[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

Even if Ebola is not contagious prior to the infected party becoming symptomatic, I am in favor of the most conservative practice of a quarantine for those returning from Ebola areas because:

I do not TRUST anyone to place the common good over selfish desires. Not any more!

Ignored in all of these discussions are the possibilities of deliberate transmission of Ebola by fanatics and religious radicals. A 21-day quarantine would catch ALL of these. Trusting will catch zero.

That's my view.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

Even if Ebola is not contagious prior to the infected party becoming symptomatic, I am in favor of the most conservative practice of a quarantine for those returning from Ebola areas because:

I do not TRUST anyone to place the common good over selfish desires. Not any more!

Ignored in all of these discussions are the possibilities of deliberate transmission of Ebola by fanatics and religious radicals. A 21-day quarantine would catch ALL of these. Trusting will catch zero.

After all the threads and posts, this succinctly states the problem of today's environment!!!

[blueash]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Given the living conditions in those areas where the disease is out of control, and the fact not much will change (like no running water) the disease will not end at it's source.....based on what we know today anyway.

The most likely transmitters to other countries will be the care givers that travel back and forth between the infected areas and their home countries. Also other travelers to the infected regions that come in contact with any infected/infectuous persons.

I still maintain as long as there is a recognized 24 day incubation period, like it or not, the 21 day quarantine is the best solution based on current knowledge. The popular approach of I am not sick and feel good and have no symptoms within the 21 day period is totally and completely irresponsible in my opinion. Just like any of the others who have become infected here in the USA to date.....none were exhibiting any symptoms while traveling or when they first get here.

I totally do not get why it is acceptable to some, including the courts (apparently), knowing what we know now....that it is OK to have free reign and as long as not CURRENTLY exhibiting symptoms anytime before the 22 day!!!!

I suppose when and if there are more cases as seem to be predicted it will be treated as a disease with no inconveniences (for some).

Some Americans just don't understand prevention....and are not inspired to act until it becomes a crises....

I hope I turn out to be wrong and all the optomists and lets wait and see folks get lucky!!!

Does your approach to doing absolutely everything to guarantee public safety apply to all the known causes of morbidity and mortality? Is it fair to Inconvenience (arrest) people who may present a tiny risk to the public a good policy? How small does the risk need to be before you will allow individual freedom? If the Ebola experts tell us that there is zero risk of contagiousness in a non-symptomatic person, even if that person is going to become symptomatic in the near future, is that a low enough risk? If the experts said instead they have a 1/3000 risk of spreading the virus prior to the onset of symptoms, would you then lock them up? Confine them to their home? Place them in an isolation ward in a hospital? I am try to grasp your concept of risk versus benefit.

Does using the best available evidence to make a decision really equate to getting lucky? Does using the worst possible scenario based on unsupported hypotheticals lead to better policy?

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by blueash

Does your approach to doing absolutely everything to guarantee public safety apply to all the known causes of morbidity and mortality? Is it fair to Inconvenience (arrest) people who may present a tiny risk to the public a good policy? How small does the risk need to be before you will allow individual freedom? If the Ebola experts tell us that there is zero risk of contagiousness in a non-symptomatic person, even if that person is going to become symptomatic in the near future, is that a low enough risk? If the experts said instead they have a 1/3000 risk of spreading the virus prior to the onset of symptoms, would you then lock them up? Confine them to their home? Place them in an isolation ward in a hospital? I am try to grasp your concept of risk versus benefit.

Does using the best available evidence to make a decision really equate to getting lucky? Does using the worst possible scenario based on unsupported hypotheticals lead to better policy?

I think that being conservative equates to saving your money before you need it and erring on the side of caution before YOUR problem becomes MY problem.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Given the living conditions in those areas where the disease is out of control, and the fact not much will change (like no running water) the disease will not end at it's source.....based on what we know today anyway.

The most likely transmitters to other countries will be the care givers that travel back and forth between the infected areas and their home countries. Also other travelers to the infected regions that come in contact with any infected/infectuous persons.

I still maintain as long as there is a recognized 24 day incubation period, like it or not, the 21 day quarantine is the best solution based on current knowledge. The popular approach of I am not sick and feel good and have no symptoms within the 21 day period is totally and completely irresponsible in my opinion. Just like any of the others who have become infected here in the USA to date.....none were exhibiting any symptoms while traveling or when they first get here.

I totally do not get why it is acceptable to some, including the courts (apparently), knowing what we know now....that it is OK to have free reign and as long as not CURRENTLY exhibiting symptoms anytime before the 22 day!!!!

I suppose when and if there are more cases as seem to be predicted it will be treated as a disease with no inconveniences (for some).

Some Americans just don't understand prevention....and are not inspired to act until it becomes a crises....

I hope I turn out to be wrong and all the optomists and lets wait and see folks get lucky!!!

BTK We totally agree. I have read more than once that the 21 day quarantine is the minimum. Given the virus mutates on a continuum God only knows what is going to happen in the future. The Administration and many medical experts are more concerned with the political science than the medical science. Being a prestigious medical institution doesn't mean your infallible that's why they carry malpractice insurance

[sunnyatlast]

A true leader who walks the talk and does not minimize the need for a 21-day quarantine. From the trenches:

Liberia's top doctor quarantines herself to set an example in her Ebola-ridden country

"Liberia's chief medical officer, Dr. Berenice Dahn, has quarantined herself in her own home in a very high profile way.

"It's necessary that I set the example, so that when we tell others to do it, they take us seriously," Dahn says. She's also asked her entire office to follow suit.

Dahn began the quarantine after one of her assistants at the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare died of Ebola. Now she's one week into a 21-day monitoring period, and she admits it isn't easy.

Her life has changed in many ways, big and small. She laments that she can no longer share a room with her husband. She uses her own utensils and disinfects them. And hugging her kids is out of the question. A sadness creeps into her voice when she describes how she and her children used to cuddle.

"Children come lie down on your bed and watch TV, and do the rest," she says. "They don't do that anymore."

Dahn admits it's hard to forget "the fear of the unknown." But she's also cheered, and even appreciative of the quiet. "Days are going, and I'm still in good health," she notes. "It's been a lot of stress since the outbreak, and I've not had time to rest."…….

Full story:

Liberia's top doctor quarantines herself to set an example in her Ebola-ridden country | Public Radio International

[rubicon]

One word sums it up Nigeria

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by rubicon

BTK We totally agree. I have read more than once that the 21 day quarantine is the minimum. Given the virus mutates on a continuum God only knows what is going to happen in the future. The Administration and many medical experts are more concerned with the political science than the medical science. Being a prestigious medical institution doesn't mean your infallible that's why they carry malpractice insurance

And a recently released study indicates the virus may exist for 50 days on surfaces