<p>Bay, as with many things related to Ebola, being involuntarily quarantined is unprecedented. I really don’t think there is a right or wrong way for her to respond. None of us know what the isolation cost her in financial or emotional terms. I for one would not be so quick to pass judgment on anyone affected by the outbreak or situations related to it.</p>
<p>When someone who has been exposed to ebola begins to run a fever, that is the perfect time to bring them in, isolate them, and test them as this is the time when they are least contagious but we know that they will begin experiencing those more contagious body fluids if they are in fact infected. We know they are more contagious once they begin vomiting profusely and experiencing copius diarrhea.</p>
<p>I think most non experts understand this very well, and only the deliberately obtuse would not understand the logic there.</p>
<p>I think the consensus is that until we do conclusive studies showing the presence and infectious ability of disease in the minor routes of transmission at different times after the onset of disease, we should assume that it’s basically impossible to get it this way. (And let’s assume all the viral strains out there are the same.) Given the new interest in this subject, we may have that data in 2 or 3 years. </p>
<p>So we all agree now. </p>
<p>Btw, almost all of the suspected carcinogens that I work with in lab have never been tested to show that they are, actually, carcinogenic in animals or humans. No way to know. I guess we should assume they are fine until someone proves it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read somewhere that’s what scientists speculate at this point. As zoosermom points out. that’s the case with most illness. It may be that with Ebola the tolerance may be more pronounced.</p>
<p>There are always individuals who have some (up to full) natural immunity to certain viruses.
Hypothetically one would expect that people from the area that the disease is endemic to have a greater probability of having developed some natural immunity to it.</p>
<p>“So soldiers who have had no contact with Ebola patients are being quarantined for 21 days and those who have had direct contact are not. Talk about mixed message. No wonder people are confused and wondering what the heck the dangers of the viral spread are.”</p>
<p>People in the military have to follow rules and regulations that civilians do not have to. The soldiers who are in West Africa now are also not volunteers and when their time in West Africa is up they are not free to go where ever they want. They are still soldiers in the military and they have to go where the military says they have to. In this instance the military says they have to go to Italy and be quarantined. </p>
<p>Keeping the soldiers quarantined (while I don’t believe it is necessary) has no ill effect on limiting volunteers who go to the hot zone to treat Ebola patients. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Part of the obtuseness is not realizing the emotional and financial toll of not going bowling versus eliminating small risk of infecting others. </p>
<p>Was the nurse held mostly in the hospital not in the tent that was so widely publicized?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because onset of fever is the sweet spot, the point at which the virus can be detected, but is not contagious.</p>
<p>The fever shows up in 85% of ebola patients. Wasn’t the standard from epidemiologist 95%? If so, it doesn’t meet the standard. Another compromise we make to expedite the process.</p>
<p>Collegealum314, why are you researching these suspected carcinogens?should they be banned? Are they banned?</p>
<p>Close enough, igloo.</p>
<p>If the nurse was kept in the hospital mostly, how long did she have to suffer not having bathrooms, being in a tent, etc that became so scandalous?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t have to imprison people in tents with no showers and only porta potties to get them to avoid going bowling if that’s the route you want to take. I bet Dr. Spencer would have complied with instructions not to use mass transit or go to public entertainment venues if he had been directed to do so, even if he thought it was unreasonable. </p>
<p>^Well, with greater planning, we could have avoided having to house them in a tent with no showers and a portapottie. As the head of the nursing union said, the protocols are changing constantly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They may also monitor other visible symptoms, small rashes. That may cover another 5-10%.</p>
<p>Didn’t he know about the Amber Vinson situation? After she flew didn’t CDC tell people who had contact with Duncan not to use public transportation? Did he have to be contacted personally to be told not to ride the subway? </p>
<p>Any news on the little boy yet? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why didn’t DWB direct him and others not to use public transportation? Wasn’t that what CDC protocol called for after Vinson? Does CDC have one set of rules and DWB has their own and DWB doesn’t have to follow CDC?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As the current medical standards state that one is not contagious when asymptomatic, yeah, he probably should have been told not to take the subway when he felt fine if that’s what the powers that be want now. Amber took a plane while febrile. In his eyes, that would probably look like apples and oranges.</p>