Ebola

Ebola Emergencies and Questionable Quarantines

Crying "disease" does not justify forcible isolation of asymptomatic health care workers.

|

In a 1993 decision upholding the involuntary hospitalization of a Newark man with tuberculosis, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Donald Goldman noted that "the claim of 'disease' in a domestic setting has the same kind of power as the claim of 'national security' in matters relating to foreign policy." Goldman's point is worth keeping in mind as states such as New York and New Jersey implement quarantine policies that most experts view as a panicky overreaction to the potential threat posed by medical workers returning from Africa after treating Ebola patients.

Abuse of the authority to restrict liberty in the name of disease control, Goldman wrote, "is of special concern when the other interest involved is the confinement of a human being who has committed no crime except to be sick." We should be even more vigilant when the people whom the government seeks to confine are neither sick nor contagious.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie initially claimed that Kaci Hickox, the nurse who last Friday became the first person to be forcibly isolated under that state's new policy, was "obviously ill." But by Monday, when Hickox was released from University Hospital in Newark after repeatedly registering a normal temperature and testing negative for Ebola, Christie had to concede she was not sick, meaning she currently poses no threat to other people.

Hickox was nevertheless sent back to Maine, where she lives, for three weeks of home confinement. The same fate awaits other health care workers who arrive in New Jersey or New York after interacting with Ebola patients.

In an open letter to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, more than 100 AIDS activists, clinicians, scientists, and academics urge him to reconsider that requirement, which they say is medically unjustified and counterproductive, since it is apt to deter health care workers from going to Africa, where they are desperately needed to help control Ebola at its source. "There is no evidence that indicates quarantines are superior to active monitoring for symptoms with respect to preventing transmission of [Ebola]," they write.

That observation could be legally significant, since courts often ask whether a public health intervention is "the least restrictive alternative." They also commonly demand "clear and convincing evidence" that a person whom the government seeks to confine poses a threat to the public.

In the 1993 New Jersey case, for example, Judge Goldman emphasized that the TB patient was actively contagious, that he had repeatedly failed to comply with treatment, and that he was homeless, which in the judge's view made confinement to a hospital the least restrictive alternative. Asymptomatic health care workers such as Kaci Hickox are not contagious, and they should be highly motivated to comply with monitoring protocols. Furthermore, the Ebola virus, unlike the tuberculosis bacillus, is not transmitted by air.

Those factors should weigh in favor of a legal challenge to excessively stringent Ebola quarantine policies. Yet most commentators seem to think such a challenge, which Hickox threatened to bring, is unlikely to succeed.

"Being physically confined by the government feels like a fundamental violation," writes CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos. "But it's rarely a legal violation." Northwestern University law professor Eugene Kontorovich reports that he "found no cases in which a quarantine has been lifted [on] due process grounds," although "there have been some successful challenges to conditions of quarantine."

Then again, when was the last time state governments sought to quarantine an entire class of asymptomatic, noncontagious people? "I'm very worried about it," said Georgetown University law professor Lawrence Gostin, who signed the open letter to Cuomo, in an interview with The New York Times. "And I'm one who thinks that we should always privilege public health. I'm not a civil libertarian."

As Gostin's concerns demonstrate, conceding that force can be justified in preventing the spread of communicable disease does not mean it always is. And if the courts do not step in when it isn't, who will? 

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: Bananas

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Goldman’s point is worth keeping in mind as states such as New York and New Jersey implement quarantine policies that most experts view as a panicky overreaction to the potential threat posed by medical workers returning from Africa after treating Ebola patients.

    Because no medical workers returning from those areas have developed ebola, and required treatment, after wandering around the city? This ‘all the experts say so’ argument is familiar, in fact, it’s an Obama administration talking point repeated endlessly by people like ‘Tony’.

    1. No one “important” has got it though.

      1. Statistics don’t matter a whole lot when you’re the statistic.

        1. And the analysis of how Ebola isn’t that big of a deal is rife with bad statistical analysis.

          My favorite is the one where they point out that AIDS has killed so many more people in Africa than Ebola…so Ebola must be overhyped and much less dangerous than AIDS. This ignores the fact that the reason Ebola hasn’t killed more people is 1) it’s extremely lethal and (unlike HIV) has a timeframe from infection to going syptomatic and 2) has usually occurred in geographically isolated areas where survivability due to lack of health care is lower.

          This has (until now) ensured that most epidemics burned themselves out quickly, because they burned through the victims faster than the victims could spread the disease. That indicates that Ebola is *exactly* the type of disease for which you implement quarantine.

          1. …(unlike HIV) has a *short* timeframe from infection to going syptomatic…

          2. Ebola will not burn itself out quickly in West Africa.

            1. Nope. Because this time the epidemic made it to population centers, which allowed it to cross borders. That’s a lot of territory to cover to keep it contained.

              Not that we should care about that, because (as Reason reassures us) Ebola is just not that infectious.

    2. Yeah, my thought exactly.

      I don’t get Reason’s take on this, that quarantines are somehow “excessive”. They’re pretty standard in epidemics as a means of containment, because they work. You’re talking about keeping a virulent disease from spreading and establishing itself in other places (since animals can act as carriers as well). I don’t think it’s either panicky or extreme to exercise caution with health care workers who are in areas where they’ve potentially been exposed. It actually seems quite reasonable.

      1. Not to mention Reason’s stance here seemingly contradicts Bailey’s position on forced vaccinations.

        1. I also found their headline rather ridiculous about “crying ‘disease'”. That implies that Ebola’s contagiousness or lethality is overstated, or that it’s not a current epidemic. Information about the transmission and lethality of Ebola are all available on the CDC website, and they go directly against the talking points of the President. Based on the CDC’s information, it’s exactly the kind of disease for which you want to issue a quarantine because a) it’s pretty transmissable, b) the incubation period is not that long, and c) we still don’t know what all of the natural reservoirs of the disease are, so it behooves us to exercise caution to prevent it from potentially establishing a reservoir here.

          Sometimes the public’s fears are actually justified and the people trying to be the voice of “reason” are actually just being recklessly contrarian. Not always, or even most of the time…but sometimes.

          http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/

          1. I’ll add that the CDC seems to be continually surprised by events, so I’d take their comments and data with more than a grain of salt.

            1. The P.R. flunkies are often surprised. The CDC website is quite clear that there’s a lot they don’t understand about Ebola and how it’s transmitted or how it survives in nature.

              That’s the guidance the President should be following…it’s a disease with a lot of uncertainties, so it’s something about which we should be cautious (indicating quarantines are prudent). The CDC should pay attention to what they put on their own website.

