As preface: Ebola politics in the US are to date, 1000% preposterous. I hope you agree. I’m not sure we can be friends otherwise.
And yet, in light of the following, it might be worth it to ask our gubernatorial candidates about Ebola preparedness — specifically, about the actions of Governors Cuomo and Christie. They have quarantined a nurse who is asymptomatic. Cuomo has been talking about how riding on the subway puts people at risk, which is … not true. And since NY and NJ are at the bottleneck for travel to and from countries that are suffering the most, they are probably preventing those places from receiving the volunteer help that they desperately need.
BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith wonders aloud …
Am I confused about how terrible the politics of this are for Christie and Cuomo? http://t.co/li0a1yRrCs pic.twitter.com/wkV1HdNqVe
— Ben Smith (@BuzzFeedBen) October 26, 2014
Gosh I don’t think so.
Ebola preparedness requires a resistance to hysteria. Hysteria is generally not helpful to good governance. So, you know, these new developments might be something you’d ask our candidates about. Will our next governor be a gibbering coward? Or make careful, science-based decisions? Not an idle question, unfortunately.
Peter Porcupine says
What is wrong with a preventative quarantine?
When I was small, I had what was then a deadly disease – scarlet fever. The treatment I remember best was being put into a bathtub of ice cubes and cold water to try to lower my temperature, which at one point broke 104 degrees. My mother and grandmother were stuck in the house with me – my dad moved out so he could go to work. We had a big red sign on the door, and the milkman could only leave milk and bread at the foot of the stoop. But even then, I asked why it was OK for Dr. Cox to go in and out of the house every day. (I didn’t die.)
What is so WRONG with a 2 week quarantine to prevent spread of the disease? It would be a measure that would protect the public at large. The lack of a quarantine procedure is actually contributing to hysteria. The exposure is relatively rare in the US population, mainly medical personnel and west African travelers. I don’t think a self-quarantine is viable, as we have had people ditch that already – which feeds the hysteria.
Why WOULD it be a bad idea?
SomervilleTom says
The key difference between your scarlet fever and Kaci Hickox is that you were ill — seriously ill — and she is not.
Why not “quarantine” every black teenager within a few-block radius of a mugging? Not so long, just a little while — just long enough to get a description from the victim.
The nurse in question does not have a fever and has tested negative for the virus. There is ZERO evidence that she is ill with anything.
I do NOT want to live in a society that presumptively incarcerates whomever the current hysteria makes us fearful of.
Oh, just one last question — if the dread disease was rampant in Germany or France, would you support imposing a similar quarantine on every traveler from those first-world lily-white nations?
We’ve already had one Orange Line shutdown as a result of vomiting while black:
So a Haitian woman is taken ill on a subway platform, and suddenly she is “from Liberia” and “might have Ebola”.
If somebody shows SYMPTOMS of Ebola and has had contact with an Ebola victim, then yes — of course — take appropriate steps to inhibit the spread of this serious disease.
“Protective quarantine”, as advocated by various right-wing crazies, is a terrible idea.
JimC says
The link in the diary talks about quarantine for healthcare workers who worked with ebola patients.
I don’t know how you get from there to a three-block radius and all that. What happened on the Orange Line is certainly unfortunate, but it was caused by an errant 911 call, not government hysteria.
Ebola is fatal, in many cases. The LOWEST figure I’ve heard is 40%. I would happily quarantine myself if I was at risk, to prevent myself being responsible for someone else getting it.
SomervilleTom says
Ebola is HARD to catch. The 40% figure you cite is for those who have it. Being in a hospital room with someone with Ebola does NOT put a person at risk.
Are we now in a place where treating the ill is cause for incarceration?
It’s time to calm down. Breathe deeply. Listen to the doctors:
JimC says
The 40% rate is for people who have it; what else would it be for?
Quarantine is not incarceration. The doctor who just got it in New York … was a doctor, and well informed of the risks. I assume he’ll be fine, since he’ll get good care.
My bottom line is that this should not be politicized. If the CDC recommended quarantine, would you support it? I would.
SomervilleTom says
The policy we’re talking about is a political ploy by two hysterical governors in an election season.
I agree with you that it should not be politicized. If the CDC recommends something like this, I’ll be much more supportive. It hasn’t.
SomervilleTom says
The point is that Ebola is HARD to get.
Yes, it has a very high fatality rate for those who get it. But it is hard to get.
