<p>
</p>
<p>LOL.</p>
<p>Why? The elimination of basic civil rights because of baseless fears is frightening; it means we’re enacting policy based on fears, not facts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL.</p>
<p>It is amazing how quickly people give up their rights to personal freedom, due process, and liberty! Post September 11 redux… I will stop at that, or it will be too political.</p>
<p>^^LOL. right. the young woman is not sick. But sure, lock her up so you’ll feel better. And yes, fears of getting ebola as an American are about as baseless as getting hit by lightning, shark attacks, etc etc. I’m sure you worry about those nightly.</p>
<p>You aren’t getting quarantined, garland. LOL. </p>
<p>Ha! Cuomo’s backtracking. </p>
<p><a href=“Under Pressure, Cuomo Says Ebola Quarantines Can Be Spent at Home - The New York Times”>Under Pressure, Cuomo Says Ebola Quarantines Can Be Spent at Home - The New York Times;
<p>Gotta love that photo, garland!</p>
<p>Bay–I should only worry about myself, not other people? What a strange way to be.</p>
<p>Garland,</p>
<p>I know, seriously. </p>
<p>I got nothing. You’re making light of a serious breach of someone else’s basic civil rights. For no rational, evidence-based reason. Carry on.</p>
<p>Garland, great article.</p>
<p>That’s a fair point – it’s true that unless you were treating an Ebola patient you are unlikely to get Ebola, equally true that unless you were treating an Ebola patient you are unlikely to be quarantined.</p>
<p>I found the interview with the Dallas nurses who cared for Mr. Duncan to be very interesting and revealing. In some ways they were ahead of CDC.</p>
<p>It’s only a breach when the courts say it is. That hasn’t happened yet. If and when it does, then I will say, yup it was a breach. But it’s not happening to you unless you can get your Governor to issue an order that pertains to you in an emergency situation. Guess what? It’s not happening to you, garland. LOL</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Wikipedia emerges as the source of trusted info, thanks to people like this doctor:</p>
<p><a href=“Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information - The New York Times”>Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information - The New York Times;
<p>"The editors of Wikipedia’s Ebola page say they earned a place as one of those credible sources. To protect against misinformation, potential editors must suggest adds or changes to the article on a separately maintained page, where editors, frequently Dr. Heilman, review them and decide whether to incorporate them.</p>
<p>Dr. Heilman, 35, the head of the emergency medicine department at East Kootenay Regional Hospital in Cranbrook, B.C., said that since January he had taken fewer shifts at the hospital so he could keep tabs on things and contribute to Wikipedia’s medical articles. He is unabashed about his goals: to emphasize that Ebola does not get transmitted through the air; to call out unproven treatments; and to make sure the language is as simple as possible, in part so it can be more easily translated into other languages.</p>
<p>“We don’t need to write for experts, experts have lots of excellent sources,” he said."</p>
<p>Kudos to these medical students:</p>
<p>"The 300 or so core editors of Wikipedia’s medical articles tend to be highly educated, Dr. Heilman said. A recent survey, he said, found that half of that core group work as, or are studying to be, health care providers and 85 percent have completed college.</p>
<p>That well-schooled contributor pool is only going to get bigger starting on Monday, when the University of California, San Francisco, begins an elective class for fourth-year medical students that focuses on Wikipedia editing."</p>
<p>I don’t even know WHAT point you are making, Bay. Civil rights don’t exist unless a court says they do? Whoa–lots of Jim Crow was suppported by courts. And it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t happen to me? Like I said, huh? </p>
<p>(is this where I add the obligatory LOL?)</p>
<p>^^^I think regardless of the content, your “LOLs” rather than intelligent, mature commentary has contributed to a major loss of the integrity of the thread. This kind of interaction seems very disrespectful.</p>
<p>I totally agree about the LOLs, nrds!</p>
<p>“to make sure the language is as simple as possible…”</p>
<p>Wow. That’s good writing on the Wikipedia page: clear, but detailed. Sometimes we don’t recognize when that type of technical writing is good, because if it’s good it kind of disappears.</p>