It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Ebola Quarantines: USA taking away civil rights one person at a time?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Maine Officials Fail to Reach Compromise With Nurse Over Ebola Quarantine

Kaci Hickox, the nurse who worked in West Africa for "Doctors without Borders" to give aid to Ebola patients continues to refuse what some state officials insist is a mandatory 21 day quarantine period for anyone who is known to have had direct contact with someone with Ebola. She felt the need to hire a civil rights lawyer because of the threat to her freedom.

Her take on a bad situation:




“So many states have started enacting these policies that I think are just completely not evidence-based,” Ms. Hickox said Wednesday.
“They don’t do a good job of balancing the risks and benefits when thinking about taking away an individual’s rights.”

“I am not going to sit around and be bullied by politicians and forced to stay in my home when I am not a risk to the American public,” she said Wednesday.


Interestingly, in the comments at the link someone said: "How can you force someone into quarantine when they're not sick and they have tested negative? It's like putting someone in jail because they might commit a crime."

Would it be better for all of us if the people in her position just conform to the 21 day quarantine? Or are state governments being unreasonable?




posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

Anyone who has been to Africa is a threat. Quarantine everyone. That's what people will say from fear and ignorance.

Just ask NJ.
m1.marketwatch.com...

Americans are begging constantly for a police state.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

That headline is kinda ridiculous. How long would it take to take everyone's civil rights away one at a time?

I am a huge advocate of personal liberty, but there is a public health interest that in this case trumps individual liberties. It has the potential to kill a LOT of citizens. It's not like people are being thrown in jail or anything, and if employers retaliate against quarantined employees, well then I'd say the ACLU could step in at that point.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
She's such a tool. Why hasn't she been arrested yet?

She's no humanitarian doing this. Someone's taking advantage of her need to be in front of the camera.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Mr.Duncan the only Ebola death was with his family for three days after being sent home.

They said he was puking everywhere.

Nobody in his family. Who were in very close quarters got sick.

Then he infected two Dallas nurses in hazmat suits.

I think if she self monitors it will be fine.

Sounds like you have to be sick for some time before becoming contagious.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Suspected Ebola case in Finland are said to be an citizen of United States. I am quite curious as the patient got symptoms after 21 days, did he arrived to Finland directly from Liberia ( Well Finland do not have direct flights to West Africa ) has the patient been here or did he/she came here from United States.. plot thickens

Link in Finnish

maybe hospitals in US are full by now and they are sending patients to us.. ( sarcastic grin)

More about this case Link

edit on 30-10-2014 by dollukka because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Here's my take on it - Every person who keeps animals knows that if you have a healthy population and you bring a new animal into the group, you need to make sure the new animal is healthy before allowing it to mix with your established healthy group. This holds true for all animals from the smallest to the most largest and smartest and most independent.

This is especially true if you suspect that your new individual may have come from a group harboring a deadly disease that cannot be effectively treated if it's brought into your group.

The sensible route is to keep that new individual isolated from the rest for a period of time to make sure any illnesses have time to manifest themselves away from the others.

This used to be what they did at Ellis Island. It's what our own military is doing today. It's what Australia is taking steps to do for their entire country. It is not inhumane and it's only a stripping of rights if those rights do not come back after the quarantine period is served.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I actually support this nurse. Clearly she is doing this to set a precedent. I respect that. If she isn't sick and has tested negative then she should be able to go about her life. The way she was treated after returning home from such honorable service to others is appalling. She has guts. I support her.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: AmethystWolf
I actually support this nurse. Clearly she is doing this to set a precedent. I respect that. If she isn't sick and has tested negative then she should be able to go about her life. The way she was treated after returning home from such honorable service to others is appalling. She has guts. I support her.


Support her enough to put her up in your home?

I don't support her at all. Our health care professionals don't have a good track record so far. Spencer came back and ran all over the place because he felt fine, too, until he didn't and then he bowled, rode the subway, etc., while he was sick.

