<p>^^No. He wasn’t symptomatic, he had a general feeling of malaise which for all he knew could have been due to jet lag, lack of sleep, lack of a propet diet, very hard, stressful work under poor conditions. Not to mention time zone changes. As soon as the symptoms appeared, he reported them. Read LasMa’s post #2089 again. He followed the instructions.</p>
<p>I’ve taken international business trips where we’ve spent 2-3 weeks installing major computer systems, working 12-14 hour days, sometimes longer, trying to make our deadlines. Everytime, I come back completely exhausted, feeling like crap, and it takes a good two weeks to really feel normal again. I can’t imagine trying to recover from a trip like the one that doctor took.</p>
<p>And again, no one is going to catch Ebola from a subway, bowling alley or uber car.</p>
<p>Well, am hoping he had the good sense not to endanger his fiancé and that he recovers promptly without too much collateral damage to NYC, HCWs and businesses. Will be curious to see if he is flown to one of the 4 centers where the other patients have been treated. </p>
<p>Over-the-top stories and hysterical claims really depends on where one sits really. </p>
<p>If the story is correct that health depatment authorities told the bridal store to throw out the bridal gowns, then it is not hysterical for the general public to wonder, given what they have seen, if there is something else that may have been missed about the store re Enola. This is no different than your thinking, even after physical screening etc., no physical contact for 21-days re relatives. </p>
<p>One is no more cautious than other. The difference is the store, as a business, may not survive the loss of revenue. There is no unemployment checks for businesses. </p>
<p>However, I am not so willing to immediately dismiss that a change in activity by the virus could not render part of a once effective protocol not as protective. There is too much certainty in statements for me even though the virus itself is doing things that we do not know yet, and we learn of them only after the fact. </p>
<p>His actions do become stupid though after he began feeling sick and just ignored the symptoms. That gets a bit reckless.</p>
<p>If the bridal store is being told to discard gowns, how are they being compensated? That’s a lot of money! I thought Amber never touched or tried on any gowns. Something isn’t adding up. </p>
<p>^^ I know three hospitals that have told the CDC that no way would they even accept a patient who has Ebola-like symptoms. These hospitals have the only cardiac disease units within 50+ miles, with an aging population all around, many in retirement; the only air ambulance units within 100 miles etc. There are several other “onlys.” within 75 miles. </p>
<p>In short, they deduced they cannot risk the shutting down of these other services if someone is sent there with Ebola-like symptoms, dos prove to have Ebola and parts of hospitals have to be isolated etc. it is not only a financial disaster, but the overall reduction of healthcare for everyone else around would be a disaster as well. Not worth it. </p>
<p>Sorry they are not the same. If the health dept did indeed tell the bridal salon to throw out dresses, then that was over reaction. The salon owner clearly stated that Amber did not try on anything, she had purchased her dress months earlier. She was there for bridesmaid dresses.</p>
<p>Here is what we know. All of the cases of Ebola involved folks that have either been in Africa in the hotspots with Ebola, or with the case of the nurses, have been in direct care of an Ebola patient at the end stages. In the case of the newly diagnosed case, I stand by my position. If I were the significant other of a person coming from DWB, I would not have sex with that person until the incubation period is over. We do know the virus lives in bodily fluids. </p>
<p>It is not just “hysterical” (ugh to that word) customers that will harm a business. If the employees of a business won’t come to work after an Ebola scare, it doesn’t matter whether it’s customers are hysterical or not, the business is still going to suffer. </p>
<p>I fully understand your viewpoint of the heath department and the public as overreaction, but you are taking that position from where you sit, not from where others sit, i.e., your checkbook is not on the line.</p>
<p>And that is the difficulty here. People with nothing to lose in a situation are telling others how to behave. And if something did happen, those telling are NOT responsible for the costs. It is just way too easy to call someone hysterical if you would never be held responsible for something happening.</p>
<p>Case-in-point is a business insurance company informed us that medical-related and business insurance are automatically cancelled if in such situation the policy holder does not comply with published quarantine and monitoring guidelines. Note that this says nothing at all about MANDATORY quarantine or monitoring. This means that the insurance company knows it is on the hook for the costs of damages to others if an employee has been in a place around Ebola patients, hot zone country, and the like and does NOT take immediate precautions thereafter. Even being an innocent bystander in the bowling alley would count for that employee - need to self-quarantine and monitor. </p>
