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.
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 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 again?
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.
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.
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
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.
I respect and admire your free will to assist, just as others exercise their free will to eliminate risk of contamination.
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 for one definitely do not trust healthcare workers who become symptomatic to put the safety of others before their own.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
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 for one definitely do not trust healthcare workers who become symptomatic to put the safety of others before their own.
No one is doing that. Arrivals from the region are screened and monitored for the appearance of symptoms.
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
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.
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
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.
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 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.
In this instance, the human rights of the collective far outweigh the human rights of the individual.
What's their best shot at survival? Isn't it to seek immediate care?
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.
The risk is not removed.
I would prefer the risk was simply removed.
And those who tend to them in that pleasant situation?
They should be given pleasant accommodations, and make the situation as pleasant as possible
It is meaningful. It means those with symptoms will be isolated.
But you make sound as screening the arrivals is meaningful when in reality someone can develop symptoms well after.
That's probably because you don't know the difference between being contagious and not being contagious.
but at the same time quarantine is meaningless becousemtheymgot no symptoms yet, I fail to see the no contradiction part