• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Kaci Hickox and the science surrounding Ebola

Regarding Kaci Hickox's challenge ...

  • I support her position.

    Votes: 5 41.7%
  • I oppose her position.

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • I am currently unsure.

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • Total voters
    12

Draka

Wonder Woman
While in NJ she was tested more than once, correct? And her tests came back negative, correct? Not even a fever, right? And she is completely asymptomatic, correct again? And one cannot transmit Ebola unless they are symptomatic AND then only by body fluids. So, a perfectly healthy, asymptomatic, negative testing, CDC nurse wants to come outside her home. I really don't see the issue myself.
 

SkylarHunter

Active Member
Give the high mortality rate of the Ebola virus, I support temporary quarantine just to be on the safe side.
However, there are some interesting twist that can happen depending on where things develop. A couple of weeks ago I was in Portugal on holidays and I learned on the news that in that country, quarantining people against their will is illegal - written in the constitution. So, if anyone in Portugal is suspected of having this virus, this person has the right to refuse the quarantine and he can walk out.
Anyone with a bit of common sense would accept to be kept under observation just in case, but since we all know how rare common sense is in this world, imagine if the Ebola spreads to countries with such laws.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
My understanding of the medical science is that all available evidence indicates that there is no discernible risk of her transmitting the virus; as such, she is every bit as safe as you are.
This also assumes current understanding of Ebola is correct even from scientists on the main front.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
From the Maine Medical Association
State health leaders criticize Maine CDC over Kaci Hickox quarantine

The group signs a letter siding with Hickox, saying the state's decision must be 'guided by science and not emotion.'

The Maine Medical Association and top infectious disease leaders in Maine have signed a letter criticizing the state’s quarantine policies after state leaders vowed to take Fort Kent nurse Kaci Hickox to court to impose an in-home quarantine. The letter was sent to the Press Herald Thursday morning.

Hickox, who cared for Ebola patients in Sierra Leone, has defied the state’s mandate that she stay home, going for a bike ride this morning with her boyfriend, Ted Wilbur.

Two recent Maine epidemiologists — Dr. Stephen Sears, who resigned his position in May, and Dr. Kathleen Gensheimer, who was the Maine epidemiologist for nearly 30 years before retiring in 2009 — joined numerous state health-care experts in opposition to the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention policies.

Maine currently does not have an epidemiologist, but the Maine CDC is interviewing candidates.

Dr. Lisa Ryan, president of the Maine Medical Association, told the Press Herald this morning that the Maine CDC’s attempts to impose the quarantine against Hickox’s led her and Dr. Lani Graham, a former state health officer, to write the letter and to round up top medical experts to join them, pointing out that the quarantine is not necessary and could become a disincentive for people to volunteer in countries stricken with infectious diseases.

“What we have is a knee-jerk, panic reaction without looking at the science,” Ryan said. “Quarantining someone for 21 days is not necessary” for health workers who do not have symptoms and test negative for the disease. The U.S. CDC calls for monitoring health workers, not quarantining them.

Hickox has tested negative for Ebola and does not have any symptoms, so she is not risking others by being out in society, Ryan said.

Maine CDC Director Dr. Sheila Pinette pointed out in a news conference on Tuesday that, even if someone tests negative as Hickox has done, they could still fall ill with Ebola within a 21-day incubation period after their last exposure to Ebola. Hickox would pass the 21 days by Nov. 10.

But Ryan said while it’s true someone could develop Ebola later, they are not contagious if they don’t have symptoms.

“Once you have a fever and become ill and develop symptoms, that’s when you could be putting someone at risk,” Ryan said. “Until that happens, there is no risk.”

The letter states, “Ultimately, we need to be guided by science and not emotion. An epidemic of fear can be as dangerous as an epidemic with a virus.”
Again: “Ultimately, we need to be guided by science and not emotion. An epidemic of fear can be as dangerous as an epidemic with a virus.”

And verging on the moronic are pathetic arguments that implicitly argue that people should be quarantined unless and until we are 100% sure that they represent zero risk - something that is true of none of us.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
From the Maine Medical Association
Again: “Ultimately, we need to be guided by science and not emotion. An epidemic of fear can be as dangerous as an epidemic with a virus.”

And verging on the moronic are pathetic arguments that implicitly argue that people should be quarantined unless and until we are 100% sure that they represent zero risk - something that is true of none of us.


Let me first ask of you to refrain from using words like moronic and pathetic. You do have a point concerning science but the same comment can be made on both sides of the argument. Your reference is basically stating health officials arguing with other health officials which to me implies the science is not white and black. When experts argue over a topic and it being life threatening then I would suggest to go with a more conservative approach. The reason they chose 21 days for the quarantine is that it is the accepted incubation period for Ebola. Also from reading other articles, there has been precendence in the US for legal quarantines concerning other less deadly viruses like small pox based on "reasonable" judgement on the government. Some legal experts are already suggesting that Kaci would not have enough grounds to win if she were to fight the quaratine but I'm only adding to this and have no care on the legal debate, frankly. I just care for the health and safety of the overall population.

