Obviously, this question was inspired by the healthcare workers who returned to the U.S. from West Africa. particularly the case of Kaci Hickox, which you can read a little about here.
In short, she doesn’t want to be quarantined for 21 days. So, what do we do if a person who the experts and authorities agree should be quarantined do not want to be quarantined?
Personally, I think that Kaci Hickox is losing sight of the fact that quarantine is a precaution, with the emphasis on “caution”. And she should do what the experts and authorities recommend. I find it particularly puzzling that someone in the healthcare field would not grasp the reasoning behind quarantine, and wouldn’t want to err on the side of caution.
So, this debate is NOT about what the correct length of quarantine should be. The debate is about once a length of quarantine has been established by the experts tasked to figure such things out, how do we enforce it against an unwilling person? It seems that id=f he/she is determined to not be quarantined and tries to leave the area, she must be stopped. And she should be stopped by means that incur the least risk to those stopping her and society. So, a jail-like structure? Restraints? Medication?
Physical restraints to the degree that it’s possible without putting those doing the restraining at risk. If it’s a disease that’s actually lethal enough to warrant quarantine, any degree beyond that should warrant lethal force.
From what I understand about Kaci Hickox, it wasn’t the “experts” (i.e. the doctors and health scientists) that wanted her quarantined – it was the political leaders.
Further, she was quarantined in a tent with a toilet and nothing else. I would think we could do better than a tent with a toilet for a real, necessary quarantine.
Assume she was not in a tent. Assume it’s not Kaci Hickox. Assume the experts recommend the quarantine. And then I’ll assume you’re participating in the actual debate.
You criticized Hickox in your OP (in particular, you said she should obey the “experts” – and I think her behavior has been consistent with what the “experts” have said) – it’s entirely reasonable for me to address that criticism if I feel it’s unwarranted.
Beyond Hickox, if a quarantine is medically necessary to prevent an outbreak, then forced confinement (in a humane environment) is justified.
A real life example is Typhoid Mary. She was allowed to leave quarantine as long as she promised not to work in food service, but she violated that promise – she never believed she was the source of the sickness, because she had no symptoms. So she was forcibly quarantined again, for the rest of her life – and this was absolutely appropriate.
Exactly. She tested negative for the Ebola virus (doctors, please advise if the virus goes quiescent before becoming active; I don’t think it does), and will still quarantined because…panic. And political points-scoring.
Don’t play in other people’s bodily fluids if they’ve just come from West Africa. Then you won’t get Ebola.
Which one would hope would have a real bed, good food, alcohol if they want it, clothing of choice, TV, books, music, and internet access. Because it’s not supposed to be a prison.
Not joking. We’re dealing with someone who is intentionally spreading a deadly disease. It’s like if someone was swinging around a gun and firing at random, and resisting any attempt to take the gun away from them. If we cannot restrain that person and take away their gun, we’re not left with a whole lot of options other than “open fire”.
And that’s a good point. There’s a difference between someone who totally opposes the idea of quarantine and someone who accepts the need for quarantines in general but who opposes what they feel is an abusive or mistaken application of a quarantine.
Their might be a difference in their annoyance factor, and I agree that we should make it as comfortable for them as possible. But ultimately, if the quarantine is instituted, and someone does not want to comply—for whatever reason—they need to be forced to comply. My question is, what means can we take to ensure compliance?
My question assumes a truly deadly deadly contagious disease and a science- and medical-based wise quarantine.
Yes, it does. But given that they’re might be some people who do not want to be quarantined, or once quarantined might want out, it seems to me that we should build facilities that allow them the greets comfort while offering us, and the people tasks with imposing the quarantine the greatest degree of safety. Unfortunately, a lockable facility seems to wisest. because we don’t want a health worker or enforcement officer getting into a tussle with someone with an ebola-like disease.
Or maybe the ones who agree to cooperate could get a nice quarantine location (like one’s own home; put a tracking bracelet on if you’re worried about people breaking quarantine), and those who are going to be pissy about it can go into the lockup?
Personally, I’d be fine with at-home quarantine for 21 days. I’d be happy to not have to go out. Send in food and cat supplies (leave them at the door), take out my trash, and I’ll stay here as long as you want. The only downside is that I’d have to work, dammit, since my job can be done remotely.
Kaci Hickox had a temperature reading of over 100 F. The possibility of ebola exposure + the elevated temp triggered the quarantine. Various television media have said that subsequent readings were normal. Too late. Kickox dismisses the elevated skin temp as being some kind of error.
Now she says she won’t continue to self quarantine. If she choses to leave the house, the Governor of Maine should forcibly quarantine her. They already have a State trooper assigned to keep any overly concerned members of the public away from Hickox as well as to keep Hickox away from the public.
It’s totally possible to have a faulty reading. China tried to quarantine me once when I flew in during the swine flu scare. I politely demanded they try again, and my temperature came back normal.
Screw that. For the 3,621,514th time, Ebola is not contagious in asymptomatic patients. She’s asymptomatic now, whatever past tests may have shown. The quarantine is an asinine overreaction by politicians once again ignoring science to pander to their populace. She’s a flat-out hero for refusing to put up with this nonsense, and I bet the courts will agree if it comes to that.
None of which has anything to do with the OP, which I don’t really understand. Imposed quarantines have been used for centuries on the actually ill – if you take the specific case out of the mix, I’m not sure what the question is.