Ebola in The USA

Personally I think her attitude is helping those of us who think that voluntary quarantine might not be an effective way to deal with this problem should it become more acute.

I hope it doesn't "get more acute"...but if it does, those arguing for voluntary restraint will have to address the problem of people like her.

There are three answers to that.

1) If she does come down with symptoms, she will go to the hospital and get treated. Even in this case there is no risk to the public.

2) With your logic, the government could lock anyone up. Judges all the time decide that people before them aren't a risk and that they should be free to go. This is a good thing.

3) She left the comforts of home to travel to Africa to do the hard work of fighting a disease that you are scared of. The fact people like her are doing this hard, somewhat dangerous work, actually helps you. It means fewer people in the world will be infected (which means fewer cases in the US).

No. She is not being selfish. What have you done lately?

Then she consents to being quarantained. Kaci Hickox's objection has always been against forced quarantaine for no medical reason. She never objected against quarantaine when her medical condition merits it.


There is no "the" here. There are two competing risks: the one to people's lives and the one to people's liberty. Both are fundamental human rights. Right now, Kaci Hickox's blood has tested negative for Ebola, twice. Independent of that, she can't spread Ebola because she isn't displaying any symptoms of it, and only people who display the symptoms can infect others. Right now, in her case, I think wrongful imprisonment is a far greater risk than spreading Ebola.


I don't know, and I don't care. Whatever Kaci Hickox's motivations, there is a line somewhere at which appropriate caution by a state turns into wrongful imprisonment of a citizen. I am happy that Kaci Hickox's case will give courts a chance to determine where this line is.

Update: A Maine judge just ruled in favor of Hickox

I should have said Home Quarantine specifically.

I've not searched to read what if any patients she was exposed to. Worked in a building where there were isolation rooms, but never in them? Worked some blocks away? I get California's take on making decisions on a case by case history basis.

I'm wavery on all this. I see the 'civil rights' view, but think medical indicators can overrule that, so her exact history can matter.

I read another article yesterday that quoted an infectious disease doctor in New York City about the possibility of nurses and doctors not reporting fever fast enough - something I think they have done so far but agree there can/could be human failings involved.

I also still agree with JPB on her comment back a few pages that the quarantines are to some extent a financial decision. Quarantine the few instead of doing extensive biohazard cleanups later - and those would also increase fear factor.

I don't know what the right decision(s) are - I'm reading along, following, mentioning what I think at the time. Yes, I have thought "what if her non symptomatic condition changes"; that brings up where she has been if that happens, which the judge has tempered with his insistence on her being three feet from others, and some other prohibitions, during the 21 days.

If they're doing the TaqMan assay, which is the most sensitive, it has a 95% detection rate of 7500 viral copies/mL. It can sometimes identify lower concentrations, but not consistently. That viral load is approximately the same VL as folks who presented with early symptoms (fever, GI upset) at about 6-12 days from exposure. Those presenting data are from a different strain of the virus. We don't know enough (publicly, at least) to know the typical VL of an early symptomatic pt with the Zaire strain. The bottom line is that getting a negative test result on an asymptomatic person doesn't really tell you anything.

I was thinking that, re the bottom line, but you worded why quite usefully.

I disagree that her contact vs no contact exposure should be taken into consideration in determining a forced quarantine. She's asymptomatic and non-infectious. Why should a non-infectious individual be quarantined?

What happens is Paul LaPeste gets re-elected Governor of Maine, because of his "good sense" in seeking to quarantine her.

My fingers are crossed that Kaci is found to be a-o-Kaci, at least until late Tuesday night.

If she was with an end stage person (which I gather not), in and out of the ''robing" for days, I'd be more watchful than if she was in a staff office somewhere.
I'd like someone in that first circumstance to have the test you mentioned at a time like you said, 6 - 12 days, let's say 12.

High exposure but with no symptoms at all in the first week?? I'm mixed. I get not going to bowling alleys in that first week or two. Total quarantine, no.
Obviously if someone isn't oozing baddies this worry of contagion is off the wall, and that doesn't start right away.
When it gets going? Seems to me to be later than the start of fever, but I don't know the variation of contagion happening.



This makes me want to contact old friend Jan, a public health pro I used to know but have lost contact with.

If I were Kaci Hickox, I would say the following.



That is what I would do. Unfortunately I am afraid Kaci Hickox is a better person that that.

Well you would, you both work for Putin.

It's flaming obvious. Although you could just be insane.

Q.E.D.

Or both. I'm betting both.