NY, NJ Order Ebola Quarantine for Doctors, Others

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Sorry - still recovering from too many drugs for an angio. Feeling off and a bit pissy. Tired of being accused of "stealing" story ideas, fear mongering etc. Thought that's what you were doing. Over-reacted.

....It's an old issue - but how DO we balance seeking safety in an unsafe world with preserving our individual rights and freedoms?

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Sorry - still recovering from too many drugs for an angio. Feeling off and a bit pissy. Tired of being accused of "stealing" story ideas, fear mongering etc. Thought that's what you were doing. Over-reacted.

....It's an old issue - but how DO we balance seeking safety in an unsafe world with preserving our individual rights and freedoms?

Thanks. That didn't sound like you and I didn't mean for it to sound or be accusatory in any way, trust me, it wasn't. I just honestly thought you might be interested in the origins/timeline.

As to the question, balance includes risk analysis and acceptance or non-acceptance of such risk, with mitigation plans if risk is assumed.

Sacrificing a few rights (if rights are really even what it is at this point) for the short term (say until the crisis is over or under control) may be something people are willing to do, particularly if it is done transparently and with explanation, and particularly where there is in fact choice (to travel or not to travel) involved. The people aiding those in other places, if they so choose, should also know that might come with risks or additional time.

Short term sacrifice for overall benefit is a concept we seem to have forgotten about. Plus I kind of like my right to be protected from this potential scurge. I think the governors are making the right choice. Might be too late or not enough but it's a start.

Wish you a speedy recovery too...

a reply to: soficrow

Hey,

I get what you are saying. I feel that most people who say "oh you are spreading fear pron" are retarded. Its not like their efforts are going to do anything but make people careless around a very dangerous disease. I dont care if things are exaggerated. If the risk exists at all we should err on the side of caution. No one is advocating the end of the world, just to be F-ing careful so we dont spread a mortal disease and an epidemic to our countries.

It is usually done to feel like a bad ass and pretend you dont fear anything. These people are the first to not hug people, shake hands or will even go out of their way not to get infected like avoiding riding a subway.

They even call you a coward for having a human reaction. Its pathetic.

Everyone should be damn careful until we have a handle on the situation, which if they bothered to look up on, WE DONT. 40% of all infections and deaths have happened recently. This virus is starting to boom. Its not better, it worse. MUCH WORSE. SO now is the time to be damned careful. NOT doing so and thinking that its not that dangerous has killed thousands and all the experts say that is only the tip of the ice burg. Not politicians or people selling a war, scientists, doctors, crisis coordinators and epidemiologists, this is who is urging caution officially. Its about to explode in terribleness. Urging caution is EXACTLY what we should do.

The procedures and protocols to avoid mass contamination arent being followed. You saw the clean up crew for the Doctors apartment in NYC? How many arent using bio suits or gloves in Africa? How many people here are completely dismissing this whole issue?

That is exactly the conditions that started this epidemic. Exactly. People didnt believe it, or value its potential because all the material says its NOT contagious...ect. That is retarded. It is not easy to get if you wear basic hospital gear and follow basic protocol...do you walk around with that and do those things? No. You dont.

It is not easy to get, but its very contagious. VERY. Having exposed skin is a huge mistake. Some average douche with no protection has a high probability of infection if he is around an infected person long enough or even unlucky enough to touch things he has. Hands sweat too...and skin isnt enough to protect. Also this virus stays alive for hours on surfaces. Longer if its cold out.

All that tells me that throwing caution to the wind is down right criminal. Anyone saying "naaa relax" is a retard. Major health organizations arent saying that and I think they are a better source. Parroting what politicians say isnt usually on point either.

Good on you for urging people to get informed.

Well, have a good one.
Be safe.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

....As to the question, balance includes risk analysis and acceptance or non-acceptance of such risk, with mitigation plans if risk is assumed.