              1. The transmission and survival of the Ebola virus is well understood.

                1. Because the natural reservoir host of Ebola viruses has not yet been identified, the way in which the virus first appears in a human at the start of an outbreak is unknown.

                  That is the very first sentence of the CDC’s webpage on Ebola transmission. So no…the transmission of Ebola is not well understood when it comes to identifying the initial source of outbreaks.

                  They don’t know where humans pick up Ebola in nature prior to an outbreak occurring. Therefore they do not know all of the ways in which Ebola might establish a natural reservoir here in the U.S.

                  http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/

          2. Ebola’s contagiousness and lethality are being overstated. Dr. Spencer was not contagious while he moved about town.

            Worrying about Ebola establishing itself in natural reservoirs in the U.S. is hysterical.

            1. Ebola’s contagiousness and lethality are being overstated.

              Here is what the CDC has to say about Ebola’s contagiousness.

              “Healthcare providers caring for Ebola patients and the family and friends in close contact with Ebola patients are at the highest risk of getting sick because they may come in contact with the blood or body fluids of sick patients. People also can become sick with Ebola after coming in contact with infected wildlife. For example, in Africa, Ebola may spread as a result of handling bushmeat (wild animals hunted for food) and contact with infected bats. The virus also can be spread through contact with objects (like clothes, bedding, needles, syringes/sharps or medical equipment) that have been contaminated with the virus or with infected animals.”

              So no, the infectiousness of Ebola is not overstated. Proximity and contact with any bodily fluids of an infected person can pass the disease. This isn’t AIDS…you can actually get Ebola from someone sneezing on you and getting some saliva in your mouth or nose. You can get it from touching infected materials and then touching your face or rubbing your nose. It’s highly infectious.

      2. So you would quarantine each health care worker after they supply health care to an Ebola victim?

        Confiscating all driver’s licenses would save 30,000 lives per year in the U.S. Do you advocate doing that?

    3. So where are you getting your opinion? Politicians? Your gut?

      1. Tony|10.29.14 @ 11:27AM|#
        “So where are you getting your opinion? Politicians? Your gut?”

        No place you’re ever in danger of going:
        Collect information, make an informed decision. IOWs, act like an adult and a moral agent.
        Impossible for proggies, dipshit.

        1. Collect information from where?

          1. Tony|10.29.14 @ 11:37AM|#
            “Collect information from where?”

            Is it surprising that dipshit doesn’t have a clue as to where to find information?
            No, it isn’t. If proggies like dipshit aren’t TOLD what to believe, why they have no method of forming any thoughts at all!
            Sort of infantile, no?
            Hint, dipshit: There are repositories of information; books, articles, this thing called the web, etc.

            1. Literally everything I’ve read on the subject from reliable sources agrees with me and disagrees with you. Do you have a filter that only delivers Breitbart and a number of other paranoia mills?

              1. Tony|10.29.14 @ 12:02PM|#
                “Literally everything I’ve read on the subject from reliable sources agrees with me and disagrees with you.”

                Yeah, dipshit, those ‘approved’ sources usually do. Pravda!

              2. Literally everything I’ve read on the subject from reliable sources agrees with me and disagrees with you.

                Wow…”literally” everything you’ve read. That must have taken you literally minutes of work to skim.

            2. I’m confident Tony knows how to find information. The question is where you find your information. You don’t seem to be using any of the repositories of information you claim to know about. If you are, maybe you could provide a reference to just one of your sources of peer-reviewed information.

              1. I’m confident Tony knows how to find information.

                Then you’re obviously either a fucking idiot or you’re Tony, using an alternate account.

                Actually, in either case you’re a fucking idiot.

    4. No. Because no asymptomatic medical workers have infected others.

  2. “And if the courts do not step in when it isn’t, who will?”

    Well, in this case, remarkably enough, it was the Obama Administration, among others. Chris Christie’s “I Am the Law” posturing suggests that, if nominated in 2016, he’ll promise to make Barack Obama look like a faggot.

    1. The Obama administration was just trying to prevent someone from making them look weak by comparison. The American people, in large majorities, want travel bans and quarantines, and Obama is sure as hell not going to let someone else give them what they want.

      It’s also interesting that Earnest Scared Stupid says states and localities are responsible for Ebola management and planning, not the feds, and then turns around and says states can’t quarantine people.

    2. You keep misspelling your first name.

    3. “Well, in this case, remarkably enough, it was the Obama Administration, among others. Chris Christie’s “I Am the Law” posturing suggests that…”

      Honestly, who gives a shit about politicians sniping at each other? The issue is whether quarantine is an effective tool and a prudent measure to keep an epidemic contained.

      How this affects the talking points of Chris Christie or Barack Obama is irrelevant to anyone except people who work for them.

    4. So, Alan, because Obo does it, ‘right thinking’ people shouldn’t (hint, hint, nudge, nudge)?
      Your innuendo is showing and your lack of logic is no great surprise.

  3. They should ban providing health services for Ebola patients, although it’s probably already illegal under the Patriot Act under material support for terrorism language.

  4. Can you imagine what Christie would do if in charge of the U.S. armed forces?This guy,being a former USAG,is used to using the force or government to beat people into submission.He is a bully,and never admits any wrongs,yet could not control his staff.

      1. Apparently, according to the President, if you know you have been in contact with people sick with Ebola, you don’t need to be quarantined. However, if you have no idea if you have been in contact with people sick with Ebola, you need to be quarantined — at least if you are in the military.

        Link

        1. I think the line of reasoning is that nurses and doctors can refuse to go to W. Africa if they think they’ll have to be quarantined coming home, so we can’t quarantine them.

          But the schmucks in the armed forces have to do what King Barry tells them or else, so quarantine away.

          1. I honestly can’t imagine that doctors who are willing to risk their lives treating ebola patients for weeks or even months would decide that a three week quarantine afterwards is a bridge too far.

            1. Given the temper tantrum the current lot are throwing over precautionary quarantines, that might sadly be the case.

              1. Of course they’re angry. These selfless Samaritans stooped to the level of mingling with all these sick dirty brown people. Yet when they get back to civilization, people they don’t even know have the nerve to demand they wait three whole weeks to receive the adulation due to them. It’s outrageous!

                I swear, these doctors are starting to make the old White Man’s Burden model of paternalistic charity look positively enlightened by comparison.

                1. And of course you have people like this idiot, who decided that her self-monitoring was a sufficient precaution and went wandering around New York after she was told not to. Obviously, the authorities were wrong to tell her she couldn’t go wherever she wanted, because she’s a *surgeon* who does commentary for *NBC*.

