Ebola

Maine's Governor Brags About His 'Robust Authority' to Quarantine Healthy, Ebola-Negative Nurses

|

Office of the Governor

Yesterday Maine's governor, Paul LePage, said he would "seek legal authority to enforce the quarantine" of Kaci Hickox, the nurse who returned to the United States on Friday after treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone. But he did not specify which "legal authority" he had in mind. Meanwhile, LePage dispatched state troopers to Hickox's home in Fort Kent to keep an eye on her. Today they tagged along as Hickox took a bike ride with her boyfriend, brazenly defying LePage's admittedly extralegal demand that she remain confined to her home until mid-November, even though she is neither sick nor contagious. LePage said he was willing to allow the occasional bike ride or jog, as long as Hickox does not come anywhere near other people, but she rejected that gracious concession. So LePage, having already announced his intent to force Hickox's compliance with his arbitrary, scientifically unfounded dictates, again vowed to do so, but he was still pretty vague about how that would work:

The Governor will exercise the full extent of his authority allowable by law. Maine statutes provide robust authority to the State to use legal measures to address threats to public health.

Public health provisions contained at Title 22 of Maine's Revised Statutes govern how the State may proceed to control diseases. There are multiple options provided in law. Specifics of the process or steps being taken by the State at this time may not be discussed publicly due to the confidentially requirements in law.

According to LePage, Title 22 provides "multiple options" for him to enforce his will, but he is not going to tell us which one he plans to use. Let's have a look and see which provisions might be relevant.

Under Section 812, the state can obtain an "order for treatment or such other order as may direct the least restrictive measures necessary to effectively protect the public health." A court is supposed to issue such an order only if it finds, "based upon clear and convincing evidence," that "a public health threat exists." But since Hickox is asymptomatic and incapable of transmitting Ebola, she does not currently pose a public health threat, and forcibly confining her to her home does not seem like "the least restrictive measure" to address the possibility that she will pose such a threat in the future, given the alternative of daily temperature monitoring. As The New England Journal of Medicine notes, "fever precedes the contagious stage."

What else might LePage try? Under Section 810, the state can obtain a court order giving it "temporary emergency custody" of someone if it can show by clear and convincing evidence that such an order is required "to avoid a clear and immediate public health threat." But if Hickox does not pose a public health threat, she cannot pose a "clear and immediate" public health threat.

Under Section 820, the state can bypass the need for a court order. The Department of Health and Human Services can unilaterally "take a person into custody and order prescribed care," which includes "isolation" or "quarantine," but only if:

(a) The department has reasonable cause to believe that the person has been exposed to or is at significant medical risk of transmitting a communicable disease that poses a serious and imminent risk to public health and safety;

(b) There are no less restrictive alternatives available to protect the public health and safety; and

(c) The delay involved in securing a court order would pose an imminent risk to the person or a significant medical risk of transmission of the disease.

Hickox may have been "exposed to" Ebola in Africa, but she is not "at significant medical risk" of transmitting it, and the threat she poses is neither "serious" nor "imminent." Nor does her situation meet the other two criteria. Finally, this provision applies only in the event of "an extreme public health emergency," defined as "the occurrence or imminent threat of widespread exposure to a highly infectious or toxic agent that poses an imminent threat of substantial harm to the population of the State." Although LePage has the authority to declare such an emergency, doing so would require a dramatic distortion of reality.

Someone who is forcibly isolated under Section 820 has a right to judicial review "as soon as reasonably possible but not later than 48 hours after the person is subject to prescribed care." To prevail at the hearing, the state '"must prove by clear and convincing evidence" that conditions (a) and (b) have been met.

In short, LePage does indeed have "robust authority" to deal with serious and imminent threats to public health. The difficulty lies in proving that Hickox qualifies as one of those and that home confinement is the least restrictive way of addressing whatever risk she may pose in the future.

NEXT: Robby Soave Discusses the Midterms on the Tom Brown Show on WEZS Tonight at 9pm ET

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. Title 22 provides “multiple options” for him to enforce his will, but he is not going to tell us which one he plans to use.

    Under Title 22 he’s not allowed to tell us his plans. That’s also under Title 22.

    1. He’s got 22 options and the bitch ain’t one.

      1. Nice, Head-Z.

    2. “Look Susan, suppose, I mean just suppose everyone thought the same way you do. Now eat your dessert like a good boy.”

      1. I hear she went up to the governor and said “Gov, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I Wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
        Guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
        KILL, KILL.” And she started jumpin up and down yelling, “KILL, KILL,” and
        He started jumpin up and down with her and they was both jumping up and down
        Yelling, “KILL, KILL.”

        1. Group W, please.

    3. Is that the Catch?

    4. Title-22: If he tell you which option he’s going to use then he can’t use that option.

      1. If he told us, he’d have to kill himself.

      2. Title 22: If you don’t know then you don’t need to know.

    5. Good Catch.

  2. Fuck, Paul. I hope this doesn’t cost you the election.

  3. Greg Lukianoff being awesome on MSNBC. Unfortunately the fascist apologist from CAIR is also on this episode, apparently having learned nothing from the ass kicking Christopher Hitchens gave him.

    1. Incidentally, the nutcase from CAIR compares inviting Bill Maher to speak to inviting the Grand Dragon of the KKK.

      Logic!

      1. Then he denies that the juxtaposition is, indeed a comparison. He’s just saying, for the sake of argument, that if the Grand Dragon were invited, yada yada. Well, whatever the Arabic equivalent of yada yada is.

        Anywho, when the same rhetorical ploy is used to, say, casually equate gay marriage with marrying a dog, the left goes nuts. Suddenly, they understand that the juxtaposition of one’s political enemies with social pariahs is a cheap rhetorical ploy.

        But, here, nope. They don’t know what Greg is talking about. The dog whistle has been sounded, but they sure didn’t hear it. Gee, move one, Greg. He’s just saying that Bill Maher is a bigot and that he should be shunned. You’d really have to have an active imagination to connect that to the Grand Dragon.

    2. I miss Hitchens 🙁

      I really don’t understand why people would debate Hitchens in public. Even when I thought he was wrong, he always eviscerated his opponents.

    3. I have to say, I saw no ass kicking by Hitchens in that video.

  4. “seek legal authority”

    What does this even mean? What kind of “governor” doesn’t know its “legal authority”?

  5. I’m going to be VERY specific here.
    AFAIK, this statement: “Hickox may have been “exposed to” Ebola in Africa, but she is not “at significant medical risk” of transmitting it, and the threat she poses is neither “serious” nor “imminent.””
    is beyond Sullum’s ability to claim.

    I refer you to:
    https://reason.com/blog/2014/10…..es#comment
    Beginning time stamp 8:24.
    Also: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/
    It seems our knowledge of the ease of transmission is not nearly as certain as Sullum seems to claim.
    I am NOT arguing to ‘throw the bitch in the slammer!’, I am arguing that it is less clear-cut than Sullum claims.

    1. YES! I came just to say this. I also am basically on the “no” side to forced quarantine at this point but statement such as “Hickox is. . . incapable of transmitting Ebola” is essentially insupportable with current knowledge. At low risk, probably. Probably even low enough risk to make forced quarantine unnecessary, but not provably zero.

      1. But at what point is she low/now risk? We don’t know. It’s not unreasonable to ask someone who voluntarily exposed themselves to a deadly virus to undergo a not unreasonable period of quarantine.

        1. blighted non millenial|10.31.14 @ 12:13AM|#
          “But at what point is she low/now risk? We don’t know. It’s not unreasonable to ask someone who voluntarily exposed themselves to a deadly virus to undergo a not unreasonable period of quarantine.”

          My ass is sore from sitting on the fence, but I’m beginning to think this is the compromise.

        2. It’s not unreasonable to ask someone

          The governor did ask. She said no.

          Or did you mean “ask” in the way that Elizabeth Warren wants to “ask” the rich to pay more taxes?

      2. Fortunately for us, when the government wants to put you under house arrest, the burden of proof is on them.

  6. Once again, as I said on the last thread about this, the powermongers do not like to told “no” when they want to do something. And more and more, they will find away around the law or just fucking ignore it. And they get away with it time and time again. Obama is the master of this.

    Rule of man, on its way to your town next.

    1. Yep. That’s it right there.

      1. Amazing! a reason article that used solid legsl analysis followed by two or more Epi posts employing solid logic?!?!!?

        CRIKEY

        By the way I have committed to surfing lake superior it’s been a dream of mine for years but this solidifies it!

        Frankly, to surf Fiji and lake superior and the state of Washington in the same year would be the ultimate trifecta

        Booya way overhead freshwater surf

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6sMWoG0llYo

        1. hey, tulip

    1. Fuck. I remember when that was satire.

    2. “It’s a terrible thing to lose a spouse like that.”

  7. Everytime I see Govenor LePaige mentioned I keep thinking of ‘blazing Saddles’ Governor LePetomaine

    1. I DIDN’T GET A HARRUMPH OUTTA THAT GUY….

  8. Yeah, I’ve settled on, “She tested negative, shows no symptoms – leave her the FUCK alone.”

    I’d expect her to self monitor, although at this point, what difference does it make?

    Wait, wrong thread for that second part.

    Anyhoo, fuck the governors of NJ and ME. Also, fuck California, for good measure.

    1. The test isn’t reliable and not having symptons doesn’t mean you don’t have the disease.

      What you say makes sense only if you thing the various too men are right about this virus. Good luck with that.

      1. The test isn’t reliable

        Citation?

        not having symptons doesn’t mean you don’t have the disease.

        It does mean you’re not contagious.

        What you say makes sense only if you thing the various too men are right about this virus.

        Believing in science and expertise is fur Liberal Elitists (TM)! Gotta go with muh gut feelingz! /derp

        1. Citation?

          Do some flerking research of your own for once. It takes milliseconds to google “ebola blood test” and learn something.

          1. Cytotoxic has a bad habit of demanding citations and then ignoring or dismissing them when they are provided.

      2. The test isn’t reliable and not having symptons doesn’t mean you don’t have the disease.

        What you say makes sense only if you thing the various too men are right about this virus. Good luck with that.

        But aren’t the top men also the ones talking about their inherent authority to enforce quarantines? So you’re arguing on behalf of top men just as much as Almanian is.

        1. On so many issues, John is a dog eating its own tail.

        2. This is the amazing thing about the Ebola scenario. Most of the people decrying the TOP MEN (which I appreciate, that skepticism is healthy) are actually turning around and calling for other TOP MEN from the same fucking source–government– and wanting the latter TOP MEN to step in on the former.

          It’s kind of mind-blowing. In one breath TOP MEN are bad, and in the next, they want more TOP MEN to top the first TOP MEN. Amazing shit.

          1. Top men magically become majestic avatars of justice when they agree with me.

            The problem is when top men disagree with me, in which case they are clearly in the employ of big oil or perhaps the teacher’s union.

          2. No. The politicians wanting to quarantine are just covering their asses. They are just doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. You don’t have to have any faith in this clown to realize the people who say this nurse couldn’t possibly be dangerous can’t be trusted when they say that.

            1. Why do you have faith that these TOP MEN can properly quarantine her? What makes them special?

              1. Nothing. But I don’t think she should be quarantined because I believe them. I think she should because I don’t believe the others. My opinion of the people doing this has nothing to do with it.

