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.
For this particular case. But each state has varying penalties for breaking quarantine.
What are they going to do when she tries to leave her house tomorrow morning? Shoot her? Maybe with a tranquilizer, so they can then take her to a hospital and lock her in? That's a nice thing to do to someone who's done nothing wrong, who isn't sick, who doesn't pose a risk. Go, STATE!
Actually, I think it's the people advocating for quarantines that are assuming that everyone who is exposed gets sick.
The theory, not of the day, but all along, is that the virus gets transmitted by the bodily fluids of the infected individual being passed on to another, and gaining entry into that second person via the mouth, the nose, the eyes or by an open cut or sore. Since humans touch their faces, brush their hair out of their faces, push up their glasses, wipe their noses, and so on, all in proximity to their mouths, noses and eyes, if they have bodily fluids from an infected person on whatever they are using to touch their faces, brush their hair out of the way, push up their glasses, wipe their noses, and so on, they could infect themselves.
I'm not a fan of The Atlantic, either, but I think it's a very comprehensive article and very specific to your concerns.
Actually, the first four paragraphs were about a researcher, Steven Hatfill, and that he's wrong, with no evidence being given at all, just a general "Hatfill is jerk and he's wrong" tone. Then it goes on for seven paragraphs about the airborne hypothesis, something I have not been concerned about. Then follow two paragraphs about infection control. Following that, three paragraphs about skin contagiousness, saying how this Hatfill guy is wrong, and that sweat MAY be contagious, but only at the end of the disease, with no documentation of same. Then follow four paragraphs about bats, again, not an area of concern for me.
Actually, the first four paragraphs were about a researcher, Steven Hatfill, and that he's wrong, with no evidence being given at all, just a general "Hatfill is jerk and he's wrong" tone. Then it goes on for seven paragraphs about the airborne hypothesis, something I have not been concerned about. Then follow two paragraphs about infection control. Following that, three paragraphs about skin contagiousness, saying how this Hatfill guy is wrong, and that sweat MAY be contagious, but only at the end of the disease, with no documentation of same. Then follow four paragraphs about bats, again, not an area of concern for me.
So it didn't address any of your concerns. Oh well, I tried.
It doesn't, because it's weapons-grade BS. The Op-Ed has to do with the way publicly funded research at Johns Hopkins is appropriated to generate income for privately-owned companies. She has argued in favor of making generic versions of medicine more widely available in developing countries. The pharmaceutical industry, of course, hates this.
I am absolutely fascinated with the way people refuse to listen to actual experts on the Ebola issue. From a nation that used to pride itself on having nothing to fear but fear itself, the massive fear-driven overreaction is - befuddling.
Now we have 24/7 cable news, politicians in need of face time, internet nor social media, fear mongering for political gain and profit.
Fear trumps science.
We'll never know if the nurse's reaction would have been different had NJ figured out a better way of achieving their objective other than humiliating her in a bubble on display for the world to see with "the best take- out Newark has to offer".
Sure, I read that! It doesn't speak to how contagious one is, though. Contagion is a whole different category. Many diseases, like flu, are contagious for days before symptoms develop. You have to get a certain viral load before the symptoms break through, but you can be contagious before that (with flu).
The incubation period of Ebola is 2-21 days. And you're confusing contagiousness with "attack rate", that is, the number of people exposed who get sick. You're assuming that everyone who is exposed gets sick. Now I'm willing to believe, just from observation, that the attack rate is low.
According to the theory du jour, the virus gets into the body by touching one's face, to push one's hair out of the way, or to push up one's glasses, or whatever.
And the Atlantic is not a scientific source, although that's an interesting article.
I do not believe it is the theory du jour. It is supported by basic research on the virus, down to the way the viral proteins interact with the human body.
The attack rate is low. That is why casual contact is not risky. One Ebola patient on average infects two others. A measles patient on average infects 18:
The Atlantic may not be a science journal, but the author is a scientist, and one whose area of interest is virology, so I think we can presume he has the credentials to comment on Ebola. The article is indeed interesting and a good summary of some of the misconceptions about Ebola.
