USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Ebola - all or nothing?
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
well, one thing is pretty straightforward: you don't conduct experiments using people as subjects without first acquiring their informed consent. To do otherwise is considered highly unethical, no matter what your politics are.
well, one thing is pretty straightforward: you don't conduct experiments using people as subjects without first acquiring their informed consent. To do otherwise is considered highly unethical, no matter what your politics are.
unofan
Well-known member
That's not what he said and you know it. What he's saying is that the fear and panic over EBOLA!!!1!1 is causing responses that are grossly disproportionate to the actual danger involved, and is using the lack of response to actual health crises as a comparative.
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
First, we're talking about very young kids. Depending upon kids to avoid transferring bodily fluids or follow protocols adults would find easy to follow is not without some risk. That includes the girl's time in both Nigeria and back home.
Second, it's true that Nigeria is now "off the list" so to speak. But if you look at the CDC website, and in particular, footnote 1, they note that people entering Nigeria on or after Sept 30, 2014 are not at risk. http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/distribution-map.html
So apparently there is at least some risk for people who entered before Sept. 30? According to the stories I read, this girl returned to Connecticut from Nigeria on October 13. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/3...fter-a-girl-7-is-barred-from-school.html?_r=0
It appears they were gone for about 10 days, but whenever they entered Nigeria it's pretty close to, if not even before, the CDC all clear date.
The chance this girl has Ebola is virtually nil. I think everyone knows that. It is clearly an exaggerated case of "better safe than sorry." But I don't think we're exactly going to destroy this girl if we let her stay home from school for a few days and do her homework there. This is a family looking to make a political point.
If the school in this case wants to ask the girl to stay out of the school for 21 days, but makes sure that she has a tutor or some other method of getting her class instruction, I don't necessarily have a problem with it, for these reasons.Gee, no response from fishy about the Connecticut school district even though it's in his backyard. Color me shocked...
First, we're talking about very young kids. Depending upon kids to avoid transferring bodily fluids or follow protocols adults would find easy to follow is not without some risk. That includes the girl's time in both Nigeria and back home.
Second, it's true that Nigeria is now "off the list" so to speak. But if you look at the CDC website, and in particular, footnote 1, they note that people entering Nigeria on or after Sept 30, 2014 are not at risk. http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/distribution-map.html
So apparently there is at least some risk for people who entered before Sept. 30? According to the stories I read, this girl returned to Connecticut from Nigeria on October 13. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/3...fter-a-girl-7-is-barred-from-school.html?_r=0
It appears they were gone for about 10 days, but whenever they entered Nigeria it's pretty close to, if not even before, the CDC all clear date.
The chance this girl has Ebola is virtually nil. I think everyone knows that. It is clearly an exaggerated case of "better safe than sorry." But I don't think we're exactly going to destroy this girl if we let her stay home from school for a few days and do her homework there. This is a family looking to make a political point.
unofan
Well-known member
And one that needs to be made. Nigeria is roughly 33% bigger than Texas. By the school district's logic we better be quarantining anyone who lives in or has traveled in Texas if that's all it takes, on the off chance someone in San Antonio caught it from someone in Dallas.
The school district will settle the case if they have any reasonably competant legal advisors because this is an absurdly clear violation of the ADA. If this isn't discrimination based on a perceived impairment due to misguided stereotypes and fears, I don't know what is.
Last edited:
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Last edited:
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
What, are kids all over the country being excluded from class due to Ebola scares? You found one seven year old in one school none of us have ever heard of, congrats.
About the only thing as rare as Ebola cases in this country are the instances where someone's "civil rights" are being trampled by overly cautious bureaucrats afraid of Ebola epidemics.
The only things that aren't rare are the hysterics on both sides of the issue.
No, it isn't one that needs to be made.
What, are kids all over the country being excluded from class due to Ebola scares? You found one seven year old in one school none of us have ever heard of, congrats.
About the only thing as rare as Ebola cases in this country are the instances where someone's "civil rights" are being trampled by overly cautious bureaucrats afraid of Ebola epidemics.
The only things that aren't rare are the hysterics on both sides of the issue.
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
So as long as it's only one instance of someone's civil rights being "trampled," it's okay?
As long as it's only one rape? One Murder? One OWI? One instance of insider trading? On e illegal campaign contribution? One instance of police brutality? One instance of extortion?
Just want to be clear on the point you're making.
So as long as it's only one instance of someone's civil rights being "trampled," it's okay?
As long as it's only one rape? One Murder? One OWI? One instance of insider trading? On e illegal campaign contribution? One instance of police brutality? One instance of extortion?
