Little-Acorn
Gold Member
If there is no way to determine if the workers have Ebola themselves, then yes, the govt certainly does need to quarantine them for a period equal to the incubation time of the disease, which is apparently three weeks. One of the proper functions of government is to protect it citizens from deadly threats. And Ebola is so consistently fatal to most people who get it, that it certainly qualifies as such a deadly threat.
Most people who worked on Ebola patients will not have the disease, but a few might. Since the disease is so deadly (70% fatality rate) and incurable, as well as contagious, the govt cannot allow them to have contact with others until we can be SURE they don't have the disease themselves. And if the only way to determine that, is to let the disease (if any) run its course until overt symptoms can be expected, then the conclusion is inevitable.
BUT... is that the only way to tell if a returning aid worker has the disease?
I thought doctors have tests to determine if a patient has Ebola. I've heard (sorry, no link) that there is a standard test, which takes around two days to produce its result. And at that point, you know that the patient has Ebola, or that he does not have it.
If we do indeed have such tests, and if they can be relied upon for accuracy (no person who really has Ebola, ever produces a "clean" result) , then why do we need to quarantine all returning aid workers for three weeks? Why can't we simply give all returning aid workers this test, keep them isolated for two days, and then quarantine (and hopefully treat) only those whom the test says have Ebola? What's the point of quarantining someone whom the test says definitely doesn't have the disease (if the test is reliable)?
In fact, isn't there a new test, that produces its result in only ten minutes? How accurate and reliable is that test? If it says someone doesn't have Ebola, can we be SURE they definitely don't? How thoroughly vetted and proven is that 10-minute test?
Here's a link where they talk about that 10-minute test. But it says the test isn't reliable: it tests for Ebola in the blood, while Ebola doesn't exist in the blood in patients who are in the early stages of infection. It exists in the tissues at first. Only later, about when the patient starts feeling sick, do virus particles start showing up in the blood.
Blood Test For Ebola Doesn t Catch Infection Early Shots - Health News NPR
Should government quarantine aid workers who have worked on Ebola patients?
If there is no RELIABLE way to tell if the worker has Ebola, then yes, government should quarantine them all for the incubation period (three weeks). And it DOES have the power to do so.
But if there is a reliable way to determine in a few days that the worker has (or does not have) Ebola, then government should quarantine them for only as long as it takes to run that test and produce the result. Then people who definitely don't have the disease (hopefully that's most of them), should be released from quarantine immediately.
Most people who worked on Ebola patients will not have the disease, but a few might. Since the disease is so deadly (70% fatality rate) and incurable, as well as contagious, the govt cannot allow them to have contact with others until we can be SURE they don't have the disease themselves. And if the only way to determine that, is to let the disease (if any) run its course until overt symptoms can be expected, then the conclusion is inevitable.
BUT... is that the only way to tell if a returning aid worker has the disease?
I thought doctors have tests to determine if a patient has Ebola. I've heard (sorry, no link) that there is a standard test, which takes around two days to produce its result. And at that point, you know that the patient has Ebola, or that he does not have it.
If we do indeed have such tests, and if they can be relied upon for accuracy (no person who really has Ebola, ever produces a "clean" result) , then why do we need to quarantine all returning aid workers for three weeks? Why can't we simply give all returning aid workers this test, keep them isolated for two days, and then quarantine (and hopefully treat) only those whom the test says have Ebola? What's the point of quarantining someone whom the test says definitely doesn't have the disease (if the test is reliable)?
In fact, isn't there a new test, that produces its result in only ten minutes? How accurate and reliable is that test? If it says someone doesn't have Ebola, can we be SURE they definitely don't? How thoroughly vetted and proven is that 10-minute test?
Here's a link where they talk about that 10-minute test. But it says the test isn't reliable: it tests for Ebola in the blood, while Ebola doesn't exist in the blood in patients who are in the early stages of infection. It exists in the tissues at first. Only later, about when the patient starts feeling sick, do virus particles start showing up in the blood.
Blood Test For Ebola Doesn t Catch Infection Early Shots - Health News NPR
Should government quarantine aid workers who have worked on Ebola patients?
If there is no RELIABLE way to tell if the worker has Ebola, then yes, government should quarantine them all for the incubation period (three weeks). And it DOES have the power to do so.
But if there is a reliable way to determine in a few days that the worker has (or does not have) Ebola, then government should quarantine them for only as long as it takes to run that test and produce the result. Then people who definitely don't have the disease (hopefully that's most of them), should be released from quarantine immediately.