What you don't understand is that it takes very little for there to be a sustained outbreak, and we don't know what it will take to truly overwhelm the medical system. If that happens, we're pretty quickly in the same pit West Africa is in. I'd be all over medical professionals self-quarantining. In fact, I'd prefer it. Except they haven't shown themselves to be capable of it. And with this disease, there just hasn't been enough study for us to really know much of anything about it. Not enough for me to say, she's fine!



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
this isnt a civil rights thing
it is about respect for your country and the people whom live in it.
She needs to quarantine her self, all she is doing is acting defiant and it is sending the wrong message in the face of any potential epidemic that tells people to act selfishly.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
She doesn't have Ebola. Why should she be quarantined? So by the arguments you guys are using we should quarantine anyone who comes from any other country. They might have diseases.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
What you don't understand is that it takes very little for there to be a sustained outbreak...

Please elaborate what you mean by "very little." Are you still talking about human beings like we are no different from animals?


...we don't know what it will take to truly overwhelm the medical system. If that happens, we're pretty quickly in the same pit West Africa is in. I'd be all over medical professionals self-quarantining. In fact, I'd prefer it. Except they haven't shown themselves to be capable of it. And with this disease, there just hasn't been enough study for us to really know much of anything about it. Not enough for me to say, she's fine!


Nobody will argue with the rule of thumb that says: Better to be safe than sorry. But in the case of Hickox, she tested negative and has no symptoms. What's there to be "safe" about? Are you saying that even when the available evidence says all is well we should still be assuming someone is still a threat? (If they only did this with prescription drug testing we might actually have safe use of prescription drugs.)

We can talk all day about Ebola being such a dangerous disease with some estimates as high as 70% chance of death, but the question at hand is: When is the quarantine actually justified? You seem to think all it takes is that you were in the vicinity of someone with the illness and then 21 days of your life are justifiably lost to isolation.


originally posted by: Lil Drummerboy
this isnt a civil rights thing
it is about respect for your country and the people whom live in it.

I'm weary of people coming out with the excuse: There are people dying from this RIGHT NOW, and we have to do everything we can to stop it. Quarantine of a person who does not test positive and has no symptoms is not based on a scientific rationale. It's based on fear, and it's based on mistrust, especially among political officials:

Why We're Holding an Ebola Nurse Hostage

A "responsible" authority is not only the one that strong arms a mandatory quarantine in the absence of sufficient evidence for it. If Ebola was a true airborne illness I could understand the need for mandatory quarantine of someone who tests negative and has no symptoms. But the closest it comes to being airborne is through droplets from coughing and sneezing and possibly (but this is not conclusive) through sweat only when the person is symptomatic.



edit on -05:00America/Chicago31Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:18:31 -0500201431312 by Petros312 because: Format



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I agree with you and Lil Drummerboy. We seem to live in a society now where everything goes, everything is ok. Everything is not ok. The doctor thought he was fine too and he wasn't. Common sense, you should be quarantined. If it were me, I wouldn't be foolish or selfish enough to risk other peoples lives.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Night Star
a reply to: ketsuko
Common sense, you should be quarantined. If it were me, I wouldn't be foolish or selfish enough to risk other peoples lives.

I'm not attacking you, just trying to understand your language.

How could it possibly be "common sense" to quarantine somebody with no signs of an illness that is not spread as an airborne illness? --Or is this the problem: People who support the quarantine do not trust the evidence that suggests Ebola can only be spread through direct contact with bodily fluids of a person who is in a symptomatic stage? The people who were NOT infected by Thomas Duncan is evidence that supports this.


edit on -05:00America/Chicago31Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:26:17 -0500201417312 by Petros312 because: Clarification



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

People with Duncan has mysteriously vanished. Where are they, why they are not showing up?
People believe when they see.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

I'm saying that all it takes is for one person to get sick in the wrong place, at the wrong time and for enough others to get sick to create more patients than can safely be handled by our system. Then those who are sick create more who are sick. You should know how this works.

