<p>
</p>
<p>It is not surprising really. What is always surprising is how many people get degrees in something, get a desk job with a title, and then get this false notion they actually know how to run something. And then in a public event such as this, the public gets to see they are just playing catch from behind. Running something means being in front. I have yet to see where agencies, which say they are in charge and making policy, have been in front. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. One case in NY and NJ combined is “rampant.” </p>
<p>On another message board I read, someone said “I believe this is the beginning of the end,” and of course that post had umpteen “likes.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We all put up with things we don’t want to be “potentially exposed” to. The anti-vaccine crowd creates greater risk for the population at large. People wielding guns that “accidentally” go off in purses or through an apartment wall expose everyone unfortunate enough to be in the path of a stray bullet. If you really cared about people being restricted from potentially hurting others, you’d look at the threats that right now are far bigger than Ebola.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bay, this is what you said. You evidently believe that the media is publishing something that is NOT the gospel truth about what actually happened in NJ. I was just curious about what you meant. Examples would be helpful.</p>
<p>Why not look at multiple problems at the same time? Most humans are capable of doing that. Is Ebola a big deal or not? I think it is, so I’m going to care about what is happening with the disease, worldwide. That doesn’t mean I can’t also get my flu shot at CVS. </p>
<p>LasMa,
Have you ever had personal knowledge of an event that was later reported in the newspaper? I have. Through my personal experience and from what I’ve read about reporting accuracy, I always assume that 30% of what I read in the paper is inaccurate. It’s how I think now. </p>
<p><a href=“Ebola fight takes stage at physicians' gathering in Chicago”>Health & Wellness News - Chicago Tribune;
<p>"Afterward, Pigott told reporters he thought a mandatory 21-day quarantine, variations of which have been enacted by Illinois, New York and New Jersey, wasn’t necessary.</p>
<p>“You don’t need to be out there doing a bunch of public activities, nor do you need to be semi-incarcerated either,” Pigott said. “These people are heroes, the people who have been in Africa to try to stop this terrible outbreak. These people are aware of the risk they are taking, and they know enough to stay close to home and not put other people at risk.”</p>
<p>OK. So what facts that are being reported about, say, the Kaci Hickox debacle do you suspect are incorrect?</p>
<p>
Seriously? that is not how I read their lessening their field time at all. If they are able to give, say (and I made this number up) 3 mos to spend away from their regular practices, now they can only spend 2 mos and one week in the field instead of the full 3 mos, as the last 3 weeks has to be ascribed to being quarantined. </p>
<p>"What I despise is conclusions based upon either no, or unverified “facts.” </p>
<p>What conclusions have been made based on no facts and what facts have not been verified? </p>
<p>^^ jym’s description of what’s happening is accurate. These people WANT to stay in the field for their full term. But they have obligations back at home, so they are having to schedule a 3-week quarantine into their away time.</p>
<p>I just have this feeling that some people don’t understand how critical it is – for OUR safety – that these selfless and courageous aid workers be allowed to do their jobs, without unnecessary impediments.</p>
<p>It is in the doctor’s business interests to self-quarantine. Look at what happened at Texas Presby. The hospitals and the doctors in the office buildings near by lost patients, lots of patients. </p>
<p>How many patient bookings is a doctor returning from the Ebola countries going to have in the first 21 days after they return anyway. A quarantine in their own homes is a negligible burden and should just be factored in. </p>
<p>It’s interesting that Cuban doctors are self-quarantining after returning from West Africa. </p>
<p>A returnee from Liberia, now quarantined in Connecticut at home with an armed guard at his door, was interviewed on Rachel Maddow . He said that most people who go to Africa to help with the Ebola epidemic go for a month. Someone who can take a month out of their schedule very likely can’t take almost two months.</p>
<p>This guy, whose name I forget, wasn’t even dealing with Ebola patients. He’s a Yale grad student who was setting up a computer system for contact tracking. Yet he’s been locked up. I’m guessing not a lot more Yale researchers are going to be willing to go to Africa, knowing they’ll be locked up for three weeks when they get home, even if they’re not symptomatic, and even if they didn’t have direct contact with people with Ebola.</p>
<p>I think Harvard prohibited its students from going to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.</p>
<p>The Army workers who are being quarantined didn’t work with Ebola patients at all. They were building hospitals.</p>
<p>LasMa,
Really? Why don’t you throw out some facts you care about and I’ll tell you if I think they are true. What would that prove anyway? It would prove that you believe them to be true, while I may or may not. Then what?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think I read that all of its “affiliates” must get approval before traveling to those countries now.</p>
<p>I don’t see anything wrong with prohibiting or limiting travel until a vaccine is approved for use. From what I have read, the work being done presently hasn’t been stopping the disease spread.</p>
<p>If volunteers are going to have to give up a third or more of their donated time to sitting around for 21 days eating bon bons (hyperbole noted) instead of caring for the critically ill, how are they going to get this disease under control? </p>
<p>When the HCW come back from West Africa, are they treating patients in the US during that 21-day period?</p>