I’m reminded of the hysteria in the early years of HIV.
bob-gardner says
from West Africa, don’t hysterically fly them back in a special plane, just seat them on a window seat and leave a couple seats empty in a couple rows. And scrap all these hysterical coverall suits, just stay a few feet away. It’s really a tough disease to contract, except in Dallas.
The arrogance of the medical profession around this subject is just astounding. ” Don’t inconvenience us with a three week quarantine because then we might be less inclined to volunteer to help. And unless we volunteer in sufficient numbers, the plague will bet worse over there.”
Is that how we intend to fight this disease in Africa, by hoping that enough medical workers volunteer?
The fact is that Ebola is pretty easy to catch if you are a medical worker who has been treating someone with the disease. And it is a fact, that after 21 days, you can be sure that you are safe from it.
The idea that we must ignore these facts because the medical workers are heroes is pure magical thinking.
SomervilleTom says
Whatever floats your boat.
Like I’ve said elsewhere, I’ll pay attention to the recommendations of the CDC and NIH.
bob-gardner says
but not medical workers.
I heard a lot of politics in Fauci’s explanation today, not much science.
SomervilleTom says
This is the first I’ve heard of quarantining soldiers, I’ve certainly never defended it. Without a cite, your comment about Dr. Fauci offers no information.
Here’s the sort of thing I see reported about Dr. Fauci (emphasis mine):
Ms. Hickox was never “feeling very, very poorly”. She was never infectious. She has now been released, and should never have been quarantined.
bob-gardner says
in Italy for 21 days. On last night’s show, Fauci was asked about the apparent contradiction. From what I could tell, he had no answer at all, let alone an answer based in science.
I agree that Ms Hickox was treated poorly. But I still say it that it is fairer and less hysterical to make returning healthcare workers wait for three weeks before they mix with the general population than to react like NY did when the doctor tested positive there.
I also think that if our response the crisis in West Africa is based on how well we incentivize volunteers to go over to help, the response is doomed to failure.
Peter Porcupine says
There is not guilt or innocence associated with illness – your are sick, or you are not. This is not about race – almost all of the people who have developed the virus here have been white. If there were such a disease in Europe, or if there is an outbreak there, of course the quarantine should apply.
THIS is a hysterical reaction – based upon the supposed bias of others, not medical practice or disease control.
We have already had people passed to reenter the public who didn’t have the fever YET, or who have blown off voluntary seclusion. Make it for everybody, no exceptions, who came from an affected area or who had direct contact. The distinction between contagion and infection is a difficult line to draw unless you are privvy to all interactions between the individuals involved.
Sometimes, things really aren’t social issues.
SomervilleTom says
Like you say, you are sick or you are not. Kacy Hickox is not sick.
In my view, doctors from NIH and the CDC are more reliable than politicians in the closing weeks of a campaign.
rickterp says
“doctors from NIH and the CDC are more reliable than politicians in the closing weeks of a campaign”
Terry Schiavo all over again.
bob-gardner says
Three weeks is not too much to ask. Each time someone who has not been quarantined tests positive, there is a huge, expensive reaction and a tremendous amount of anxiety.
It would be different if you needed a six-month quarantine, or if there were still uncertainty at the end of the three weeks.
Use the three weeks to learn as much as we can from the health workers. Make it as pleasant as possible. But, again, three weeks of quarantine is not a big deal.
Patrick says
It seems to me that with Ebola the right is very quick to want to resort to travel bans and quarantines, but when the pandemic bill was being discussed a few years back the right was uber concerned about quarantines.
http://www.enterprisenews.com/x576524982/Critics-Pandemic-emergency-bill-tramples-privacy-rights?template=printart
Trickle up says
please don’t ask either candidate to show courage and integrity (and sense) on this.
We’d likely get a race to the bottom as each tries to get an edge over the other in faux crisis management.
A more interesting question is, What is so appealing to so many people about this type of hysteria? I mean, if not Ebola, ISIS; if not ISIS then whatever.
Do people like being panicked and stupid? Does it give them a thrill? How is it fun?
Peter Porcupine says
Let alone candidates.
Why do you (seemingly) oppose a medical quarantine? No dispute about degree of contagion, lack of cure, fatality of disease.
So why is a quarantine to protect the public and END hysteria and rumor a bad tbing?
petr says
Quarantines are for diseases that are infectious, contagious and lethal.