                1. But you *do* think the government should quarantine her. You don’t trust ‘self-monitoring’.

                  You don’t trust the guys who say the quarantine is unnecessary – you have flat-out said you don’t believe the data on this disease that’s been collected over the last several decades (this ain’t the first Ebola epidemic Africa has seen). You like to point out that the tests aren’t 100% accurate, that we don’t know ‘for sure’ that a carrier is not contagious until symptomatic, that we aren’t 100% on modes of transmission.

                  And now you don’t think the guys who will force her into quarantine can be trusted to do it effectively, but you think she should be forced into quarantine by the government anyway?

                  1. If there’s significant uncertainty about her contagiousness we should err on the side of quarantine. This is a horrible deadly disease that is transmitted as easily as the flu, which spreads like wildfire in our “first world sanitation” society every winter. The only thing protecting us is that there aren’t that many infecteds.

                    I know it’s contrary to libertarian dogma, but the real world sometimes doesn’t get along with dogma. Sorry.

                    1. If there’s significant uncertainty about her contagiousness we should err on the side of quarantine.

                      If there’s significant* uncertainty about the suspected murderer’s guilt we should err on the side of incarceration.

                      *Whatever “significant” means. Weasel words like this hardly ever turn out to mean what you intend them to mean, like “probable cause”.

                  2. No Agammamon, I see no reason why these people cant’ quarantine her. If there is one thing the government seems to be able to do is lock people up.

                    I have no opinion on this governor’s view of the virus because his opinion doesn’t matter. What matters is the fact that no one knows with any certainty if this woman is dangerous.

                    1. Unfortunately its not jsut about locking *her* up, its about locking the *disease* up.

                      And if there’s one thing the government has shown its not capable of doing, its enforcing an effective quarantine.

                      I mean, we can’t keep prisoners from getting cell phones and drugs into jail – and those are far easier to detect than Ebola.

              2. Why do you have faith that these TOP MEN can properly quarantine her?

                Nobody doubts the government’s ability to lock people in cages.

          3. Most of the people decrying the TOP MEN . . . are actually turning around and calling for other TOP MEN from the same fucking source–government– and wanting the latter TOP MEN to step in on the former.

            Dude, this whole comment section has been filling up with this thinking for a while now, on a variety of subjects.

            1. No it hasn’t. You just think it has because you are missing the point.

          4. In one breath TOP MEN are bad, and in the next, they want more TOP MEN to top the first TOP MEN.

            TOP MEN aren’t necessarily right, but they’re also not necessarily wrong. There’s no more contradiction here than saying “I don’t agree with those senators but I agree with Rand Paul.”

            I am not quite taking the side of the Governor here, but I don’t think it’s obvious that he’s wrong. And AFAIK he hasn’t said anything as obviously inane as claiming (as the CDC director did) that you can’t catch Ebola on the bus, but if you are an Ebola victim, you shouldn’t ride the bus because you might give it to someone else.

      3. There actual things as experts. It’s good not to trust someone just because of a title, but at some point, unless you are going to become an expert in everything and do your own research from scratch, you’re going to have to trust what someone more knowledgeable about a subject area tells you.

        Don’t trust the tests? OK. But give more evidence than simply saying Top. Men.

        1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/di…..able-test/

          The trsts are ot relable. No one claims they are. The fact that you guys just assumed they were shows how much wishful thinking you are engaging in.

          1. You forgot to read.

            He said that “what we do have on hand is the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test,” a DNA analysis that can identify the genetic fingerprints for a host of infectious diseases. This is the type of laboratory test that’s been used to diagnose symptomatic Ebola cases so far.

            The catch: The PCR test typically takes at least 24 hours to bring back results, Tierno noted.

            So, contrary to your assertions, there is a test, it just takes a while. A day.

            1. You really coup fuck up a cup of coffee. Which part of “has been used to diagnose symptomatic Ebola cases” do you not understand? Or do you think this woman is symptomatic?

              Jesus Christ try harder or something.

              1. People infected with Ebola aren’t contagious until they are symptomatic, so it’s all so much noise over so little. If she gets symptoms, then she can be tested while she stays at home. You desperately want this to be scary, but it just isn’t, sorry.

                1. People infected with Ebola aren’t contagious until they are symptomatic

                  Sorry, but pulling wishful thinking out of your ass doesn’t cut it. Further, it is not immediately obvious when you become symptomatic. It is not like you immediately start throwing up. You can have a fever and not know it. Moreover, even if you do know what do you do? Teleport yourself to quarantine?

                  I get it, you will believe anything that fits your narrative that no quarantine is ever justified. We already knew that.

                  1. John, I never invoked “Top Men”. I just said the test and no symptoms is good enough for me.

                    She can come over to my house and make dinner.

                    You don’t want her at your house, don’t have her over.

                    Till there’s some evidence of an epidemic here, I’m back to “more than comfortable that we’re not going to experience an epidemic here.”

                    You want a quarantine? Fine. In this case, I don’t.

                    Have a nice day, or not. Your choice.

                    1. I just said the test and no symptoms is good enough for me.

                      Good for you. Go bang her for all of I care. But you or her shouldn’t be able to make the choice for everyone else. Sadly, if you are wrong about this, and you have nothing beyond blind faith to think that you are, you won’t be the one dying. Nice of you to be so willing to put other people’s lives in danger over your convictions.

                    2. But you or her shouldn’t be able to make the choice for everyone else.

                      But that’s *exactly* what you’re doing. You want her quarantined – *you* are advocating for people to do exactly what you don’t want your opponents to do.

                    3. No I am not. If she is quarantined you can take whatever risk you like and go see her. All quarantining her is doing is making sure she doesn’t put anyone who doesn’t want to take that risk at risk.

                2. “People infected with Ebola aren’t contagious until they are symptomatic, so it’s all so much noise over so little.”

                  Cite missing.

                  1. Sorry, but pulling wishful thinking out of your ass doesn’t cut it.

                    Please educate yourself.

                    “Humans are not infectious until they develop symptoms. ”

                    http://www.who.int/mediacentre…../fs103/en/

                    Scroll down.

                    Further, it is not immediately obvious when you become symptomatic. It is not like you immediately start throwing up. You can have a fever and not know it.

                    It’s called ‘feeling sick’. It’s pretty obvious. Even if you can’t feel the fever (who can’t detect a fever?), the general malaise is the symptom.

                    I get it, you will believe anything that fits your narrative that no quarantine is ever justified. We already knew that.

                    This is so amusing. John, watching you try to play scientist is like watching a little kid pretend to do karate. You don’t even know what to make of the things you read online. No critical thinking.

                    1. It’s called ‘feeling sick’. It’s pretty obvious. Even if you can’t feel the fever (who can’t detect a fever?), the general malaise is the symptom.

                      And the person will immediately know that and magically end all human contact. Yeah there is clearly no risk here.

                    2. General malaise?

                      So, Jimmy Carter had Ebola!!!!

                      That explains a lot

                    3. Whether or not one is feeling sick, I’m pretty sure it’s poor etiquette to barf, piss, bleed, or shit on everyone you meet. Maybe you were raised differently and expect that whenever you interact with someone.

                    4. Brian, I am pretty sure you don’t have control over when you throw up when the symptoms of this shit set in. Also, the CDC is now admitting you can spread it with a sneeze.

                    5. Also, the CDC is now admitting you can spread it with a sneeze.

                      1. Citation needed
                      2. These are the Top Men you don’t believe when they say something contrary to what you want to hear.

                    6. Agammenon,

                      The citation is below. And the point is not that they are right. It is that their story is changing and they clearly don’t have a full understanding of this virus.

                      Is there any point you can’t miss?

                    7. “1. Citation needed”

                      http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/
                      Note: “blood or body fluids (including but not limited to urine, saliva, sweat, feces, vomit, breast milk, and semen) of a person who is sick with Ebola”
                      You think the ‘not limited to’ somehow removes respiratory mucus if sweat can do it?
                      How about you grab the doorknob patient X just used and wipe your eye?

                    8. Clearly, you haven’t viewed much porn

                    9. I don’t watch the sort of porn that would get me arrested in the UK.

                    10. Not only that John but as the patient zero cases in NYC and Nigeria show Ebola infected people will enthusiastically put numerous people at risk and then lie unceasingly about their behavior up to that point. Libertarianism is a politically philosophy for people whose first instincts aren’t “fu&@ everyone else I’m going to do my thing.”

                    11. Sam Haysom|10.30.14 @ 10:35PM|#
                      …”Libertarianism is a politically philosophy for people whose first instincts aren’t “fu&@ everyone else I’m going to do my thing.””

                      Gee, Sam, just what we need. One more ignorant asshole claiming to know what l’tarianism is!
                      Fuck off.

                    12. Gee another libertarian who confuses belligerence with a point. I know it sucks that you can’t really contest my point but better to hide that fact than advertise it by throwing poop. Monkeys don’t know any better I would hope libertarians would.

                    13. “Sam Haysom|10.31.14 @ 12:01AM|#
                      “Gee another libertarian who confuses belligerence with a point”

                      Gee, another lying piece of shit who knows jack shit!
                      Fuck off, asshole.

                    14. Patient Zero in Nigeria denied he had Ebola as he was throwing up blood two weeks after his sister died of Ebola. When Libertarianism shifted from actions (waltzing into Ebola infested Western Africa) have consequences (you are going to spend some time in quarantine) to “you aren’t the boss of me slaver” it stopped being a political philosophy and become an attitude. This lady made a choice the consequences should be borne by her not some innocent kid at a bowling ally. The behavior of the Ebola patients up to this point has been a perfect demonstration of how human frailty makes people act in completely irresponsible ways that end up killing people. The infected doctor lied repeatedly about what he did in the first hours of his contagiousness.

                    15. Sam Libertarians have a terrible time understanding that people are not always like them. Since they are generally very responsible people, they just can’t grasp that someone would act the way the infected doctor in New York did.

                    16. John,
                      Sam is a lying piece of shit who can be ignored.
                      Fuck off, Sam.

                    17. Cytotoxic|10.30.14 @ 10:14PM|#
                      …”It’s called ‘feeling sick’. It’s pretty obvious. Even if you can’t feel the fever (who can’t detect a fever?), the general malaise is the symptom.”

                      Trying for the Bo prize tonight?
                      Fine, by the third frame, I’m bowling 300 and feeling great!
                      By the tenth frame, I’m vomiting.
                      Now, tell us, oh great authority, when should this person be put in isolation?
                      Don’t know? Quelle surprise!
                      STFU.

            2. Blood Test For Ebola Doesn’t Catch Infection Early

              In an ideal world, health care workers returning from West Africa would get a quick blood test to prove they aren’t carrying the Ebola virus. A test like that would likely put to rest some of the anxiety surrounding these doctors, nurses and scientists.

              Unfortunately, even the best blood test in the world can’t do that.

              The test uses a technology called PCR, for polymerase chain reaction. It can detect extraordinarily small traces of genetic material from the Ebola virus.

              But the catch is, the test is usually used on blood samples. And in the beginning, that’s not where the Ebola virus hides.

              “The initial sites of replication actually are not in the blood itself ? they’re mostly in tissues like spleen or liver,” says Thomas Geisbert, a microbiologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

            3. PCR tests usually test for antibodies or fragments thereof. Developing antibodies to a pathogen takes time, at least a day or two. Consequently it is not a valid test for those who have just become infected, those with a low level of pathogen ( because low level infections seldom cause a humoral (antibody) reaction) or those whose infection is being suppressed by the innate immune system. Moreover PCR testing will be positive for those who have been infected and survive.

