Will Ebola become a big problem in the United States?

[Lihu]

Possible vs. probable. "Is it possible" makes for over-reaction. "Is it probable" makes for wise decisions based on reality.

And you and I have a different definition of a "simple precautionary measure". That is what the current recommendation by the medical authorities is. What NY/NJ came up with is not "simple" by any means. It IS punishment, particularly to the courageous people who go overseas to try and stop the virus at the source. If they knew that they would be isolated from their home and their family (even while being un-symptomatic) for a minimum of 21 days upon their return, they may think twice about making the commitment. It is unnecessary, based on the science.

If I came from a region known to have Ebola, I would know exactly what to expect upon my return. It's extremely selfish to come back from an infected region and expect to be able to roam around all over our country without taking some precautions.

It's not a matter of being liberal or conservative, it's about caring enough about your fellow citizens not to endanger them.

No, I am talking about the specific situation that occurred in the last couple of days with regard to the two recent incidents (Dr. Spencer and Ms. Hickox). The fact that they let the nurse go home makes it pretty obvious that they realize that they overreacted.

No, they let them out of quarantine because they were clear of the infection.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

No, I am talking about the specific situation that occurred in the last couple of days with regard to the two recent incidents (Dr. Spencer and Ms. Hickox). The fact that they let the nurse go home makes it pretty obvious that they realize that they overreacted.

Originally Posted by Lihu

No, they let them out of quarantine because they were clear of the infection.

Nope. That is Christie's "out". Their intent was to keep her quarantined there for 21 days. She will still self-monitor for that length of time, as she should, and as is recommended by the medical authorities.

[Golfingdad]

If I came from a region known to have Ebola, I would know exactly what to expect upon my return. It's extremely selfish to come back from an infected region and expect to be able to roam around all over our country without taking some precautions.

I can't imagine that anybody disagrees with that ... we just have different interpretations of what is considered "endangering."  People can get all up in arms about the doctor endangering people and being careless if they want, but until somebody else in New York turns up infected, then they don't really have a leg to stand on, now do they?

Further, we're talking about a guy who works with Doctors Without Borders, who voluntarily goes into the teeth of the disease to try and help completely random, foreign strangers ... I can think of a heck of a lot of adjectives I'd use to describe a guy like that before I get to "selfish."

[Lihu]

I can't imagine that anybody disagrees with that ... we just have different interpretations of what is considered "endangering."  People can get all up in arms about the doctor endangering people and being careless if they want, but until somebody else in New York turns up infected, then they don't really have a leg to stand on, now do they?

Further, we're talking about a guy who works with Doctors Without Borders, who voluntarily goes into the teeth of the disease to try and help completely random, foreign strangers ... I can think of a heck of a lot of adjectives I'd use to describe a guy like that before I get to "selfish."

Would you object to someone wearing a loaded gun in a holster walking through central park? I don't consider that endangering behavior either, but many do.

[Golfingdad]

Would you object to someone wearing a loaded gun in a holster walking through central park? I don't consider that endangering behavior either, but many do.

God no ... I've been through Central Park several times and seen many people walking there with guns in holsters.

[Lihu]

God no ... I've been through Central Park several times and seen many people walking there with guns in holsters.

Oh yeah? The ones I've seen were not in a holster, but only in movies.

[Golfingdad]

Oh yeah? The ones I've seen were not in a holster, but only in movies.

Sure.  Of course, they were all also wearing nicely pressed blue uniforms and some were riding on horses too. ;)

---

Seriously, though, people don't get to dictate what it means to be endangered just because they feel that way.  Feeling endangered or thinking you're endangered is not endangered.  That's just being scared.

[Lihu]

Sure.  Of course, they were all also wearing nicely pressed blue uniforms and some were riding on horses too. ;)

I was also going to ask if they were mounted?

[Jeremie Boop]

Mr. Duncan's immediate family did not contract the disease before he want to the hospital the second time and was EXTREMELY symptomatic is illustrative of how difficult it is to pass on the virus.

Just out of curiosity, who lived with Eric Duncan? I have only read that he was estranged from his ex-wife and son as well as not seeing most of his family for years?

[MS256]

Seriously, though, people don't get to dictate what it means to be endangered just because they feel that way.  Feeling endangered or thinking you're endangered is not endangered.  That's just being scared.

"People" dictate it all the time." Especially law makers.

They can and do decide that almost anything from A to Z can be dangerous for us and they pass laws to supposedly protect us from our lack of fear (or common sense).

[Golfingdad]

"People" dictate it all the time." Especially law makers.

They can and do decide that almost anything from A to Z can be dangerous for us and they pass laws to supposedly protect us from our lack of fear (or common sense).

Not the same thing.  They may declare something dangerous, but that doesn't make it so.

[MS256]

Not the same thing.  They may declare something dangerous, but that doesn't make it so.

It's exactly the same thing.

You are definitely right. It "doesn't make it so" at all but they continue to pass those laws and regulations because they think they know what is best for us.

In this case it appears that what some Governors think is best is not what the Federal Government thinks is best.

Unless they repealed that pesky 10th Amendment while we weren't paying attention the Governors will decide what's best for their States unless the Federal Government wants to impose something.