Quote:
Actually, the first four paragraphs were about a researcher, Steven Hatfill, and that he's wrong, with no evidence being given at all, just a general "Hatfill is jerk and he's wrong" tone. Then it goes on for seven paragraphs about the airborne hypothesis, something I have not been concerned about. Then follow two paragraphs about infection control. Following that, three paragraphs about skin contagiousness, saying how this Hatfill guy is wrong, and that sweat MAY be contagious, but only at the end of the disease, with no documentation of same. Then follow four paragraphs about bats, again, not an area of concern for me.
The article was written in response to a previous article which presented Hatfield's comments. That is why the author rebutted Hatfield. He detailed the reason for his disagreement, including Hatfield's use of the pig/monkey study while he ignored the monkey/monkey study.
Since the article is not written for a scientific audience, he did not give references. He did, however, give a simplified explanation of why the virus does not get through intact skin and why it is very likely it cannot get out through intact skin and why sweat may not contain virus capable of replicating, even the sweat of very sick patients.
I found all of it useful. It actually summarized nicely what I have read all along over the past few weeks.
He discussed bats specifically related to the risk to American soldiers.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 10-29-2014 at 01:59 PM..
Reason: Add info
There has been a significant amount of misinformation on every news channel and media outlet. And a lot of emphasis on why people should be afraid. They aren't choosing a risk-adverse position based on solid information and a record. They are running scared. When someone tells you they are setting policy out of an "abundance of caution", they are telling you that the policy is not based on facts, it's based on fear. And fear is not an entirely unhealthy response. Ebola is a nasty disease.
Me, I look at the individual and I think about what freedom means, and I look at the history, volunteers coming and going for 10 months from the affected regions, NOT ONE CASE of a volunteer infecting someone on their return. And I weigh freedom on the one side, fear on the other. And I think about Benjamin Franklin who didn't think the majority of Americans would place freedom as a higher value than security. I hope he's wrong. I FEAR he's right!
I don't watch a lot of cable television news but do read a ton of news and, barring the nutter sites, the news has been pretty good about reporting the CDC's guidelines and recommendations. I personally wouldn't call my own position one of fear but then again, since you can't possibly know what I am thinking on any given day. I could see where you may believe that is the case even if it is not. So, I do not feel it's within my power to decide what our population is or is not thinking.
I do believe that New York and New Jersey took their position because of the manpower that was required to perform contact tracing for Dr. Spencer. That is not an insignificant thing. I know my own state, for example, has publicly stated it will not engage in any mandatory quarantine and that's the right call because we wouldn't be facing the same challenges as New York or New Jersey. Our biggest health risks in my state and local area are from incoming port ships and the incubation period for Ebola would flush out any cases well before they made it here.
I'm actually not an advocate of a nationwide quarantine policy for Ebola. I think each state has differing demographics and density issues that may or may not warrant a mandatory quarantine policy. That's something which can be prudent is they want to reduce risks because of their unique situations. I am an advocate of us suspending visas for non-essential travel reasons to and from the affected regions. This would not hinder aid workers but would help curb a Duncan type of case.
And also, it's a quarantine, a temporary condition, which is probably why courts have upheld them time and again when challenged.
What are they going to do when she tries to leave her house tomorrow morning? Shoot her? Maybe with a tranquilizer, so they can then take her to a hospital and lock her in? That's a nice thing to do to someone who's done nothing wrong, who isn't sick, who doesn't pose a risk. Go, STATE!
That's a bit of hyperbole. I don't know what the state plans to do if she breaks quarantine. If you have seen anything about a contingency plan if this happens, post it.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta @drsanjaygupta 13m13 minutes ago
Just learned returning health workers that just met with President @BarackObama still within 21 day monitoring period for #ebola
...then again, with midterms coming up, maybe he'd like to be quarantined for 21 days himself.
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.
hope the Pres is right about ebola risk...