        2. Problem is the “experts” (a) have conflicts of interest up the wazoo, and (b) have already been wrong on this issue a few times.

          1. And (c) have blatantly lied. (The “can give it on a bus but can’t catch it” thing.)

  9. Editor, Lewiston Morning Tribune:
    If I wish to import a horse into the United States from Liberia or any African country other than Morocco, the horse needs to undergo a 60 day quarantine period at a USDA approved quarantine facility prior to mingling with the general population of horses in this country. Africa has a disease called African Horse Sickness that does not exist in the US; this is the way we have kept it out of this country. African Horse Sickness does not cause disease in people, only horses; our government has determined that it would be devastating to the US horse industry if it were to come here.

    1. So Morocco is the only country on the whole continent where African Horse Sickness is not endemic (or at least the only one where it has been proven not to be endemic)? Hopefully that’s a good sign that ebola won’t make it’s way there, since I’ll be traveling to Morocco next month.

      1. It could be something about Morocco and the United States’ long trade relationship actually. Their head of state was the first to recognize U.S. legitimacy.

  10. The United States (and virtually all other countries) require a myriad of tests and often quarantine prior to bringing in a foreign animal.
    I can’t legally cross state lines in the United States with a horse or cow without a health certificate signed by a USDA accredited veterinarian stating that the animal has been inspected and found free of infectious disease. In most cases blood tests are also required. In fact I can’t legally cross the Snake River and ride my horse in Washington without a health certificate and a negative blood test for Equine Infectious Anemia.
    I’m not complaining; the United States of America, the States of Idaho and Washington as well as the other 48 states take the health of our livestock very seriously, and we have a very good record at keeping foreign animal diseases out of our country. I am happy to do my part to maintain biosecurity in our animal population.
    If I am a resident of Liberia incubating Ebola, to enter the United States all I need to do is present a valid visa, and lie when asked if I have been exposed to Ebola. Within hours (no quarantine required) I can be walking the streets of any city in the United States.
    I feel very fortunate to live in a country that values our animals so highly.
    David A. Rustebakke, DVM

    1. Don’t confuse these people with any science that disturbs their narative.

      1. You know you’re saying this into a mirror, don’t you, John?

        We get it. You know all, everyone else is a retard. Blue Tony mode. Got it.

        1. On this subject? Yes, a whole lot of people are allowing their politics to make them stupid. Tough shit if pointing that out upsets you. You people are choosing to believe whatever confirms your politics. And you may end up being right. But if you are, it will because it happened to work out that way not because your thinking was in any way valid.

          1. More projection.

            1. How does this confirm my politics? Last I looked I was the person who thinks airport security is ridiculous and pointless. Go find anywhere I support the precautionary principle. I don’t.

              Quarantining this women doesn’t support my politics. But unlike you I am smart enough to understand that life doesn’t give a shit about my politics and sometimes reality dictates something different.

              If you are going to use the word projection, you might try learning what it means. Buy a dictionary because it is not the only word you seem not to understand.

          2. Yes, “my thinking is totally invalid”, Johm.

            But not yours. Have fun in the funhouse.

            PS Did I say I was “upset”? No, YOU’RE upset. Calm down – we’ll kiss and make up over Friday Funnies tomorrow!

            1. Yeah. I am right and you are wrong. Sometimes that happens. You are willing to risk a pandemic on the assurances of people who obviously don’t know everything about this virus because believing them fits your politics. I am skeptical of that and don’t think we should take such a risk based on the faith in people who obviously don’t have all of the information.

              It is really that simple.

              1. The precautionary principle really is a guiding light, isn’t it, John?

                I can see similar arguments being made about cracking down on inner city drug use, because that shit could become endemic and then where will we be? Some people claim the cure is worse than the alleged disease, but they’re just not thinking broadly enough–imagine what might happen if we’re not overcautious enough!

                This isn’t Typhoid Mary we’re talking about. This is a human being targeted by a political agency for shakedown because her plight makes for more votes. If she proves symptomatic, and I have no reason to believe that she wouldn’t be the first submitted to isolated treatment if for no other reason than to save her own skin, we can talk about depriving her of liberty. But not preemptively–certainly not asymptomatically.

                1. The precautionary principle really is a guiding light, isn’t it, John?

                  No fucking half wit. But just because it is invalid sometimes doesn’t mean it is invalid other times. Some risks really are worth mitigating against.

                  And when she gets symptoms it is too late. We cant teleport her to quarantine. She will at that point been symptomatic and probably have exposed someone before we can quarantine her.

                  And is it is nice of you that you will “talk about” doing something after she is symptomatic. Lets have a trial and let her take the subway there every day.

                  This is why Lbiertarians are so unpopular even though they are so often right. It is because they let their ideology cause them to take idiotic positions like “just because she might have a deadly contagious virus doesn’t mean we can make her stay home for a few weeks”

                  The idiocy of that position is self evident to everyone except ideological Lbiertarians.

                  1. It’s easy when it’s one presumptuous nurse, isn’t it?

                    You’re for detaining a bunch of marines on the same pretext? (I am, but only because they’re already government property.)

                    1. Yes Dweebstan. The Marines can suck it up and stay in the barracks for a couple of weeks. They will get over it.

                    2. You’re for detaining a bunch of marines on the same pretext? (I am, but only because they’re already government property.)

                      Which Obama is already doing, the “settled science” be damned.

                  2. Also, I’m not against quarantining someone who’s symptomatic on the Typhoid Mary premise. If she isn’t willing to remain situated, which again, I find difficult to believe, then absolutely, incarcerate her. Assuming she’s proven infected. Which she hasn’t been.

                    However, politicizing the case and making ominous, contentious threats from on high only drives suspicion and makes probably that anyone else returning from abroad who might be carriers will think twice about making their situations widely known until it’s too far gone. Antagonizing people isn’t a sound policy, and this whole gambit has been a colossal waste of political capital.

                    1. If we had perfect knowledge of how this virus worked, you would have a point Dweebstan. The problem is we don’t have such knowledge. So when you say she is not going to give this virus to anyone because she doesn’t have any symptoms, you are just trusting the CDC on that. And they have shown time and again, they don’t fully understand how this virus is transmitted.

                    2. Typhoid Mary was an unsymptomatic carrier.

                    3. Quarantine means isolating those exposed to a disease or those from a country where the disease is present. It doesn’t meant isolating those who are already symptomatic or those are sick. It means isolating those who MIGHT be or shortly become sick. By its nature quarantine is offensive to libertarian principles. But it is the ONLY certain way of preventing transmission of certain diseases from entering a country.

              2. Unfortunately John, you’re willing to give the government one more tool of oppression on the supposition that since we don’t know with 100% certainty then we must, by default, trample over human rights to ensure safety.

                The people who pushed (and passed) the Patriot Act felt the same way. I’m sure they also felt that there was little chance that its provisions would be abused and the the scope of their use enlarged far beyond the drafter’s intent.

                I don’t think we’re at the point of needing to take the hard option and I’m very aware of the danger of allowing the government to expand the scope of its power.

                Ebola *is* virulent, but this isn’t the first outbreak we’ve had to deal with, just the first in the internet age – this story feeds right into what the 24-hour news cycle knows will get eyeballs on the screen.

                Give me a hundred cases in the US and then I’ll consider mandatory quarantines. But, as 9-11 has shown us, *we* have to do the security/freedom calculation ourselves *beforehand* because when the government does it it always comes out ‘more security’.

                1. Agammamon|10.30.14 @ 11:57PM|#
                  “Ebola *is* virulent, but this isn’t the first outbreak we’ve had to deal with, just the first in the internet age – this story feeds right into what the 24-hour news cycle knows will get eyeballs on the screen.”

                  Could be, but it’s also the first outbreak since travel has become so easy and the ‘popularity’ and funding of charity medical care had increased to the levels is has.
                  In the past, the exposure wasn’t as great, so the precautions could be less with good result.

                2. Give me a hundred cases in the US and then I’ll consider mandatory quarantines.

                  I don’t think there are beds for 100 people in BSL-4 facilities in the whole country. That’s what Steven Hatfill thinks would be required. And that’s probably $50,000,000 worth of care, at least. We’d be very foolish to not consider it for a much, much lower number.

                3. I think I’m pretty libertarian. I only believe in laws that prevent people form being hurt by other people. That would include assault, murder, rape, theft, and spreading the deadliest naturally occurring disease in the world.

        2. Yup. John is somewhere between Mary and Tulpa.

          1. Cytotoxic|10.30.14 @ 10:14PM|#
            “Yup. John is somewhere between Mary and Tulpa.”

            Which is amusing coming from someone somewhere between Genghis Khan and Stalin.

            1. To borrow an old wisecrack, I wish I could be half as sure of anything as Cytotoxic is of everything.

    2. Well if we put in asinine excessive regulations for animals then we should totally do it for people too. How convincing. Not.

      1. Wait, so now the animal quarantines are “asinine excessive regulations” as well? All just silly, unscientific paranoia and politics?

        1. Its zoonophobia!11!!

          1. Xenozoonophobia!

    3. Yeah, and I can’t legally drive so much as an apple from OR to CA. Who gives a shit? Sometimes stupid restrictions are stupid, not “science”.

  11. Wicked pissah article. Heartening to see ‘robust’ and intelligent legal analysis in a Reason article

    This ain’t scotusblog or Volokh (now with the Post) .com but this, in the post Balko era is encouraging

    Props!!

  12. The Department of Health and Human Services can unilaterally “take a person into custody and order prescribed care,” which includes “isolation” or “quarantine,” but only if:

    (d) The public or their representatives have an irrational fear of this person caused by general ignorance or specific irresponsible media coverage.

    Clause (d) is also known as the FYTW clause. It’s a silent member of every statute.

  13. I’m thinking by now, if he coulda, he woulda. His empty bluster is starting to get embarrassing.

    1. I imagine the only thing stopping him is that she will sue the living shit out of him if he does it, and he will lose unless she’s contagious, and might even lose if she isn’t because there’s no evidence. However, if there were less cameras on this he’d probably just do it anyway. She was smart to get the press involved; very smart.

      1. Sorry, “might even lose if she is“. Not isn’t.

        1. Yeah, she’s schooling him in PR at the moment. If he acts now, it’ll only be out of desperation/ego.

          1. It’s kind of like The Streisand Effect applied to politicians

          2. What Steve G said. Governor Lardass was smart enough to back off before the stink stuck to him. Governor LL Bean didn’t, and now he looks more and more like the authoritarian putz asshole that he is.

            Lardass says, “Bounce off me, stick to you, Gov. LL Bean!”

          3. The nurse is absolutely not schooling him in PR. He’s about to gut out a close election by running against the lady who has replaced Obama as the most radioactive person in America. People absolutley hate this lady.

            1. But what about my freedom to infect random people, huh slaver!

      2. Of course she got the press involved: she’s a CDC employee, spouting the official CDC position, and her lawyer is a White House visitor. What a set of coincidences, eh?

        She is not standing against the TOP MEN of Maine, she’s a stand-in for the TOP MEN of DC.

        1. Yeah, the whole thing is a a setup.

          How much you wanna bet that she’s never even been to West Africa?

          1. I wouldn’t go that far, but I think word came down that if a CDC employee choose to challenge any quarantine, they’d have the administration on their side, that all expenses would be covered, and that it wouldn’t exactly hurt their career.

