General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Texas Officials Say 80 People May Have Been Exposed To Ebola Patient: Report [View all]TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)If/when they become symptomatic their families are then also exposed. The should be in isolation to protect the families or roommates with whom they live. As another poster said even Nigeria isolated people that were exposed but not yet symptomatic.
This virus kills 50 to 90 percent of victims. Exposing those people that came into direct contact with a symptomatic Ebola patient to the people that share their homes is inexcusable.
Mr. Duncan became infected merely by helping to carry an Ebola victim by her legs. Mr. Duncan's family was with him and helping him while he was symptomatic, and the paramedics that took him to the hospital not knowing he had Ebola also came into direct contact with him. One of his relatives said that he was vomiting while paramedics were with him. And these exposed people were SENT HOME TO THEIR FAMILIES rather than put into isolation to protect their families or anyone else they may share their home with from also becoming exposed if/when the exposed family member starts getting symptoms especially when symptoms once they start very rapidly proceed to the death of the person.
And it isn't just their bodies that infect people... anything they used like the toilet the toothpaste dishes they used, linens or furniture, doorknobs, etc. can have droplets containing the virus on them. Some of these people are children who cannot be trusted not to touch things of the symptomatic person or those things that have used that have been contaminated.
There is no excuse sending these known exposed people home to their families instead of isolating them. None. All that does is insure that more people unnecessarily are at risk for exposure.