                  There is a not-insignificant portion of the medical field whose narcissism because of their education causes them to do very stupid and irresponsible things, when they should know better.

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..14498.html

        2. Not at all true. If you know that you have been in direct contact with the Ebola virus or fluids from people known to be sick with the Ebola virus, you
          are a “high risk” asymptomatic person. You shouldn’t congregate with others, you should be actively monitored. You can go jogging. In other words, you should not engage in activities that might expose others.

          Dr. Spencer was in the “some risk” category.

          The CDC guidelines are here.
          http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/e…..osure.html

          While military personnel will typically be in the “low risk” or, more likely, “no identifiable risk category”, the military is quite different. The military did not volunteer to go to West Africa. Military personnel are commonly isolated from their families as part of their job. The military has facilities where it can keep hundreds or thousands of people isolated at a time.

          Because the military can cheaply isolate returning personnel with minimal impact on the livelihood or lifestyle of the returning personnel, it make sense to take that minor extra step.

      2. they should not be there.He will continue this endless fucking war footing too.May even ramp up the drug war.He’s a hammer and we’re all nails

        1. So why are you comparing Christie unfavorably to Obama?

          1. because their both cut from the same cloth.They love the power of government o make you do as your told

  5. Once again people asking the wrong questions. A quarantine is appropriate when you don’t know if a person is infected or not. Apparently a blood test can answer this question. If so, why isn’t all potentially exposed healthcare workers receiving a blood test when returning standard procedure?

    1. The Ebola test is not very reliable in the early stages of infection, as the virus concentrates in the liver and spleen and doesn’t enter the bloodstream until “showtime” (when the person will become contagious).

      1. Not to mention that drawing blood from a potential Ebola patient carries its own risks.

        Given the unreliability of tests and the relatively short incubation period of Ebola, quarantine seems a reasonable measure.

    2. Because people want to get their ban-boners on.

      1. How lazy. Maybe you should get some facts before forming an opinion.

    3. A quarantine is appropriate when there is a reasonably high probability that a person may be infected or when the cost of quarantine is extremely low.

  6. A person who has the Ebola virus but is not showing symptoms is not contagious. But that can change at any moment. Waiting to quarantine someone until after they’ve already spread the disease kind of defeats the point, no?

    1. Exactly.

    2. No, it can’t change at any moment. It takes time for the symptoms to develop. Quarantining someone when they first develop symptoms provides adequate lead time.

      1. No, it can’t change at any moment. It takes time for the symptoms to develop.

        Yes, and the point at which a symptomatic person goes from non-infectious to infectious can happen *at any moment* of the process.

        You don’t know how to read for comprehension, progtard.

  7. “Texas shot at Ebola. Then gave it the death penalty. Then tried to pray it away. It took a government agency to stop it.”

    TDS.

    1. Don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

    2. Turd, go upthread and meet AV; you two have a lot in common.

  8. If this were livestock instead of people, quarenteen would have happened a long time ago.

    1. Acutally, if this were livestock, culling would have tkaen place long ago. Not a solution I’d advocate in this case (though I’m all for the quarantine)

      1. They would. And this is why livestock diseases rarely turn into big outbreaks.

        Yes, culling is not the answer when we are talking about people. But quarantine is. We are talking about inconveniencing people for a month so that we can stop a deadly disease. This is a very specific group of people who have been exposed to a deadly and contagious virus. Reason needs to stop acting like this is the same thing as molesting old ladies at the airport because they might be terrorists. They really are letting their politics dictate their view of reality here.

        1. Yep, I like how Sullum at the beginning quotes a judge’s warning about disease being the domestic equivalent of war when it comes to power grabs, then at the end (after ADHD Reasonoids have stopped reading) admits that the judge still upheld the quarantine in that case.

          1. Public health is often rife with government overreach. But that doesn’t mean that every epidemic is overblown or that the government should always take a hands-off approach.

            Pandemics do happen and kill lots of people, even in modern history. It’s just foolish to assume that because medicine is more advanced than it used to be it’s impossible for such a pandemic to occur now. Sometimes a less-freedom-friendly government approach is the appropriate measure.

            1. A principal argument here is that too much overreaction in the States will lead to less help for West Africa…making the epidemic worse and the risk to you greater.

              1. Tony|10.29.14 @ 11:53AM|#
                “A principal argument here is that too much overreaction in the States will lead to less help for West Africa…making the epidemic worse and the risk to you greater.”

                NO shit?! My goodness! See how dipshit comes along to tell us what everyone has already heard?
                Why, thank you. Now please leave the discussion to the adults.

              2. You can make an argument out of anything. That is the basis of all pseudo-science. Most of the time the claims don’t make any logical sense to intelligent people – like in this case.

                1. You can make an argument out of anything. That is the basis of all pseudo-science. Most of the time the claims don’t make any logical sense to intelligent people – like in this case.

                  Was there a point relevant to Ebola in there? Because if so, you drew no attention to it.

              3. A principal argument here is that too much overreaction in the States will lead to less help for West Africa

                Thanks for the middle school level analysis, dipshit. It has nothing to do with what I was saying.

                I’m concerned with *our* government’s actions regarding *our* country and keeping Ebola from establishing itself here (like West Nile, dengue fever, and many other diseases have). That is their priority. NGOs can handle West Africa. Hell, Africa can handle Africa judging by how well Nigeria has dealt with the epidemic and kept it out of their country.

                I know that you see Africans as helpless savages, unable to cope with life without the U.S. government, but the reality is that they can handle their own countries quite ably when left alone. Actually, our government’s intervention usually seems to make that task more difficult for them because we encourage dependence from condescending sympathy vampires like yourself.

        2. This is a very specific group of people who have been exposed to a deadly and contagious virus. Reason needs to stop acting like this is the same thing as molesting old ladies at the airport because they might be terrorists.

          Agreed. Reason’s response strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction rather than a well-considered opinion. Terrorism and epidemics are different issues and require different measures for containment…and (fortunately) in the case of Ebola and other infectious diseases, those non-libertarian methods really are temporary and effective.

          While it’s good to be skeptical of the government, it’s also important not to develop tunnel vision and miss the obvious because you’re overly invested in that skepticism.

    2. Yeah, so what’s your point? People should be treated like livestock?

  9. Goldman’s point is worth keeping in mind as states such as New York and New Jersey implement quarantine policies that are identical to the ones the federal government is implementing with military personnel returning from Africa after treating Ebola patients.

    Fixed that for you.

    1. No, the policies are not identical. New York and New Jersey are not quarantining hundreds to thousands of people who normally work together in the place where they normally work. Nor are they paying the civilians while they are in quarantine.