<p>What the difference is the insurance company would have to write major checks if an employee is found negligent and infects others. And clearly after talking with it medical directors, they deduced they cannot make the same risks assessments that you do in terms of the science of when one will get infected. Their doctors do no have the same faith in the science that you do. Many doctors do not re posts #2107 and #2108.</p>
<p>Even if your assessment is 100% correct, having to be responsible one the hook to write big checks changes one’s parameters to the more cautious end of the scale. You may call that overreaction and hysterical; however, others call it protecting their viability because just one case of Ebola could sink them.</p>
<p>I am not arguing that businesses unfortunately are going to suffer, but most of it is due to the public hysteria. I stand by my opinion that the salon shouldnt have closed. </p>
<p>Another way to phrase this is if you have a family that depends on you for its living, which is the smartest risk assessment for you to take - “Working in a place that had a major Ebola-related event, which had to decontaminated decontaminated etc. or finding another place to work that has no such issues?” For the overwhelming majority, the answer is a no-brainer, even if they are stigmatized, as hysterical. </p>
<p>Good point, the risk of liability from having a customer or employee become infected, while remote, would be so devastating that it would make sense for a business to temporarily shut down as a precaution, even if not mandated under its insurance policy. </p>
<p>Good heavens. Not every hospital is equipped to accept every patient. In most cities there are only a handful of hospitals designated as trauma centers. This is no different. It makes perfect sense that some hospitals don’t feel equipped to handle an ebola patient. Its not in the least bit unusual. It makes better sense for certain hospitals to be identified as able to take an ebola patient, not the other way around. </p>
<p>You may have misunderstood me here. Excuse me if I were not clear. </p>
<p>It is the insurance company’s policy that says nothing about mandatory (mandatory is not specified), which means EVERYTHING must be followed. </p>
<p>The CDC guidelines also include self-quarantine and self-moitoring. Therefore, the new policy is saying all the above must be followed. This means if an employee does not impose the CDC self-quarantine and self-monitoring guidelines, then the insurance is cancelled, which makes sense. </p>
<p>For example, it is up to the employee not to even come into work if he suspects he was exposed, e.g., he was in the bowling alley next to that doctor, no matter how small the risk, as small does not equate or mean non-existent. If the employee does not VOLUNTARILY quarantine and monitor, the insurance is canceled. If this doc was an employee of my company, we would be in trouble, as he knew he was feeling sick, but went out in public anyway. </p>
<p>It does not matter that he passed initial screening at the airport etc. The issue is he was in a hot zone area, had definite risk of exposure, and did not self-quarantine, as is part of CDC guidelines - result would be insurance cancelled due to negligent behavior. That means all liability comes out of the company’s operating accounts and people who lose jobs and 21-days of work could sue us directly for damages and we have zero coverage. </p>
<p>Quote from post #2100
“^^No. He wasn’t symptomatic, he had a general feeling of malaise which for all he knew could have been due to jet lag, lack of sleep, lack of a propet diet, very hard, stressful work under poor conditions. Not to mention time zone changes. As soon as the symptoms appeared, he reported them. Read LasMa’s post #2089 again. He followed the instructions.
I’ve taken international business trips where we’ve spent 2-3 weeks installing major computer systems, working 12-14 hour days, sometimes longer, trying to make our deadlines. Everytime, I come back completely exhausted, feeling like crap, and it takes a good two weeks to really feel normal again. I can’t imagine trying to recover from a trip like the one that doctor took.”</p>
<hr>
<p>All those things could be true about his “sluggishness”. However, if one has a general feeling of malaise and it could be jet lag, it could be stress and it could be Ebola why not stay home, rest and see which one it is? If it’s Ebola you will know in a day or two. If you rest, meditate and feel better then maybe it was just stress or poor diet. He felt “malaise”, went out anyway then got nauseated and spiked a temp a few hours later. It’s not asking for the sun and the moon for that person to stay home on a Wednesday night if they’re feeling a bit off and could have a very good reason outside of the usual travel related ones. If people would consider these types of things when doing their own personal cost/benefit calculations maybe there wouldn’t need to be the threat of a 21 day mandatory quarantine. The upfront cost of a 21 day quarantine for one doctor is much lower than the cost of tracing, monitoring and quarantining his contacts or any of the other public response (warranted or not) that has ensued. </p>
<p>The fact that the business was decontaminated should be reassuring to almost anyone. And millions of people go to work each day facing much greater risks–in factories, prisons, mines, etc. Many have to travel along dangerous roads to get to their jobs. And we all face the risk of people going crazy and shooting up a workplace.</p>