Obama - no quarantine of ebola HC workers

You don't let people who may have a disease with a 70% mortality rate fly around and potentially infect the world.

You don't tell people that the disease has a 70% mortality rate, requires BSL4 containment, and no cure and then expect them to accept the flying around the world.

Full stop.

a reply to: Phage

As I said in another thread.......

Any aid worker that wants to go help and cure Ebola should travel to where it is, isolate and eliminate it completely and upon clear verification it is eradicated 100%, put them in quarantine isolation for a minimum period - in that country.

Once you have been in quarantine for however long is takes for Ebola to take hold and you still check out 100%, then consider coming home.

I respect and admire your free will to assist, just as others exercise their free will to eliminate risk of contamination.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

You don't let people who may have a disease with a 70% mortality rate fly around and potentially infect the world.

What's the mortality rate in North America? You know, where we have health care and don't routinely bathe our dead?

You don't tell people that the disease has a 70% mortality rate, requires BSL4 containment, and no cure and then expect them to accept the flying around the world.

What's the mortality rate in North America again?

a reply to: Phage

Then the question becomes do we act proactively with such a deadly disease when we have these questions and err on the side of caution, or do we react and wait for something to happen?

I for one definitely do not trust healthcare workers who become symptomatic to put the safety of others before their own.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Any aid worker that wants to go help and cure Ebola should travel to where it is, isolate and eliminate it completely and upon clear verification it is eradicated 100%, put them in quarantine isolation for a minimum period - in that country

You are talking about a matter of years then. Under those conditions you will have no one, certain not enough to matter, volunteering to go and the epidemic will continue unabated, increasing the chance of it leaving west Africa.

I respect and admire your free will to assist, just as others exercise their free will to eliminate risk of contamination.

Quarantine does not accomplish that. It works for a house or a village, not a population of millions. Unless sufficient aid is provided in west Africa the risk of contamination cannot be eliminated.

a reply to: Phage
Irrelevant at this point. The subject in my statement is the disease. Inviting such a disease to just walk right in is reckless.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I for one definitely do not trust healthcare workers who become symptomatic to put the safety of others before their own.

That doesn't make much sense. You think that a health care worker who has seen ebola first hand will not immediately seek health care at the first indication of symptoms? Would you? "Oh, maybe it's just a cold." I wouldn't.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Inviting such a disease to just walk right in is reckless.

No one is doing that. Arrivals from the region are screened and monitored for the appearance of symptoms.

a reply to: Phage

So first you said quarantine is useless as only symptomatic persons are contagious and the symptoms can appear after more than 3 weeks but now you say it's all good because people are bein monitored for symptoms, which may appear well after they exit the airport

Straight up your tale

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I for one definitely do not trust healthcare workers who become symptomatic to put the safety of others before their own.

That doesn't make much sense. You think that a health care worker who has seen ebola first hand will not immediately seek health care at the first indication of symptoms? Would you? "Oh, maybe it's just a cold." I wouldn't.

I think if they believe their best shot at survival puts someone else at risk they are just as likely to put others in danger as anyone else. I would prefer the risk was simply removed. They should be given pleasant accommodations, and make the situation as pleasant as possible

a reply to: Phage

No one is doing that. Arrivals from the region are screened and monitored for the appearance of symptoms.

that's not a given for prevention, you yourself said that symptoms in 2% don't present until 42 days, also i shot that down with this post in the same thread.

here is a hypothetical.
if i'm not mistaken, i'll have to check. Laser/infrared thermometer have to be calibrated. let's say that in the screening process due to over use or what ever reason the thermometer loses it's accuracy. and that for some reason or another ( you pick one, people don't know, it's not routine to do it, people are just lazy or any thing else you can think of). we know people will lie, and they say they feel fine and not feverish, they check it with that thermometer, hell let say that no one lies and they use one that lost accuracy, what you gonna say then.
My Post

a reply to: Indigent

So first you said quarantine is useless as only symptomatic persons are contagious and the symptoms can appear after more than 3 weeks but now you say it's all good because people are bein monitored for symptoms, which may appear well after they exit the airport

There is no contradiction. I said there is no point in quarantining those who have no symptoms. If symptoms present then isolation is called for because it is then that a patient starts to become contagious.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sublimecraft

The most prudent approach is elimination of risk, a fundamental of which is to eliminate individuals from leaving the country of the diseases' origin.

How do we prevent people from leaving their countries?
You want to sentence health care workers to remain in Liberia?

In this instance, the human rights of the collective far outweigh the human rights of the individual.

In this case fear and ignorance is the prime motivation. Ebola is epidemic in west Africa not because it is easily transmitted but because of the low level of health care and certain cultural practices. Practices which would encourage the spread of any disease spread by contact with the body fluids of infected individuals.

So explain how medical professional not only contracted it there in Liberia, but here as well. Seems we're falling to 3rd world status every day Obama is in office.

a reply to: Phage

While I agree, I believe our definition of "contagious" might need some fine tuning.

Since we have a family who lived with an infected man, and didn't get it, and then we have health care workers in protective gear who did get it, it's obvious we don't yet have the answers to a comfortable degree of certainty.

a reply to: Phage
Mortality rate shouldn't be affected by those things. Infection rate would....but I would think the percentage that would die would still be in that range.

Edit:wow my brain is off haha. Anyways the washing the dead wouldn't affect it. Health care maybe...but it seems like the health care people helping I'm Africa aren't doing too much differently.

Also...If the mortality rate here is so much lower that is a sad testament to the state of humanity where we have the means to reduce deaths in Africa. ..but don't. ..

a reply to: Phage

But you make sound as screening the arrivals is meaningful when in reality someone can develop symptoms well after.

but at the same time quarantine is meaningless becouse they got no symptoms yet, I fail to see the no contradiction part

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think if they believe their best shot at survival puts someone else at risk they are just as likely to put others in danger as anyone else.

What's their best shot at survival? Isn't it to seek immediate care?

I would prefer the risk was simply removed.

The risk is not removed.

They should be given pleasant accommodations, and make the situation as pleasant as possible

And those who tend to them in that pleasant situation?

The king has spoken, and a loyal royal subject obeys..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Indigent

But you make sound as screening the arrivals is meaningful when in reality someone can develop symptoms well after.

It is meaningful. It means those with symptoms will be isolated.

but at the same time quarantine is meaningless becousemtheymgot no symptoms yet, I fail to see the no contradiction part

That's probably because you don't know the difference between being contagious and not being contagious.

a reply to: ausername

probably told him there would be no space in the bunker for him if he didn't.