  10. I’ve got a proposal: these heroic nurses and doctors coming back from West Africa should get a free week-long stay at the White House. Since the president’s experts say there’s no danger of transmission.

    1. I agree. Or maybe spend a day or two at Reason headquarters sharing their drinks with various staffers.

      1. No, I’m pretty sure that the CDC does not recommend that persons in the ‘some risk’ category should share drinks with others. But otherwise, yeah, sure, if the government wants to pay me and a bunch of “some risk” health care workers to voluntarily take a paid vacation at a nice resort — I’m all for that.

  11. Libertarianism works because there is an incentive in reality to balance out free will. To that extent, there’s a clear solution. Make transmitting without quarantine actionable. So, if you don’t want to quarantine or self-quarantine, fine. But, if you have ebola and don’t quarantine and transmit it to someone else, you better hope the ebola kills you. Because, otherwise, the lawsuit judgements against you are going to mean the rest of your life is going to completely, utterly, suck.

    1. Close, but what if your transmission kills me?
      You don’t HAVE enough money for that!

      1. Not so sure. We have wrongful death lawsuits all the time.

      2. Are you just now figuring out that freedom comes with risk?

        1. Tony|10.29.14 @ 11:10AM|#
          “Are you just now figuring out that freedom comes with risk?”

          Are you just learning to walk?
          Fuck off, dipshit.

          1. ooh, you know 4-letter words. You must be *smart*.

        2. Go away, boy the adults are talking.

        3. You mean like, “you’re perfectly free to take your skills over to these third-world countries rife with a deadly disease but the risk associated with it is that you will be required to be removed from society upon your return for the time necessary to definitively determine you are not a vector of said disease?”

          That kind of freedom/risk relationship?

          1. Libertarians advocating for politicians imposing house arrest on people against medical advice are being fucking ridiculous.

            1. Tony|10.29.14 @ 11:40AM|#
              “Libertarians advocating for politicians imposing house arrest on people against medical advice are being fucking ridiculous.”

              Would someone please stick a bottle in the infant’s mouth? The whining is obnoxious.

              1. Have you looked in a mirror lately?

            2. It’s not against “medical advice” to impose a quarantine on those exposed to a highly deadly disease. Quarantines by their very nature are a prophylactic exercise. These experts you tout (who, contrary to your belief are not monolithic in their positions on the risk of transmission and when contagion begins) are not saying the quarantines are ineffective. They are making a public policy statement that is primarily driven by a fear that medical professionals will be deterred from going overseas to help. Why these folks find three weeks of paid Netflix marathons such a burdensome price to pay for their own choice is another issue.

              1. And if they’re right that doctors won’t want to go help because they will have to undergo house arrest upon their return? Doesn’t that mean more infections and more risk?

                1. Tony|10.29.14 @ 12:25PM|#
                  “And if they’re right that doctors won’t want to go help because they will have to undergo house arrest upon their return? Doesn’t that mean more infections and more risk?”

                  Gee, Mr. Obviousman! Why didn’t we think of that.
                  Please go to your room and shut up.

                2. I’m finding it exceedingly hard to believe that a person who travels 7,000 miles to a midden-heap of a country in order to provide medical services to those sick with a 70%-morbidity-rate disease would be discouraged by the prospect of making the return sacrifice of 21-days of Xbox and internet porn (or am I just projecting?), particularly in light of the Vinson and Spencer failures to self-monitor and regulate.

                  For the sake of argument though, yes, if there was empirical proof that such quarantines would reduce the number of doctors and nurses going to west Africa and that that resulted in a measurable increase in infection and that such infection resulted in a measurable increase in the chances of the disease migrating here and causing a U.S. epidemic, yes, it should be factored in.

                  1. Vinson and Spencer both self-monitored and followed CDC protocols.

                    So you like empirical proof except that if there is empirical proof that mandatory blanket quarantines are ineffective, you’ll ignore that?

                    1. Vinson got into an aluminum tube with 200 other people when she knew she had a fever after treating someone with one of the deadliest diseases on the planet. If you consider that a success – regardless of what “self-monitoring” or the CDC protocols say – then you are a fucking dolt.

                3. No it means more infections maybe. However they will be in Africa and if we close off travel from Africa then there will be no infections here.

                4. You mean doctors who will go to Africa to save sick people, but can’t countenance three-weeks of quarantine to ensure they don’t kill healthy people?

                  I really don’t care what those doctors do. They’re irresponsible narcissists. Frankly, Africa is probably better off without them.

              2. Hickox was not offered a paid Netflix marathon. She was offered an unheated tent in a parking lot with no shower and no flush toilet.

            3. “Libertarians advocating for politicians imposing house arrest on people against medical advice are being fucking ridiculous.”

              She was placed under “house arrest” AFTER she was rushed to a hospital with a fever. She was in a quarantine tent for a few days and then released to her house, where she was placed under quarantine for 21 days. Why 21 days? Because –

              “The medical consensus is that a person is likely to be free from the threat of an Ebola onset 21 days after being in contact with the virus.”

              http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ian-tuttle

              She treated Ebola patients abroad, and was asked to remain home (house quarantine is voluntary, if I’m not mistaken) for just under 3 weeks for public safety. The NY doctor roamed the streets without a care in the world.

              The left wants to throw people in jail for sleeping in their cars, spreading second smoke in their own homes, or letting their kids play unsupervised in a nearby park. Some perspective is in order.

              1. You are mistaken. She never had a fever. The quanantine in Maine is mandatory.

                Are you sure it’s the left who wants to jail people for sleeping in their cars?

                1. Cesium62 is Tony’s duplicate account…got it.

                  You’re so desperate for support and validation you had to make up friends to post supportive comments to your idiotic posts.

      3. So, you’re for confiscating all driver’s licenses and insisting on mandatory vaccination, right?

  12. my co-worker’s mother makes $66 every hour on the internet . She has been fired for eight months but last month her check was $21277 just working on the internet for a few hours. go right here….

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  13. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion…..s-science/

    This not be best article, for sure, and be aware of the source.

    However, it claims that 1 in 7 people infected don’t have a fever before diagnosis. Does this change the conversation, since we are primarily looking for fever as the primary leading symptom?

    1. Maybe, but how about another question:
      Assuming you’re not contagious if non-symptomatic, how long do you have to present symptoms to become contagious?
      Example:
      I go bowling and feel fine until the 3rd frame. By the tenth, how many people could I have infected?

