just like our soldiers are who are helping out in that area. Once they complete their job they have to stay on the ship for 21 days.

21 days is that really asking too much?

West Africa without incident, right?
monitoring is precaution enough and the hysteria is dangerous.

Ebola patients without incident since the 1970's. This current hysteria is troubling and will definitely cause any person in the medical field to think twice before going to Africa, and that is a far greater tragedy than one or 2 cases of Ebola.

but we will see how this plays out in the next couple of weeks.

How would you feel if she did come down with Ebola? I would feel sorry for her, but a bit angry that she didn't follow what seems to be the knew protocol to ALL.

That's crazy talk. Sounds like something out of this ones mouth:

quietened. Whose mouth you think it comes out of does not bother me or change my thinking. Again 21 days is not asking too much

That sounds rather....well....not very progressive, nor right at all.

So when ever you are afraid, civil rights go by the wayside??

I do not want to live in "your" country!!!

To be fair, the pants-wetters have learned to be scared from the irresponsible media.

you can live wherever you like. Guess what, in my country I have the right to have an opinion, a voice. Am I afraid? no Am I a bit cautious? yes.

Should she come down with Ebola, I will be afraid for Mainers and those she came in contact with.

back at you

want to live in my country and I said you don't have to. I blame no one, I am not in fear of my life nor am I angry.

I do think 21 days of quarentine is a good idea. That doesn't mean I am going to run out and create a law or start a riot

Is that asking too much??? How about a cop putting you in the back of his car for a couple of hours while he "sorts things out" ? Is that OK too??

is my bussness. A 72 hour wait I suspect is to allow the woman time to make sure she is ok with her decision. For me that would not be an issue, but I only speak for myself. I never heard of a cop putting you in the back of his car for 2 hours while he sorts things out. Does he go and have lunch or something? what takes 2 hours?

Every circumstance is different and you are asking me to answer a general questions with no information about the person. I can't do that

You do know this is "Democratic underground", right??

But, thank you for responding, you have explained a whole lot in this post.

Are you sure you're on the right board?

I was beginning to get concerned about you.

thank you for the compliment

But I doubt you can.

someone you don't know. Never speak in general terms and expect specific answers. I think you are a little right, because I don't know what ted cruz stands for, but you certainly do. I don't listen to Michelle Bachman, but you seem to.

hmmm I am concerned about you

I doubt it you're really turnin left anywhere. But it explains so much about your posts here.

A 72 hour wait I suspect is to allow the woman time to make sure she is ok with her decision. For me that would not be an issue, but I only speak for myself.

to your opinion.

see how nice that was

At least yours... to an opinion that others should be denied theirs...

Just up front admission of abject hypocrisy rather than some attempt to worm out of it...

there is no reason for name calling. We can still converse and share ideas. That is how things get resolved.

Your "opinion" does not have the power to negate civil rights, no matter what your "opinion" is. Your fear is irrelevant to anything except your own little life. You should just stay in your house until your fear subsides.

And i did not call anyone names.

One must stand up FOR civil rights, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS.

if you wait to see what happens, THIS happens:



One bad berry spoils the whole bowl, quickly.

we have no choice. Time is going to pass and things are going to happen. If the nurse does come down with Ebola I will feel bad for her. With that said, all the attention this is getting, it will cause panic, moreso than you see now.

strawberries look good

Your opinion is that a 21 day at home, overly cautious, quarantine is a civil rights violation. The other poster thinks that it does not reach the level of civil rights violation. That is an opinion difference.

My opinion is that the quarantine is silly AND that her civil rights are not being violated.

No due process, no quarantine.

again, thank FSM that your "opinion" IS irrelevant.

The case law surrounding quarantine, specifically, is not well developed. The States do have the power to implement many health laws. Civil rights are not violated every time the government restricts a person's movement, obviously.

FAIL

You get that , right??

hearing, the government would have the burden of presenting evidence to support the quarantine. So?

What that means, is that there is NO legal authority to impose a quarantine on her.

NONE !!

Your fear, and fearful "opinion" do not change that FACT.

That means you , and your "opinion" have lost.


Good thing, too.

just laugh when you try to make us feel stupid. We shall see if she gets sick. I hope not, because if she does, there is going to be a backlash that will be frightening.

a reason to suspend civil rights. whether or not you feel stupid, I can not control, but facts being what they are.......

