If someone who possibly has Ebola tried to come near me or my family you can bet there wouldn't be anything "veiled" about it.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Maine nurse won't observe Ebola quarantine - your take?
- Thread starter JTScribe
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
LANShark42
Master
Lighten up Francis. It was a joke.
KittySlayer
Grandmaster
Just because nurses wear those hot nurse outfits does not make them choose wisely about their own health or the health of others all the time. Cruise by the smoking area outside any hospital and check out all the smart nurses smoking.
Typically condescending.
I was married to a nurse. And I know a lot of nurses. I have talked to several as lf late and they all agree she should quarantine her self. I haven't talked to one yet that finds it the wrong thing to do. I know there are more like her that think like her. Some people are self centered.
Seriously.....are you always this way. Due process.....what. Legal basis.....what.
If she was exposed we have to fart around proving it. Sometimes you are in another orbit. It is your right to be there. If you go over there then submit to the quarantine upon returning before you "Possibly" put those smart enough to stay out of that area at risk.
If you go there you should just know. Legal basis.....seriously. Black and white does not always apply. I am no fan of big Gov. or its interventions but we do have certain agency's in place to keep health risks at a minimum. Let them do their jobs. That is what they exist for so lets use them properly. How does this undermine our freedoms. That is just whack.
Freedom to go is one thing. To return and put others at risk is another. 21 more days to be sure, part of the deal. She should know this up front.
So you would let her come into your home and hang out upon returning. Would you.
For a nurse she sure has zero idea of what a quarantine is for. We don't put you in quarantine when you get sick. We put you in it beforehand to see if you will. If we wait until you're sick before you are put in it it may be too late.
I agree her quarantine conditions were entirely unacceptable, but the act of quarantine itself isn't. Don't want quarantined? Don't go to Africa. Nobody is forcing you to go there. You take a voluntary action you agree to the consequences.
I agree her quarantine conditions were entirely unacceptable, but the act of quarantine itself isn't. Don't want quarantined? Don't go to Africa. Nobody is forcing you to go there. You take a voluntary action you agree to the consequences.
Concerning the nurse in question, I really do not like this person. I gotta wonder (not wander), was she about as much fun to work with in West Africa as a root canal? I'd also like to ask her why the %^%$ she went to a God-forsaken West-African hell hole for in the first place? Did her co-workers in Maine pay for her to go?
Bogwalker is right about the definition and purpose of quarantine. A decision to put an individual in quarantine can rarely be adjudicated. If there has already been a determination that quarantine is needed, waiting to adjudicate it will expose people intended to be kept quarantined for a reason.
Whether or not a person potentially exposed to Ebola should be quarantined is one thing. And whether or not you think that quarantine standards should exist could also be debated. If/when you actually have a quarantine situation, there are quantitative or specific qualitative standards that are administratively applied. If that's a problem, then what needs to change is the law regarding quarantine power. Individual adjudication isn't relevant. No one is deciding guilt or innocence; they are deciding what standards if any cause the quarantine.
Whether or not a person potentially exposed to Ebola should be quarantined is one thing. And whether or not you think that quarantine standards should exist could also be debated. If/when you actually have a quarantine situation, there are quantitative or specific qualitative standards that are administratively applied. If that's a problem, then what needs to change is the law regarding quarantine power. Individual adjudication isn't relevant. No one is deciding guilt or innocence; they are deciding what standards if any cause the quarantine.
halfmileharry
Grandmaster
Her spoiled nature and arrogance could possibly deliver death to countless people for no reason other than "She don't want to"
To All,
I guess I am one of the nutjobs here.
I absolutely believe the government should have the power and authority to oppress a citizens rights, either temporarily or permanently.
However, the government needs to have a good reason to do so. Her proximity to patients does not cross that threshold, in my opinion.
IF she showed symptoms that would be another matter, but she does not. She has tested negative twice for Ebola. Link: Maine, nurse Kaci Hickox at odds over Ebola quarantine - CNN.com
It is not like she hasn't been tested. She has. There is no probable cause to oppress her rights other than a media induced fear. This same fear gave us internment camps. This same fear gave us the Patriot Act. This same fear gives us NSA violations of our privacy. This same fear gave us the Assault Weapons Ban...
Fear should not be our primary motivation for oppressing anyone's rights!
My friends, we here on INGO become outraged anytime we hear anyone talk about "common sense gun control" measures to curtail only ONE (1) of our rights. In this situation we are talking about a lot more rights than one (1).
We do not automatically quarantine the caregivers of current ebola patients in the United States, or the janitors and support staff that deal with items used by the infected.
We do not even consider quarantining medical and support staff that deal with MRSA patients, and a helluva lot more die from MRSA every year in the USA than ebola, to the tune of about 18,000 deaths in2005. Link: More U.S. Deaths From MRSA Than AIDS
We do not automatically quarantine the caregivers and support staff who care for tuberculosis patients, a highly infectious disease that killed 536 people in 2011 and infected over 9,000 in 2013. Link: CDC | TB | Fact Sheets | Trends in Tuberculosis ? United States
I am proud to say that if I am going to consider oppressing someones rights it is going to be for more than, "The scary, hyped, ratings driven media told me you might maybe somehow possibly though not likely threaten me."
Although, maybe I'm just naive...?
Regards,
Doug
PS - Look at the bright side: if I am wrong we have Obamacare and it will save us all!!!
I guess I am one of the nutjobs here.
I absolutely believe the government should have the power and authority to oppress a citizens rights, either temporarily or permanently.