There is no dispute that Ebola is a disease that is highly infectious but not very contagious. Because of this patients are quarantined out of the population, not the population from itself. Evidence suggests that, where applied, this is a very effective methodology for halting the spread of the disease.
Scarlet Fever was both infectious and contagious. Scarlet fever was also very lethal. The lethality of Ebola is actually unknown at this point. The hard numbers suggest Ebola has about 50% lethality, but the bulk of those deaths occurred outside of adequate medical attention in a climate of superstition and civil strife that marks the greater portion of the region where Ebola is currently running rampant.
The cure for hysteria is education not a quarantine.
bob-gardner says
Would you agree that a 48 hour quarantine would make sense? It’s just silly to spout slogans like “education not a quarantine.” A reality based policy would be to take the facts of the situation into account.
A 21 day quarantine for people at risk would be 100% effective. And, unlike a travel ban, a short quarantine is not too much of a burden.
Compensate returning health workers for lost time. Do whatever is possible to make their time in quarantine less burdensome.
Or hope that every single returning health worker does a perfect job of monitoring their health, because we think health workers are infallible, then disinfect airplanes, subway systems, and bowling alleys every time we aren’t sure.
The cure for hysteria is not obliviousness, or arrogance.
petr says
The only reason to quarantine someone for a disease that is not contagious is when they are definitively infectious. Not when you think they might be infectious. Not because they shared some proximate geography with an infectious person. Only when they are definitively infectious. Anything else is just a burden for no other reason than for your peace of mind and is without efficacy of any kind. Ebola is not that contagious. If you want to be safe, stand 5 to 7 feet away from all other people and you will not get the disease. The spread of the disease in Africa is mostly due to the quality of the medical infrastructure, superstition, civil strife and funeral customs that are ideal for the disease: all these things have leveraged the basic (low) contagion of the disease to cause further damage than would be the case in their absence.
The only reason to pre-emptively quarantine someone is for a deadly disease that is very contagious. Ebola is not that disease. Scarlet Fever is such a disease. Smallpox is such a disease. The bubonic plague is such a disease. Ebola is not. Trust the science. Once again, education is the cure.
Trickle up says
Answer: I don’t!
I’m not down with political quarantine, however.
Here’s how to tell the difference: Medical quarantines are imposed for medical reasons, usually by doctors.
JimC says
n/t
Christopher says
One year it was SARS, then bird flu, then swine flu. At the risk of sounding callous, isn’t it still the case that you can count US cases on the fingers of one hand? I’m also pretty sure it is NOT airborne so the bubble of “contact” is much more limited. Is this not as testable as it could be? Rather than quarantine on a maybe can’t a patient just be tested? If they are positive treat them; if not let them go. Don’t have blanket travel bans which frankly sound xenophobic. Test travelers, sure, but we already ground people for a lot less. Am I the only one who doesn’t get why this is being treated like the second coming of the Black Death?
petr says
In some parts of Africa, that’s exactly what it looks like.
I think Ebola, like the other diseases you mentioned, ought to be taken extremely seriously. That doesn’t, however. mean panic.
I think the hysteria is driven, in part, by some subcutaneous anger: we did nothing for Africa for far too long… well past the time when the first lines of defense there where totally and completely obliterated and the disease had overwhelmed the medical infrastructure. Complete fail. Some people are mad about this. I know I am. Others make no distinctions and assume the disease will overwhelm our medical infrastructure in the same way. It couldn’t possibly do so, which makes our previous inaction all the more inexcusable.
SomervilleTom says
Too many people are using this Ebola hysteria to act out their racism.
I’m reminded of the initial reaction to AIDS (before we called it HIV), when we thought the at-risk population was gay and black men (we were too squeamish to talk about receptive anal sex) and IV drug users. A whole lot of racism and homophobia came out of the woodwork then too.
JimC says
How do we remember the early days of AIDS now? We remember government neglect, and Ronald Reagan refusing to even mention it.
So here we have a problem that directly affects Africans, and the government is reacting. Even if they’re overreacting, how can that be racism?
That’s what I mean by politicizing it. This disease may be hard to get, but apparently it’s also hard to contain. I favor an excess of caution.
SomervilleTom says
I’m not talking about the government response, I’m talking about the hysteria among PEOPLE, fueled by media propaganda.
The disease is far easier to contain than the current hysteria about the disease.
Christopher says
…but the American panic is uncalled for.