Sacrificing a few rights (if rights are really even what it is at this point) for the short term (say until the crisis is over or under control) may be something people are willing to do, particularly if it is done transparently and with explanation, and particularly where there is in fact choice (to travel or not to travel) involved. The people aiding those in other places, if they so choose, should also know that might come with risks or additional time.

Short term sacrifice for overall benefit is a concept we seem to have forgotten about. Plus I kind of like my right to be protected from this potential scurge. I think the governors are making the right choice. Might be too late or not enough but it's a start.

Thanks. ....Nice thoughts, good overview - especially about choices. I agree that if a person chooses to be exposed, then accepting isolation/quarantine on their return can and should be part of the package. But taking the idea further, what happens if exposure did not result from personal choice? What if masses are exposed, and given that mass quarantine is proved not to work? How do we handle that?

I think talking about loss of liberties, in regards to health care workers is not relevant. It falls into the category of "your rights end where mine begin". Health care workers have the right to volunteer to help the sick wherever they may be. We as citizens have the right to insist they be quarantined (for our safety) for a reasonable number of days (incubation period). As far as whether health care workers will volunteer if they are required to be quarantined upon return .... I think they have proven they are willing to expose themselves to a possibly fatal disease in order to help others. I don't think a quarantine will phase them much.

a reply to: Khaleesi

Yes, we handled that. But there's more...

What happens if exposure did not result from personal choice? What if masses are exposed, and given that mass quarantine is proved not to work? How do we handle that? Is maintaining peoples' personal rights and freedoms an issue, or not? (Thinking FEMA camps here.)

Specifically, what if YOU might have been exposed while shopping and you were forced into a FEMA camp with Ebola-infected patients?

a reply to: tadaman

...You saw the clean up crew for the Doctors apartment in NYC? How many arent using bio suits or gloves in Africa? How many people here are completely dismissing this whole issue?

Great post. Thanks. ...Just one thing re: the NYC clean-up crew - those guys should have removed their contaminated suits after leaving the apartment and before coming out into the public street. What's happening in West Africa, and their shortages, is a different issue.

But you're right - we cannot, should not minimize the dangers. However, we have to be equally careful not to tip over in the other direction - else we will be manipulated by our fears. Again.

a reply to: soficrow

"Mass quarantine is proved not to work" is something I don't know that much about. If mass means throwing everyone in a room together and hoping for the best, well I guess that wouldn't be a great idea. But if it's done

And it in fact may even give us some more insight into communicability and timings and symptoms and the timing of symptoms, which, as you are well aware, we have sort of a handle on but is still very much a guessing game given that the baseline of all victims is not complete.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Eeeuww! I agree we don't know enough - but quarantining masses of innocent people to use as guinea pigs to "give us some more insight into communicability and timings and symptoms and the timing of symptoms." Eeeuw! I cannot get with that program. Although I do agree that may be the plan with West Africa, already being implemented.

a reply to: soficrow
Well, this was assuming that they'd be in quarantine anyway, and it would be a side benefit.

Just trying to stay positive.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Ah. ...I'm asking you to think beyond isolating/quarantining returning health workers to a worse case scenario - an outbreak here. As I asked Khaleesi - What happens if exposure did not result from personal choice? What if masses are exposed, and given that mass quarantine is proved not to work? How do we handle that? Is maintaining peoples' personal rights and freedoms an issue, or not? (Thinking FEMA camps here.)

Specifically, what if YOU might have been exposed while shopping and you were forced into a FEMA camp with Ebola-infected patients?

a reply to: soficrow
Some assumptions here...as stated before...even if masses were exposed, it would still be in stages and there would be initial options. Even given that...

1. They would not throw everyone into one room...the infected and simply potentially infected alike, There would be separation by symptoms/stage. Exposing potentially infected to infected would be idiocy.

2. If people who are potentially infected are not trustworthy to maintain at-home isolation and then removal if/when infected, here might be enough patrolling capability to help enforce this. But it has to be organized.

