Looks Like the Joint Chiefs Still “Get It”
Well, I wonder how this will go over with our wannabe Imperial Regime’s the current Administration’s officials?
The decision, of course will be up to the SECDEF. He hasn’t made a decision yet.
For the record, I think the Joint Chiefs got this one right. Unfortunately, I’m not holding my breath waiting for the the SECDEF to agree and order their recommendation implemented.
Oh, and in somewhat related news: a 5-year old boy in NYC who’d recently been in West Africa ended up in a NYC area hospital with a 103F temperature and “possible Ebola symptoms” yesterday. Given the way kids that age share toys, food, drinks, whatever – let’s hope the poor kid didn’t play with any other children on Friday or Saturday.
Category: "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", Military issues
I am pretty shocked that Italy has allowed the Army to quarantine the first batch of Soldiers there in Vicenza…
Yet if you’re a “Civilian” and just say “I’m filing a federal suit!” you get to go home.
But if you’re in the military its okay to get quarantined. (Especially since the Islamic extremist caucus in Congress wants troops to have “direct contact” with Ebola patients.)
I have a good friend on his way over there and that sucks, but coming home and being quarantined has to be done. It is 3 weeks after all. As long as they don’t make them watch mandatory briefings while they are there, I’m sure they’ll be fine.
I harkon back to days of yester-year when we were told “there is zero percent chance of this spreading in the US.”
I’m already in the minority here for feeling like a blanket quarantine is a bad thing as it will negatively impact our ability to fight this war where it’s going to be won or lost — West Africa.
That said, and I understand how infuriating this can sound, I’m okay with quarantining the military members who are returning from these areas. Why the double standard? Simply put, civilian medical professionals have a choice whether to go provide aid or not, and forcing them into a quarantine, given the current numbers, can dissuade people from volunteering, and in effect do more harm than good, (even though both may be small values.)
Soldiers, on the other hand, aren’t making a choice whether to go help or not, so the ‘inconvenience’ of a mandatory quarantine doesn’t really apply. So in this case, there’s virtually no harm and still a small bit of good.
It’s completely unfair, yes, but has merit in terms of minimizing risk. If I have more time in the coming day or two I’ll elaborate a bit.
And Eric, safe travels to your friend.
So, in terms of protecting the US public’s health: it’s OK to quarantine military personnel who have no choice except to go, but it’s counterproductive to quarantine civilians who go to the “hot zone” voluntarily. Sorry, but that makes as much sense – and is just as absurd – as convicting one guy for offering a bribe to a second guy, then acquitting that second guy of accepting the bribe.
And it stinks just as badly.
Look, I understand you want to save the poor people in West Africa. And yes, we need to contain that outbreak there before it spreads any more widely. That’s in our interest.
But the freaking FIRST duty of our public officials here – and our Federal government – is to protect the US public from an Ebola outbreak IN THE US. So far, those charged with doing so are disregarding clear, well-known, common-sense measures used to limit the spread of an epidemic – and they’re doing it for political reasons vice public health ones.
That’s nice, and I’m sure it makes them all feel good about themselves. But it’s endangering the US public needlessly.
Failing to impose a mandatory entry quarantine here is the equivalent of giving a pyromaniac a box of matches during a drought, showing them a dry field of grass next to a forrest, and telling them, “Go have a good time – just don’t play with the matches.” The same is true regarding depending on voluntary quarantine measures, as now two different medical professionals – who presumably know much better – have demonstrated by going “out and about” while incubating the disease. Only great good luck (or perhaps Divine Intervention) has spared us a nasty situation so far.
But we’ll run out of luck – or God’s patience – eventually.
According to a statement by the WHO on 1 August:
“World Health Organization on Ebola: ‘This outbreak is moving faster than our efforts to control it. If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences can be catastrophic in terms of lost lives but also severe socioeconomic disruption and a high risk of spread to other countries’ – @ReutersWorld”
If the WHO is right, we are looking at a catastrophe around the world. The world community needs to wake up and realize that the fight against this disease must be a centralized process. For want of a better candidate, the WHO should be the controlling authority. The WHO will develop a deployment schedule which will include pre-deployment preparation stage, deployment, and post-deployment debriefing and quarantine. Anyone who volunteers up front knows that they will be quarantined at the end of their time and they will be paid for that time.
They can stand up a quarantine area in one area that is set up so that the inconvenience will be minimal.
All this is all very, very doable. It just needs the political will to do it.
The stakes are too high to do it any other way.
I’m a bit short on time today so I can’t tackle this in detail, but how is it absurd? Let’s break this down:
1) Do you think an out of control pandemic in Africa is a serious threat to Americans and/or US interests? If yes, we should aim to reduce that threat.
2) Do you think we can reduce that threat through medical aid? If yes, we should aim to ensure that aid is given.
(And we can both probably agree that currently most of that aid is volunteers working with groups like MSF, right?)
