The closest choice I could find was “huh?”
If they’ve been exposed to an infectious disease necessary precautions should be taken. Depending on the disease it might make sense to quarantine, and goodness doesn’t matter one bit. What matters is being sensible and understanding when a quarantine is necessary and when it’s part of a fear mongering campaign or ignorance.
I think it would depend on if it’s airborne or the droplet form.
Remember before when we talked about how horribly managed this was, as an excuse to get the military involved? You guys don’t trust these people. I don’t think it’s hard to understand why people are having trouble believing this stuff.
The thing we’ve been told, from the beginning, is that a 21-day quarantine is necessary. If that was part of the mismanagement, then we need to be told that, instead of being treated as stupid because we took that to be the truth.
Yes, I use “we” in that last paragraph. I remember us freaking out when that journalist violated her quarantine on day 20, despite being completely asymptomatic. I remember talks of a forced quarantine. I remember that being cited as one of the reasons the military needed to get involved.
I still am confused, and am having a hard time flipping over. I remember initially thinking the quarantines didn’t make sense if you were only contagious after becoming symptomatic. I took me a while to be convinced this wasn’t true. Now I’m being expected to switch back, and am stupid if I don’t do it right away.
And if there are extenuating circumstances that make some situations different, then that needs to be the focus. Explain why some people need to be quarantined and others don’t.
I hope you are not suggesting that Oceana has not always been at war with Eastasia. :dubious:
No, they’re freaking selfish if they don’t go into quarantine. I’m usually not into the “greater good” reasoning for making people suffer but I’ll make an exception here. It’s very sad but it’s a necessary evil.
Did it sound like this? Because if it did, I’d have to disagree with you.
I think the 21-day period is the maximum incubation time between exposure and developing symptoms. But until symptoms are present, the person is not contagious. I’ll admit to not clearly understanding the difference here early on, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was reported that there needed to be a 21-day quarantine. Lots of things get reported that turn out to not be correct.
On the other hand Duncan’s family members were kept isolated for 21 days, IIRC. But they possibly had much more contact with bodily fluids, prior to him being diagnosed with Ebola, and were at much more risk. WRT the OP, were they kept isolated because of them being at a higher level of risk, or because they weren’t health car workers?
Agree on former, not on ‘moot question’.
If they are going around spreading Ebola, then, they are very BAD people.
BAD.
Good people who have been exposed should definitely be quarantined, even more readily than bad people who have been exposed. The good die young. Everyone knows that. It’s science.
Good people don’t deserve to have Ebola.
So?
“Deserve’s got nothing to do with it”
People who *have *ebola should be quarantined. People who may have ebola should be closely monitored. People who don’t have ebola shouldn’t be part of the discussion. Good, bad, or indifferent really doesn’t enter into the equation.
I voted “Huh?”, because the question makes a false assumption, which is that Ebola health care workers should be quarantined at all, regardless of their moral attributes.
The only effective way to fight Ebola is to do so at the source. Failure to do that means that it could spread worldwide, after which, quarantines won’t help much. Quarantining health care workers who return from afflicted areas would provide a disincentive for exactly the kind of behavior we need to encourage.
Quarantines are an important tool in the kit of health, and should be used when appropriate. They aren’t a panacea, and shouldn’t be used when they wouldn’t be particularly effective.
Of course, the argument as stated is a bad one, but I’m sure lots of people voted “no” for that reason, even though they may not think that Ebola workers should be quarantined. The poll sheds little light on whether we think Ebola workers should be quarantined.
How about this poll:
People who think Ebola workers should be quarantined are ignorant and haven’t thought through the consequences. True or false?
Furthermore, Obama doesn’t make that argument.
So, this is a poll about nothing.
I would like to point out two things
First Mary Mallon always insisted she was not the source of any infections. Feel free to look her up and let me know how well that worked out for her and her employers.
Secondly those that don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it. Despite following protocols to the letter there is a greater than zero chance of being infected on their last day in country. Maybe not much but >0.
People who have ebola will not be quarantined. They should be under treatment in a medical facility that can offer the best of care. That care will be given in isolation by staff trained in correct procedures to prevent disease transmission.
The family of our first patient–the one initially sent home by the hospital he died in, where two caregivers contacted the disease–was quarantined for 21 days. Because they had been in contact with the patient while he was infectious, without special procedures. They have been released.
Tossing a health care worker showing no signs of the disease into an unheated tent because you want the voters to think of you as presidential timber demonstrates that you are a corrupt, ignorant lardass. But President Obama was too gentle–he just requested people show consideration.
I’d quarantine Jesus himself if he’d been exposed to the ebola virus.
Serves me right for waiting to get back from work before posting :mad: 
Which has nothing to do with this - it’s not about the opinion of the person who may or may not be infected, but about the opinion of the medical professionals/experts.
Isn’t this the plot of the movie Christ Stopped at Ebola?
Because they had higher risk, yes. They were kept in home quarantine because they had direct contact with him and his bodily fluids during the time he was symptomatic, without wearing protective gear. Unlike Kaci, the nurse who was wearing protective gear while she was taking care of ebola patients, and who never had a needle stick or other breach of that protective gear. The CDC’s recommendations are different for those different levels of risk.
This may help: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/exposure/monitoring-and-movement-of-persons-with-exposure.html#table-monitoring-movement
See the multiple categories? Duncan’s family, while asymptomatic, where “High Risk”, while Kaci was “Some Risk”. While the interventions look similar, the key is in the details. For High Risk, “Public health authority will ensure, through orders as necessary, the following minimum restrictions:…” and for Some Risk, “The public health authority, based on a specific assessment of the individual’s situation, will determine whether additional restrictions are appropriate, including:…” (emphasis mine.)
The restrictions that follow are largely the same, the difference is that High Risk people gotta follow all of them, period. Some Risk people should be individually assessed by a public health authority to determine if they should follow some or all or none of them. And a governor is not a public health authority. A public health authority is a Public Health Nurse (yes, that’s a specialty, with special training in public health risk assessment) or Public Health Physician (ditto) or Public Health Administrator (again, ditto).