  14. CDC-“In outbreak investigations, some EVD patients have not reported contact with another EVD patient, leading to speculation regarding transmission via aerosolized virus particles. In the Kikwit outbreak, 12 (3.8%) of 316 EVD patients did not report high-risk contact with a known EVD patient.7 EVD was not laboratory-confirmed in any of these 12 patients, however, and exposure histories for 10 of the 12 patients were provided by surrogates (because the 10 patients died before they could be interviewed); direct contact with EVD patients could have been missed because of wording of the study instrument, and transmission via droplets or fomites were also not ruled out.”
    MIT-“Indeed, the study finds, the smaller droplets that emerge in a cough or sneeze may travel five to 200 times further than they would if those droplets simply moved as groups of unconnected particles ? which is what previous estimates had assumed. The tendency of these droplets to stay airborne, resuspended by gas clouds, means that ventilation systems may be more prone to transmitting potentially infectious particles than had been suspected”.

    1. Good stuff!!

      Cheers!

      Wanking is one thing, but (Thomas Dolby voice) SCIENCE is another

  15. And Mythbusters- http://www.discovery.com/tv-sh…..neezes.htm

  16. Guy sounds (and looks) like a real jackass to me.

    http://www.anon-way.tk

  17. More and more I find myself hoping she does have it

  18. Once again, folks:

    “Sevo|10.30.14 @ 9:01PM|#
    I’m going to be VERY specific here.
    AFAIK, this statement: “Hickox may have been “exposed to” Ebola in Africa, but she is not “at significant medical risk” of transmitting it, and the threat she poses is neither “serious” nor “imminent.””
    is beyond Sullum’s ability to claim.

    I refer you to:
    https://reason.com/blog/2014/10…..es#comment
    Beginning time stamp 8:24.
    Also: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/
    It seems our knowledge of the ease of transmission is not nearly as certain as Sullum seems to claim.
    I am NOT arguing to ‘throw the bitch in the slammer!’, I am arguing that it is less clear-cut than Sullum claims.”

    Now, does anyone have any real info that contradicts that?

    1. I don’t think you throw her in the slammer. But I don’t see how telling her to stay in her house for a few weeks until we know she doesn’t have it is some kind of crime against humanity.

      And the CDC position on this keeps changing. Yet, somehow we are supposed to believe Sullum when he claims this woman has no risk of transmitting it. Why? Because it makes Sullum feel good to believe that?

      1. I’d be cool with “asking her” to stay in her home.

        “Forcing her” – no.

        And, let me stipulate – she is an unlikable little camera-whore bitch.

        But – the hard cases are where we test principles. She’s an obnoxious bitch – I still don’t want her locked up unvoluntarily, even in her own house.

        1. Almanian!|10.30.14 @ 10:17PM|#
          “I’d be cool with “asking her” to stay in her home.
          “Forcing her” – no.”

          OK, this is a question I asked last night: In your opinion, is there a condition were coerced quarantine is appropriate?

          1. I would say yes. Let’s say some patients broke out of an Ebola ward and hijacked a plane with her (and others) on it. I think I’d be OK with a coerced quarantine for them all.

            1. And you win the prize for being the only one to answer!
              You’ll notice no one else is willing to put a limit on the matter…

              1. Thank you. I’m not saying that’s likely or where my line would be, but I think the thought experiment shows coerced quarantines are not always wrong.

            2. Contagious people are treated in isolated hospital wards. That is not a quarantine. Quarantine is for noncontagious people exposed to the disease so as to see if an infection develops (and they become contagious). To quarantine contagious and hence infected individuals is tantamount to killing most of them, since quarantine is isolation which includes medical staff and so precludes treatment. You don’t know what quarantine means.

        2. Asking her is meaningless. If she were willing to act responsibly this wouldn’t be an issue. Moreover, if you are so convinced there is no risk, why are you cool with asking her? Why ask her to do something you admit it stupid and unnecessary? If, however, you admit there is some risk here, then why are not willing to force her? Why should she be allowed to put the health of other people at risk?

          1. “Why should she be allowed to put the health of other people at risk?”

            See vaccination; questions thereof.

            1. See non aggression principle. When your freedom harms other people it no longer is your freedom. You have a right to do anything you want right up until your behavior harms other people or places them at risk without their consent.

              1. So preemptively locking up meth or crack addicts because they might Hulk out and beat on 5′ 0″ grannies carrying their groceries upstairs, or because they might start breaking into cars for change and stereo faceplates, or because they might somehow insidiously begin spreading their addiction to unwitting passersby–totally cool, then?

                They haven’t not just the right to break into cars and beat on old women, they haven’t even got the right to possibly put themselves at risk of doing so.

                1. If meth or crack addicts killed 70% of the people they touched, and each person they touched cost $500,000 to treat, you’d be an idiot to not support preemptively locking up meth or crack addicts.

                2. Sorry dweeb but not every argument can be won by reductio absurdum. The question is what are the actual risks your behavior is creating. If they are utterly speculative, sure your points make sense.

                  Your problem here is that these risks are not speculative. This is a real virus and it has killed thousands of people and we don’t understand fully how it is transmitted. And on top of that it mutates like crazy and every patient is trillions of spins on the big roulette wheel to see if “contagious by air” comes up. So there is a very significant possibility that if not this women one of these health professionals is going to make a lot of people very sick.

                  That is a whole lot different than your fantasies about meth head. So your argument fails.

                  1. I loved this.

                    “WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT WORKS BUT LET ME TELL YOU HOW IT WORKS.”

                    Fuck, John, you’ve gone full retard on Ebola.

                    I’ll tell you what. If more than 100 people in the US contract Ebola, I’ll personally suck your dick.

                3. Dweebston|10.30.14 @ 11:17PM|#
                  “So preemptively locking up meth or crack addicts because they might Hulk out and beat on 5′ 0″ grannies carrying their groceries upstairs, or because they might start breaking into cars for change and stereo faceplates, or because they might somehow insidiously begin spreading their addiction to unwitting passersby–totally cool, then?”

                  Ya know, you might have some standing if you’d answered my question to begin with rather than throw out some idiotic hyperbole.

              2. This is the sort of thinking that got us DUI checkpoints, the .08 per se laws, gun bans and ‘may issue’ permits, and the drug war.

                1. Yawn. Anything that’s against libertarian dogma is the drug war and gun control, yada yada yada.

                2. Yes and no. It’s not always bad to take precautions. Precautions for something that has a 70% risk of death are much more rational than a DUI checkpoint. Gun ownership or drug use or even DUI don’t have a 70% risk of death.

                  1. Setting aside that I believe DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional and are certainly unconstitutional in my state as a matter of caselaw since we have privacy in our Constitution the issue with DUIs as opposed to drug use is the DUI presents risk of death to other persons which is much more concerning than risk of death to the person engaging in the activity such as drug use

                    A general libertarian principle is that when activity presents a risk to the person engaging in it only that generally should be outside the realm of government intervention but iwhen it creates a substantial risk to other people it is an entirely different issue

          2. “Asking her is meaningless. If she were willing to act responsibly this wouldn’t be an issue.”

            also, you’re not really actually “asking” if you’re not prepared to accept the answer other than the one you were hoping for.

      2. “But I don’t see how telling her to stay in her house for a few weeks until we know she doesn’t have it is some kind of crime against humanity.”

        I do, which is why I think we need to look at this very carefully before we start locking people up.
        But I also think we need to avoid claiming we know all about it when it is obvious from the changing ‘stories’ that we do not.
        We, as a nation, have only X isolation wards available; once those are in use, our ability to contain the disease is severely compromised.

        1. So telling a small group of people whom we know have been exposed to a deadly virus that we are not sure how contagious it is to stay in their homes and away from the public is a “crime against humanity”? Really?

          This is not “just locking people up”.

          1. The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few, or the one.

            ~Evil Spock

            1. Yeah Brian, your freedom includes the right to engage in behavior that puts other people’s lives at risk without their consent. You called it dude. That whole non aggression principle is hundreds of years old and not relevant anymore.

              1. That whole thing in Wolf of Wall Street was just about the dangers of doing ‘ludes in the 80s, not about the recklessness of acting recklessly.

      3. I don’t see how telling a couple to bake one cake for a gay wedding they won’t even have to attend is some kind of crime against humanity.

        1. If not baking the cake could result in someone dying, you are right it does.

          Congratulations Mr. Green you win the award for most retarded analogy of October 2014.

  19. http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/c…..ead-ebola/

    Not a week ago, the CDC was saying you couldn’t spread Ebola through sneezes and now they admit you can. But hey, don’t let that stop any of you from having absolute faith in when they say there is no reason to quarantine anyone who isn’t symptomatic.

    1. Who’s relying on “what the CDC said”? Just wondering. I know I haven’t mentioned them.

      1. Well, Sullum didn’t give any links citing his claims, but I’d bet that’s the source.
        If not, I’d sure like to know. Hey, JS! Where’d you get the info?

      2. If you are not relying on the CDC for that claim who are you relying on? The best you can do is say “who says we are relying on the CDC” and not even give a link to anyone else? Can’t you see how stupid this is making you? You would never do that in another context.

        1. John, you keep spouting off the CDC’s talking points like a retarded parrot. That’s the reason Almanian asked. If you took the stick out of your ass for a bit you’d see he even tried to make it sound non-threatening. Perhaps you’ve got teh ebolaz and are running a fever though.

      3. We have several people upthread arguing that you should trust the experts.

  20. Heh, fuck you dolphin and whale and fuck yooooooiouuuuuuuuu Sheriff Arpaio!!

    Leaves me warm and fuzzy…

    Waxing notwithstanding

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/…..ar-BBbQ0mg

  21. Bottom line. As a nurse/healthcare professional, she certainly knows more about how Ebola is spread than a fucking politician who’s running for reelection in five fucking days.

    Science or politics?

    I think it’s awesome that she’s telling him to fuck off.

    1. As a nurse/healthcare professional, she certainly knows more about how Ebola is spread than a fucking politician who’s running for reelection in five fucking days.

      I bet she doesn’t know as much as the doctor in New York who was convinced he was infected and then lied about what he did after it turned out he was.

      She is a nurse and doesn’t know shit. No one knows shit. That is the whole point. The best doctors in the world don’t fully understand this virus.

      And what you think of this governor has nothing to do with it. You quarantine this woman because you don’t believe the health officials who are claiming she couldn’t possibly transmit this stuff. Since their story changes every day it seems, they clearly don’t have a full understanding of this virus and are making claims that are not certain to be true. You don’t do it because you believe this governor. He just happens to be doing the right thing for probably the wrong reasons.

        1. Thanks for admitting you have lost the argument. It is one thing to be stupid. It is another to choose to be so. And on this subject, and a few others, that is exactly what you are doing.

          You have no response to the point above but rather than admit you beloved ideology might not provide the answer, you just say something dismissive and pretend the points don’t exist.

          I understand having an opinion. But how it is that someone could be so willingly pig ignorant like this is utterly beyond my understanding. Does being stupid make you feel that good? Is admitting someone else might be right about something just that painful?

          1. Fuck off pussy.

            I rewrote my comment 3 times because I couldn’t do it without insulting you and decided you weren’t worth arguing with.

            Your justification is that of an uninformed, risk averse idiot. But, hey, you’re a republican, I should expect that.

            She has been working with this disease for, how long? How long have you been treating it John?

