Monday, October 27, 2014
White House Presses States To End Ebola Quarantine: Report
The Obama administration is pressing for states to end the mandatory quarantine of health care workers who have worked with Ebola patients. Many federal officials, top health care workers, and citizens are in favor of a voluntary quarantine, but feel that the mandatory quarantine is too strict, and could cause health care workers to be unwilling to travel to Africa to help stop the spread of Ebola. Do you think there should be a mandatory quarantine of all health care workers who have worked with Ebola patients?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have mixed feelings about this issue. I understand why the governors of New York and New Jersey would issue an mandatory quarantine, I also understand why people are getting upset. It is important that all healthcare workers that have been in contact with Ebola patients be tested for the dies ease but it is, in my opinion, a bit impractical to quarantine every one of them.
ReplyDeleteI can understand not having a full travel ban, but no Quarantine? For people we KNOW have come into close contact with people who have Ebola? Come on now, lets be realistic. The people who are most likely to be infected with Ebola are health care workers who have gone to help treat ebola patients. They, of all people, should be quarantined for 21 days in order to ensure the public safety.
ReplyDeleteFor those who have been in close contact with Ebola, I believe without a doubt that they should be quarantined. Though it may be a bit unpractical and chaotic to quarantine everyone, and it may be stressful and unfortunate for those being quarantined, I would much rather, has a health care worker, take one for the team than allow anyone else to get the disease. I disagree that a 21 day quarantine should deter people from traveling to help out. If a health care worked truly wants to help, a quarantine that will keep others safe in the instance that they have contracted the disease should not be an issue. Dealing with infectious diseases has it's pros and cons, there's no escaping that.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The type of person that would willingly sign up to go fight Ebola is not the type of person who would back down because of a quarantine.
DeleteJust like Jaime, I have mixed feelings on this. I think this was a very frightened, rushed and panicked decision by the two governors. It is important to keep the virus under control but these are very drastic measures. The people in contact with Ebola should obviously want to keep away from all others and help prevent the spread. The people that have been in contact I don't think should be completely quarantined but I do believe they should be watched carefully.
ReplyDeleteMan what a tough article. Like Katie and Jamie have such mixed feelings about this. Ebola is a really scary virus and has caused a lot of panic in the United States. I think it is really important that nurses take extra precautions when dealing with Ebola patients. However, Dr. Anthony Fauci is right. All these "extra safety policies" are actually in fact really aggressive towards health workers. If nurses and doctors feel bullied by these policies than not a lot of them will want to help stop Ebola in Africa. The thing that really bothered me was reading about Kaci Hickox thoughts on the quarantine. She said her she felt her human rights were violated. It's important to prevent Ebola, but maybe the ways of preventing it is too harsh on the nurses and doctors.
ReplyDeleteI think that the mandatory screenings need to stay. These people need to know if they caught the disease or not. It is a deadly disease and we need to do everything possible to stop it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marie, Katie and Jamie. It is a difficult question. Yes, protection of American lives is important. However, the solution the two governors have come up with is not at all practical and is much too aggressive as the article says. It might be better if the state governments instead worked alongside ebola experts to find a more practical solution instead of working separately.
ReplyDeleteLike many others I share mixed feelings on this. While Ebola is a very serious disease, its threat to the United States has been blown out of proportion. The actions these two governors have taken in response to it are hasty and overreactions to the disease. Those who may have come into contact with ebola, which are mainly doctors, cannot do their jobs if they are immediately quarantined. A person infected with ebola only becomes contagious when they start showing symptoms so until that point they are not a problem. State governments should work together with those who may have come into contact with the virus to ensure that they are quarantined as soon as they show symptoms of ebola so that they do not spread it to others.
ReplyDeleteWhile I see the risk of potentially infected people walking around such densely populated area as New York City, I don't think that immediate quarantine is the best course of action. The woman who shared her experience said that the process was very stressful and disorienting-- not only is that a terrible way to greet someone who is returning to family after weeks away from home, but it's taking away her judgement of her own health. I feel that a better course of action would be a mini-clinic in the airport that immediately tests all returning healthcare providers for Ebola before quarantining them. That gives them some freedom while still protecting the health of New York City residents and visitors.
ReplyDeleteThis is really difficult to answer. On one hand, I think we should quarantine since Ebola is so contagious and most likely results in death, but on the other, I do think it is really aggressive and takes away choice from an infected person. Overall, though, I think we should keep the mandatory screenings, but immediate quarantine I'm not so sure about. I think, in order to make a logical approach towards infected doctors and nurses, the governors need to chill instead of letting their fear push them into making rash decisions.
ReplyDeleteHow can you be more afraid of quarantine than of going to Africa to treat people with Ebola? I don't understand this at all. In times where national security, or in this case, health, is threatened, personal liberty is reduced. That's how it has always been and that is how it always will be. While that was unfortunate in the times of Japanese Internment and the Cold War, I believe it is actually best with the Ebola situation. If someone has symptoms, they need to go into quarantine for the good of the American people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily on the fact that the quarantines seem necessary. Yes they may seem a bit radical but they are just precautions. For people that are saying that these quarantines are an outrage, I think the real outrage would be if people recently in contact with Ebola weren't seen as serious threats. Of course they don't mean to put anybody in
ReplyDeletedanger purposely, but it's not really their choice whether or not physical contact with them is safe at the moment. And I don't think that the quarantine should deter anybody from going to help to fight against Ebola, if you really wanted to help, you would understand that these precautions are necessary in order to really stop the spread of the disease.