One more time. She is not contagious. She isn't showing symptoms. She isn't likely to show symptoms, and if she does she won't be running around with her boyfriend.

These are medical professionals who understand the risks. They aren't spreading the virus everywhere. And frankly, she's been treated badly because the populace doesn't understand science and the media is spreading hysteria. Of course, the fact that the politicians know that she is not contagious means that they are pandering.

There is no need to shove her in quarantine and act as though she's typhoid Mary. If she isn't showing symptoms, she's not contagious.

These are medical professionals who understand the risks. They aren't spreading the virus everywhere.

Nothing you can do, except be afraid.

Your post was totally pointless.

you have only your FEAR !!!!!! rofl: :

matter either.

As opposed to yours which is contradictory to the law.



Huge difference !!

not (have a fever). What is your point? Enough with the red herrings.

and some news stories suggest he was not even initially honest with the police about his travels and contacts.

That is precisely why many have suggested that self-monitoring alone is insufficient. Simply, despite intelligence and medical training, many still will not be honest, diligent or forthcoming, or may even be in denial about their condition until it is too late. Doctors and nurses are no less human than anyone else.

everyone here will suddenly think it's a swell idea!!

and many here are desperately trying to find some nuance to explain the inconsistency.

I do not necessarily support the mandatory quarantine, but I've seen no actual medical evidence to differentiate the risk to the public from the troops versus the civilian aid workers. In fact, since we have been told that the troops did not deal directly with infected patients, unlike the aid workers, they should have a much lesser chance of carrying the disease.

Issues like whether the troops were in Africa voluntarily or are required to follow orders has absolutely nothing to do with science and the comparative rates of infectiousness or contagion.

Either asymptomatic individuals present a danger to the public or do not. A military uniform does not change medical science.

"A military uniform " changes EVERYTHING. Sorry, but thems the facts. You can argue the scientific value of quarantining troops, but not the legality. For civilians, this is not the case. No "inconsistency" here.

I'm an attorney, and any experienced legal professional knows that the ability for states to institute a quarantine is well established, and based both on the scholarly articles I've examined and the practical fact that courts, both state and federal, are generally very deferential to authorities in matters of public health, it's likely that many of the state quarantines would be upheld, particularly by appellate courts.

Would you care to offer a legal analysis other than simple catch-phrases like "due process?"

You have also repeatedly and emphatically opposed the quarantines of the aid workers and supported the president because the quarantines do not comport with the medical science concerning the Ebola virus, i.e., asymptomatic individuals are no danger to the public. When confronted with the fact that Obama's military quarantine also doesn't appear to be in accord with the science, you now want to argue about the legality. Accordingly, if courts begin to uphold the legality of state quarantines of the returning aid workers, will it then become acceptable despite your protestations of the science, or might you acknowledge that Obama is being a hypocrite about the need to quarantine the troops?

The "legality" is intertwined with the science. You folks who argue for a quarantine seem to forget that. A QUARANTINE CAN NOT BE UPHELD WITHOUT SCIENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

Maybe a few more quarters of study are in order.

and I can confidently state that you obviously have little understanding about the burdens and standards of proof and review concerning government actions predicated on protecting public health and safety.

Stating the legality of quarantines is "intertwined" with "science" is meaningless. First, quarantines generally are legal. If you dispute this fact, any discussion futile. The issue is the lawfulness of any particular quarantine as applied to specific individuals or groups, and the results may be quite different depending on the state and plaintiff.

For instance, if the common law and regulations demand a court analyze a quarantine based on a "abuse of discretion"-type standard of review, which would be unsurprising in matters of public safety, it would be likely that a quarantine would be upheld.

For some basic analysis, read the below legal blog articles that have been widely cited recently concerning the legality of the state quarantines. Of course, some scholars believe that the quarantines are unconstitutional. Legal opinions certainly differ about this atypical and somewhat complicated issue. In any event, you uniformed conclusory statements add little to the actual discussion other than hyperbole and misinformation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/27/constitutional-challenge-to-quarantine-unlikely-to-succeed/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/28/ebola-quarantines-and-state-powers/

Maybe stick to your "commercial trial" job . Public health and civil rights seem to escape you !!


That may explain why you are not very busy at work, and have time to spew silliness on the interwebs.

I would very much like to read these applicable decisions. Could you provide the links? The only individual who has threatened a legal challenge that I know of is Ms. Hickox, and that first requires Maine to seek redress, which has not occurred.