The ironical thing is that the same people that are usually clamoring for those laws that  "protect us" from ourselves are the ones that don't like this quarantine.

[phan52]

Just out of curiosity, who lived with Eric Duncan? I have only read that he was estranged from his ex-wife and son as well as not seeing most of his family for years?

His fiancé, her son and two adult nephews lived where Duncan went to stay in Dallas. They were all home quarantined and they all have been cleared for weeks now. If they didn't get it, I don't think anybody in that bowling alley in Brooklyn are in any danger.

[newtogolf]

It's exactly the same thing.

You are definitely right. It "doesn't make it so" at all but they continue to pass those laws and regulations because they think they know what is best for us.

In this case it appears that what some Governors think is best is not what the Federal Government thinks is best.

Unless they repealed that pesky 10th Amendment while we weren't paying attention the Governors will decide what's best for their States unless the Federal Government wants to impose something.

The ironical thing is that the same people that are usually clamoring for those laws that  "protect us" from ourselves are the ones that don't like this quarantine.

Former Mayor of NY (Bloomberg) tried to ban soda/drink sizes over 16 oz.  That was one of the few "Government knows better than you" laws that he wasn't able to make stick.

[Golfingdad]

It's exactly the same thing.

You are definitely right. It "doesn't make it so" at all but they continue to pass those laws and regulations because they think they know what is best for us.

In this case it appears that what some Governors think is best is not what the Federal Government thinks is best.

Unless they repealed that pesky 10th Amendment while we weren't paying attention the Governors will decide what's best for their States unless the Federal Government wants to impose something.

The ironical thing is that the same people that are usually clamoring for those laws that  "protect us" from ourselves are the ones that don't like this quarantine.

You are confused about what I said then, because you disagreed with it in one sentence and then agreed with it the next.  ;)

All I meant was it makes no difference what people say, government or otherwise, because that doesn't make it true.  Saying something is dangerous doesn't define it as dangerous.  That's all I was saying.

[phan52]

It's exactly the same thing.

You are definitely right. It "doesn't make it so" at all but they continue to pass those laws and regulations because they think they know what is best for us.

In this case it appears that what some Governors think is best is not what the Federal Government thinks is best.

Unless they repealed that pesky 10th Amendment while we weren't paying attention the Governors will decide what's best for their States unless the Federal Government wants to impose something.

The ironical thing is that the same people that are usually clamoring for those laws that  "protect us" from ourselves are the ones that don't like this quarantine.

Nobody questioned that the Governors had the right and responsibility to make their own regulations. But the Governors decided to base their policies on hysteria and polls, without any consultation and/or coordination with the experts. The Federal government just asked them to reconsider, based on the science and the recommendations of the medical authorities.

And it turns out that they DID reconsider and they have changed the policy accordingly.

"ironical", indeed.

[MS256]

You are confused about what I said then, because you disagreed with it in one sentence and then agreed with it the next.  ;)

All I meant was it makes no difference what people say, government or otherwise, because that doesn't make it true.  Saying something is dangerous doesn't define it as dangerous.  That's all I was saying.

That was on purpose and the whole point to show the irony. You said they "don't get to dictate" (which they do all the time) and then said "that doesn't make it so" which has been my argument about government intrusion for years.

Nobody questioned that the Governors had the right and responsibility to make their own regulations. But the Governors decided to base their policies on hysteria and polls, without any consultation and/or coordination with the experts. The Federal government just asked them to reconsider, based on the science and the recommendations of the medical authorities.

And it turns out that they DID reconsider and they have changed the policy accordingly.

"ironical", indeed.

Sure they did with "people don't get to dictate what is dangerous." That was the point I was arguing. They can and do dictate it. I'm not even in favor of a government imposed quarantine and rarely favor any imposition from the government.

I think the medical people are reasonable and would probably cooperate with self-imposed quarantines if leaders talked to them about it upon arrival and everybody could agree on some guidelines.

I happen to think it was ridiculous to take that nurse off the plane and take her to a tent like they did. An epidemic may or may not ever reach a point where that would be necessary but it's not there now IMO.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Nobody questioned that the Governors had the right and responsibility to make their own regulations. But the Governors decided to base their policies on hysteria and polls, without any consultation and/or coordination with the experts. The Federal government just asked them to reconsider, based on the science and the recommendations of the medical authorities.

And it turns out that they DID reconsider and they have changed the policy accordingly.

"ironical", indeed.

Originally Posted by MS256

Sure they did with "people don't get to dictate what is dangerous." That was the point I was arguing. They can and do dictate it. I'm not even in favor of a government imposed quarantine and rarely favor any imposition from the government.

I think the medical people are reasonable and would probably cooperate with self-imposed quarantines if leaders talked to them about it upon arrival and everybody could agree on some guidelines.

I happen to think it was ridiculous to take that nurse off the plane and take her to a tent like they did. An epidemic may or may not ever reach a point where that would be necessary but it's not there now IMO.

I can't speak for Golfingdad, but I'm pretty sure that what he meant was, just because they "think" it is dangerous doesn't make it so.

They were developing their policy based on fear, not science. Bad idea. But, it IS their right.