If it turns out she has Ebola and of course there is the other big if, so far no one has been infected by these people with early stage symptoms so quarantining them may be entirely unnecessary at least from the perspective of preventing spread of the disease.

I think many, even some who advocate for the quarantine, would admit that it's largely to quell the public panic. Is that a good enough reason to do it?

I would say no given that public panic has basically been people whining.

CNN is reporting the woman has tested negative for Ebola.

No, it didn't:


http://www.nytimes.com/...e-craig-spencer.html

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Yup I would wear his bowling shoes and bowl with his bowling ball.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

 
>No, it didn't:


What didn't work? I think it's perfectly reasonable to quarantine someone who worked with Ebola patients then develops a fever. A quarantine doesn't mean that you eliminate "false positives." The goal is to eliminate self-reported false negatives.

I agree that the NY/NJ policies are largely political theatre, though.

Merely gainsaying the poster's contention that quarantine caught an Ebola-infected traveler.

Also, this traveler didn't develop a fever until after being quarantined.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Yeah, we just had a coach show up at the High school and at some point informed people she had MRSA. So they cleaned the school that night, but no concern or out cry, I would guess most people in the gym the next night for the games had no clue.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

I would say no. Public panic for unnecessary reasons should be handled by trying to calm the panic, not kowtowing to whatever the masses want. I'm not saying I expect everyone in the US to know about Ebola or infectious diseases, but the media isn't helping much by increasing the hype instead of reporting facts and statistics and EDUCATING the public on the real risks, especially in relation to the risks of other diseases. What happens when we set a precedent based on panic versus based on actual risk? Why even have experts if we don't want to listen to what they recommend?

None of the panic really surprises me, though. Risk communication is incredibly difficult, especially when it comes to risks that people aren't familiar with or already have misconceptions about (like droplet vs. airborne precautions). Most Americans won't even be bothered to read an article before commenting on it online, let alone look up the real information before panicking about something.

A good summary for the public: https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/409400

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Not only did she not have Ebola, she didn't even have a fever. When she got to the hospital, her temp was 98.6. She registered 101 at the airport after her total mistreatment and four hours of questioning.

And she's still being quarantined. Welcome back to America!

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I agree it's reasonable once they show symptoms, this woman was quarantined before, just for working with Ebola patients in Africa.

http://www.zerohedge.com/...raders-ignored-today

And this is why quarantines need to be put in place.

I don't care about short term panic fluctuations in the market. As far as I see it there are two options:

A) quarantine everyone who has been in west Africa. Result, no western care in Ebola countries, increased likelihood of virus getting more out of hand, increased risk to world population.

B) monitor people who have visited west Africa. Result, no increased risk to general public as people are not contagious until symptomatic.

My wife works in a hospital. MRSA is present in hospital. She takes a shower every time she comes home from work. We haven't quarantined her yet.

And she's getting about 14 Ebola emails a day if she's like my wife. The point is an Ebola outbreak, even small, in the wild aka not a medical care worker will implode the economy. (Do you remember the smallpox scare after 9/11?) People will stop going to work, stop eating out, stop shopping.

As for your supposition in point A) please cite to a source that says that would occur? If you're willing to go to Africa and treat Ebola you should be willing to hang out in isolation for a month.

Costume idea for your/ Torrey's wife:

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Quickest way to get punched in the nuts is to call my wife "nurse."

Try 'sexy nurse' and see if that's better

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

It's the word nurse since she's a doc.

How does she feel about, ' healer wench'?

What if all countries quarantine those who go to west Africa or stop sending aid. Perhaps a worldwide epidemic cod be prevented. Do you think the virus could the. it magic in west Africa over time leaving only those immune. Maybe we'll get lucky and some of those genocidal pricks and their army of savages will die to. Winner winner, chicken dinner.

Seriously I'm mixed when it comes to this. I support quarantining those who come here under stricter framework. But these are political decisions And what I fear most. It is fitting it is coming from progressive thinking authoritarians.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden