HOW CAN YOU RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF ONE PERSON AT THE EXPENSE OF THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER? Sorry to yell, but I take this very personally because exposure to her (if she's infected) would pretty much kill me outright [bad word] dead. That offends the heck out of me. It's like that whole fist thing, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Her right to wander the countryside spewing a deadly virus ends at my nose as well. Does she have it? Dunno. Let's make marklar damn sure before she comes up behind me in the checkout line at farkin Kroger. I'm not ready to check out yet.
When you get sick, you tell people your "rights" are being violated? Do you believe it is a "right" to remain disease-free?
Influenza could easily wipe out an immunocomprimised person. It is said to kill tens of thousands of people per year. How much freedom must be eliminated to create the perception of safety you are seeking?
I think it's unlikely she has Ebola, based on the stats and averages of other Ebola healthcare workers.
The fact she has no symptoms and tests negative today absolutely does NOT indicate that she won't test positive or have symptoms tomorrow. During the incubation period of a disease, there isn't enough virus to show up on tests.
Yeah, I agree the bike ride would be ok. And it's amusing to see all over the media.
Quarantine law is complicated but already spells out criteria; it's different in different states and agencies. Apparently whatever authority they want to use for her, requires a court order either for the individual or to institute the authority for her and others with identical criteria (ie Ebola healthcare worker). Whether or not they use it abusively doesn't really have much to do with her. Quarantine authority already exists.
If she does end up testing positive, they should quarantine all the media stalking her for 21 days and anyone they had contact with.
Does ANYONE like being quarantined? Doubtful.
However, her actions, and whining, demonstrates a complete lack of regard for the safety and benefit of others with which she may come in contact.
People like her is WHY ebola is now IN this country, and has already killed at least one, in this country.
At best, she's dispicable, with no regard for anyone other than herself.
How much freedom must be eliminated to create the perception of safety you are seeking?
It's not about not enough virus for tests but that the virus is not in the blood. When contracted, the virus goes to the spleen or liver to multiply (incubation period). Since the virus is there, it is not in the blood, making blood tests impractical to determine infection. Once the virus enters the blood, the patient shows symptoms. This is why it is highly unlikely to spread the virus if you are not showing symptoms. If she is infected, she will LIKELY begin to show symptoms soon. Until then, we are pretty safe.I think it's unlikely she has Ebola, based on the stats and averages of other Ebola healthcare workers.
The fact she has no symptoms and tests negative today absolutely does NOT indicate that she won't test positive or have symptoms tomorrow. During the incubation period of a disease, there isn't enough virus to show up on tests.
It's not about not enough virus for tests but that the virus is not in the blood. When contracted, the virus goes to the spleen or liver to multiply (incubation period). Since the virus is there, it is not in the blood, making blood tests impractical to determine infection. Once the virus enters the blood, the patient shows symptoms. This is why it is highly unlikely to spread the virus if you are not showing symptoms. If she is infected, she will LIKELY begin to show symptoms soon. Until then, we are pretty safe.
Until then, we are pretty safe.
She has tested negative multiple times. She has no symptoms. I'm as skeptical of .gov's response/information to ebola as anyone (more than most).On a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being "safe as a baby in his mother's arms", and 1 being "TEOTWAWKI", where does "pretty safe" fall?
rambone said:Influenza could easily wipe out an immunocomprimised person. It is said to kill tens of thousands of people per year. How much freedom must be eliminated to create the perception of safety you are seeking?
International healthcare workers using MSF protocol during this year's Ebola outbreak number about 700. 3 of them have become infected. That's about 1/2%, although the total number isn't enough to be statistically significant. Still, it gives a perspective. The odds are small that she is infected, but the cost of ignoring the possibility is high.On a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being "safe as a baby in his mother's arms", and 1 being "TEOTWAWKI", where does "pretty safe" fall?
It's not about not enough virus for tests but that the virus is not in the blood. When contracted, the virus goes to the spleen or liver to multiply (incubation period). Since the virus is there, it is not in the blood, making blood tests impractical to determine infection. Once the virus enters the blood, the patient shows symptoms. This is why it is highly unlikely to spread the virus if you are not showing symptoms. If she is infected, she will LIKELY begin to show symptoms soon. Until then, we are pretty safe.
I'd really love an answer to this question from one of the folks who think the sky is falling.