It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

CDC enacts 21-day "monitoring"- is it enough?

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:21 PM

Starting Monday, each traveler from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea will be given a “care kit” that includes a thermometer and instructions for how to use it as well as a description of possible Ebola symptoms and what to do if any of them develop. Such travelers, who most likely will include health-care workers assisting in the Ebola fight and journalists, will be required to take their temperatures twice daily for 21 days and report the result to the state health department where they reside. “These new measure will give an additional level of safety,” said Dr. Tom Frieden, CDC director in a national media briefing. “We have to keep our guard up.” About 150 people are believed to travel to the U.S. daily from the three West African countries. The travelers already are having their temperatures taken when they leave Africa and when they arrive at certain U.S. airports.

It's nice to see them adding another layer i guess, in an "abundance of caution" lol But if 21 days isnt long enough for the virus to actually manifest it's symptoms.... as Some Research is saying... then it doesnt do enough, IMO. I underrstand that we are NOT in the middle of a huge outbreak in the US, but until the outbreak is contained in West Africa then we will continue tohave people coming here (and other countries) that are inevitably carrying the Virus.

While the 21 day quarantine value currently used may have arose from reasonable interpretation of early outbreak data, this work suggests a reconsideration is in order and that 21 days may not be sufficiently protective to public health. Further, outbreaks such as the current West Africa EBOV are presenting an opportunity for careful collection of data sufficient to revise and update (perhaps in an adaptive fashion) such recommendations.

I mean in reality no one REALLY knows 100% when it comes to the Ebolas or EVD, so why are so many people so confident they know what this is and isnt capable of?

A 21 day period for quarantine may result in the release of individuals with a 0.2 – 12% risk of release prior to full opportunity for the incubation to proceed.

Now I understand that those chances when you really think about it are low. But they are not zero. What happened to doing something out of "an abundance of caution"? Whats gonna happen when another one of Duncan's contacts, or the nurse' contacts starts showing symptoms outside of the 21 day period? How would they be treated if they DID start running a fever etc.... Since everyone gets sick, would they even THINK that it might be Ebola?

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:27 PM
Care kit. Geez.

Watching CNN on the Canadian attack, and noticed that they cut off the presser as the next reporter asked a question about this. Guess ebola's been knocked out of the number 1 slot.

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:28 PM
And meanwhile, they're free to roam around in the general population touching everything in sight, coughing, sneezing, etc? Not knowing if they have allergies, are coming down with a common cold or something worse?

And we're letting the general public's health be put on the backs of people whose medical knowledge could possibly be one step above the superstition level?


Has ANYone else seen anything coming out of the MSM about possible new Ebola patients ever since the minute the new Ebola czar was announced? I certainly haven't.

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:39 PM
The neighboring county, only a few miles away, has six people on "Ebola watch" because they shopped at the same bridal shop as Amber Vinson while she was in Ohio.

It's a little too close to home for me.

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:44 PM

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Care kit. Geez.

Watching CNN on the Canadian attack, and noticed that they cut off the presser as the next reporter asked a question about this. Guess ebola's been knocked out of the number 1 slot.

I noticed/laughed at this too. Back to you Wolf, hurry, the Czar is watching.

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:45 PM

edit on 123131p://bWednesday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:49 PM
a reply to: itswhatev

I think it's really the only viable option.. I think they should enforce self quarantine as well for those 21 days.

A travel ban would never work since someone could travel elsewhere, infect someone unwittingly and then that newly infected person could fly to the USA unimpeded ( people don't seem to understand that ), so this is the next 'best' thing...

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:06 PM
I was watching the presser too and rolled my eyes when they cut it off.

I don't trust this crap at all. Leave it to them to monitor their temp? Then what, they get sick, who's paying for their medical bills?

edit on 22-10-2014 by ValentineWiggin because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:34 PM
a reply to: signalfire

Yea ive noticed that aswell and posted in several threads about how it seems even though technically his job didnt start until "today"... as soon as he was named, suddenly everything changed. Atleast media-wise. I dont know that correlation really denotes causation in this circumstance.... I suppose it is just as logical that the "order" to get Ebola out of the media could have just as easily come from someone/somewhere else... It does seem, at least to me, that the media is now in an active attempt to get the Virus off the front page.

I dont know that the Travel Ban would really work any better though. There are always going to be those people that find another way. How many illegal immigrants do we have in this country from how many different countries? People will still find away, and i agree in some ways that it could possibly only make it harder to track.

I dont know how to best address this, and would hate to be in a position to have to make a call as to what to do. Thats for sure. I just think if we dont even have access to all the information- and im SURE we dont- that the officials do... but we can see issues with their procedures and recommendations, that are based on fact and not just assumptions..... surely they must be aware themselves?

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:41 PM
a reply to: miniatus

I agree on the Travel ban... But wouldnt the next "best" thing be to err on the side of caution? In West Africa they dont declare an area ebola-free until after i believe 40 or 42 days... thats not a trivial number. When you know that most people do show symptoms before 21 days, not ALL do. After 21 days you still have a 12% chance of showing symptoms. They arent even sure 100% when that chance goes to 0- from my understanding. But the rate does severely drop off after about 40 days...

So to me the next best thing would be to watch these people for at least that long... just to be sure. I understand Logistically that may be a problem, and a hassel, and take up a lot of money. But when you are forced to do something like that ... you find better, cheaper, easier ways of doing it. If nothing else chalk this up to preparing for the "real" epidemic. But dont let arrogant negligence on the part of officials, be the reason this becomes the "real" epidemic.

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:12 PM

"While the 21 day quarantine value currently used may have arose from reasonable interpretation of early outbreak data, this work suggests a reconsideration is in order and that 21 days may not be sufficiently protective to public health," he wrote. According to his calculations based on more recent data, Haas said that the risk was that as few as one person in 500 contacts exposed to the virus and as many as one in eight, could develop Ebola symptoms after the 21 days.

bold emphasis is mine

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:15 PM
21 days is plenty.
As long as the one being watched doesn't have a lethal, communicable disease that's little understood and politically volatile.

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:18 PM
This from the World Health Organization website:

Recent studies conducted in West Africa have demonstrated that 95% of confirmed cases have an incubation period in the range of 1 to 21 days; 98% have an incubation period that falls within the 1 to 42 day interval. WHO is therefore confident that detection of no new cases, with active surveillance in place, throughout this 42-day period means that an Ebola outbreak is indeed over.

Information on the World Health Organization website

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 04:18 PM
a reply to: itswhatev

I've been hearing report that it is 42 days and this is coming from people in the know.

new topics

top topics


log in