^I wouldn't mind being suspended with pay for 3 weeks even if it was for such a stupid reason. What a good deal for the teacher.
To a point and strictly from a personal POV, sure, but it would screw up their course plans and such so not be especially good for the kids. Substitute teachers do the best they can but the kids are better off with a regular rather than a shifting set of them. That aside though it seems they are getting cold feet about the mandatory quarantine, maybe. Started off at least one of the three States had said it would be in a medical facility, then they said home, now it seems the nurse in question was released after all. It's one thing to make noises about public safety, it's another to have to explain depriving people of freedom for no justifiable reason other than fear with an election coming up. Have to see if they back off or if they try it again I guess. The at home idea makes no sense either and hasn't been well explained in terms of how, or if, it would help. If they show no symptoms why confine them at all, and how does confining them help without also confining everyone else in the house? I really think they are working more on panic and politics rather than any well thought out course of action.
Can be weaponized, yes. Is weaponized, no. Let's take the first person in the US as an example since that one has run its course by now. Nobody who was on the plane into the US with him had any problems. Nobody who lived in a small apartment with him before he went to the hospital the first time did either. Nor the hospital staff from his first visit even though he had by then a 103 degree fever, the people at that apartment again after he was stupidly sent back home, nor the people in the ambulance that took him to the hospital the second time nor most of the staff that cared for him. Out of the 100 some odd people who had contact with him, some extended contact, only two got sick. Those two being the ones who dealt with him at his sickest. Not their fault I don't think but probably totally avoidable as well, they were never given the proper equipment or training and did the best they could in a situation they never should have been put into. I can't remember who offhand but recently I saw a comic joking about the issue, basically he was saying if you see piles of poo, vomit, and other bodily wastes laying around you probably shouldn't play with them. Greatly over simplified but closer to the truth than the hysteria we're seeing about people who aren't symptomatic and about places that just happen to be within maybe a few thousand miles or so of a case. 1 person has died in the US so far, some 4000 plus die of the flu in any given year and we don't even notice. Do you think we might be being played for fear and politics?
I wonder if there is a practical reason we haven't seen such a thing already. Maybe Bio warfare isn't actually such a realistic thing. Maybe they've tried and it never works. For all we know SARS AND H1N1 were weapons that failed miserably -yuri
The perfect time to introduce this into the public is winter time.when most people have a cold or a mild fever..ain't it odd how everyone is screaming to ban travel from infected areas ???..yet our leader says "" no""...and just let's anyone come in. My job in the military was a nuclear biological chemical specialist 54b....anytime.a unknown virus such as s.a.r.s.and. m.e.r.s....is introduced.....I pay attention...ive seen some old 50's. Era documented experiments,.that would make your skin crawl...( I seen these at a military video library )....don't trust what they release to the public...but look into what they try to cover up...For the gov. Could care less if u die..just look at their past record...ruby ridge and Waco Texas e.t.c...at least they won't get a direct finger pointed at them. For a virus...Thiers a island near the Hawaiian islands where we store our chemical arsenol..the Geneva rules say " we won't use them unless they are used on us "...but make no mistake we have them.along with every disease.plague.virus e.t.c. known to man..this island is used in case Thiers a accident.all the bad materials will harmlessly drift and dissapate over the ocean...be very aware when a virus makes headlines....and when ur gov. Ain't intrested.in a travel ban on a virus such as this...you better be aware..or get caught with your pants down by not taking this serious
Kaci Hickox, the nurse who was unjustly imprisoned by Christie then harassed by the Governor of Maine has just won her court case, hopefully this one will end here and they'll quit harassing her and others like her. A choice tidbit from the first article, then two links. In Friday's order, LaVerdiere said, "the court is fully aware of the misconceptions, misinformation, bad science and bad information being spread from shore to shore in our country with respect to Ebola. "The court is fully aware that people are acting out of fear and that this fear is not entirely rational. However, whether that fear is rational or not, it is present and it is real," the judge added, saying Hickox should follow three restrictions even though she is "not infectious." Those restrictions are "continue direct monitoring of her health, coordinate travel plans with health officials and report any symptoms". The same basic, common sense restrictions for the most part that we've used for other ebola outbreaks going back decades, the hysteria and fact free fear is the only thing that's really new here. First link is to an article which explains the ruling briefly and gives some background color. http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/10/31/health-ebola-usa-idINKBN0IK1S220141031 Second link is the one that I find to be really, really funny. The Texas hospital screwed up, but the Texas legal system worked flawlessly, without the panic, without the hysteria, infringement on the liberty of innocent people, without any of it. I don't know if the same would happen today but it damned well happened then. When Texas is the voice of compassion, sanity and reason you should damned well be ashamed of yourselves, New Jersey, New York and Maine, along with any others joining them. And yeah, I live in Texas, I'm allowed to be amused that we're the voice of reason for a change. http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20141031-dallas-judges-before-kaci-hickox-a-quarantine-was-handled-smoothly-here.ece
So what did the court actually accomplish? It's ruling makes some sense I agree but what if Hickox doesn't want to "coordinate travel plans" with health officials? She now is to get permission for her movements but what if she thinks she knows as much or more then they do? And that is apparently exactly what she thinks. What are they going to do if she doesn't get permission? Go back to court to force her? And how would they force someone like her to do anything she doesn't feel necessary other than lock her up? If she goes along with the court order her story is over but there's others as obstinate as she is and this court ruling has no teeth. As it is now there is no more mandatory for anyone who hasn't tested positive, but I don't think it'll make a difference.
