Troops in Tents fighting Ebola Don't See Tents As'Inhumane', Nurse Hickox

Bloggers and Personal ^ | 29 Oct 14 | Xzins

[Marie]

“The subject of an involuntary quarantine did not sign up for such treatment.”

If you intentionally go into an infected ‘Hot Zone’, should there not be expected consequences?

There are consequences for all behavior. Sometimes the consequences are unforeseen. Adults deal with that.

[xzins]

ping

[ansel12]

The old Shelter half shared by two men, was perfectly designed for misery in wet, winter conditions.

When it rained you became soaked, including the cheap little feather sleeping bag that would remain wet, so you were wet in your bag all your clothes were wet, the ground under you was muddy and soaked, and the tent didn't even prevent you from getting directly rained on because every place on the inside of the canvas that you touched, became a small fountain of water pouring through.

Many of us would just quit bothering with them, and just sleep in the rain when we were exausted.

They were tiny, so soon after entering they were dripping all over from the contact with the canvas, so it was cold mud under you and water running on you, while you just waited for the day to start so that you could escape the nightmare.

[LambSlave]

And a tent is not just a reasonable accommodation, but it’s also a logical place for a disease that requires eradication.

I'm playing devil's advocate here a bit; I agree 100% that a tent is reasonable and maybe necessary. I am simply stating that our six-figure McMansion crowd, who ultimately play a key role as citizens in defining public policy through their voice and vote, will not stand for this as a reasonable accommodation. Ultimately, government power is limited to what people would tolerate, so where is the line? Again, I think the courts are where this needs to be ironed out, better now than in the midst of a crisis.

[xzins]

Precious memories, how they linger.

We worked so hard at putting trench around our little tents. Generally wasted effort. Better to just roll up in the thing as one more layer keeping moisture and cold away from you.

[xzins]

Good points.

I think we have to begin with the reality of the threat. I don’t hear anyone saying the disease in Liberia isn’t real. It’s a given that those returning from Liberia are potential carriers.

Nurse Hickox was of the opinion that Christie had to prove she was infected.

I disagree. She’s the one who willingly took the trip. In my mind, she’s the one who had to prove she wasn’t.

[jazusamo]

It seems to me she got an education and earned a nursing degree, it’s just a shame they don’t teach common sense in nursing school.

Of course they are surely taught the nursing profession is about healing and preventing spread of disease, she must have missed those classes or she can’t be bothered with that part of the job.

[xzins]

can’t be bothered with disease prevention....pretty well sums her up, jaz. thanks.

[suekas]

During WWII, and the fall of th Phillipines, to the Japanese, the nurses and their patients had to flee into the jungles. The few tents they had, were used to protect paperwork and files (not wounded servicemen or nurses). The patients and nurses slept under the elements, until they were eventually captured by the Japanese.

[xzins]

So, what you’re saying is that Nurse Hickox is not channeling any WWII nurse that you’ve ever heard of.

[ctdonath2]

Point appreciated, but something’s missing:
Ebola is a disease that you can’t wait for symptoms to decide a course of action on - when symptoms get to the point that someone in authority goes “oh, Ebola symptoms! time to do something!”, others have already been exposed (perhaps terminally). Testing for infection pre-symptom has an unacceptably high false-negative rate.
Upshot: you can’t satisfactorily decide that someone from an Ebola hot zone isn’t infected, unless you stick ‘em in quarantine for twice the incubation period.

It’s the medical equivalent of someone waving a gun around in public: prudence dictates taking ‘em down hard & fast _without_ first subjecting the offending item to a chamber check. The risk of death is just too high to not permit society at large from delegating some government agents the power to make & act on such a situation _without_ prior adjudication. In subsequent proceedings, whether the gun was loaded or the patient infected is beside the point: a reasonable person would reasonably conclude prudence dictates immediate action stopping the suspect from further action until confirmation of lack of potential harm.

We’re not talking flu here, lethal in large numbers but harmless in many orders of magnitude more infectees ... we’re talking Ebola with a 50-70% fatality rate. Yes, you come back here from a hot zone, you should take a vacation in a quarantine tent for a couple months (enjoy the downtime with plenty of books & movies, and be freaking thankful you’re alive & well - or well cared for at the slightest onset of symptoms).

[ctdonath2]

Agreed. 3 weeks to nap, read, and write software? I’m not up for doing what it takes to get into that situation, but once there I’d deal with it.

Heck, I spent 2 weeks in a hospital bed and they didn’t even let me _eat_. Got so much rest I “slept” just 2 hours a day, enjoyed plenty of TV (watched a ridiculous number of cooking shows), and otherwise remained in an upbeat frame of mind.

[LambSlave]

Point appreciated, but something’s missing: Ebola is a disease that you can’t wait for symptoms to decide a course of action on - when symptoms get to the point that someone in authority goes “oh, Ebola symptoms! time to do something!”, others have already been exposed (perhaps terminally). Testing for infection pre-symptom has an unacceptably high false-negative rate. Upshot: you can’t satisfactorily decide that someone from an Ebola hot zone isn’t infected, unless you stick ‘em in quarantine for twice the incubation period.

I understand the medical case all too well, it is the public policy part that I'm trying to air out. Christie could very easily have had this nurse arrested and held in quarantine, but he chose (wisely, imho) not to. If the state is perceived as acting too harshly, even if it is rational and within their authority, they risk a backlash and may have even bigger problems not only with compliance, but possibly even with policy changes that reduce their authority. So what is the balance? Again, I say let the courts fight it out now to inform the crafting of policy that is prudent, enforceable, and accepted by the governed.

[suekas]

We are screening people from 3 countries. Nigeria is off the list, and they have not yet added Mali (even though ebola is in Mali). But there is an outbreak of Marburg Virus, in Uganda. It is very similar to ebola. We are not screening travelers from other areas of Africa.