I'm sure over time when more casy studies are accepted, we can look back and agree with your overall assessment. I'm just a bit skeptical concerning the recentness of Ebola but yes, I agree that science will better solve this for everyone.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
If you think about it, this debate is solely based on a test that can effectively prove if a person is infected for the Ebola virus. That is why the quaratine is established at 21 days. Science assumes that if in 21 days, you have not shown symptons then you can further conclude that the person is not infected. Before the 21 days, you have to be tested. I tried to search on the validity of the test but found none. I can only conjecture at the moment of the validity of the test being used. Possibly health officials are questioning the validity of what being negative from the test implies. Some times, a test implies that it has not found the evidence of a cause as opposed to suggesting that the cause does not exist.

If I can speak for you, then you are concluding that marking negative means the person is fully without the Ebola virus. If that is absolutely true, then I will agree with your assessment.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Let me first ask of you to refrain from using words like moronic and pathetic. You do have a point concerning science but the same comment can be made on both sides of the argument. Your reference is basically stating health officials arguing with other health officials which to me implies the science is not white and black. When experts argue over a topic and it being life threatening then I would suggest to go with a more conservative approach. The reason they chose 21 days for the quarantine is that it is the accepted incubation period for Ebola. Also from reading other articles, there has been precendence in the US for legal quarantines concerning other less deadly viruses like small pox based on "reasonable" judgement on the government. Some legal experts are already suggesting that Kaci would not have enough grounds to win if she were to fight the quaratine but I'm only adding to this and have no care on the legal debate, frankly. I just care for the health and safety of the overall population.

I'm sure over time when more casy studies are accepted, we can look back and agree with your overall assessment. I'm just a bit skeptical concerning the recentness of Ebola but yes, I agree that science will better solve this for everyone.

It seems like a big part of the problem is that Hickox isn't the only one affected by the laws. While she appears relatively knowledgeable and reasonable, the same rules must apply to everyone. Making herself an exception because she feels inconvenienced by complying is not a good thing in the bigger picture. Erring on the side of caution, at least until the science is better understood, seems like a good thing. Even if it does cause some short term glitches in people's lives.

Not that I'm unaware of how bad legislation can be when it is passed by a government responding to media frenzy instead of science.o_O

Tom
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
Oh for crying out loud. They have the nerve to criticize her and say that the police are there for her protection because she's not being smart about this? If the officials in Maine hadn't blown it out of proportion, put her in the spotlight in the first place, there wouldn't have been all this attention on her to begin with. When she came home from NJ, with two negative tests, perfectly healthy, if she was just left well-enough alone, then none of this would even be an issue.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
A ripe controversy pitting the state against scientific consensus with a young heroine in the crosshairs and, in a forum rife with opinionated people. …
… only eleven folks feel comfortable voting.​
Am I the only one that finds this to be more than a little curious?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
How is it ever justifiable to quarantine a person over a virus while displaying no symptoms and testing negative for said virus?
In America, more people will die from the flu, EVD-68 has went ignored although there are kids being infected throughout the Midwest, more people will die from drunken drivers, more people will die from tobacco use, yet we are supposed to be scared of a virus that has a very low communicability rate. In America, where we are excessivly clean, demand our personal space, and have access to better health care than Africa, why are we afraid?

Transmission| Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever | CDC
Diagnosis| Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever | CDC
Ebola virus disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After a quick perusal of the above, I see no reason Hickox should be quarantined. Is there something I missed in the articles, or something missing from them?
You missed all the juicy stuff about the doomsday apocalypse virus that is transmitted in such a way that smearing chocolate syrup all over yourself is the perfect metaphor for how it is transmitted.

 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I agree with Jay.
This brouhaha is generated by the same bunch of irrational, unprincipled, frightened, pusillanimous mice that brought you the 1942 Japanese internments.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Happy Halloween! I had a fun time with my kids just now. Hope you all had a good time with your families and friends too, if you celebrate this time of year.

Ok... I'm not sure people are panicing as much as folks are suggesting in this thread. And that science is not also being accepted. I actually think that I am and others of reasonable mental capacities are accepting the science behind the case. Our view is that the science is claiming that this person does have the slightest chance of being infected. Instead of all the rhetoric on top of the science, why don't we then just simply focus on the science. We're not scientists so if you have references to the science then that would be great. If you are a scientist in this field, then by all means.

Let's start with her background:

* She traveled to infected areas
* She worked with infected people
* Her roommate has been confirmed to be infected
* A number of her colleagues have been infected and died from the virus

All of this indicates that she is at risk of being infected. So the next logical step is to prove that she is not infected if she wants to cohabitat with the general population.

The science to prove that she is not infected:
A. 21 day quaratine based the incubation period. A person to not show symptons after this period is assumed to be virus free.
B. Tests. A positive indicates being infected. A negative does not indicate the person is virus free (I read an article making very quick assertion on this. If I'm wrong, then correct me). This is why there are several tests through a period.
C. Symptoms: Fever, nausea, diarrhea, bleeding, .... Not having symptoms does not indicate a person is virus free.

Am I missing anything?

So, if I'm to build an opinion on this specific set of data, then the best value indicating the persons status is due to A. A combination of all the factors does prove that Kaci does have little chance of being infected, but it did not prove to me before the 21 days that she was ZERO percent.

If I'm mistaken then simply correct me.

Thanks
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
If I'm mistaken then simply correct me.

Thanks
I am correcting you. Ebola is not an easy virus to transmit or catch (and it can't be passed on unless you show symptoms), and not once, but TWICE Hickox tested NEGATIVE for ebola. In all reality, she has a zero chance of coming down with any symptoms and passing the virus along.
 
Top