<p>^^ By following the protocol of checking temp twice a day for 21 days.</p>
<p>It doesn’t appear that people are infectious at the first onset of symptoms, as emilybee notes. However, that’s the time to go to quarantine, because as the symptoms progress the person does become infectious.</p>
<p>@lasma: You’re missing the point. In order for this to make sense, you also have to believe what emilybee stated on post 2737.</p>
<p>There’s a period of time which you are interacting with others with symptoms, because the protocol is to wait for yourself to have symptoms before going in to be tested.</p>
<p>Re Consolation’s comments about Maine: I understand and respect that we should not argue politics on this forum (which C. is of course not doing, but rather pointing out the ramifications in Maine observationally). I would like to add an additional comment which I think is not a political argument , but another observation:</p>
<p>It is a shame, though sadly not surprising, that this medical situation has continually been twisted by politics, not science-based policy, which is why, I think, this thread keeps tiptoeing over to politics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you immediately remove yourself from the public situation and make sure you don’t exchange bodily fluids with anyone. This should not be that difficult.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>collegealum314, it’s not what anyone WANTS to believe, it’s what we know about transmission of Ebola.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A line has to be drawn somewhere, so it seems to me that “symptomatic” doesn’t necessarily mean immediately contagious, but is the time when the patient needs to be isolated and evaluated in the name of caution. No matter where in the illness continuum one lies, it still remains the case that exposure to body fluids is the way the disease is spread to others. The earlier in the disease one falls, the fewer infected fluids are being expelled into the environment. </p>
<p>The right to personal freedom must be balanced with the need for public safety. That means that there is no guarantee that either the individual will be granted to do whatever he wishes whenever he wishes it, nor that members of society can receive a 100% guarantee of a risk free existence. Risk/benefit, cost/benefit, individual rights/good to society as a whole are things which have to be considered and compromise is usually the result of these dilemmas.</p>
<p>collegealum, Hunt is correct that it seems people are not infectious in the first hours of symptoms. Otherwise, people would have gotten sick when Amber Vinson flew to Dallas with a fever. Not a single person has gotten ebola from being on that airplane with her.</p>
<p>Also consider that even when the person has symptoms, ebola is ONLY transmitted by contact with the person’s bodily fluids. So let’s say you’ve just returned from West Africa, and you’re following the protocol. One morning, your temp is normal at 8 a.m. You spend the next 12 hours out in crowded public spaces. Then at 8 p.m., you find that you’re running a fever. Let’s even say that unbeknownst to you, your fever started at 9 a.m. So for 11 hours you were out in public with symptoms. Were you a hazard during those 11 hours? Nope, not unless you shared your fluids. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not contesting it here. I’m just saying that it is a different position than what has been stated over and over: asymptomatic people are not a danger, and therefore quarantining doesn’t make sense. To believe a quarantining is illogical, you have to also believe that during the period of first symptoms, you are not a danger to infect others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The “situation” is very easy to understand, without resorting to politics AT ALL. You actually have to WANT it to be political in order to call it a “political” situation.</p>
<p>Science (aka “evidence”) has shown that people, including medical professionals who were theoretically protected by science-based garb, are entering our country with Ebola from West African countries and Ebola kills people.</p>
<p>Science has shown that the disease has a 21-day incubation period.</p>
<p>Science has recommended therefore, that those who have been directly exposed to the disease, self-monitor and quarantine themselves for the 21-day period.</p>
<p>Science (evidence) has shown that even the most educated about the disease do not self-quarantine.</p>
<p>Therefore, the remedy is to mandate quarantine by law, in order to ensure compliance with scientific theory.</p>
<p>Now, if you don’t believe anyone ought to be quarantined at all, then that is a different argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s just astonishing to me that some of the same people who would advocate for quarantines also argue against the public’s right to be protected from the menace of gun violence and “accidents” (which of course kill a lot more people than Ebola has).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Science has not recommended this. Since people are not contagious before the onset of symptoms, and they are also not contagious at the very beginning of symptoms, science has recommended that those who were exposed monitor themselves, and if symptoms appear, they are isolated and checked for Ebola.</p>
<p>Regarding Mr. Duncan, not only did he have a high fever, but while he was in the apartment he clearly had moved on to the second stage of the disease, with diarrhea and–at least as he was being removed–vomiting. He evidently remained in the open ER for 4 hours. And STILL none of those people have gotten sick.</p>
<p>There is a disconnect between these facts and such things as people in hazmat gear cleaning the apartment of Dr. Spencer–who apparently had no symptoms other than a fever–and the breathless reporting of every single step the infected people took. She took a plane!! He took a car service!! She sat in a bridal shop while her friends tried on dresses!! People don’t know what to think, partly because the new stuff is being reported <em>without</em> the information that would mitigate the fear.</p>
<p>Re the toddler taking a plane from Liberia, if <em>I</em> were a passenger on that plane, and knew the child had a fever, I would say put him in the back and surround him with family and maybe a few empty seats just in case he starts having projectile vomiting or explosive diarrhea en route. And fly him home, with his family, where he can get the treatment that might save his life, if he does have Ebola. I would be horrified and angry if I found out that a child and his family were abandoned supposedly to make <em>me</em> “safe.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You aren’t a danger to infect others. Please remember that in order to spread the virus, two conditions must exist:</p>
<ol>
<li> You must have symptoms.</li>
<li> You must share bodily fluids.</li>
</ol>
<p>In the first 12 hours, the person isn’t spewing vomit, etc. The only persons they’d likely be exchanging fluids with are people who live with them anyway. So what’s the point of the quarantine at home?</p>
<p>^Yes, but sweat and saliva have also been listed as potential ways that the disease can be transmitted. And you don’t have to necessarily spit to share your saliva–some is ‘shared’ in the course of talking. People perspire even when they are not aware of it–that is, you don’t have to have a big sweatstain on your shirt.</p>
<p>Please cite a case of someone who got ebola from exposure to sweat or saliva.</p>
<p>There are statistics on when and how much virus appears in sweat and saliva. They have been posted earlier. Basically, the virus doesn’t seem to appear in either until late in the disease.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, which is why it is a shame that some (not all, or even most, I’m sure) politicians are doing that. I’m so glad we found a point of agreement, Bay! :)</p>
<p>OK, just as an experiment, let’s all do this–between now and the end of the day, pretend you are contagious with something or other. Assume that the goal is NOT to spread it via shared bodily fluids. Whether you are working, in school, out in public, or home with your family, count the number of times you share bodily fluids with another person.</p>
<p>I bet I can easily go all day with zero.</p>
<p>Me too, sally305.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Further assume that the first place it shows up is in your blood (and uncontrolled bleeding occurs as one of the last symptoms, if ever), later in feces and vomit, and even later, in sweat or saliva and is almost never present just sitting on the skin, even late in the disease process.</p>
<p>How many times a day does the average person bleed onto someone else?</p>