            She is asymptomatic. She cannot spread it while asymptomatic.

            Fuck off and die in a fire you sniveling, authoritarian asshole.

            1. She has been working with this disease for, how long? How long have you been treating it John?

              Uh, you just admitted that was irrelevant. Find a new red herring.

            2. She has been working with this disease for, how long? How long have you been treating it John?

              How long had the Doctor in New York who was also convinced he didn’t have it but did been working with the disease?

              You are reduced to claiming that “she is a nurse so of course she knows”. Don’t worry about the fact that this virus has killed thousands, including hundreds of medical professionals. She thinks she is okay and who are we to deny it. You have to realize how stupid that sounds.

              She is asymptomatic. She cannot spread it while asymptomatic.

              Again, we don’t know that. They think that but they don’t know it. Moreover, even if it were true, there is no way to magically put her quarantine the moment her symptoms arise so that she doesn’t expose anyone else.

              I don’t think you are actually this stupid. You just allow your politics to make you stupid. I will never understand how someone could allow an ideology effect them that way. It apparently makes some people feel good.

              And as far as my being risk adverse, yes I am being risk adverse because it is other people’s risk. You are so happy to risk other people’s lives to further you ideology. Fuck you, since when did the people in Maine grant you or this nurse the right to put their lives at risk?

              1. How long had the Doctor in New York who was also convinced he didn’t have it but did been working with the disease?

                And how many other people did he infect?

                1. We don’t know yet. And even if he infected no one, that just means he got lucky. He still placed a ton of people at risk of getting the infection. Just because they were lucky and didn’t get it doesn’t make his behavior any less irresponsible.

                  If I walk down your street randomly firing a gun in the air, the fact that I get lucky and don’t anyone doesn’t make my behavior any less reckless.

                  1. And if it turns out the guy did infect someone, Francisco will no doubt shift to a different rationalization.

                    If I didn’t know better, I’d think that Reason Writers and many people on this blog were already against quarantining those exposed to Ebola even before they knew anything about the mechanics of Ebola.

                    1. “If I didn’t know better, I’d think that Reason Writers and many people on this blog were already against quarantining those exposed to Ebola even before they knew anything about the mechanics of Ebola.”

                      I keep asking and NOT ONE DAMN person has answered:
                      If you oppose quarantine in this circumstance, is there a circumstance where coercive quarantine is appropriate and what is that circumstance?
                      I get the feeling that those opposing it here have not given one thought to the matter, right, Epi?

                    2. “Oh for fuck’s sake!”
                      Still SFd

                    3. Do a search for “Quarantine and Isolation: Lesson Learned from SARS”

                    4. I keep asking and NOT ONE DAMN person has answered:

                      Sorry, Sevo, I was doing more important shit, like fucking Liberian hookers while doing lines off their ass.

                      Anyhow, yes. The circumstance where quarantine is appropriate is when evidence can dictate that the subject has a deadly, incurable communicable disease. I don’t have a specific definition for deadly, as I wasn’t really planning on writing a fucking law this morning, but I’m pretty sure it means expected mortality rate in excess of 50% w/treatment. So no, you can’t quarantine me for having the flu.

                      That said, the important factor here is that the state must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the subject does have the disease. This is where John goes retarded and starts spouting off his cockamamie bullshit about “WE DON’T KNOW BUT I KNOW!!!!11” If you’re that fucking scared of someone sneezing ebola on you… well, you’re already fucked buddy. And if nobody can prove you have a disease, then they have no justification for locking you up.

                      I hope this satisfies you a little but doubt you’ll ever read it. 🙁

                    5. Tell you what MH. If the doc infected someone, I’ll personally apologize to both you and John in front of the entire world.

                    6. Francisco d’Anconia|10.30.14 @ 11:37PM|#
                      “If you are asymptomatic, you aren’t infectious.”

                      And if in the 3rd frame, I’m bowling 300 and feel great, but by the 10th frame, I’m puking, when am I symptomatic?

                    7. Francisco d’Anconia|10.30.14 @ 11:41PM|#
                      “Tell you what MH. If the doc infected someone, I’ll personally apologize to both you and John in front of the entire world.”

                      Frank, if I’m the one infected, I’ll be more than happy to tell you where to put the apology…

                  2. And even if he infected no one, that just means he got lucky.

                    OR, all the doctors and the CDC is right, contrary to John’s feelz, and you aren’t infectious until after you show symptoms.

                    1. OR, all the doctors and the CDC is right,

                      Maybe. I am not saying they are wrong. I am saying we don’t know yet.

                    2. So, you are proposing actions based upon no evidence whatsoever.

                      IOW…you base your actions on John’s feelz.

                    3. And they’re also right about teleportation to quarantine happening immediately after onset of symptoms.

            3. She is asymptotic but could well become either symptomatic or infectious or both within the next 10 day or so. Will she immediately know when this happens ? No she will not, a slight fever is not usually noticeable (she wasn’t aware she had a fever when entering the country). Could she infect someone during the period when she develops symptoms and becomes infectious. Yes she could . A reasonable person would not take the chance of spreading a disease with a 50% (when treated) mortality rate. An ideologue, either for totally unrestrained personal freedom, or for open borders might.

    2. So if she were a janitor who was around a lot of Ebola vomit, you’d be OK with throwing her ass in the quarantine?

      That’s going to work great.

      1. No, I wouldn’t quarantine anyone who was asymptomatic.

        1. I am sure you wouldn’t. And why is that? Because the public health officials whose story has changed on this every day and who clearly don’t fully understand this virus have told you that is what they think. And why do you believe these people even though they obviously don’t know?

          Deliberate ignorance in the furtherance of ideology must be one hell of a high.

          1. I am sure you wouldn’t. And why is that?

            Because I base my actions upon reason rather than feelz.

            1. And yet you continue to contradict yourself somehow.

              So is her occupation relevant to this discussion or not? You’ve got two contradictory opinions here.

              1. Where is this alleged contradiction?

                1. You said she shouldn’t be quarantined because she can be trusted to recognize the symptoms.

                  Later you said even a janitor shouldn’t be quarantined.

                  1. Your reading comprehension is lacking.

                    I trust a nurses opinion over that of a politician. She has been dealing with the disease daily. She is much more credible than some asshole trying to use this issue to buy votes.

                    It has nothing to do with her being able to recognize symptoms. Any idiot knows when the have a fever.

                    If you are asymptomatic, you aren’t infectious.

                    1. Her conflict of interest is much, much bigger than the governor’s.

                      It has nothing to do with her being able to recognize symptoms. Any idiot knows when the have a fever.

                      Which can be caused by, and thus blamed on, a gazillion diseases or conditions. The early symptoms of Ebola mimic flu symptoms. Natural human denial is going to lead you to assume it’s just the flu.

                    2. After treating Ebola victims? Please.

                    3. So it is about her ability to recognize symptoms after all? LOL.

                      I’m getting dizzy on the merry-go-round of your circular arguments.

                    4. You must get sick going through turnstiles then.

                      You don’t know if you have a fever?

                      You don’t know you’ve been treating infected patients?

                      You couldn’t put 2 and 2 together? You’d take the chance and say, ah hell, it’s probably just the flu?

                    5. You’d take the chance and say, ah hell, it’s probably just the flu?

                      A lot of people would. How do I trust whether she is one of them?

                      A lot of people who die of colon cancer saw blood in their stools, every day, 10 years before and blamed it on hemorrhoids.

                      Denial ain’t just something Anonymous does to service.

                    6. “You couldn’t put 2 and 2 together? You’d take the chance and say, ah hell, it’s probably just the flu?”

                      Like the nurse who flew from Cleveland to Dallas? That sort of ‘professional caution’?

                    7. Francisco d’Anconia|10.30.14 @ 11:37PM|#
                      “If you are asymptomatic, you aren’t infectious.”

                      And if in the 3rd frame, I’m bowling 300 and feel great, but by the 10th frame, I’m puking, when am I symptomatic?

                    8. And if in the 3rd frame, I’m bowling 300 and feel great, but by the 10th frame, I’m puking, when am I symptomatic?

                      The way I understand it, the infectious stage occurs significantly later. It’s not like if you get sick on a plane, you are infectious by the time you land.

                    9. “The way I understand it, the infectious stage occurs significantly later. It’s not like if you get sick on a plane, you are infectious by the time you land.”

                      I have to admit, I got nothing better than CDC and the guy I was conversing with last night didn’t have any better data either, but nothing here suggests your understanding is robust:
                      http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/

                    10. My understanding has nothing to do with it. I’m going by what the healthcare specialists and the CDC are saying.

                      I’ve seen NOTHING here providing a shred of evidence that the CDC is wrong.

                      Just a lot of “what if” and speculation. Granted, it’s a government agency, but when it comes to infectious diseases, I sure as shit trust the CDC over John.

                    11. Francisco d’Anconia|10.31.14 @ 12:04AM|#
                      “I’ve seen NOTHING here providing a shred of evidence that the CDC is wrong.”

                      I don’t either, but did you read the damn link?
                      http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/
                      The CDC makes NO claim that someone must be symptomatic to spread the infection.
                      Please READ the damn thing! I’ve been linking it for two days and no one has bothered to read it.

                    12. Sorry, it’s on the Index of Reasonoid Forbidden Links.

                    13. Merrill Hess|10.31.14 @ 12:10AM|#
                      “Sorry, it’s on the Index of Reasonoid Forbidden Links.”

                      It must be! People claiming ‘CC said X!’; here’s the DAMN LINK!
                      http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/

                    14. The CDC makes NO claim that someone must be symptomatic to spread the infection.

                      Um…read the white letters in the gray box.

                    15. OK, I missed those, but they seem to be contradicted by:
                      “When an infection does occur in humans, the virus can be spread in several ways to others. Ebola is spread through direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes in, for example, the eyes, nose, or mouth) with

                      blood or body fluids (including but not limited to urine, saliva, sweat, feces, vomit, breast milk, and semen) of a person who is sick with Ebola”

                    16. Not contradictory, just not perfectly clear. They should have included the phrase “when symptomatic” in your cited passage, instead of putting it on another page.

                      But they are the government. I expect a shitty job.

                    17. I trust a nurses opinion over that of a politician

                      But as I just posted, she’s an employee of the CDC, a Democrat voter (if not activist), spouting the CDC line, and her lawyer is known to have been a White House visitor. That’s a lot of interesting coincidences, no? So are you sure there’s no politics involved on her side, and that it’s all just pure science over there?

                    18. “So are you sure there’s no politics involved on her side, and that it’s all just pure science over there?”

                      Even if there are no overt “politics” involved, why presume she knows how and when transmission is effected?
                      I’ve dealt with RNs who claim ‘Therapeutic Touch’ is a valid treatment.

                    19. She’s been working with it? First-hand knowledge?

                    20. I’ve dealt with RNs who claim ‘Therapeutic Touch’ is a valid treatment.

                      Me personally, I’d believe it just because she’s been working with Ebola and isn’t dead yet. That, in itself, is an accomplishment.

                    21. I’ve dealt with RNs who claim ‘Therapeutic Touch’ is a valid treatment.

                      Me personally, I’d believe it just because she’s been working with Ebola and isn’t dead yet. That, in itself, is an accomplishment.

                    22. Oh, I don’t. Hundreds of dead doctors and nurses tell me that “science” doesn’t know everything about Ebola transmission.

