The subject of an involuntary quarantine did not sign up for such treatment. What are the limits on state authority in these cases? I would say that based on contemporary norms, you provide a similar lifestyle to what that person would otherwise enjoy, and ensure they are paid if they miss work, and that they can't be fired due to the quarantine. Moreover, quarantine can only be imposed under specified conditions, which are typically showing symptoms of a known epidemic, with some means of due process. Since she is not showing symptoms, I'm not surprised she is challenging this in the courts- someone needs to. I understand the concern and desire to protect the public, but I don't think that any conservative wants a government who can throw you in a dank cell with no requirement to substantiate the charges for an indefinite period with no due process either. We ALWAYS need to think about the unintended consequences and how this can be misused by the left- we on the right have made this mistake far too many times when yielding our rights to government. I think it is good that this is going through the courts, personally.
I disagree. I think the ebola in Liberia is fairly well known. It’s not made up. It’s real.
So, quarantine is a reasonable measure. And a tent is not just a reasonable accommodation, but it’s also a logical place for a disease that requires eradication. Tents are easily destroyed.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has ordered all military personnel returning from Ebola response missions in West Africa to be kept in a 21-day quarantine. Hagel signed the order Wednesday morning, according to the Pentagon, accepting a recommendation from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Soldiers are usually cognizant of the dangers of being at, in or near combat zones. They get the knowledge sometimes from those who have gone there before. Real IEDs, real bullets, real grenades, real RPGs - whatever. Visible, audible or even surprise incursions that one can be on the look out for.
Here, our President and lackey Secretary have decided that exposure to some disease for which it took at least a month to experiment with re: ‘protocols’, and which has taken the lives of very many professional medical people there, is now a soldier’s duty to address. All because it is imperative that “The Obama” not look bad in the eyes of a world that barely even knows what toilet paper is for.
God help and bless them. They face evil of uncertainty of disease abroad - and from home, at the hands of their leader.
Except that, in the case of Ebola, once you start showing symptoms, you’re contagious (and there’s a good possibility of being contagious even before you become definitively symptomatic). So in this case, the quarantine is to make sure that, if she becomes symptomatic, she’s isolated *before* she can come into contact with anyone else. It’s already a given that she was in an environment where exposure to the virus is possible, even likely, so the last thing anyone (including her) should want is for her to be wandering around in public potentially exposing anyone she encounters.
There’s a blog out there written by an ER doctor that addresses this far better than I could, and he’s been tracking the Hickox situation closely. You can find it at raconteurreport.blogspot.com (NB I have no connection with that blog or its author).
I say burn the witch : )
“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.
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).