<p>Ok. Imo, he should have at least said, 'when they believed she had a fever…" </p>
<p>“Well they said they discharged her within 24 hours of the test results, so I guess they are lying about that too, then.”</p>
<p>Here is a report on her negative test results published online at 8:36am on Saturday, Oct. 25rh. </p>
<p>Also, in regards to the temperature:</p>
<p>“Hickox also says that she eventually showed a fever on a forehead scanner because she was “flushed and upset” at the airport. After she arrived at the hospital, she says, a check with an oral thermometer found her temperature to be normal.”</p>
<p>She never tested as having fever once she was at the hospital. </p>
<p>It is quite intriguing to watch as people in one part of the government says one set of things with definitiveness, while another part of the government does the opposite. Clearly, there are different medical viewpoints and one part of the government has decided not to take chances given the uncertainty it knows exists. We will see if pressure comes on this group too.</p>
<p>Folks, this business of detaining people without clear standards could become dangerous to civil liberty. Yes, there may have been just cause to detain Ms. Hickox, but the process was unnecessarily sloppy and it’s clear that the politicians won’t admit that it was sloppy or wrong. Andrew Cuomo is a very smart guy (although critics say he is intolerant of dissent). I noticed he quickly revised NY procedure without offering any observations about what happened to Ms. Hickox in New Jersey. Everyone now knows that Ebola is a critical problem, but the blurring of liberty while we confront crises has been going on since the hurried passage of the Patriot Act. I am only half-way surprised that some folks did not insist that Nurse Hickox be confined to a military installation. What’s next, are Governors going to use surplus military hardware to make sure non-symptomatic people comply with an order to quarantine? I fear Ebola but I am also a bit scared of the prospect of leaving all the critical decisions to politicians and technocrats who make-it-up as they go along. Did any science person actually speak at the Cristie-Cuomo news conference on Friday?</p>
<p>Now they are saying that only those at ‘high risk’ need to isolate themselves. “High risk” include health care workers who cared for Ebola patients and suffered a needle stick and family members who cared for Ebola with no protective gear. These people should stay off planes, trains and buses but are okay to go for a jog in a public park. </p>
<p>But…Brantley, Writebol and Spencer don’t know how they got infected. Similarly Pham and Vinson. They were obviously high risk without a needle stick. The cameraman didn’t know how he became infected. Did the Spanish missionaries know? Or the Spanish nurse? Did any of them? </p>
<p>And even if they are ‘high risk’ why isolate themselves if they are not showing signs or symptoms? Weren’t we all told that only with spewing of bodily fluids is a carrier infectious? </p>
<p>The lack of clarity and consistency is astounding.</p>
<p>But as of the weekend, they weren’t saying it was a 3 day process. They were saying it was a 21 day process. Not just for Ms. Hickox, for everyone. U-turn.</p>
<p>I don’t know why it’s so hard to say what should now be obvious to everyone (has been obvious to some of us from the first): This was a panic-driven political response dressed up in public-health clothes. Now that it has blown up in their faces, they MUST dress up the U-turn in public-health clothes as well. To do otherwise would be to admit that the policy announced on Friday was panic-driven and political. That’s why Christie MUST keep referring to Ms. Hickox as “ill” even thought he darn well knows she’s not. Because if she’s not sick, then he screwed up.</p>
<p>Nrds, fyi, the statement “she never tested for fever once she was at the hospital” is my statement. It was not stated in the article but I have read it several times in other articles. </p>
<p>I guess people will have to decide for themselves what is the truth. As far as I am concerned, we know she tested negative for Ebola before early Saturday morning and imo, it’s highly unlikely she had a fever before or after that. </p>
<p>“5-year-old boy had a negative Ebola test result. He will stay in isolation at Bellevue. His mother is with him and is completely asymptomatic.”</p>
<p>Great news. I am very happy for the little boy and his family! </p>
<p>" Andrew Cuomo is a very smart guy (although critics say he is intolerant of dissent)"</p>
<p>My H works for the man and I can confirm this is a true statement. </p>
<p>I don’t believe anyone from either NY State or NJ Health departments spoke at the presser. </p>
<p>I am 100% sure it came down as a directive from the Guv’s Office without input from anyone in NYS Dept. of Health. I doubt they were consulted at all. </p>
<p>And the directive served its purpose: It got them a ton of press. The MA governor, OTOH, followed the recommendations of the actual public health experts, and nary a headline in sight.</p>
<p>Okay, I’m watching ABC news, and according to the timeline they are reporting, Kaci Hickox actually had NO fever when her temperature was first taken at the airport. She was subsequently “detained” for 3 hours, after which she had the 101. temperature reading. </p>
<p>So, what exactly was the justification for holding her for 3 hours at the airport after her initial temp was normal?</p>
<p>I am not sure where the confusion is coming from, the story has always been that she didnt have a fever, then they detained her for hours, and she became flush, and the forehead thermometer then registered a fever. When she got to the hospital she was examined, and she did not have a fever. She should not have been detained. Period</p>
<p>^^^Somehow I’d missed that part, partyof5. Have you read of the rationale for holding her to begin with, when she had been afebrile? Were there other travelers that day from “hot spots” who were afebrile and who were also “detained” for 3 hours and then re-tested?</p>
<p>With the mandatory quarantine in effect, presumably every HCW from West Africa landing that day would have been detained in some fashion, but I think she was the only one. Every one of them would need to be screened somehow to register them to be confined to their homes for 21 days. I don’t know how long that would take.</p>
<p>Ok, but did they say everyone would be confined in the hospital? I don’t think they did. That is why I’m not sure there was ever a U-turn. The Governors are claiming the home confinement for non-symptomatic residents was always the plan.</p>
<p>By the way, “quarantine” is nothing new in this country for ports of entry, and has been going on presently at ports of entry and border crossings. There are 20 quarantine stations already set up in the US. See <a href=“Quarantine and Isolation | Quarantine | CDC”>http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/</a> for more detailed info, including mention of state laws in this area.</p>