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

Here's why states don't trust voluntary Ebola quarantines

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 11:18 AM

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ~Lucidity
California's rules are quite different from those of New York and New Jersey. It is not a matter of "You were in Liberia, you are going into quarantine" like it is in those states.

Instead, county health agencies will assess the threat to public health posed by each individual and "tailor an appropriate level of quarantine as needed," state officials said in a press statement. The order was described as a "flexible, case-by-case approach."

That is no different. The case-by-case approach is still the same. It's not as if NY/NJ were quarantining everyone on the flights. Just those at risk. Same as California.

posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 11:24 AM
a reply to: ~Lucidity

That is no different. The case-by-case approach is still the same. It's not as if NY/NJ were quarantining everyone on the flights. Just those at risk. Same as California.
No. The rules for both New York and New Jersey required that anyone who had been in an infected region be put under quarantine. Cuomo saw a bit of reason and has relaxed that to say that anyone who had been in contact with an ebola patient must be quarantined. Christie has not. Neither has provisions for a case by case approach.

edit on 10/30/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 11:54 AM
a reply to: Phage

Phage. In NY/NJ, it was never anyone who had been in an infected region. That's pure drama of the Kaci Hickox ilk.

It was always anyone who treated or had contact with ebola patients.

What Cuomo backed down about and relaxed was where the quarantine would be, at a site vs. at home.

posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 11:57 AM
Just as I said above.

The fed isn't prepared or savvy, so the states have to do it, as it should be.

But they the fed throws a little hissy fit because they have been shown to be inept. What did they really think was going to happen?

But again, the fed should step in 1.) only in a nationwide crisis and 2.) only when asked to by the states. I don't recalling anyone asking them to step in.

An ongoing behind-the-scenes skirmish between the White House and state governors on how best to handle Ebola cases is becoming even more convoluted as several states announce they are following New York and New Jersey in ordering quarantines and other precautions that go well beyond federal guidelines -- and run contrary to Obama administration recommendations. [Source]

posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 09:21 PM
Well now isn't this interesting.

White House 'does not support' Kaci Hickox's flouting of Ebola quarantine

The White House said on Thursday that it did not support the decision by a nurse in Maine to flout the voluntary quarantine imposed upon her by state authorities concerned about her exposure to Ebola.

A spokesman for Barack Obama said that it was up to states to set their own public health rules, although he believed they should be guided by science.

Guided by science instead of say, voodoo? (Oh I get it...fear, hysteria, which I've seen relatively little of, or maybe the unknown parts of science that experts can't even agree on, right?)

This might be a sign of them finally realizing that the Constitution is on the states's side in this?

I guess the lawsuit against Maine is coming from her and her growing arsenal of lawyers. Could this be overturned?

State Quarantine and Isolation Statutes

ETA: Here's the thing.

The U.S. federal government is not in charge of state statutes and policies that can vary based on risk and situation. A state with reported cases or potential cases or international airports should be able to invoke the enforcement of existing statutes and state health department practices. After a careful risk analysis. Please states can act FASTER.

I believe that the federal government is overstepping here. They are clearly more concerned about their humanitarian policy...or something than the safety of the people. And no blanket guidelines/statutes/whatever they come up with in their slow (by definition) and bumbling overpoliticized, overappeased way is going to be very effective, even if it's not too late.

ETA from my post in other thread: The Constitution gives states the authority to protect the public and public health and the power to pass laws to this end, which (ahem) they have. These laws happen to include quarantine when needed. These lawyers and/or the president/white hours might try to overrid states' actions for their own reasons, by, say, throwing a hissy fit or proclaiming it a security threat, or encouraging a whiny nurse, but that probably won't fly in the courts. I'd be shocked (and more than a little angry) if it did.

edit on 10/30/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in