement, either.
Agree. And, if I remember correctly, Hickox stated that she would abide by it by not going into town or being near others. So basically, she had agreed to that level of quarantine.
Human ebola virus species and compositions and methods thereof
CA 2741523 A1
Abstract
Compositions and methods including and related to the Ebola Bundibugyo virus (EboBun) are provided.
Compositions are provided that are operable as immunogens to elicit and immune response or protection from EboBun challenge in a subject such as a primate. Inventive methods are directed to detection and treatment of EboBun infection.
This has been covered before. The patent is for certain genetic sequences of the virus for use in vaccines and in tests for identification of the virus. There is nothing sinister about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