3) Do you think imposing a mandatory quarantine on medical professionals who reduce the number of volunteers in any way? If so, by how much? Assuming we’re both in agreement up until this point, that’s related to one of the key values. The other is, how much does quarantining them benefit us?
These two values -the advantages each scenario offers- must be weighed against each other. And the difference might be small, but small differences are still important on major things. For me, at this point in time, no quarantine has an edge – the numbers of cases are still low enough that the benefits of more aid (and better tracing of travel) outweigh the risks from the small number of cases we might see stateside.
It has nothing to do with saving the poor people of West Africa, it has to do with stopping a chain reaction before it goes ‘critical’, so to speak. Maybe that’s a half decent metaphor – if there’s a bomb in your neighbor’s yard, then depending upon the size you may simply be able to go inside your home, close your doors, step away from the windows and be safe when it goes off. If it’s nuclear, though, your only hope is that it fizzles or you disarm it. Wooden doors and concrete cellars aren’t enough to stop it if it ‘goes critical.’
I’m simply saying we do whatever we can to defuse this, since that protects Americans.
LC…While your position is obviously well thought out I do disagree. I am all for containing this outbreak and bringing it to a swift halt. It is to West Africa’s, America’s and the world’s best interest to do so. In my mind, your position that mandatory quarantine of volunteer medical professionals would dissuade them and others from volunteering to help, while providing a small if any possibility of their infecting others here, does not address the issue I see. In fact, if that is their stance, it speaks poorly of their true level of care and concern as doctors and nurses. The issue for me is these professionals, who are highly trained and know better have already gone out in public here while symptomatic and hopefully they have not infected others. So, my conclusion is this. If these caring medical volunteers and I mean that, care enough to go into harms way to help in West Africa, why would they not show the same, if not extra, care and concern for family, coworkers, friends and strangers here in America when they return? It makes no sense to me they would do otherwise. What would make sense is if these professional, trained volunteers took the lead and asked for quarantine until they are shown free of Ebola the same as proper protocols they used in West Africa. Not for the sake of setting an example but for the sake of taking this extra small steps. Truly LC these ARE small step, to insure something as awful as this disease is not brought here by any means avoidable. I thank them for their work, I truly do. But if they hold themselves above protocols here they used routinely in West Africa, that is disingenuous on their part to say the least and rather high handed and high minded of them. Holding them to their knowledge of this, as the precaution for reducing possible spread has shown to be a failure, by their own actions. If one cares enough to go and help in West Africa, I applaud and thank them. Just please,… Read more »
“civilian medical professionals have a choice whether to go provide aid or not, and forcing them into a quarantine, given the current numbers, can dissuade people from volunteering, and in effect do more harm than good, (even though both may be small values.)”
So, Dr. Kildare weally, weally wants to help. He is willing to separate himself from family and friends, perhaps even his investment broker, for some months. He is willing to risk contracting Ebola as other med pros have previously, but he’s going to draw the line at a quarantine. He is willing to go but he insists that he not be inconvenienced, that he be free to potentially spread the contagion and put others at risk. So, despite the fact that he will sacrifice much to treat Ebola patients in West Africa, he will not go because for three weeks upon his return to the USA, he may be denied freedom of movement. That’s your argument?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 16, 2014
Contact: HHS Press Office
202-690-6343
U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps to help treat Ebola patients in Liberia
A team of specialized officers from the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is being prepared to deploy to manage and staff a previously announced U.S. Department of Defense hospital in Liberia to care for health care workers who become ill from Ebola.
The U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Commissioned Corps is an elite uniformed service with more than 6,800 full-time, highly qualified public health professionals, serving the most underserved and vulnerable populations domestically and abroad.
Sixty-five Commissioned Corps officers, with diverse clinical and public health backgrounds, will travel to Liberia to provide direct patient care to health care workers. In addition to their professional expertise, these officers will undergo further intensive training in Ebola response and advanced infection control. […]
LC. Is it okay to quarantine these folks too?
You’re going to dislike my answer.
I’d say it depends. On the one hand, if they don’t have a choice in going, I’d be fine with it. On the other, their similarity in profession to volunteers could still give people pause.
I don’t have enough data to make an informed decision on quarantining them.
And to clarify, I said I was okay with quarantining the military folk, and I emphasized ‘okay’ in that regard in an attempt to express that I’m not fully sold on the idea, but I could probably go along with it.
There is a psychological effect in terms of the message it sends, which isn’t helpful.
I don’t think it’s a clear scenario, like I do where I’m against quarantining travelers who choose to go there, but I’m not all for it either. I’m just ‘okay’ with it in the sense that I don’t feel it’s outright wrong at the moment.