Just want to be clear on the point you're making.
unofan
Well-known member
I've already seen four school cases (2 students, a teacher, and a principal) and at least one case where an employer pulled a job offer from people who had nothing to do with Ebola (one went to Uganda, one to Zambia, one to Nigeria, one to Dallas, and one was on the cruise that everyone freaked out about). None of them were exposed to the virus, and the one in Zambia was 3000 miles away from any potential exposure. And that's just in the course of reading my usual news sites. I'm sure there are more overzealous safety concern quarantines out there if I really cared to look.
No, they're not likely to happen. But they're more likely to happen than an actual Ebola infection.
Last edited:
Those are all terrible. Shame that you wouldn't bother to inconvenience even a single person to prevent them.
unofan
Well-known member
You're as close to Ebola as a couple of the people who've been told to stay home from work/school for traveling to Africa. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if we made you stay at home for three weeks, right?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
"The relentless note of incipient hysteria, the invitation to panic, the ungrounded scenarios--the overwhelming and underlying desire for something truly terrible to happen so that you could have something really hot to talk about--was still startling. We call disasters unimaginable, but all we do is imagine such things. That, you could conclude mordantly, is the real soundtrack of our time: the amplification of the self-evident toward the creation of paralyzing, preëmptive paranoia."
― Adam Gopnik
"The relentless note of incipient hysteria, the invitation to panic, the ungrounded scenarios--the overwhelming and underlying desire for something truly terrible to happen so that you could have something really hot to talk about--was still startling. We call disasters unimaginable, but all we do is imagine such things. That, you could conclude mordantly, is the real soundtrack of our time: the amplification of the self-evident toward the creation of paralyzing, preëmptive paranoia."
― Adam Gopnik
Good point. Or, it would be if I agreed with the quarantines in those cases.
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
Three weeks with full pay and with internet access and cable TV, and food being delivered since we couldn't go out shopping?
That's a far better deal than what we had to cope with in the wake of Hurricane Irene!
I'll take it.
I certainly wouldn't want anyone to get infected as a result of immature irresponsible self-indulgent selfish posturing on my part. It's one thing to affect a phony persona on an internet message board[SUP]1[/SUP], but to actually be the kind of person that puts one's own indulgences ahead of consideration for other people's well-being?
no thank you.
Buried in the fine print of the Quinn / Cuomo / Christie actions was a point that anyone put into temporary isolation for the safety of the public would be paid their regular salary by the state if their employer wasn't paying them. While the original facilities at Newark were fairly primitive, staying inside my own home would be just fine.
In fact, you raise an interesting idea: might it be better to keep potential cases in their own home and send in treatment teams if all they can really provide is hydration at this point? Not advocating one or the other, just noticing that it is a concept worth further consideration. It certainly would reduce mass staff "sick days" at hospitals after they take an Ebola patient there.
[SUP]1[/SUP] The USCHO café, where it's Halloween all year round!
Three weeks with full pay and with internet access and cable TV, and food being delivered since we couldn't go out shopping?
That's a far better deal than what we had to cope with in the wake of Hurricane Irene!
I'll take it.
I certainly wouldn't want anyone to get infected as a result of immature irresponsible self-indulgent selfish posturing on my part. It's one thing to affect a phony persona on an internet message board[SUP]1[/SUP], but to actually be the kind of person that puts one's own indulgences ahead of consideration for other people's well-being?
no thank you.Buried in the fine print of the Quinn / Cuomo / Christie actions was a point that anyone put into temporary isolation for the safety of the public would be paid their regular salary by the state if their employer wasn't paying them. While the original facilities at Newark were fairly primitive, staying inside my own home would be just fine.
In fact, you raise an interesting idea: might it be better to keep potential cases in their own home and send in treatment teams if all they can really provide is hydration at this point? Not advocating one or the other, just noticing that it is a concept worth further consideration. It certainly would reduce mass staff "sick days" at hospitals after they take an Ebola patient there.
[SUP]1[/SUP] The USCHO café, where it's Halloween all year round!
Last edited:
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
So now a 3 week house arrest is just an inconvenience?
Some of you "small government" people are surprising... actually... not really.
Don't Tread On Me!
So now a 3 week house arrest is just an inconvenience?
Some of you "small government" people are surprising... actually... not really.
Don't Tread On Me!
Re: Ebola - all or nothing?
Compared with accidentally killing someone, and denying them potentially *thousands* of weeks of life? Three weeks of paid vacation is definitely a mere inconvenience.So now a 3 week house arrest is just an inconvenience?
Some of you "small government" people are surprising... actually... not really.
Don't Tread On Me!