Moreover, could you also indicate your legal and/or public health and civil rights credentials so that everyone here on DU can appropriately gauge your level of expertise and experience? Your ability to employ multiple emoticons on an anonymous forums provides little insight into this complicated area of constitutional law?

Point to your rulings in this case that support your "opinion". Good luck. Your ineptitude is showing.

no wonder you have so much time.

Can you provide any links or citations, or would you like to reconsider your statement?

I stated that this is a complicated area of constitutional and administrative law where courts are generally deferential to authorities on matters of public health and safety. I even provided links that included a thorough legal analysis, including prior quarantine decisions. In response, you done little more than question how I spend my free time (btw, I'm waiting for a scheduled conference call), no less provide any information concerning your own qualifications or experience.

Yes, can you actually prove your assertion.

Give us precedence where 'civil rights' trumps public health matters.

We will wait.

Thus far, this woman has not been denied due process. She has not been falsely imprisoned. She is free to legally challenge any state public health orders. And precedence says, she is going to lose.

PS - All I expect from you of course is more smileys, bullshit, insults, and assholery, but hey let's see how 'smart' you are.

Apparently, many on DU have suddenly become expert jurists and doctors with specialties in public health, epidemiology, administrative and constitutional law, both federally and among the 50 states. It seems that Republicans have not cornered the market on ignorance and arrogance.

There is certainly a mature and informed discussion to be had about the state quarantines, but sadly I've seen little of it on DU.

who usually aren't.

I definitely agree. Somewhere between mandatory quarantines and loose self-monitoring during a potential incubation period is where public health officials will eventually land.

Public health is not just about the 'science'. It is also about the sociological realities of the community, human behavior (both selfish and altruistic) and yes, politics.

I am willing to bet that after the election, the Obama administration will have to deal with this differently than they are now.

Sheeeeesh!

Unless she is contagious there will be no (legal) quarantine.

While she did. So she should be quarantined before they are.

If this were only about Christie, why would we still be talking about it? He caved and let her go, even though he says he didn't.

There would be ways to do this without infringing unnecessarily on civil rights. Mandatory 21 day quarantines is an early 20th century approach - medical science has moved a bit beyond that. We also used to lock up TB patients in sanatoriums. We now know better.

Obama is a politician. And troops are not civilians. So the calculus may be a bit different. Regardless, it doesn't make it a good idea. I happen to disagree with that also. If Obama comes out after the election and says "21 day quarantines for everyone" how does that change anything about what is consistent with medical knowledge about Ebola or whether quarantines are the best way to go?

because I've read that he felt "a little tired" before jogging 3 miles.

News flash: "a little tired" is not a symptom of Ebola. Early symptoms include: fever, headache, sore throat, nausea, malaise.

Note that "a little tired" or even "tired" are not included as symptoms of Ebola.

As soon as he had a single symptom -- elevated temperature -- he isolated himself and reported to MSF and CDC, as self-monitoring requires.

CDC lists fatigue as one of the symptoms.

Symptoms of Ebola include
•Fever
•Severe headache
•Muscle pain
•Weakness
•Diarrhea
•Vomiting
•Abdominal (stomach) pain
•Unexplained hemorrhage (bleeding or bruising)

Symptoms may appear anywhere from 2 to 21 days after exposure to Ebola, but the average is 8 to 10 days.
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/symptoms/index.html?s_cid=cs_284


What do I do if I’m returning to the U.S. from the area where the outbreak is occurring?

After you return, pay attention to your health.
•Monitor your health for 21 days if you were in an area with an Ebola outbreak, especially if you were in contact with blood or body fluids, items that have come in contact with blood or body fluids, animals or raw meat, or facilities where Ebola patients are being treated or participated in burial rituals.
•Seek medical care immediately if you develop fever, headache, muscle pain, diarrhea, vomiting, stomach pain, or unexplained bruising or bleeding.
•Tell your doctor about your recent travel and your symptoms before you go to the office or emergency room. Advance notice will help your doctor care for you and protect other people who may be in the office.
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/qa.html

loves the attention.

Look, FOX "news" is entertainment - it is not to be taken seriously.

If she comes down with Ebola, she will be isolated and treated. How does that change anything? As long as she is asymptomatic she does not infect anyone. If she becomes symptomatic (fever) there is still enough time to get her into isolation before she can infect people. Enough with the fear mongering.