However, the government needs to have a good reason to do so. Her proximity to patients does not cross that threshold, in my opinion.
IF she showed symptoms that would be another matter, but she does not. She has tested negative twice for Ebola. Link: Maine, nurse Kaci Hickox at odds over Ebola quarantine - CNN.com
It is not like she hasn't been tested. She has. There is no probable cause to oppress her rights other than a media induced fear. This same fear gave us internment camps. This same fear gave us the Patriot Act. This same fear gives us NSA violations of our privacy. This same fear gave us the Assault Weapons Ban...
Fear should not be our primary motivation for oppressing anyone's rights!My friends, we here on INGO become outraged anytime we hear anyone talk about "common sense gun control" measures to curtail only ONE (1) of our rights. In this situation we are talking about a lot more rights than one (1).
We do not automatically quarantine the caregivers of current ebola patients in the United States, or the janitors and support staff that deal with items used by the infected.
We do not even consider quarantining medical and support staff that deal with MRSA patients, and a helluva lot more die from MRSA every year in the USA than ebola, to the tune of about 18,000 deaths in2005. Link: More U.S. Deaths From MRSA Than AIDS
We do not automatically quarantine the caregivers and support staff who care for tuberculosis patients, a highly infectious disease that killed 536 people in 2011 and infected over 9,000 in 2013. Link: CDC | TB | Fact Sheets | Trends in Tuberculosis ? United States
I am proud to say that if I am going to consider oppressing someones rights it is going to be for more than, "The scary, hyped, ratings driven media told me you might maybe somehow possibly though not likely threaten me."
Although, maybe I'm just naive...?
Regards,
Doug
PS - Look at the bright side: if I am wrong we have Obamacare and it will save us all!!!
Doug,
Sense as always.
I was not aware she tested negative twice.
I believe people returning form that area should at least stay put for enough time to show symptoms or at least for the length of testing.
If this were to get loose over here it would be ugly.
Sense as always.
I was not aware she tested negative twice.
I believe people returning form that area should at least stay put for enough time to show symptoms or at least for the length of testing.
If this were to get loose over here it would be ugly.
Yeah, the "It'll never happen in the U.S." crowd is sing the "I told you so" rah-rah chant even now.
Who's clamoring for suspension of due process?
I'm having a deja vu moment.Its cause they have no soul.
For diseases that are spread before the individual becomes symptomatic, yes. Not necessarily for Ebola.
Ebola is one of those (if we are to believe "them") that isn't transmittable until the infected individual is symptomatic. There's not much purpose in quarantining a potential Ebola patient until he's symptomatic. Prudence would dictate isolation, to be sure. But it's not like any of the dozens of other communicable diseases that you can share with next person to open the door before you are even aware that you are infected.
Haven't people tested negative but still got it later?
Blood Test For Ebola Doesn't Catch Infection Early : Shots - Health News : NPR
Blood Test For Ebola Doesn't Catch Infection Early : Shots - Health News : NPR
Testing doesn't instill faith in me.
Folks, a virus (or antibody) has to be there in significant numbers to show up positive on a test. A negative test has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the person will test positive in a few days. With the long incubation period for Ebola, you could test negative for many days and then later be positive.
A virus that is "incubating" is still dividing and growing and isn't likely to show up on a test yet. The only reason for testing this nurse so soon was that they thought she had a fever.
You can take a positive test as meaning "probably" depending on the exact test, symptoms, timing, etc. But a negative test doesn't mean you are "clear" until you get so far from exposure that it's unlikely to turn positive later.
For the sake of having a rational conversation, it might be useful to define these terms. (I wasn't really using them correctly myself the past few days)
Isolation is what you do when someone has a disease.... ie the "isolation unit" at the hospital.
Quarantine is for separating someone who might have been exposed to see what happens. Their quarantine ends when considered past the incubation period of whatever disease(s) were a concern.
It is clear Ebola gets highly contagious at some point during the illness. Exactly when isn't clear. It seems UNLIKELY someone would be contagious if they just started to get sick, but there is no research proving it either way. There is research showing not everyone gets a fever. There is also evidence of very high viral concentration in vomit or feces.
A virus that is "incubating" is still dividing and growing and isn't likely to show up on a test yet. The only reason for testing this nurse so soon was that they thought she had a fever.
You can take a positive test as meaning "probably" depending on the exact test, symptoms, timing, etc. But a negative test doesn't mean you are "clear" until you get so far from exposure that it's unlikely to turn positive later.
For the sake of having a rational conversation, it might be useful to define these terms. (I wasn't really using them correctly myself the past few days)
Isolation is what you do when someone has a disease.... ie the "isolation unit" at the hospital.
Quarantine is for separating someone who might have been exposed to see what happens. Their quarantine ends when considered past the incubation period of whatever disease(s) were a concern.
It is clear Ebola gets highly contagious at some point during the illness. Exactly when isn't clear. It seems UNLIKELY someone would be contagious if they just started to get sick, but there is no research proving it either way. There is research showing not everyone gets a fever. There is also evidence of very high viral concentration in vomit or feces.
Quarantine is isolation. It's just pre-emptive. I understand the difference. I appreciate the "words have meaning" approach as well. But the difference is about as wide as the gap between a split hair. The take-home point is that exposure should result in some quality alone time. You can argue whether that's quarantine or isolation till the cows come home. It doesn't really matter.
Both make sense and I am of the belief that exposure grants you some time away from the general public. I do not see this as an infringement of individual rights but more as a safety measure.
To say it should be adjudicated (is that the right word) is ludicrous.
