Do you want to quarantine all staff

[gwheezie]

working with Ebola patients? I am reading that some of you are angry with Dr Spencer that he didn't self quarantine so what about those who are currently taking care of patients should they be allowed to take the subway home, take a cab, go to a store etc? Should they be allowed to leave the hospital at all? What about the housekeepers? Are all these people irresponsible if they go out in public?

[TwilightGardener]

1. I think while they're caring for ebola patients, they should stay out of

public areas as much as practical. Ride to work in your car. If you don't have a car or don't have a way to stay off public transportation or simply can't or won't isolate yourself to any extent, then don't accept the patient. They should not have exchanges of body fluids with partners, they should clean their own toilets, shouldn't shake hands, shouldn't share utensils, shouldn't host a dinner party or a children's birthday party, same as when you think you might be coming down with something. It's common sense. People who care for these patients must accept some disruption to their normal activities in the name of public safety.

[magical thyme]

2. it's common sense until you live someplace like NYC, where most people don't have cars

and rely on public transportation.

[TwilightGardener]

8. Then they need to figure something out, in terms of advising their employees.

It's not really fair to the general public, who didn't sign up to be anywhere near this disease, to have to sit next to someone who maybe didn't follow protocol as well as they thought they did during the last few weeks, and then gets suddenly ill on a hot, stuffy, swaying subway car, for example. Had Amber Vinson simply gotten airsick on the flight home, ASIDE from ebola symptoms, and left her vomit all over the seat, the floor, or splashed it all over the tiny bathroom on the plane, there may well have been further exposures and infections.

[seabeyond]

4. but see, they are educated, experienced, know, that being amongst the public is NO issue.

so. you want them to ignore, fact, education, common sense, reality, experience. because of peoples uninformed, uneducated, fear?

[Bragi]

6. Maybe

An important goal in managing an outbreak, or any public health issue, has to be maintaining public confidence in the public health authorities and the advice they offer.

If ignorance on a matter is so widespread that public health can't convince people to adopt common sense solutions, then there may/will be occasions where unnecessary but manageable restrictions are needed just to maintain public confidence, despite the fact that they are useless from a medical standpoint.

Sigh.

[seabeyond]

9. well, i do not know dude. i am thinking the person that is uninformed ahs a part. when fact is

repeatedly stated. over and over and over.

when, we have an actual experience that shows us that the FACT is correct, and we proivide that example over and over and over.

and a poster continues to ignore that FACT to stay dumb???? i hardly see that has anything to do with the smart, educated professionals.

[calimary]

12. I'd go farther than that.

No maybe at all. I'd say definitely yes. I'm sorry, but that's what's needed here if we're going to contain Ebola effectively. Both in West Africa AND here. Please - think about it. Those valiant souls who treat Ebola patients are the first to become infected themselves - either as family members caring for their sick loved ones at home, OR health care professionals doing so in a hospital setting. THAT, seems to me, is the FRONT LINE. And it has to be handled very strategically. Because the greater public health and public confidence is CRITICALLY important in this equation. You keep the chance of a worse epidemic - panic - from breaking out. You contain the possible spread of the virus so it can't get out and other innocents can't be exposed. You maintain the public calm and stable equilibrium. THAT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT!!!

Hey, just think about it for a moment. Our country is CRAWLING with know-nothings. It's an infestation WORSE than Ebola or any other virus imaginable. The least little bit of ANY kind of less-than-wonderful news is bound to be misinterpreted by this bunch, enflamed by Pox Noise with its camel caravan of crazies pushing the hysteria and bad information. For every Shepard Smith on there (and they only have the one), there are LEGIONS of bill o'reillys and laura ingrahams and elizabeth hasselbecks and steve doocys just hellbent on amping up the panic for ratings. Seems to me the only response is going literally overboard, taking drastic action, with maybe an excess of caution and rigid protocols designed to CONFINE AND CONTAIN. Seems to me that's the ONLY way through this.

And instead of travel restrictions, seems to me the answer is quarantines. SOME inconvenience - compared to - well, you tell me what we can compare that to. SOME inconvenience for three weeks or so - seems to me that is a small price to pay for containing and confining the spread of Ebola - until we finally have it conquered. Travel restrictions are the simplistic answer but it disregards that tricky aspect of human nature - the urge to sneak. It'll make people try to sneak. It'll motivate people to lie and cheat and try to cut corners and bend the rules to get in, and then it's dramatically harder - even downright impossible - to track people, to know who comes into this country from the Ebola-stricken areas of West Africa. Wouldn't it be better to know? To KNOW! To be able to track everyone and know who they are and have records and contact info for everyone who comes in here?

QUARANTINES are the way to go, seems to me. And they're TEMPORARY forcryingoutloud!!!! I'd rather be quarantined and give up a mere three weeks of my life - rather than facing a possible death sentence that the exposure to Ebola guarantees without the proper care and treatment.

[kestrel91316]

13. CDC doesn't even recommend people stay off local buses, since you have to

sit close to someone for THREE HOURS to be considered a LOW risk exposure.

It's the Greyhound excursions that are problematic.

[magical thyme]

3. Very good question. nt

[riderinthestorm]

5. I know. I'm reading the same thing. Its madness especially in light

Of how much more we know about how this disease is spread.

[Bragi]

7. See my response in comment #6 above... /nt

[seabeyond]

10. you know? we see example, we are learning so much shit, and people pretend that is not out there.

lets not use a restaurant because someone who knows, some one, walked in the door. picked up food. walked out. and two weeks fuggin later.

and we are suppose to take the ignorant seriously?

[gwheezie]

11. I'm not so sure commen sense is always right

are there any studies facts stats etc that would back up a blanket quarantine for anyone in contact with Ebola patients?
I don't think anyone caring for these patients wants to infect anyone else but people are making their decisions based on the current science. I think it's unrealistic to think if you are cleaning the room of an Ebola patient for a month and you have no symptoms that you would isolate yourself for the time you take caring for the patient and then another 21 days if you have no symptoms.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

14. No. Not those who are wearing the proper PPEs

and have had extensive training and practice in taking off their PPEs, using the proper equipment, etc.

On the other hand, as a precaution, they should self monitor for symptoms. As an extra layer of precaution to themselves and others.

Unfortunately, for those members of any hospital staff who are not adequately prepared, a quarantine might be prudent, but I'll leave that to the health officials.