http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/nyregi...-city.html?_r=0

This notice is from the 24th. Four days ago. A lot has happened since then.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/dr-c...ticle-1.1988346

I haven't found anything more recent than that. I hope the unfortunate man recovers well. It sounds like they are doing everything they can for him.

Maine judge rejects quarantine for nurse Kaci Hickox: CCN

Hi, Tscience. Welcome to the forum. Could you perhaps post a link to the place where you found this information? Thanks.

You can find it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/health/us-ebola/

I'm not pleased with the decision.

pokey, why are you not pleased with the decision? It seems to me to be a reasonable decision. If somebody has an infectious disease which can be easily transmitted to others it is reasonable to require a quarantine. The nurse does not have Ebola and is apparently not infected, even in the non-symptomatic phase. So the only reason to require her quarantine is that people are so afraid of a non-threat that they go out on a witch hunt to find somebody to punish. If people would think about it a little bit and pay attention to what medical professionals who understand the disease have been saying it would be much better than placing innocent people who are no danger to the general public in quarantine.

Bill Gill

I think it is a good decision. It is based on rational understanding of what Ebola is and is not. When the individual shows no symptoms and is clearly cooperative with authorities and health officials, there is no need for such a heavy-handed action as quarantine. I support her for standing up for the constitutional rights we all take for granted until they are infringed upon. I might be a little uncomfortable inviting her into my living room for an extended period of time, I would have no discomfort passing by her in the grocery store. People in the US have derived too much of their medical information from reading sensationalized fiction works that exaggerate the dangers of various plagues that are supposed to ravage the world. We need to stop reading pseudo-medical hype and ground ourselves in the facts, and the fact is she is not a threat to the general public and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for wanting to quarantine her.

{If somebody has an infectious disease which can be easily transmitted to others it is reasonable to require a quarantine. The nurse does not have Ebola and is apparently not infected, even in the non-symptomatic phase."}

Apparent to whom? A negative test for the virus does not mean it is not present. The virus needs to reach a certain quantity to be discerned by the test.
The incubation period is deemed to be 21 days…21 days have not yet passed.

She may or may not be a "typhoid Mary" but why put innocent people at even a slight risk?

Nobody wanted to put her in prison... just quarantine, of which there would now be 6/8 days left.

Why take a chance on such a potentially serious matter. Generally best to err on the side of caution, especially when acting on assumptions and not fact.

To not weigh the greater good ...there is the foolishness. There are some things that can't be undone.

Consider AGW, if we are the cause it will cost some money and be an inconvenience to possibly reverse it. If we do nothing it can ruin the earth for humans (our offspring) possibly for ever. Why would any sane person take the chance???

I would deem it hubris to think "we" know everything about this strain.

The scientific method is to test and observe the results, following this procedure and see where evidence leads. Be sure before you undertake irreversible actions.

If she doesn’t contract it and a some more don’t, then that would give credence to the view that Qu is not necessary, but until then…

Is altruism dead in this country? Is it all about me, me, me?

Should we be concerned about the US military personnel that have been quarantined and had even less exposure than this (imho) disgrace to the medical profession?

She may very well be correct but I believe more evidence is prudent!


Be safe on the way to the poll.

You know, Ebola isn't some new disease. It has been around for a long time. There have been sporadic outbreaks every year or 2 for many years. Up until now they have been isolated and relatively easy to contain. This time things were right for the outbreak to spread. So this time the Western World has become aware of it. So now people are panicking over things that can be contained without extreme measures. Here in Oklahoma we just had an episode. Somebody had just returned from West Africa. He/she was living at home and doing regular checks and reporting to the health department. Last week she/he reported a fever. He/she was immediately placed in isolation while tests were run. The first test confirmed that she/he had malaria and that the risks of Ebola were minimal. Now the Ebola tests have been returned from the CDC and confirmed that he/she did not have Ebola. That is a very good example of how things should be done.

The nurse in this flap had been tested to confirm that she did not have Ebola and is now cooperating in daily checks to make sure that she does not come down with Ebola. That should be more than sufficient for anybody who is not paralyzed with fear by the very thought of some horrible disease coming to kill them. If you want to worry about some horrible disease worry more about flu. You are much more likely to catch the flu and die from it than you are to catch Ebola and die from it.

At least this should wake up the Western World and give a kick start to actually developing an effective vaccine and treatment options. There wasn't all that much interest before, since it only affected a few people in Africa.

Bill Gill

Bill, do you have a link to that information about the person with malaria? Isn't it interesting that all the major drug companies seem to have Ebola vaccines and antiviral drugs that have not been tested for lack of interest, and now that there is a threat to American soil, they are coming out of the woodwork with tests, vaccines and drugs all in the developmental phases but not tested because there wouldn't be enough profit in it? Are we so racist that so long as it was a problem of Black Africa it wasn't worth pursuing, but when it threatens to spread to White people, things are sped up to near-light speed to get things tested and approved? I am ashamed of my countrymen and women for not doing these tests earlier so that they could have vaccinated people in time to keep Ebola from spreading much beyond its first few cases. It is a dark mark on the pharmaceutical and vaccine industries to have been so callous and laissez-faire about managing the vaccines and drugs that have suddenly been ramped up in pursuit of the almighty dollar. That's the problem with profit-driven research. The problem with the biggest dollar sign on it get prioritized and all others are left behind.

I found this and thought I would post it for general information.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...A_HLTH_20141104

Try This. This is the coverage from local NBC station. They don't seem to have the latest where the final report from the CDC says he didn't have Ebola.

I'm not sure that the reason they haven't worked much on Ebola was because it was BLACK Africans, just that they were POOR Africans. It is hard to get people from the developed world interested in problems that are serious in the undeveloped world. There are some people who are working to help them, but it is really difficult to get governments interested. WHO does what it can, but without significant support from the major governments they can't do a whole lot.

Bill Gill