      1. None. It starts off non-contagious and becomes more and contagious as you begin to show more and more symptoms. The people that get infected are the people around the body fluids, the massive amount of diarrhea and vomit. Look at Duncan’s case- none of the people hanging out with him got sick, only two of the nurses with him, handling body fluid, when he was very sick. It’s not like there’s a magic button where, the second you have any ebola symptoms, you become a walking contagion. It’s a gradual process of becoming more contagious as you have more bodily fluids exiting your body. You won’t magically make your bowling party sick because you a light fever started.

        1. But you might infect the janitor who has to clean up what you just thought was a case of the “Budweiser Blacks.”

        2. You won’t magically make your bowling party sick because you a light fever started

          But the flip side of that is that since there’s no magic button suddenly making a person contagious, there’s no telling at what point he stops being safe to be around either. It’s not just blood that spreads Ebola…it’s fecal matter, mucus, semen (which can carry an active virus for months after an infection clears), and saliva as well. It can enter through open cuts or mucus membranes (via something as common as people picking their nose). It can be passed by the handling of foods (as they’ve noted with bushmeat). It’s not like AIDS, where highly intimate or penetrative contact is required to spread the disease (and is restricted to blood and semen for transmission)…it’s more communicable than that.

          Just look at the number of people who leave public restrooms after taking a dump, without washing their hands. Any fecal matter they leave behind is potentially infectious material. That’s not scare-mongering, just a simple medical about how Ebola is spread.

          1. There is a magic button that tells you when it’s not safe to be around a person. If he starts puking or bleeding or oozing poop out the bottom of his pants leg, you probably want to avoid those puddles.

            It can be passed by the handling of infected bush meat, not by the handling of food.

            semen in an otherwise asymptomatic person is not a big problem.

            So, how often have you been feeling fine and gone out bowling, and suddenly, in the 3rd frame, your vomiting or having explosive diarrhea in the bathroom?

            1. There is a magic button that tells you when it’s not safe to be around a person. If he starts puking or bleeding or oozing poop out the bottom of his pants leg, you probably want to avoid those puddles.

              Except that asymptomatic people can still be contagious. Even people who have developed an immunity to the virus after recovering can still pass it on. Per the CDC.

              Once someone recovers from Ebola, they can no longer spread the virus. However, Ebola virus has been found in semen for up to 3 months. Abstinence from sex (including oral sex) is recommended for at least 3 months. If abstinence is not possible, condoms may help prevent the spread of disease.

              So you’re wrong about semen. Just like you’re wrong about everything else.

              It can be passed by the handling of infected bush meat, not by the handling of food.

              Bushmeat is food, fucktard. It’s meat…from many different animals. If animals in Africa can carry it, animals in America can potentially carry it. Your fucking school was really pathetic, Tony, if they didn’t teach you the basics about disease.

    2. Not really. If they didn’t have a fever, what symptom did they have that caused them to seek a diagnosis?

  14. “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” -Justice Robert H. Jackson (Terminiello v. Chicago, 1949)

    “Hell is full of good intentions or desires.” -Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)

    The health and welfare of a nation takes priority over the convenience of an ostensibly well-intentioned “healthcare worker”. Given the consequences of making the wrong decision for whatever reasons, the risk:benefit ration falls heavily onto the side of caution (www.inescapableconsequences.com).

    1. The risk:benefit ratio says you don’t lock up people who are not contagious and have no symptoms. That’s 0 benefit for non-zero risk. The non-zero risk is from both violating civil liberties and discouraging people from doing what needs to be done to make us truly safe: stopping the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa.

    2. i love the justice jackson quote. we can send numerous people to fight and die on our behalf in the name of the constitution and reelection, but god forbid it demand more of us than can be fixed with buying a yellow ribbon for our minivan.

  15. Libertarians for forced imprisonment of innocent people even though medical experts think it’s a bad idea! Where on earth did anyone get the idea that libertarians were ridiculous hypocrites who would be the first idiots to advocate for martial law the moment they feel personally threatened by something?

    1. Beat that strawman, dipshit!
      Where on earth did anyone decide you were capable of living without constant supervision?

    2. First of all, not all “experts” agree with that statement. Quite a few who were involved in the outbreak in Reston several decades ago have expressed a great deal of caution regarding how little we know about transmission and incubation.

      Secondly, the “experts” you are touting aren’t actually saying the quarantine procedures are ineffective or even unwise as applied to preventing an outbreak here in the U.S. They are doing an interest-balancing test, ie “this will discourage medical professionals from going overseas to provide care.” Once you engage in interest-balancing you can’t argue it’s out of bounds to say a governor weighs the risk – however small – to his constituents as a greater concern than the health of foreign nationals or the caregiver’s ability to go bowling on Tuesday night.

      1. I’m saying leave aside the fact that you’re trusting the bluster of a politician over the advice of medical experts. If you’re a libertarian you accept more social risk than pretty much all other groups. Tens of thousands of people dead by guns is worth the freedom of maximum gun liberty. All the risks associated with poverty is worth the freedom of not being taxed too much. But a disease that has killed exactly one person in this country? Medical martial law of course.

        1. Tony|10.29.14 @ 11:49AM|#
          “I’m saying leave aside the fact that you’re trusting the bluster of a politician over the advice of medical experts.”

          No, asshole, you’re saying ‘trust your betters’. Like those who, oh, said slavery was just fine!
          Please, leave the discussion to the adults.

        2. Your comments should come with a “Hyperbole Overdose” disclaimer. What “medical martial law” are you referring to? Have the subways been closed? The bowling alleys? Have all the people who normally populate those avenues of transit and questionable entertainment been ordered to stay in their homes at the point of a gun?

          No. Only the miniscule subset of individuals who have WILLINGLY EXPOSED THEMSELVES to the risk have been told to keep that risk to themselves and for the exact amount of time that your all-holy experts say is the incubation period of the disease they were just tapdancing with. How you find a clear cut example of the need for personal responsibility for one’s decisions and actions to be contrary to libertarian philosophy I can only attribute to sheer stupidity, mendacity or an aneurysm.

          1. But the medical community is pretty unanimous in the opinion that such a policy is counterproductive at this juncture. I’m trying to spell this out for you. Doing the most rational thing in this case also happens to be most respectful of personal liberty. Just take the freebie for Christ’s sake.

            1. Tony|10.29.14 @ 12:16PM|#
              …”I’m trying to spell this out for you.”

              Ya know, dipshit, you should tall that to your fave lying POS! He’s quarantining all the soldiers!
              I guess he hasn’t heard that! Or maybe you’re full of shit…

              1. I think you’re full of shit. You’re thousands of times more at risk from being shot than catching ebola. Shall we quarantine gun owners?

