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.
No we can't seal ourselves off from Ebola. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take any and every precaution to prevent it from entering. Passports tell the tale of where you have been. If you have been to a country dealing with Ebola you should be isolated until it is proven you are Ebola free. Just because some decides to go on tour of Liberia doesn't mean the rest of the country or passengers on a plane should be put at risk. In fact we should ban travel to and from those countries until they get the problem under control.
The CDC is even clearer in giving states rights the power to isolate/quarantine in the case of people working with Ebola patients:
Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine | Quarantine | CDC
"Quarantine separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick.In addition to serving as medical functions, isolation and quarantine also are “police power” functions, derived from the right of the state to take action affecting individuals for the benefit of society."
"States have police power functions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons within their borders. To control the spread of disease within their borders, states have laws to enforce the use of isolation and quarantine."
So DC at the Ridge's legal analysis is completely wrong.
As a political matter, nurse look at me probably won't be quarantined, but she clearly could be by operation of law now - even though she has tested negative for the disease and even though according to WHO and CDC guidelines she is not contagious.
Infection is not the issue. If a person has cancer, you don't quarantine them because they're sick. You quarantine someone because they are contagious. If they aren't contagious, you have no reason to quarantine someone. She's NOT contagious.
The Maine law allows for quarantine of "infected persons". We don't know if she is infected or not, that is true. On the other hand, there is no reason to think she is infected and a stronger probability that she is not, so they can't quarantine her and they know it. Which is why they backed down today and adopted the CDC recommendations.
They can't prosecute someone for defying a non-existent court order.
First they have to find a judge willing to issue the order. That's usually not too difficult. But then Nurse Hickox gets to challenge it. And in the absence of her having any symptoms, therefore not contagious, she has a very real possibility of getting the order thrown out. If she should present symptoms, then that would, of course, be moot.
I don't agree with the "absence of her having any symptoms" part in that the case would be thrown out for this reason.
"Quarantine separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposedto a contagious diseaseto see if they become sick. In addition to serving as medical functions, isolation and quarantine also are “police power” functions, derived from the right of the state to take action affecting individuals for the benefit of society."
Exposure is the key word. What your describing is when Isolation would happen/someone is showing symptoms. From the CDC:
"Isolation separates sick people with a contagious disease from people who are not sick."
So DC at the Ridge's legal analysis is completely wrong.
As a political matter, nurse look at me probably won't be quarantined, but she clearly could be by operation of law now - even though she has tested negative for the disease and even though according to WHO and CDC guidelines she is not contagious.
No they can't. They did not go to court today as they said they would because they know they would lose. She does not meet the "infected person" requirement of their law. They tried to work a deal with her, instead.
It's within the governor's power and nurse look at me could be forcibly quarantined without having the disease or even being contagious (according to CDC and WHO guidelines) simply because she has been exposed to it under state law. So your analysis of what could happen under the law is completely wrong.
That's the crux of the matter. Her lawyer is arguing that it is unconstitutional, though he does not say which part of the constitution he is applying in this case.
I guess we'll find out whether a state really can quarantine someone who isn't sick.
So DC at the Ridge's legal analysis is completely wrong.
The wording, right from the CDC, is very clear to me where the truth falls in all of this.
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.