And as for likening people to animals ... We are biological organisms just like every other animal on the planet. We all get sick in much the same manner. Just because we are human does not make us immune to the realities of infectious disease and how it works, and the harsh truth is that when faced with a contagion we have no good medical answer for, we have to separate the sick from the healthy and part of that process involves quarantining those individuals we don't know about until we do know.

And part of the reason why you do hold someone in quarantine isn't because they are sick. It's because they might be. An otherwise healthy seeming individual can be in an incubation period and otherwise seem perfectly healthy with no outward signs of infection. That infection can manifest itself with little or no warning depending on the disease, or it can be so subtle in its manifestation that the individual does not at first realize they are sick (and contagious) until they've been ill (and contagious) for quite a while. Ebola tends to follow the second course as it did in Dr. Spencer who went bowling and road public transit in NY while ill or nurse Vinson who flew on public airliners and spent time with her family and fiancé in Cleveland before flying again ... while ill.

Now, when someone who seems healthy and isn't doesn't quarantine themselves because they insist they show no symptom and are thus healthy and then ... OOPS! they really aren't, it isn't just themselves who pays for it. All the other people who might have been exposed to them also pay. The authorities have to try to track their activity, and they have to hope they can find every single person who might possibly get sick. All those people are now in the unenviable position of needing to spend 21 days quarantined thanks to the individual above who didn't see the need because they were sure they weren't sick and ... OOPS! And, even worse, there is also the potential ... say for someone who road that subway in NY after Dr. Spencer and happened to just have the perfect storm of events to now be getting sick and not even know what they have until it's too late for them to have a hope of recovery and they could infect who knows how many because they might not come for treatment until they are desperately ill.

Is that likely? No, but it's also possible because Dr. Spencer let that door open when he wouldn't simply stay home.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

It can only be spread through bodily fluid, yes, but it's also highly contagious through that bodily fluid.

Someone with a fever can sweat and that sweat on a subway pole can be picked up on someone else's hand. That hand finds it's way to that person's eye or nose or mouth ... now someone else has Ebola.

Nurse Vinson with Ebola sprinkles when she tinkles. Someone else sits on it. They now have infectious fluid on them and their clothing, possibly their hands.

Fluid transfer happens far more often than you think in the course of your everyday life. Just because this thing isn't airborne like a flu doesn't mean they shouldn't quarantine. This is also something that can kill with about 50% lethality, too. Are you really asking people to take on that chance so that people like Hickox and Spencer can live it up?



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lil Drummerboy
this isnt a civil rights thing
it is about respect for your country and the people whom live in it.
She needs to quarantine her self, all she is doing is acting defiant and it is sending the wrong message in the face of any potential epidemic that tells people to act selfishly.

This same attitude goes for motor vehicles. Imagine driving intoxicated when you KNOW you shouldn't be. On the way home you hit a car pretty badly but yours is still drivable and you flee the scene. Next morning you see on the news the death of two children involved in a hit and run accident. Only THEN will the grief stab you like a thousand knives in the heart, forever reminding you about the wrong choice you consciously made. All you had to do was possibly wait a few hours.

Help me understand something, she is not sick and tested negative right? So she would only be quarantining to rule out the incubation period?
edit on 30-10-2014 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312


How could it possibly be "common sense" to quarantine somebody with no signs of an illness that is not spread as an airborne illness?


It takes time for the illness to show up. Wasn't there a person who tested negative and became sick after? I don't know, there have been so many threads on this I can't keep track of what's what. LOL



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Ebola Quarantines: USA taking away civil rights one person at a time?

No.

Quarantines are finite. As is isolation if quarantine proves that a person becomes symptomatic.

Fail to use the quarantine protocol early and let something like ebola get out of control, and then you may see what the real taking away of civil rights looks like.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join