                1. Tony|10.29.14 @ 12:39PM|#
                  “I think you’re full of shit.”
                  Coming from an infantile proggy, that’s prolly not gonna bother me much.
                  But hey, asshole, why not tell your fave lying POS about all those ‘experts’?
                  “Hagel OKs Quarantine for Troops Returning from West Africa”
                  https://reason.com/24-7/2014/10…..s-returnin

                  1. I know that they are quarantining troops. I was trying to make this a conversation about civil liberties (which troops don’t have many of) and your hypocrisy.

                    1. Tony|10.29.14 @ 12:54PM|#
                      “I know that they are quarantining troops. I was trying to make this a conversation about civil liberties (which troops don’t have many of) and your hypocrisy.”

                      And here I thought it was just a demonstration of your dishonesty and stupidity!
                      Well, even if that wasn’t the aim, it came across anyhow.

                    2. Well, you certainly made the point that you’re stupid.

                    3. I was trying to make this a conversation about civil liberties (which troops don’t have many of) and your hypocrisy.

                      Trying to start a conversation about another topic (military civil liberties) you obviously know nothing about, if you think troops don’t have them.

                      It’s not just that you’re intellectually dishonest, dipshit, it’s that you’re also so transparently ignorant on most of these topics and openly lazy at doing any research.

                    4. Oh, well argued! You must be right because you know how to say “dipshit”.

                      Point to Tony.

                    5. Nobody recognizes your bullshit point system, Tony, because nobody thinks your comments have merit…even when you try to plug them through a different email account.

            2. I’m not going to lambaste you for arguing against a the state’s reflexive use of the police power to infringe upon personal liberty. I think it happens all too often. Where I think we disagree is on the “rational” side of your assessment.

              There is not unanimity in the medical community regarding exposure-to-contagion timeline. In fact, some of the most experienced individuals dealing with Ebola have indicated means of transmission isn’t 100% known (aerosol, for example). We are told constantly that protocols are in place for detection, treatment, self-monitoring/restriction. But that hasn’t been true in Liberia, TX or NY. Finally, we have the military issuing a quarantine order that is identical to the ones in NJ/NY for all personnel even though they are so much farther removed from contagion risks than these medical professionals. This all leads me to believe one of two things is at play. One, policy-makers (who may or may not be MDs) do not want to undercut the flow of medical personnel to serve west Africans. Two, these same people have an institutional bias/belief that those in their peer group “just know better” (much evidence to the contrary). Governors and local health officials (see Maine) are more concerned with what happens here at home. This may be too parochial, I’m perfectly willing to admit. But they aren’t exactly seeing anything remotely akin to “rational” in the national response or posture.

              1. Well, so far everything they’ve been saying is true: there is no outbreak in the US. So at present the most important consideration remains getting doctors to West Africa and getting the source epidemic under control, no? Even if forced quarantines for returning asymptomatic medical workers were to some degree a prudent response, it would still have to be weighed against the cost (discouraging of aid to W. Africa and a worsening epidemic). I don’t know what that is or how to calculate it, so I have to trust that the experts know what they’re talking about. The entire point is that overreacting in the US makes the problem worse, not just in W. Africa but potentially in the US.

                1. Tony|10.29.14 @ 12:53PM|#
                  …”I don’t know what that is or how to calculate it, so I have to trust that the experts know what they’re talking about.”

                  Yes, asshole, no one would ever expect you to act as an adult or a moral agent!

                2. I would say the ONLY thing they’ve said that is true is that we don’t have an “outbreak” in the U.S., and that’s with me giving the President a pass for initially saying any incidence of Ebola in the U.S. was unlikely.

                3. So at present the most important consideration remains getting doctors to West Africa and getting the source epidemic under control, no?

                  No NO a thousand times NO. West Africa is not my or the US problem. The disease will burn itself out with a quarantine of the countries where it is but that is politically incorrect.

                4. Well, so far everything they’ve been saying is true: there is no outbreak in the US.

                  So in other words you think that Ebola containment should only be a priority in the U.S. *after* an epidemic breaks out, and prevention of an epidemic should not be considered important?

                  Do you have any fucking idea how disease works? Or what the goal is in dealing with epidemics? Do you realize that the point of a quarantine is to *prevent* an epidemic, and that quarantines are pretty much useless *after* one starts in the U.S.?

                  Of course not…fucking progtard.

              2. This all leads me to believe one of two things is at play. One, policy-makers (who may or may not be MDs) do not want to undercut the flow of medical personnel to serve west Africans. Two, these same people have an institutional bias/belief that those in their peer group “just know better” (much evidence to the contrary).

                And this highlights an important aspect of the debate…that no matter what Obama and his administration say about Ebola, there is little reason to believe them and ample reason to assume that they’re (again) lying.

                Even the CDC’s published materials contradict the administration’s claims that Ebola is “not that infectious”. It’s highly infectious, even to people trained to deal with infectious diseases and who follow at least some preventative protocols. The governors are (correctly) concerned with protecting their own areas because the President seems indifferent to doing so. Some may see that as an overreaction (and perhaps it is), but it’s rational from a risk management perspective when dealing with this sort of disease. As you said, the governors are concerned about the results on the ground at home…the President’s behavior gives no indication that this is a priority for him.

              3. Please provide peer reviewed references to your statements which appear to be fantasy:

                “aerosol, for example”

                “self-monitoring/restriction”: worked in Texas and NY.

                “quarantine order that is identical to the ones in NJ/NY “: Not identical.

                1. Please provide peer reviewed references to your statements which appear to be fantasy:

                  Simpers the fucktard who ignores the CDC links littered throughout the threads.

                2. In reverse order:
                  1. The military is requiring a 21-day mandatory quarantine for service members that have been in affected countries. So technically you’re correct, the military is requiring A MORE STRINGENT protocol for people that were at less risk.

                  2. I’ve responded to this above but to repeat, if you think self-monitoring/restriction worked when people exposed to Ebola began running a fever and still went about their daily lives exposing the public then you are a special kind of moron.

                  3. http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/p…..oplets.pdf

    3. Nope. Wrong as usual you libtard asswipe. Contrary to “popular” opinion, most libertarian leaning folks are reasonable about the need for government and the implied power that comes with that. It’s just that we respect what awesome power we give them through consent and expect it to be used judiciously. I the face of an extremely deadly disease that we don’t know much about it seems like a reasonable use of power to force those that have been in the how zone to isolate themselves from the general population for 3 weeks. You can rant all you want about the science, but if an outbreak starts here the damage not only in lives lost but in economic impact will be far greater than 9-11. But hey, I know thinking things through isn’t really your thing. Would rather just figure out what the team position is and go with that.