                    23. I’ve dealt with RNs who claim ‘Therapeutic Touch’ is a valid treatment

                      Ah! The old layin’ on o’ the hands! What were they – Irish Catholic?

                      For sexual dysfunction maybe. Ebola? Not so much.

                    24. If you are asymptomatic, you aren’t infectious.

                      Says who – the damned federal agency she works for under the administration presently in power? Yeah, that’s reassuring.

                    25. Normal human temperature ranges from 97F to 99F and varies further depending upon activity and time of day. Consequently one is usually not aware of the initial stages of a fever. At what stage of an ebola induced fever (at what specific temperature) one becomes infectious is unknown and probably highly variable.

            2. Because I base my actions upon reason rather than feelz.

              How are you reasoning here? All you are doing is parroting back whatever other people tell you. You don’t know why you should trust those people or believe them other than you want to.

              You are not reasoning at all. You are just emotionally choosing to believe whatever fits your prejudices.

              1. I have no opinion about who is right but I have an absolute certainty John that merely because you are the one making the opposing argument there is exactly 0 chance in hell that this person disagreeing with you will even consider what you are saying let alone ever admit they were wrong

                We see this over and over again here that people take sides as much because of prejudice and ideology and argue as much because of who they are arguing with versus stepping aside taking some time and trying to digest both sides of the story before you draw a conclusion which is what intelligent and mature people do

                There is clearly a lot of intelligence here but it is where we tempered my maturity and that is the problem John I have seen you post some stuff that I think is patently absurd but I’m not going to automatically discount whatever you say because of that

                1. Ugh, voice to text

                  ‘Rarely tempered by maturity ‘

                2. I also admit I am wrong on here. Very few others ever do that.

                  1. That much is true

                    I have had my fair share of ‘my bad I was wrong’

                    Heck, I recently changed my mind in a case where I thought a cop HAD committed excessive force

                    Evidence later came in making me change my mind and I admitted that I had been wrong. h big effing deal. It amazes me how small some peoples egos are such that they simply can never say I was wrong

                    They would make Terrible police officers since a huge part of doing a criminal investigation is being able to say hey I was wrong when the fact pattern changes and the nature of investigation is such that that happens not infrequently and when a person is unable to make that change you get stuff like the Duke lacrosse case

                    And some of the biggest settlements the officers receive in lack of due process case for bogus firing et cetera Are cases where initially there was at least a decent reason to believe that there was misconduct but as more and more evidence came in the Copocrats refused to even look at it and just continually doubled down on their prejudices

                    It’s a question of maturity and Eagle not intelligence

                    1. Maturity and EGO

                    2. Fuck you, Get lost, asshole.

                3. I’m just sayin, Tulpa agreeing with you should make you want to reconsider your position by itself.

        2. So your above comment about trusting her cause she’s a nurse was an irrelevant red herring?

          1. Not so much a red herring as pulled out of his ass without any thought.

          2. No, I’m asking you who you trust with health questions? A nurse or a politician?

            Or John? He just feelz the right action to take.

            And they claim republicans aren’t the same as progs.

            1. Neither. I educate myself on the issue and make a decision for myself.

              If the nurse is wrong, she’s going to infect other people with Ebola.
              If the governor is wrong, a specific person is going to spend 21 days inconvenienced unnecessarily.

              With significant doubt on both sides I’ll side with the side that has lower risk.

              1. With significant doubt on both sides I’ll side with the side that has lower risk.

                Of course you will. Because you have fuckall stake in that person’s liberty.

                Were the roles reversed, you’d be screaming bloody fucking murder.

            2. Why don’t you try using some of that reason you are always yapping about and understand that you don’t have to believe the politician to understand that this nurse may actually be a danger.

              The fact that you think that believing the politician is necessary here is a good glimpse into how your ideology is serving to make you stupid. All you see is “politician” and your ideology tells you “he must be wrong” so that is your answer and you proceed to believe whatever is necessary to confirm that.

              The fact that the politician may be making the right decision for the wrong reasons or in spite of the fact that he is an idiot never occurs to you. And it also never occurs to you to judge the situation by the credibility of public health officials’ claimns she can’t transimit the disease. All you see is a buzz word “politician” and act accordingly.

        3. Francisco d’Anconia|10.30.14 @ 11:04PM|#
          “No, I wouldn’t quarantine anyone who was asymptomatic.”

          Is there a condition where you would coercively quarantine someone and what would that be?

          1. Is there a condition where you would coercively quarantine someone and what would that be?

            Absolutely.

            When there is a likely probability that not doing so would lead to further infections.

            That is not the case. They know how this is spread. They know when it’s spread. Based on this, they know that the likelihood of an epidemic is low. That’s why they aren’t quarantining people.

            1. “They know how this is spread. They know when it’s spread.”

              I’m not sure who you mean by “they”, but I’d ask you to look here:
              http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/
              And tell me why I can’t contract it by touching the door knob a patient just touched and wiping my eye.

              1. It’s as easy to transmit as the flu.

                And we have flu spreading like wildfire every winter, despite the existence of a vaccine.

                1. That’s not true.

                  Work by mathematical epidemiologist Gerardo Chowell-Puente shows that when looking at the transmission dynamics of the two, the rate of transmission of Ebola is around 1.3 to 1.8 and for one strain of flu it ranged from 1.5 to 3.75 depending on conditions. Overall, the Rt of the flu can range from 2 to 5.

                  And we have flu spreading like wildfire every winter, despite the existence of a vaccine.

                  Again, that’s because the influenza virus is highly mutagenic. That’s also why an Ebola vax would be so hard as Ebola is actually slightly more mutagenic than influenza; however, it would have to be a hell of a mutation to get Ebola out from its favorite hidey-hole in the spleen and liver and into the lungs.

                  1. Ebola is actually slightly more mutagenic than influenza;

                    Yikes!

                    however, it would have to be a hell of a mutation to get Ebola out from its favorite hidey-hole in the spleen and liver and into the lungs.

                    But there are many possible bad mutations. It could mutate to lay dormant longer. It could mutate to be transmissible by rats or dogs or mosquitoes.

                2. It’s as easy to transmit as the flu.

                  This line is fucking bullshit. The Flu kills roughly 50k people a year. Ebola might barely break 10% of that.

              2. And tell me why I can’t contract it by touching the door knob a patient just touched and wiping my eye.

                You can, if the person touching the doorknob is symptomatic.

                Read the white letters in the gray box.

                1. And I ask again, if I’m feelin’ good by the third frame and puking by the 10th, when did I become symptomatic?

                  1. And I ask again, if I’m feelin’ good by the third frame and puking by the 10th, when did I become symptomatic?

                    This is a crucial issue, which many are gliding over with the “no symptoms = no risk” statements. It’s not binary, it’s not tied to a specific temperature, it depends on the viral load in the victim and their biochemistry, and on the biochemistry and luck of the next potential victim. Nobody can say, other than that the risk to the next person ranges from “none” to “slight” to “moderate” to “kills doctors and nurses who you would think would know how to avoid getting it.” The end points exist and aren’t controversial, but there’s a lot of uncertainty in between those points.

                2. symptomatic does not mean infectious. You can have a fever or throw up for many reasons. You can only catch ebola from a person who is infectious . Most infectious people are symptomatic. The CDC claims all infectious people are symptomatic. However that is not true for some other viruses such a HIV and CMV (cytomegalvirus) . We really haven’t had enough experience with ebola to be 100% certain .

            2. There’s an Ebola epidemic in Africa, so there’s no reason “they” would know an epidemic is unlikely.

              What’s preventing an epidemic here is that we don’t have enough cases here. Yet.

        4. No, I wouldn’t quarantine anyone who was asymptomatic.

          Including an asymptomatic carrier?

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10881895

          This study showed that asymptomatic, replicative Ebola infection can and does occur in human beings. The lack of genetic differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals suggest that asymptomatic Ebola infection did not result from viral mutations. Elucidation of the factors related to the genesis of the strong inflammatory response occurring early during the infectious process in these asymptomatic individuals could increase our understanding of the disease.

    3. But several nurses and doctors have already spread Ebola so that’s no assurance of anything. In fact overall, this is bro ably true for many infectious diseases, but medical professionals still get sick. There’s no reason at all to think being a medical professional makes her less likely to spread anything.

        1. And when she starts to show symptoms, she and all her bodily fluids will automatically teleport into quarantine, right?

          1. She doesn’t have symptoms Merill. Stop interrupting Fransisco’s ignorance high.

          2. No, the infectious stage is post symptomatic. Post means after.

            1. Including 0.0001 ms after, when she sure as hell isn’t quarantined yet under your regime. And that’s assuming she doesn’t mistake it for the flu.

            2. And if in the 3rd frame, I’m bowling 300 and feel great, but by the 10th frame, I’m puking, when am I symptomatic?

              1. When you miss the sex pin.

            3. No, the infectious stage is post symptomatic. Post means after.

              No, the infectious stage is believed to be post symptomatic. There’s less scientific certainty there than you seem to think. Yes, when someone is very sick they are very infectious, and when they are first infected they aren’t. (Except in the possible case of Person 1 getting infectious material on themselves, and the contaminating Person 2.) However, it’s not binary no/yes. It’s some sort of curve between 0 at the start and 100 at the end. One in eight victims do not show a fever, so you can’t rely on that as an indication of infection.

              And 21 days is already a compromise, because there’s only a 95% confidence that the disease would manifest within that time. (And only 98% confidence within 42 days.) And some people are more likely to get infected than others, because of different body chemistry. And there’s a lot we don’t know about this strain of Ebola. And there’s a chance it may mutate into something worse.

              Some limited, sensible caution about this seems wise. Libertarians believe in limited, cautious government. It’s hardly the boot of tyranny to tell a very limited number of people who have been exposed to Ebola victims that they need to stay home for three weeks (the 95% confidence period). Especially when hundreds of doctors and nurses have already died from this.

              1. Do you have any evidence of anyone being infected by an asymptomatic person?

                If not, your caution is not sensible.

                1. If not, your caution is not sensible.

                  Caution is NEVER sensible, and nothing is worth expressing concern about. The worst outcome in any possible situation is that someone come off as a pants-shitting pussy.

                2. I wouldn’t expect such evidence to exist even if it did happen. That shit is hard to track down in Africa, which is the only place there have been sufficiently many cases.

                  1. I wouldn’t expect such evidence to exist even if it did happen.

                    So you’re basing your proposed actions on feelz, then?

                    1. No, an educated guess about the known unknowns and a cost benefit calculation therefrom.

                      You’ve been basing the whole thing on your dogma.

                    2. I’m basing my “whole thing” on what the CDC is telling us.

                      Do you have some evidence they are lying or incorrect?

                      Please tell me what evidence your “educated” guess is based upon.

                3. Francisco d’Anconia|10.31.14 @ 12:29AM|#
                  “Do you have any evidence of anyone being infected by an asymptomatic person?”

                  Frank:
                  IF I”M FEELIN’ GOOD BY THE THIRD FRAME AND PUKING BY THE TENTH, WHEN AM I SYMPTOMATIC?
                  Would you please answer the damn question?

                  1. I answered this the first time you asked it.

                    I don’t have a citation. But I heard you weren’t contagious immediately upon showing symptoms. It was a reputable source, but I can’t remember who exactly.
                    Best I can do.

                4. Do you have any evidence of anyone being infected by an asymptomatic person?

                  Do you think medical experts would say they know enough about Ebola, and this strain, and possible mutations of this strain, to say that it’s simply impossible to be infected by an asymptomatic person? I don’t think they would.

