News story for example. Do you agree or disagree with the question in the attached poll?
The Ebola virus doesn’t care whether its carrier is good or bad. If it transmits, it transmits.
Ebola is also not a cause for across-the-board quarantine, and routinely quarantining health workers will make Ebola worse.
Yes but that has nothing to do with whether someone is “good” or not.
good people don’t deserve to be quarantined ?
True …but they also don’t DESERVE Ebola,… of course bad people don’t either
Whack question, like a virus cares about who it infects?
I’m just going by what the President said.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Wednesday touted the heroism of health care workers fighting Ebola abroad, further emphasizing the disagreement between himself and other politicians who want the workers quarantined when they come home.
“All of them have signed up to leave their homes and their loved ones and head straight into the heart of the Ebola epidemic . . . We need to call them what they are, which is American heroes . . .They deserve our gratitude and they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.”
He didn’t say that they shouldn’t be quarantined because they’re heroes. He said that they shouldn’t be quarantined and that they’re heroes. Nothing in that statement says that goodness is a factor to use when making a decision about a quarantine.
A good person would insist on being quarantined if he or she knew they had Ebola. So it’s kind of a moot question.
Heck, I’d insist on being hospitalized.
^ This
Not to mention people aren’t so clearly binary as all good or all bad. In summation they could generally be rude, insensitive, manipulative, selfish asshats who beat their spouse and emotionally torture their kids… but be passionate about rescuing abandoned puppies and helping ebola patients. For that matter I could even see someone going to help for selfish, non-heroic reasons that in their mind outweigh the small risk of death (maybe currying favor with a hospital administrator or to somehow enhance their social standing.)
None of which has anything to do with whether quarantine is appropriate. It also doesn’t speak to how to treat the quarantined with the maximum of dignity and respect.
I think the point of the President’s comments was that it’s not the CDC health officials pushing quarantine for people who’ve been exposed to Ebola, it’s elected politicians and some of the frothier talking heads.
That said, it might be safer for the patients to self-quarantine, given the level of fear in some areas.
More to the point, a good person should insist on NOT BEING QUARANTINED if they are definitely not infected with Ebola, because giving in to politically motivated panic-mongering is always contrary to the public good.
True.
Nailed it.
The idea that a governor can lock you up, without trial or criminal charges, on just the basis of “I think you’re a health risk, even though actual scientists soy you aren’t” is pretty scary. The distrust of science sown by certain quarters is starting to really bear fruit.
The other subtext to Obama’s message is that we should be encouraging people who are willing to sacrifice their own safety to help out with Ebola in Africa, rather than discouraging them, by imposing additional hardship for purely political reasons that has no scientific backing.
Given that the main reason these quarantines are in place is because of an irrational fear by the public, I don’t have too much of a problem with trying to fight it by trying to push public opinion in the opposite direction, even if the argument used to do so is somewhat irrational.
I wouldn’t be surprised by lawsuits when the panic clears.
Contagious people are the only ones that need to be quarantined.
But only if their contagion is a threat to public health. I know a woman with a contagious laugh. It would be a shame to lock her away.