      1. It’s not an extremely deadly disease to you, and there is almost no risk of an epidemic in this country. You are just irrationally afraid. You are supposed to be the big principle people. An imagined threat to you personally and suddenly you’re on the opposite side of a big government argument to me? Wonders never cease.

        1. Tony|10.29.14 @ 11:50AM|#
          “It’s not an extremely deadly disease to you, and there is almost no risk of an epidemic in this country.”

          Polly want a cracker?

          1. Tony. It isn’t dangerous to me personally but that doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous to those around a potentially infected person. Quite frankly I don’t think you have any idea if it could spread or not. Diseases have a way of mutating to survive. In the early stages of the largest outbreak Ebola ever (at least 5K have died in Africa I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask a person that spent significant time in direct contact to wait a few weeks to make sure that they aren’t infected. It does seem unreasonable to do otherwise. Nobody put her in jail and she could actually be the catalyst in quarantine orders becoming compulsory by fighting it in the way she is.

            1. Quite frankly I don’t think you have any idea if it could spread or not.

              You don’t have to guess at that. He clearly doesn’t understand it.

              Diseases have a way of mutating to survive.

              He doesn’t understand this either.

              I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask a person that spent significant time in direct contact to wait a few weeks to make sure that they aren’t infected.

              Of course not, because you’re a rational person. Tony doesn’t believe that, because his beloved icon told him that there was nothing to worry about. So he doesn’t care what science says…Obama told him different. That’s all that matters to him, heeding the master’s voice.

        2. It’s not an extremely deadly disease to you, and there is almost no risk of an epidemic in this country.

          According to whom? Some shithead progtard pundit you read who also doesn’t have a medical degree or any experience with diseases?

          Do you have any idea how Ebola spreads? Or how it kills people? What the fatality and communicability rates are? Do you realize that the only reason Ebola is not more prevalent in Africa is because the disease usually pops up only in remote areas and kills infected people *before* they’re able to spread it much further?

          The only thing preventing people in the U.S. from getting Ebola is *geography*…once Ebola shows up in a previouly clean region *anyone can get it*, because geography is no longer a buffer. If you have a lot of people in proximity to each other, a lot of people can get it and continue to spread it, and the odds of spreading it increase. That’s why containment is a priority.

          Did the shit school you went to even teach you biology?

        3. You are just irrationally afraid.

          You’re irrationally stupid. Only an idiot would not be concerned about a highly infectious and fatal disease.

          You are supposed to be the big principle people.

          My principle is not being stupid enough to let a highly infectious disease into this country because our piece of shit President wants to pander to fucktards like yourself who only care about identity politics. Self-preservation is a principle, dipshit…so is wanting to keep other people from getting sick. Not that you even understand what a principle is.

          An imagined threat…

          Why don’t you go to Africa and see just how immune to it you are? Back up your enlightened talk about how harmless Ebola is. Go ahead, prove us wrong.

      2. I know it’s hard for you to think things through as evidenced by your reflexive use of the team position “libtard asswipe”. “Extremely deadly disease that we don’t know much about”? The disease has been around for 30-plus years. We can deduce a lot about how it spreads from what is currently going on in Africa. It doesn’t teleport. It doesn’t spread like the flu does. It’s not like HIV.

        The best way to ensure that an outbreak starts here is to not focus on eradicating the disease in West Africa. By all means, get side-tracked with useless quarantines of non-infectious people instead of concentrating on the real problem.

        1. The disease has been around for 30-plus years. We can deduce a lot about how it spreads from what is currently going on in Africa.

          Per the CDC

          Because the natural reservoir host of Ebola viruses has not yet been identified, the way in which the virus first appears in a human at the start of an outbreak is unknown.

          But go to Africa…find out for yourself how non-contagious it is, Tony. Nobody will care if you come back or not.

  16. “most experts” . . . here we go.

  17. Jesus Christ, the people on here are so fucking hysterical and 95% of the commenters seem completely unaware of the actual science regarding Ebola, while also completely missing the point that the stance Reason is taking is absolutely philosophically consistent with the stance they take on nearly all issues.

    The comments here are so beyond stupid, I have to ask:

    You guys know that it’s Liberians, not Libertarians who are at risk of Ebola, right?

    Point is, you start shouting for quarantines, all it takes is one misspelling for you to get isolated unfairly.

    1. You guys know that it’s Liberians, not Libertarians who are at risk of Ebola, right?

      Right, and in the 1980s, AIDS was a disease that supposedly only infected gay people and junkies.

      Basic ignorance of disease and epidemic history on your part.

      1. Wow. Way to totally miss the point. Nice going Craw.

        1. You miss every point, Tony, so your judgment of anyone’s views are irrelevant.

    2. I don’t find Reason consistent on similar medical issues. For example, a number of articles have been written advocating mandatory vaccination.

      What is consistent – Reason will ALWAYS take the side with the LEAST impact on “open borders” and immigration…

      I’m certainly no proponent of quarantines, and on many levels appreciate the recent exercise in civil disobedience.

      1. Reason will ALWAYS take the side with the LEAST impact on “open borders” and immigration

        I disagree with “always” but agree that it’s one of their more consistent platforms.

        I’m pro-open borders and generally find the “immigrants bring disease” arguments to be a poorly reasoned and researched rationalization to keep out all immigrants. But in this case there’s no dispute that those countries have an ongoing epidemic of this disease…it’s just a fact that there is a current Ebola outbreak and that it has spread to other countries. So in this case, I support quarantines for those workers. Being absolutist in an argument and dismissing current facts and realities that dispute one’s position is simply irrational and irresponsible…as irresponsible and irrational as being absolutist against immigrant or open borders.

        1. I wasn’t arguing with your position re: quarantine, and agree warranted in this case.

          1. Gotcha. I wasn’t quite sure where you were coming down on the issue and wasn’t trying to label your views. My reply to your comments was meant to be general as well.

  18. the people on here are so fucking hysterical and 95% of the commenters seem completely unaware of the actual science regarding Ebola

    You mean the science put out by the CDC on their webpage that says they don’t know what natural reservoir hosts Ebola, so they don’t know how it proliferates between human infections? Or the science that says that all bodily fluids of a symptomatic patient are contagious and can transmit Ebola if they come into contact with an open cut or a mucous membrane? Or the science that says that communicable Ebola can stay in the system of a person for three months *after* they’re cured? Or the science that explains that the reason Ebola isn’t more prevalent are its generally remote outbreak locations and its relatively short infection-to-fatality timeline?