                  1. Do you think medical experts would say they know enough about Ebola, and this strain, and possible mutations of this strain, to say that it’s simply impossible to be infected by an asymptomatic person?

                    Nothing is impossible. It’s a question of probability.

                    And the experts are saying:

                    You need to be symptomatic to spread it.

                5. Do you have any evidence of anyone being infected by an asymptomatic person?

                  This study showed that asymptomatic, replicative Ebola infection can and does occur in human beings

                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10881895

              2. And 21 days is already a compromise, because there’s only a 95% confidence that the disease would manifest within that time.

                Jesus fucking christ, in what other scenario would you -not- consider 95% “all the time?”

                1. In a scenario with a disease that kills 70% of the time and is killing thousands, a safety method that works 19 times out of 20 doesn’t seem like “all the time.”

        2. So is everyone else who gets the virus, for a while. Her being asymptotic is no assurance she doesn’t have the virus and no assurance she won’t pass it to someone before she realizes she has symptoms and goes to quarantine. And that is even assuming that she can’t transmit it before she gets symptoms, which is something we don’t know for sure.

          1. We’ll just go with whatever John feelz is right. What could be more scientific than that?

            1. Again, thank you for admitting you have lost this argument. I didn’t say anything in that paragraph about feeling and you know it. That entire paragraph was nothing but a list of the things we don’t know and the rational conclusions you can make based on that. That post is about as dispassionate as one can get.

              Given that, why do you claim I am arguing emotion when I am clearly not? If you can’t answer my arguments just admit I have a point. It does your argument no good to lie about what I am saying when my post is right above your lie.

            2. These aren’t just John’s “feelings.” What he is saying has basis in biochemistry and statistics and what is known about Ebola. Infectiousness isn’t a binary yes/no issue that happens at 100.5 degrees fever or whatever. A 21 day quarantine, while not a 100% effective preventive measure, seems like a reasonable compromise.

              1. A 21 day quarantine, while not a 100% effective preventive measure, seems like a reasonable compromise.

                Ok, but you first.

                Or, prove to me that you didn’t come into contact with anyone that might have Ebola.

                1. Straw man alert! Nobody is saying quarantine for “anyone who might,” just for anyone who did.

      1. Chicago style politics?

    1. Thank you for breaking up the Ebola clusterfuck occurring up-thread. You are an American hero.

      1. It seems to be a very fucked cluster; it continues below unabated.

        1. And yet, the thread is ABOUT that!
          How ’bout those Giants?

      2. I don’t see why it is any bigger cluster fuck than any other thread? I cluster fuck now code for any thread that goes badly for Libertarians?

    2. Critics predicted the law would result in soaring insurance premiums and national health-care spending. So far, that hasn’t happened.

      You apparently are able to access the Internet of Bizarro World.

  22. Solution: give all nurses and doctors returning from W. Africa a month’s stay at the White House, to thank them for their heroism, sharing bathrooms and meals with the Obamas, the whole nine yards. Maybe even allow them to prepare meals for the president and family.

    Since Obama has assured us they’re totally safe to be around, I can’t imagine what problem he would have with this.

    1. No. The solution is to hire them all as reason interns with a shared coffee pot and lunch buffet every day.

    2. I could support this.

    3. I like your solution, Mr. Hess – I like it very much!

  23. This is a perfect example of how libertarians can be just like ideologues of any stripe when they are perfectly willing to form an opinion on a paucity of data

    People you are discussing things like they are experts that they have no fucking clue about myself included and I have no opinion about many aspects of this case because I can admit that simply way beyond my understanding

    There are some people Will have an opinion on every single topic that is brought up here and nobody is knowledgeable enough to have a valid opinion on every topic yet some people think that they do because they just apply a general philosophical principle to something without understanding the nuances et cetera and then will argue that point and ignore conflicting data matter how intriguing

    If there’s one thing you almost never hear people say here and it’s something I’ve said on many occasions it is that’ I am agnostic on this issue and need more information’

    With all thy getting, get understanding

      1. Yeah, that’s getting as tiresome as Bo.
        Fuck off, Tulpa.

      2. How many damned sock puppets does he have on these boards now!

  24. The easy solution would be to hold these health care “professionals” criminally and civilly liable for any damage caused to others by their infection. They know they were exposed, know they should be self quarantining and know the symptoms. That NYC dumbass should be criminally liable and financially responsible for the fiasco he caused by not self quarantining. Should this nurse come down with ebola and expose numerous people by flaunting a self quarantine she should be liable.

    1. If they have the disease they are likely to die in pretty quick order. So the threat of liability is pretty meaningless. Moreover, no one who goes out in public thinks they have the disease. So why would the threat of liability deter them from risking transmitting a disease they think they don’t have?

      1. If they have the disease they are likely to die in pretty quick order.

        -1 Dr. Kent Brantly

        -1 Nancy Writebol

        -1 Dr. Rick Sacra

        -1 Dr. who chooses to remain anonymous

        -1 Nina Pham

        -1 Amber Vinson

        1. So your position is that this virus doesn’t have a high mortality rate? That will come as a hell of a surprise to the thousands of people who have died from it.

          And since when does “likely” mean certain? Since it doesn’t, your list of survivors proves nothing except, not everyone dies from Ebola. So what? Most do.

          1. No, John. I merely pointed out that every American health care professional, you know the people you were talking about, who had contracted Ebola have survived so far.

            So within the bounds of your previous statement, it shows that it actually isn’t likely that they (i.e., the American health care professional in our thought experiment) wouldn’t “die in pretty quick order”.

            If you want to start talking about the mortality rate of Africans with Ebola, that’s fine. But don’t pretend that’s who you were referring to in your original statement.

            1. they only reason why they have fared better is that they got near perfect and immediate treatment. If there were more cases in this country, that would no longer be true and people would die at a rate closer to that of Africa.

              1. they only reason why they have fared better is that they got near perfect and immediate treatment. If there were more cases in this country, that would no longer be true and people would die at a rate closer to that of Africa.

                How, precisely, do you know this?

            2. The more important point is that if the thought of spreading a deadly disease isn’t going to deter you, the threat of some future liability if you happen to survive the disease won’t either.

              So liability isn’t a solution here.

            3. Heroic Mulatto|10.31.14 @ 12:06AM|#
              “No, John. I merely pointed out that every American health care professional, you know the people you were talking about, who had contracted Ebola have survived so far.”

              HM, that is a VERY select group, and they got the absolute best treatment at the very few isolation wards available.
              IF there are infections beyond, say, one a week, we as a country are out of trained medical crew and isolation wards pretty quickly and I doubt Canada is gonna be much help; at that point containing it is gonna get tough.

              1. HM, that is a VERY select group, and they got the absolute best treatment at the very few isolation wards available.

                That’s true. But until the facts on the ground change, that doesn’t add any validity to John’s pronouncement of impending death.

                IF there are infections beyond, say, one a week, we as a country are out of trained medical crew and isolation wards pretty quickly and I doubt Canada is gonna be much help; at that point containing it is gonna get tough.

                And until we see a large increase in transmission rates, that scenario isn’t going to happen. The only way that would happen is if we airlifted 100s of Ebola patients from Africa into the country.

                Not that I would put that past the Obama administration, mind you.

                1. “And until we see a large increase in transmission rates, that scenario isn’t going to happen.”

                  Given the facilities and trained medical crews, I’m going to put “large increase” as N=5.
                  Not 6, not 10, 5.
                  Because I have heard nothing suggesting that the CDC is anywhere close to being prepared for more than that.

          2. The mortality rate in Africa is high – because they tend to be treated in shitty facilities when they’re treated at all.

            You’re comparing apples and oranges here.

            The main treatment for Ebola is supportive care – feed ’em, hydrate ’em and let the disease run its course. We have a great ability to do that in the US and the mortality rate for people *treated in the west* is significantly lower than the overall mortality rate.

            As an example – the fatality rate in remote areas tops 90% while the *overall* rate hovers around 50-60%. That’s the total rate, *including* both the mortality rate in remote areas (90%+) and the rate in relatively modern (for Africa) medical facilities.

            The mortality rate in the US is likely to be significantly lower than that 50-60% as we have even better supportive care abilities, better diagnostics, and a healthier population overall.

            1. Agammamon|10.31.14 @ 12:14AM|#
              …”We have a great ability to do that in the US and the mortality rate for people *treated in the west* is significantly lower than the overall mortality rate.”

              Yes, we do, but we also have limited assets in which to treat the victims.
              Once the (few) isolation wards are full, what then?

            2. The main treatment for Ebola is supportive care – feed ’em, hydrate ’em and let the disease run its course.

              Sounds easy, but remember that should be under BSL-3 or BSL-4 conditions, which isn’t cheap. The cost I’ve seen is $500,000/patient.

              1. Maybe Obamacare will cover it. (snicker)

  25. If quarantines are so stupid, senseless, and scientifically unsound, and potential Ebola carriers are so harmless to everyone around them until they start throwing up and shitting themselves, then why the fuck has our government just declared that every single soldier serving in the hot zone region has to undergo a mandatory 21 day quarantine when they leave?

    I have yet to hear anything even remotely approaching an intelligent, logical answer to this question based on science from anyone, especially our “Top Men” who are making these bizarre and confounding policy decisions.

    And the douchebag Obama’s blithe comment to the effect of “Because I say so and they have to do what I tell them” doesn’t count at all. That’s nothing but a way of dismissing the question without truly answering it.

    1. I will tell you why, because the military makes decisions on facts not politics. For all of its faults, and there are many, the military is about the last governmental institution we have left that manages to make decisions based on reality rather than political fantasy.

      But hey, I am sure the CDC is right here and no the military.

      1. John, have you been *in* the military?

        There are very few decisions based on ‘facts’ at the upper echelon when public opinion is on the line.

        The reason the military has its quarantine is two-fold.

        1. They, like you, are acting on a ‘worst-first’ line of thinking.

        2. They can get away with it.

      2. On big decisions like this one, the military gets their directives from their civilian bosses. It was Secretary of Defense Hagel who mandated the quarantine, and there is absolutely no way in hell Hagel is giving an order like that without Obama explicitly approving it.

        1. And the kicker is these troops are just there for construction work and likely will have no direct contact with any patients…unlike the medical personnel who actually treat them.

          But yeah, lets quarantine returning troops – not medical personnel. Another great decision of the boy wonder in the White House.

  26. When my mom was a teen she was quarantined in the 30’s for diphtheria. She didn’t like it but understood why it had to be done. Her little sister died from it.

    1. When my mom got measles as a kid they burned all her stuffed animals. She never mentioned the quarantine.

  27. Interesting viewpoint from Nobel prize winning doctor who has Ebola experience

    http://tinyurl.com/mwr6n66

    1. It is a bit more than interesting.

      “I favor it, because it’s not entirely clear that they can’t transmit the disease,” Beutler said, referring to asymptomatic healthcare workers like Kaci Hickox, a Doctors Without Borders nurse returning from treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone who was quarantined in New Jersey for 65 hours before being transported to her home state of Maine on Monday afternoon.

      He is just some risk adverse pussy like I am. What does the Nobel Prize winner know? The nurse say she is fine.

      1. What does the Nobel Prize winner know?

        Who, Krugman?