I’m not saying it will be a large percentage of people, but let’s look at the other half of the calculation first. How many people will this 21-day quarantine of passengers stop, and how much does that help us contain the threat? So far, looking at things after Mr. Duncan’s ill-fated trek, I believe we’ve had one case where this would’ve helped. And while that doctor was an idiot for being out and about after not feeling well, all in all it was handled relatively quickly. Maybe there will be new cases arising from that, maybe not. So far, the numbers we have are one case.
Now let’s say that most doctors are not going to be influenced by the inconvenience of a quarantine, but for whatever reason, 1% of them will be. Literally one out of a hundred, for whatever reason, won’t go if he has to be quarantined – maybe not because of the quarantine itself, but because of frustration with the general way this is being handled whereby a quarantine is deemed necessary. Who knows? I don’t, but I can certainly imagine a lowly one percent of doctors might think twice.
Since there have been several hundred medical professionals who have volunteered already, and presumably that will continue, that 1% is now several doctors.
Given the choice of having several additional well-trained doctors fighting this at the source, or one or two possible cases here, I take the extra doctors over there as doing more good, yes.
There is no option without any risk, so it’s a matter of picking which you dislike least. Even the quarantine protocols are debatable, as the oft-quoted 21 days is seen as the norm which catches at least 95% of cases,… but not all. Forty days seems to be ‘almost’ certain, but there are no guarantees. We will have cases in the US – the question is whether they’re a few random ones with traces from travel from West Africa, or a long protracted battled because it’s spread everywhere.
That was last month, Erik. It only seems longer.
The number of people in west Africa now infected with ebola has passed the 10,000 mark.
The number infected who have DIED from it has passed the 4,900 mark.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/27/health/ebola-up-to-speed/
That’s as of today, and I’m using someone else’s source material, so it may be a few days out of date.
You can carry a disease without displaying symptoms and since the incubation period has now been extended by CDC (bless their hearts) to 43 days, how will it not spread?
You can no longer go with averages in regard to this disease. It does not follow the law of avereages. It only follows its own rules: find a host, make use of the host, propagate and find more hosts. Whether or not the host victim dies or survives is immaterial. Survival depends entirely on the victim’s immune system.
And for what it’s worth, people who ARE surviving it in Africa are being treated like lepers.
I’m still in shock at the headline. Never thought I would read THAT here.
Give credit where credit is due, David. On this issue, IMO the title above is completely accurate.
Draw your own conclusions regarding what that says about the rest of the current Administration.
“Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then”?
About the Joint Chiefs? Here, jt sure looks like it.
About the current Administration? YGBSM.
Woo Pig Sooie! (or something like that)
Here’s an idea; why don’t we ask the rest of Africa how they stop Ebola from getting into their countries?
They’ve already told us that, 3E9. And they admit “blind luck” has been a big part of the “how” so far, too.
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=55859
For some reason, the Administration doesn’t want to listen to them.
The WH will find a way to twist this into a non-quarantine quarantine. That is, the troops will not be officially quarantined. Instead, they will subject to a 21-30 day debriefing in a cordoned area in which space-suit wearing medical personnel will be present. And their meals will be trucked in, their laundry done on site, and no sharp objects will be permitted, lest there be a blood spill. No photos will be permitted, and email and telephone calls will be monitored. It simply is not possible that an official quarantine will be permitted when this approach directly contradicts the regime’s propaganda on quarantine.
This isn’t brain surgery or podiatry. (The poor podiatrists never get mentioned!) LC likes metaphors. Okay, here’s one. Your neighbor is sick with a contagious disease but YOU can help her, maybe cure her. It will take time but you are willing. However, if you do help your neighbor, whether she recovers or not, when you’re work is done, you will be confined to your home for, oh, three consecutive weeks to ensure that you do not spread the disease. Do you help her? If your answer is no, why not? Is it b/c you are willing only to help her and don’t care if you risk infecting others? If your answer is yes, why do you think others will not do what you are willing to do?
Kudos for mentioning Podiatrists, they have never gotten the recognition they deserve.
Speaking of quarantines…
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/x2096e/X2096E06.htm
Oh, that NJ nurse who balked at quarantine and threatened to sue? Turns out that before she scrubbed her Linked-In page, she had posted that she works for…wait for it…wait….the CDC! She is a card-carrying Democrat and is reportedly an advocate for lefty causes. [Insert shocked face here.]
Get to the voting booths, dammit.
↑X1000
This really is an easy one.
Contagious diseases are not subject to nuance. They don’t care whether those they infect are volunteer medical professionals or involuntary members of the military. Infections spread without regard to gender, ethnicity, age, or profession. Those who are exposed simply are at greater risk of the contagion than are those who are not exposed.
The ONLY way to be certain that the unexposed population remains uninfected is to keep the infected population and those who have been exposed to the infection away from the rest of us.
That is all.
Over.
I’m waiting for the Forces of Darkness to decide that new Ebola cases will not be announced. If they can swing it, they will.
While I pray that she is indeed negative for this virus, should she come down with it the hounds of Hell will be unreleased towards her now.