What the court accomplished was to follow the law and protect the liberty of an individual against the hysteria of the mob. These are the same procedures we've used in the past, the same ones that Doctors Without Borders and others who are the closest things to experts I can think of suggests, the only ones that really make sense for something we have no reason to think she has. The biggest reason the numbers are as bad as they are in Africa is a lack of proper equipment and a lack of bed space as well as trained personnel to treat it. It's not as contagious as people seem to think, it just really sucks to deal with really sick people or their bodies and wastes without the proper equipment or training. She was properly equipped, properly trained, there's no reason to suspect exposure such as a needle stick and we normally don't make a habit in this country of depriving people of their liberty just because of someones unjustified fears, suggestion of what if. We normally wait until after they've done something wrong.
The case in Maine is just an example of redneck, backwoods ignorance. I grew up there, and it's embarrassing. I know exactly the type of ignorance she is encountering. First, governor LePage claims to be a "small-government, no taxes" kind of guy, yet he thinks he has the authority to quarantine her without any medical or legal justification. She is literally in one of the most rural counties in the United States. She is threatening no one by going for a bike ride. Rabies and potato bugs are more of a threat then this lady on her bike.
I normally try to find some humor in about any situation, but that's one that really challenges the effort. So many of the people who are so hysterical about this would like to call themselves constitutionalists, liberty driven, small government and all of that other good stuff but all it takes to get them to forget all about that stuff is a bit of fear and hype. Just depresses the hell out of me. What's so hard to understand about the idea that rights either apply always, or never, if we're so quick to sacrifice the rights of others when we're afraid then what security do we have if we scare someone else one day? Due process, habeas corpus and all of that other good stuff is there for a reason. When we start compromising it for causes we agree with or simply to pacify our fears we're also compromising it for causes we won't agree with, no matter if we realize it or not the precedent is being set. Either we're all secure in our rights, or none of us is, and our liking or agreeing with the cause in question has nothing to do with it.
Would you have sex with a person exposed to Ebola if you knew they wouldn't become symptomatic until the next day? Would you if you didn't know?
The last part I must have misunderstood... If I didn't know I wouldn't know, how would I make a choice about something I didn't know about? The first part though, it would have to be my wife I'd think, doubt she'd understand the experiment otherwise, but sure. Refer back to what we've already seen with the case in Dallas, I went over that some earlier this thread in this post http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/1335861-good-luck-us-all-ebola-march.html/page-8#entry20841617 He was in close contact with people days after he was symptomatic and the only two that got sick were some of those caring for him at his sickest. No, that doesn't mean take it lightly, I don't think I'd screw them the day after they showed, but before? No risk is no risk, if they aren't symptomatic there's no demonstrable risk.
I should have asked if you would feel comfortable having sex, not would you. The appearance of symptoms is just a point on a continuum used because it's a simple way to explain it to the public. The germs don't know when you become symptomatic. They say before this point you can't get it and in a couple of hours after someone checks their temperature you can. That makes no sense. You can pass it on a bit before but when the person becomes symptomatic they start spraying body fluids making that the time they become more dangerous. Having sex the day before symptoms appear would be extremely risky, and as far as having sex if you didn't know they would become symptomatic that's what the quarantine is for because no one knows they'll be symptomatic tomorrow. As far as the court ruling in Texas goes, didn't they order mandatory quarantine for the guy who wouldn't cooperate with a voluntary one? What's the difference in him and Hickox? They were both exposed, he had to be quarantined, she didn't and if I understand you, you think the courts got both rulings correct. What am I missing? FWIW, I'm not afraid of Ebola at this point. I think America, and much of the world, can handle a few Ebola patients. The point I'll start being afraid is when it's intentionally spread.
The virus levels are directly related to becoming symptomatic, they are also directly related to how symptomatic you are. Before you show any signs such as fever the levels are undetectable, there's no difference between a person who will become sick and a healthy person in terms of risk. Once they do start to show the sicker you are the more infectious you are. That's why the riskiest part is late case care and why those who were around Thomas Duncan, living in close quarters in a small apartment for days after he became symptomatic, it's why they didn't get sick but two nurses caring for him later did get sick. The answer to would I feel comfortable wouldn't change I wouldn't think, I'd say I'm a lot less likely to sleep with someone other than my wife for any reason (zero chance has been the winner so far and I expect it to continue) but the risk of ebola wouldn't change those odds one way or another. On Texas, yep, they sure did. That was covered in the second article I posted yesterday, he was given the same or a similar deal that Kaci Hickox was and he refused to cooperate. His choice, as I said yesterday normally we wait until after they do something wrong. He had a court order. She won her case and was never under a court order, just an illegal order she was right to challenge. That's why she went free and should have, and why he was in custody and should have been. On edit I should say the custody order was illegal and she was right to challenge it, that wasn't a court order. Her deal I mentioned yesterday is one though and she's following it so far as far as I know.
It would be funny if ebola was already here for centuries, and most americans just happen to be either healthy carriers or flat-out immune.
Nope, pretty quiet around here. Last night on "60 Minutes" they did a segment about it in Africa, where it's still a big problem.