3. If it got so bad that people were being thrown immediately into places like FEMA camps due to there being no other options, people probably wouldn't be caring as much about rights and freedoms, or given resistance to such, would take matters into their own hands, a la Walking Dead style.

It's a lot of what ifs and very situational. And much of it depends on how we set up and how capable we are of handling it, how we communicate it in an understandable way, and how much people are willing to trust and cooperate.

There would be fear for sure, and probably violence. But if there is a clear, concise plan with rules that are easy to understand and carry out, we could lessen the impact.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

1. They would not throw everyone into one room...the infected and simply potentially infected alike, There would be separation by symptoms/stage. Exposing potentially infected to infected would be idiocy.

But that's exactly what mass quarantine entails. And there ARE powerful people pushing for that, not just a bunch of panicked tweeter-tweakers.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: soficrow

Well THANK GOD!

This is the best news I have heard all day. I feel a little better. If they wanted to avoid hysteria, things like these will do the trick.

THANK YOU, thank you thank you.

EDIT TO ADD:
People who really go to "help" in Africa wouldnt come back yet if there is still a crisis to avert. When those people who really go to help do come back they would self quarantine if it wasnt asked of them. If they were interested in ending this epidemic they wouldnt risk spreading it. The people who want to go on "Ebola tours" as you put it wouldnt be affected by this. Its not unreasonable to mandate this. If they are offended by being inconvenienced by this I would really like to know what exactly they did in Africa. This is basic stuff.

The doctor in New York should have self quarantine "before" getting on a plane.it should have been one of the first things put in place when this all started make it mandatory for those volunteering to self quarantine before flying home... all that were exposed to the virus.....nah that would make too much sense

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Khaleesi

Yes, we handled that. But there's more...

What happens if exposure did not result from personal choice? What if masses are exposed, and given that mass quarantine is proved not to work? How do we handle that? Is maintaining peoples' personal rights and freedoms an issue, or not? (Thinking FEMA camps here.)

Specifically, what if YOU might have been exposed while shopping and you were forced into a FEMA camp with Ebola-infected patients?

I responded specifically to the OP.

originally posted by: soficrow



Automatic quarantine for medical workers returning to New York and New Jersey from the Ebola-riddled countries in West Africa if they had direct contact with an infected person. Sounds sensible to me. Still no news from the feds though.

Such quarantine measures might affect peoples' willingness to volunteer for an "Ebola tour, but it's the safest way to go.

What do you think?

New quarantine rules considered for aid workers returning to U.S. from Ebola-stricken region

The federal government is considering altering the protocols for doctors and health-care workers who return to the United States from West Africa, authorities said Friday.

....as federal officials consider a possible change, authorities in the New York area announced that they would take more immediate action. Medical personnel returning to New York and New Jersey from the Ebola-riddled countries in West Africa will be automatically quarantined if they had direct contact with an infected person, officials announced Friday.

I did not realize the goal post for your thread had been moved and we were no longer allowed to respond to the OP. Please disregard any further posts from me referring to the OP.

Khaleesi out!

a reply to: soficrow

it would be quite a scary prospect to come back to mandatory quarantine.....especially with the fear that those quarantining you would feel ...i think this will deter people from dealing with ebola in the first place...

and how effective are the quarantine units ?...will the quarantine staff fear a quarantine of their own ?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Talk about nightmares getting real. This is NOT OKAY. Nurse Kaci Hickox was 'made to feel like criminal' and kept prisoner. She was detained at Newark airport with no explanation, questioned for hours, then kept in isolation at the airport terminal for seven hours and given only a cereal bar to eat. She did NOT have a fever. What happened here, the way it happened, is JUST WRONG.

Think ahead folks. God forbid Ebola comes to America. But if it does, and policy is set by fear, in fear, this is what will happen to YOU. Your children. Your family. Your friends.

I hereby withdraw my support for NY, NJ and Illinois quarantine policies for returning health workers.

A nurse put into isolation on her return from treating patients in Sierra Leone expressed anger at the way she was dealt with at Newark airport.

