Does govt need to quarantine people who worked on Ebola patients?

[Little-Acorn]

Oh yea, you are scared to death of "slippery slope". Typical.

"That worker might say yes i'll stay and then decide not to and OMG im scared to death I can't even type omg omg omg!"

I see that you, unable to refute anything I said, are trying to pretend I said something else instead.

Typical.

I didn't refute anything you stated.

You didn't flap your arms and fly around the room, either... because you can't.

I simply stated my own opinion.

You used quote marks. And I shoved them down your throat.

Happy to be of service.

Welcome to debate.

 

[AntiParty]

Oh yea, you are scared to death of "slippery slope". Typical.

"That worker might say yes i'll stay and then decide not to and OMG im scared to death I can't even type omg omg omg!"

I see that you, unable to refute anything I said, are trying to pretend I said something else instead.

Typical.

I didn't refute anything you stated.

You didn't flap your arms and fly around the room, either... because you can't.

I simply stated my own opinion.

You used quote marks. And I shoved them down your throat.

Happy to be of service.

Welcome to debate.

No, I've noticed people with your significance of debate for years. You are the "YOU ARE STUPID" debaters. Every topic, every day your debate the quality of "you are stupid". I call it the "You are a stupid dumby dumby face" debate. Never substance, only trolling.

 

[Little-Acorn]

No, I've noticed people with your significance of debate for years. You are the "YOU ARE STUPID" debaters. Every topic, every day your debate the quality of "you are stupid". I call it the "You are a stupid dumby dumby face" debate. Never substance, only trolling.

Still ignoring what I said, and pretending I said something else instead, I see.

(yawn)

Let me know when you come up with a new fib.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Back to the subject:
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.

 

[Politico]

No.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yes it should. No need to explain why.

Read what I wrote.

I did. Perhaps you missed the part where I agreed with your thread?

You didn't agree with my essay (which provided several "what ifs"). You only agreed with the title. There is more to it than just the title.

Maybe, but you asked a direct question via your title. So, what part was I supposed to agree with, then? You must understand that I am not the speculative type. I answer in certain terms.

You are incredibly unaware of your own habits and personality. It's fucking remarkable.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hey, OP........

Having paid attention to this matter, I can answer every one of your questions. I wish you'd ask one at a time so I don't have to submit a fucking thesis in reply, though.

Short answer is no. We should not quarantine all aid workers ( or doctors or nurses or staff in the US ) who treat Ebola patients.

We should monitor them for fever and signs of illness. This disease isn't transmitted by people who have it unless they are REALLY sick. The fever alone is not an indication that someone is contagious. The only people who catch this virus are those who COME INTO CLOSE CONTACT WITH PEOPLE WHOSE BODIES ARE RAVAGED BY THE DISEASE.

By the time you are highly contagious....you ain't taking any tours.

The tests that are available are not sensitive enough to detect the very early stages of the virus. One has to have a certain viral load before it shows up on the test. The patient generally knows he or she is very ill by that time. The test is, therefore, just to confirm that a sick person does indeed have Ebola.

 

[Ravi]

No. The disease isn't very contagious and in the US has a 100% cure rate when treated early.

There's no reason to spend millions of dollars to quarantine people that will never become sick.

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

Not if they are rich, elitist volunteers.

Quarantine is for losers in the military.

 

[Roadrunner]

The workers should be limited to volunteers and it should be taken more seriously in the medical 1% field.

And if the volunteer later changes his mind?

Sorry, not good enough. This is a disease that kills 70% of the people who get it, and can be spread by normal contact (touching someone, or even coughing or sneezing on someone while you have symptoms).

Government must quarantine ALL returning workers who have worked on Ebola patients, until doctors are sure the worker doesn't have Ebola. If that only takes two days, great. If it only takes 10 minutes, even better.

But IF the only way to be sure the returning worker doesn't have ebola, is to keep them isolated for three weeks, then government must do that to ALL returning workers who have worked on Ebola patients.

It cannot be spread by normal contact. You're an idiot.

Yeah so hard to catch doctors in full protective garb still get it.

But, keep buying the government line.

 

[JFK_USA]

What about the freedom to travel? Or our constitutional right to not be detained without criminal charges? So much for the freedom loving party.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no civil right to spread disease.