    Yeah, I read that science. What science did you read?

    http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/

    1. They don’t mean “science” they mean liberal talking points.
      Dumbasses – Ebola is a communicable disease – as in COMMUNICABLE. Leprosy is THE least easily transmittable disease we know of and believe me it’s still communicable.
      There is no reason to be relying on the spin of politicians wearing “science” lab coats because of your politics.
      And, no, having dealt with many 3rd world communicable diseases, I am not panicking or hysterical. You have to treat Ebola with great respect. Think of it as a cobra.

    2. “Or the science that says that communicable Ebola can stay in the system of a person for three months *after* they’re cured?”

      It can stay in the semen for three months. I won’t be ingesting the semen of anyone without making sure they haven’t been to West Africa in the pasty three months. Is it that hard for you to do the same?

      1. I won’t be ingesting the semen of anyone without making sure they haven’t been to West Africa in the pasty three months.

        Sure…but if that person has sex with someone (like a spouse) who thinks the person they’re sleeping with has been cured and it’s transmitted to that spouse, then you have another Ebola patient who can transmit the disease via blood, semen, saliva, mucus, or fecal matter to other people once they go symptomatic.

        Do you honestly not understand how Ebola or highly infectious diseases work? Because if not, you should do more research before you keep spouting dangerously ignorant opinions on the subject. I suggest you start with the CDC’s publications on the issue (for which I have already provided a link).

    3. “the reason Ebola isn’t more prevalent are its generally remote outbreak locations and its relatively short infection-to-fatality timeline”

      This has nothing whatever to do with the validity of quarantines. The reason for the outbreaks and the fatality times is due to the remote locations. In more modern cities like Lagos, they were able to contain the disease. It seems like they were able to contain it in Dallas. And so far how many Americans have died from Ebola? 0. That’s 0%, by the way.

      1. This has nothing whatever to do with the validity of quarantines.

        Are you fucking stupid? What in the hell do you think a quarantine is? Their point is to keep people with highly dangerous, infectious diseases separated from the overall public.

        The only thing that would invalidate quarantines is if they didn’t work in the case of a particular disease. Separation has been proven to work in the case of Ebola…because geographic separation is a natural form of quarantine.

        In more modern cities like Lagos, they were able to contain the disease.

        Because they used quarantines, you fucking idiot.

        http://news.yahoo.com/south-af…..iness.html

      2. And so far how many Americans have died from Ebola? 0. That’s 0%, by the way.

        You also apparently aren’t familiar with the medical term “index case” (colloquially known as “patient zero”). Every single epidemic has a starting point where one patient transmits a communicable disease to others before medical authorities recognize the threat and quarantine him. We have been very lucky in this regard, because the infected people who have arrived here have apparently not transmitted the disease before they were quarantined. That does not prevent an index case from occurring at any future point…it doesn’t even decrease the probability of such a case occurring. It just means we got lucky, and luck runs out.

        But you know what does decrease the odds of a patient zero? Quarantines targeting high-risk demographics (i.e. health care workers who have treated Ebola patients) coming from countries with active outbreaks/epidemics of that disease. Again, this is where your obvious ignorance on this topic is dangerous.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_case

    4. Oh, cool. You’ve read the science. Now if you could learn to use logic…

  19. “all bodily fluids of a symptomatic patient are contagious and can transmit Ebola if they come into contact with an open cut or a mucous membrane”

    No one is suggesting that symptomatic patients shouldn’t be quarantined.

    1. You realize that as soon as a patient is symptomatic, they’re contagious, right? If you only quarantine someone *after* they’re obviously contagious, and if they infect other people *before* they’re quarantined, then the quarantine is actually useless unless you can also quarantine *every single person* they’ve infected before those people also become infectious.

      You really need to study more on this subject before offering further opinions. Your ignorance of basic containment protocols is dangerous.

      1. No. They aren’t contagious until their fluids touch your mucus membranes.

        Your ignorance of basic containment protocols is dangerous.

        1. No. They aren’t contagious until their fluids touch your mucus membranes.

          Yes…as soon as you wipe your nose, mouth or eyes. Do you even know what a mucus membrane is?

  20. They don’t mean “science” they mean liberal talking points.

    Of course…that’s what’s important to them after all. That the talking points be validated, even if the talking points are irresponsible and scientifically wrong.

    Leprosy is THE least easily transmittable disease we know of and believe me it’s still communicable.

    Yup…the only reason it’s not that transmissable is that 95% of people on this planet have a natural immunity to it. That remaining 5%, however, have to watch out if they’re in areas where leprosy is prevalent because they’re at serious risk.

    We don’t have that kind of protection against Ebola…it’s both highly communicable and highly lethal, if introduced to a heavily populated area. We’ve just been fortunate the last 40 years that its outbreaks have been in mostly remote regions.

  21. According to the CDC, you can now catch Ebola via droplet spread from coughs and sneezes

    http://patterico.com/files/201…..Spread.pdf

    Plus, no one was able to explain how 2,3 healthcare professionals (nurses that treated Duncan, the NY doctor) contracted the disease despite wearing protective gear.

    Hysteria over the possibility much hysteria can be unproductive itself.

    1. Hysteria over the possibility much hysteria can be unproductive itself.

      I suspect it’s often a form of denial…in this case because progressives don’t want to admit that their beloved leader is completely inept at handling any potentially serious issue.

      They’d rather pretend that Ebola isn’t highly infectious and highly fatal than admit that Barack Obama is an incomptent liar.

  22. Question: if you test negative for Ebola, does that mean you definitely don’t have it (and that you’ll never be contagious)…?

    1. No. The standard test is a PCR blood test that can detect very small amounts of virus in a drop of blood. However, early in the timeline of the disease, the virus tends to live in organs and not in the blood. By the time the virus starts showing up in the PCR blood test, you’re very nearly likely to be symptomatic.

  23. What a fresh breath of reason!

  24. A responsible health professional returning from West Africa would voluntarily place themselves in isolation until the absence of the virus can be confirmed. Waiting until one is symptomatic is a little late in the ballgame. I treasure liberty, but with liberty comes responsibility to the safety and security of society, and this nurse is exercising no personal responsibility whatsoever.

  25. You can Apply to Writing Jobs, Freelance Writing Jobs, Typing Jobs, Data Entry Jobs & Many other Online Tasks.
    writing jobs
    jobs

  26. Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.

    http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey

  27. I daily read articles published with this site since it has reliable information concerning the subject continues to be taken.Here’s also reliable information concerning the global secrets.Fashion Online Shopping

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.