        1. Obama? Gore?

  28. Booya police body cameras

    And Booya gorgeous weightlifters

    http://izismile.com/2012/07/26….._gifs.html

    1. Oh, fuck off, tulpa.

  29. What if Hickox turns out to have Ebola and spreads it to others because of her refusal to be quarantined, would there be legal ramifications? What if someone died because of her? Fwiw, I think it’s unlikely that she has it and I hope she doesn’t, even though I think she sucks as a person, but I think it’s a valid question.

    1. If that happens – civil suits and criminal charges should certainly be brought.

      1. No

        That’s a results based analysis typical of how many people here do not understand legal process constitutional law et cetera

        Whether charges are justified is not dependent upon results it’s dependent upon process so if she did not act in gross negligence et cetera et cetera depending on statutes of the particular state then she should not be charged whether she kills one or thousand people

        She could be entirely criminally culpable even if she was never infected and nobody dies contrary she could be completely criminally innocent and have infected thousands it is always a process and analysis

        This is also why people here are so often worn in analysing police use of force because again they will use a results and not a process analysis

        Many cases similar to most of the worst prosecutors do the same thing in other words they see a victim and retroactively pull a McCoy eg ‘how do I twist the law to GET this person?’

        1. And again, I speak from actual experience having investigated hundreds of criminal cases and I know when charges are Bona fire and when they are not

          And having a four for four record in civil court again something I expect most people here have no experience in

          Get some experience successfully suing people and successfully conducting investigations and you have a much better understanding of what is involved

          1. “Bona Fire” would be a good name for a deep-dish pizza parlor.

        2. Dunphy, two things.

          1. Civil and criminal trials exist to determine culpability.

          2. DUI fucking roadblocks. .08 per se law.

          1. At, criminal trials are not fishing expeditions

            IT IS UNETHICAL for a prosecutor to charge a case if he does not believe he can win it beyond a reasonable doubt

            Yes criminal trials determine culpability but you don’t bring about charges for a criminal trial without strong evidence of guilt

            Again the chutzpah of somebody here trying to explain this shit to me when I have testified in scores of criminal trials including as an expert witness and have been the complaining party on almost a half-dozen lawsuits is comical

            Christ on cracker

            I have seen people here misunderstand is constantly when they ask why wasn’t the person charged why wasn’t there a trial etc. and they don’t understand that at least according to the code of ethics for prosecutors etc. they cannot charge a crime unless they believe they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt..

            Hth

            1. What planet are you on? ‘Cause its not Earth.

  30. A whole lot of utilitarianism going on in here. One fucking person has died of ebola in the US. ONE! Talk about shitty risk evaluation. If you live near any of these people then don’t go near them. If you live thousands of miles away then chill the fuck out. In a couple of years when very little has come of this I hope you look back and see what pathetic bed-wetters you were and maybe reconsider advocating authoritarian bullshit going forward.

    1. Risk is about what might happen, not about what has happened.

      1. Risk is about the potential worst case outcome WEIGHED AGAINST THE PROBABILITY OF THAT OUTCOME OCCURRING.

        1. which you don’t know.

          1. Nor do you.

            But the CDC is well versed in predicting these things. THAT is why there are no quarantines.

            1. Except for returning military people, you mean.

            2. and the CDC is administered by political appointees of an administration which is fervently committed to open borders. Open borders are completely incompatible with any sort of quarantine system, despite their proven efficacy at preventing the spread of disease. That is why there are no quarantines nationally in the USA ( more rational countries do have quarantines)

              1. “despite their proven efficacy at preventing the spread of disease”- but only for horses.

        2. Francisco d’Anconia|10.31.14 @ 12:45AM|#
          “Risk is about the potential worst case outcome WEIGHED AGAINST THE PROBABILITY OF THAT OUTCOME OCCURRING.”

          So I.I. Rabi and Fermi are discussing whether the bomb is possible. I think it was Fermi who said it’s ‘not likely’.
          Rabi asked ‘how likely?’ Fermi said ‘10%’.
          Rabi said ‘if my doctor said I have a 10% chance of dying, I get interested!’
          Yes, probability matters, as does result.

          1. Yes, Sevo.

            But when my doctor tells me I have a .0000001% chance of dying, I laugh in his face.

    2. I question your risk evaluation. Mere numbers or percentages are misleading. (“Only 0.058% of Liberians have died of Ebola, so what are they worried about?”) Sure, you’re more likely to get the flu, but 70% of flu victims don’t die.

      1. And you’re far more likely to die of Ebola than get shot by a cop.

      2. 70% of american ebola victims don’t die. In fact the only one who has died contracted it outside the us and received treatment too late.

        1. And each case is estimated to have cost $500,000 (plus indirect costs).

      3. Only 0.058% of Libertarians have died of Ebola–most of them by apoplexy after arguing on HyR.

    3. Apatheist ?_??|10.31.14 @ 12:37AM|#
      …”Talk about shitty risk evaluation.”…

      I’m sure you have a better one?

  31. The main treatment for Ebola is supportive care – feed ’em, hydrate ’em and let the disease run its course. We have a great ability to do that in the US and the mortality rate for people *treated in the west* is significantly lower than the overall mortality rate.

    As an example – the fatality rate in remote areas tops 90% while the *overall* rate hovers around 50-60%. That’s the total rate, *including* both the mortality rate in remote areas (90%+) and the rate in relatively modern (for Africa) medical facilities.

    In one of P.J. O’Rourke’s books (I don’t remember which, maybe All the Trouble in the World?), he talks to a UN worker who says a lot of child deaths in Africa could be prevented by passing out salt pills that cost around 15? a piece, since so many children die of diarrhea.

    I was thinking that, when I catch Ebola, maybe I should take a teaspoon of salt before going to bed every night.

    1. Take a little sugar with it as well – and water, of course.

  32. UN ambassador shows off new ‘Ebola handshake’

    But there’s no need for alarm, because Ebola is really, really hard to catch! OK, it might be easy to give, but it’s hard to catch! And Liberians are much more likely to die of malaria, so why are they freaking out about Ebola, which has only killed .058% of them? According to plots of known infections, based on our 100% complete knowledge of the health of West Africans, it won’t be the top cause of death there for… months! We think! The medical profession has spoken! Well, many of us: the hundreds killed by Ebola aren’t talking right now. And not counting those pesky experts who disagree with the CDC, whose official line keeps changing, and whose director isn’t above blatantly lying to calm the unwashed masses. But you can rely on what the rest of us are saying right now.*

    *DISCLAIMER: Story may change, especially after the election.

  33. BTW, let’s debunk the ‘precautionary principle’ claims right now.
    The PP presumes a requirement to prove a non-shown risk is not possible.
    The risk here is easily shown: You can die from the stuff; people have. So please can that crap.

    1. Sure, you could die from it *if* you could find anyone to catch it from.

  34. Hey! Anyone want to hear an Ebola joke?

    1. Eh, you probably won’t get it.

    1. Antonio Buehler is an American activist known for his work on police accountability and his defense of the constitutional right to photograph, film and document the police. In 2012, Buehler was arrested in Austin, Texas, for recording the police after he allegedly witnessed a woman being abused by officers. The arrest contributed to his interest in the issue of police accountability and his foundation of the Peaceful Streets Project, an organization that trains the public to record police activity.[1]

      1. That shit is heroic

        RECORD THE POLICE (I do)

        And booooooooya body cameras – protecting cops, suspects and general citizenry alike

  35. Kaci Hickox is CDC “intelligence officer,” a graduate of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) program. Her name and picture are on page 138 (class of 2012) and she’s listed as a presenter on page 141. I wouldn’t normally link to Natural News, but this looks like a genuine CDC conference program.

    So she’s more than just “a nurse” or even “a CDC employee” with a cdc.gov email address. I’m not saying this proves anything about what she says, but it’s not a stretch to see her as a CDC mouthpiece.

    1. So she’s likely another Obama fellator? Swell.

  36. The cost thing should perk up som ears when you talk about the $500,000 per patient

    At least for those that have little compassion for human life which is at least a couple here

    It’s kind of like when people wank about how during an investigation officers are routinely placed on paid leave although in many cases they are shortly thereafter placed back on some sort of light-duty assignment so they are actually working for their pay…

    It is far cheaper to put officers on paid leave insensitive investigations than to jump the gun and fire them without due cause as case after case shows because not only are the costs of adjudicating expensive but the officer gets back pay including the potential overtime he would’ve worked during that. And of course during the period he’s getting paid somebody else was getting paid to work the sameshiftt

    Also when they jump the gun with an administrative investigation when criminal charges are pending the risk for them to commit a Garrity violation is huge.that’s just tons more liability as well as potential for the officer to get some serious compensation

    I was actually amazed to find out during the deposition process etc. that essentially the burden is placed on the Police Department and prosecutors to disapprove the Garity violation and not the other way around which makes it in some cases very difficult setting aside the canard that you can’t prove a negative you often have a lot of difficulty doing it

  37. I’m a bit outraged that she broke her self quarantine in such a blatant manner.

    If she fell from her bike, started bleeding, and became symptomatic soon after, oops, she just risked the lives of 3,4 paramedics and maybe even her boyfriend.

    Driving to a Starbucks or hitting the mall would have been a safer choice. A nurse who came in contact with Ebola patients and is not QUITE out of the woods should NOT be riding a bike. And her face is all over the news, you never know when mischief will strike.

    I really wish the businesses around her could refuse her service, telling her “You can disobey the voluntary quarantine imposed by the government, but we will exercise our right to self quarantine our business, so please go elsewhere.”

    But in that case, who will use the force of government on whom?

    It’s just insane. If a initial blood test can’t rule out future Ebola symptom to a scientific certainty, then why is a 21 day quarantine such a flagrant violation of her civil rights? You can break self quarantine but still behave in a way that respects the public’s concerns.

    A bike ride, are you kidding me? What’s next, consensual sex, fondue parties, and motor bike race?

    1. I really wish the businesses around her could refuse her service, telling her “You can disobey the voluntary quarantine imposed by the government, but we will exercise our right to self quarantine our business, so please go elsewhere.”

      This.

      1. I could support this.

        Unfortunately – ‘liberal’ accommodation laws have made a mockery of the First Amendment.

    2. Fondue Sex would be a pretty good name for a rock’n’roll band.

      or an ice cream flavor; that, too.

  38. The most dominant female athlete on the planet and one of the most dominant athletes regardless of gender and who is yet again upsetting the paradigm that skinny and nonathletic is the way to be sexy.

    She has been a maxim model and a bikini model has just gotten a major fashion model contract she starred in major motion pictures and she has no qualms promoting her sexuality as well as her status as the baddest chick on the planet

    Athleticism, beauty, sense of humour, confidence, sexy as hell, she is the full package

    BOOOOYA Rowdy Ronda Rousey

    http://www.rondamma.com/phone/index.html

    1. ok though, how coked-up are you right now?

  39. If an ebola exposed individual is symptomatic then they probably need to be hospitalized, not quarantined. A person may become symptomatic and infectious between their twice a day temperature readings, moreover they may become symptomatic and still feel fine and so disregard their potentially infectious state. The doctor in NY city is an example of such behavior. The whole idea of quarantine is to isolate not just the contagious but also those those who may well become become contagious. Involuntary quarantine is the only certain way of preventing the spread of the disease. Anything less has the potential of eventually causing the disease to spread.

  40. If you can ban smoking in public spaces, (or private businesses), I don’t see why you can’t lock people up by invoking the same principle of “public health.” The dangers are just as real.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.