Kaci Hickox, of medical charity Doctors Without Borders, said the experience was frightening, and described seeing a "frenzy of disorganisation, fear and most frightening, quarantine".

She said she was kept in isolation at the airport terminal for seven hours and given only a cereal bar to eat.

….Hickox is a nurse who had been working with Doctors Without Borders in Sierra Leone. Officials said she was taken to a hospital after developing a fever, but Hickox said she was merely flushed because she was upset by the process.

…."Coercive measures like mandatory quarantine of people exhibiting no symptoms of Ebola and when not medically necessary raise serious constitutional concerns about the state abusing its powers," said Udi Ofer, executive director of the ACLU of New Jersey.

Doctors Without Borders said Hickox has not been issued an order of quarantine specifying how long she must be isolated and is being kept in an unheated tent. It urged the "fair and reasonable treatment" of health workers fighting the Ebola outbreak.

Ebola nurse 'made to feel like criminal' on return to US
Kaci Hickox tests negative but stays in New Jersey isolation
ACLU raises concerns over ‘abuse of police powers’

….Hickox, a volunteer nurse with Doctors Without Borders, was stopped at Newark airport in New Jersey, where she told an immigration official she had travelled from Sierra Leone. She endured several hours of questioning from officials wearing protective coveralls, gloves, masks and face shields. Her temperature was taken, and registered 98F. Then, she said, her temperature was taken a second time.

“Four hours after I landed at the airport, an official approached me with a forehead scanner. My cheeks were flushed, I was upset at being held with no explanation. The scanner recorded my temperature as 101,” she wrote.

Hickox said she was left alone in a room for another three hours before being taken to the hospital, where her temperature was again recorded. This time it was 98.6F.

“I sat alone in the isolation tent and thought of many colleagues who will return home to America and face the same ordeal,” she wrote. “Will they be made to feel like criminals and prisoners?”

….Doctors Without Borders, known internationally as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), has warned against a mandatory quarantine on medics returning from Ebola-stricken countries, saying it would be an “excessive measure”.

….Guidelines set out by MSF state that returning medics should stay within four hours of a hospital with isolation facilities, but do not require that they avoid crowds so long as they do not display symptoms.

“As long as a returned staff member does not experience any symptoms, normal life can proceed,” the organisation says. “Family, friends, and neighbors can be assured that a returned staff person who does not present symptoms is not contagious and does not put them at risk. Self-quarantine is neither warranted nor recommended when a person is not displaying Ebola-like symptoms.”

….De Blasio told the same press conference that American medical professionals helping to tackle the outbreak in west Africa “are the people who will end this crisis”. He said: “We have to make sure that that flow of medical personnel can continue.”

…. the CDC had tightened its monitoring requirements for those arriving in the US from the three west African countries hardest hit by the outbreak. The new monitoring system goes into effect on Monday in six states – New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey and Georgia – and will eventually be expanded across the country.

The new (CDC) guidelines will require anyone who flies from Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea ­– regardless of whether they are exhibiting symptoms – to check in daily with state and local health officials. They will be required to report their temperatures and the any appearance of Ebola-like symptoms, such as severe headaches, fatigue and diarrhoea. They will also be required to consult with health officials if they need, or want, to travel.

~ sofi

a reply to: soficrow

You know sofi, it doesn't matter what the government do, people will complain anyway, or will find a way to complain, I disagree with that nurse complain, perhaps next time she will stay home rather than running to ebola infected nations.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: soficrow

You know sofi, it doesn't matter what the government do, people will complain anyway, or will find a way to complain, I disagree with that nurse complain, perhaps next time she will stay home rather than running to ebola infected nations.

Oh dear. You do know that if the Ebola epidemic is not stopped in West Africa, it will go global, right? And it cannot be stopped without trained volunteers right? And there's LOTS of other traffic from there, for example corporate employees in the blood diamond trade, gold, oil.....